bigsteve Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 If you were feeling a bit ropey, the pitch wasn't perhaps the most ideal (despite it being the same for both teams) and the lighting wasn't the best (but again being the same for both teams) BUT you had the chance to take home $1m if you won, would you moan about it in the press and say that you'd be glad when its over? Its not as if they have anything to lose. Some people don't know when to recognise when they're on to a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kml Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 I take it the losers were the people doing the moaning? Losers always blame something else and moan. Reality is it was their own doing and they just can't accept they were not good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number2Fan Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 A bad workman always blames his tools. Isn't that the saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Kane Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 They haven't played the match yet, it takes place on Saturday. As a fan I'm dissapointed with the conditions & the wicket itself, it really doesn't lend itself to 20:20 cricket & it'll probably be a low scoring affair. I haven't really heard any moaning from the players & even read that Graeme Swann had added 'if we lose at least we've had a free holiday in Antigua' which I found quite refreshing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsteve Posted October 30, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/7697201.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quadrant Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 I think they're embarrassed to be playing for so much money. It's not worth anything really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsteve Posted October 31, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 I didn't realise today that it isn't even recognised as an international. Such a pointless game, being played purely for money. But still, if I had the opportunity to play for a $1m, I'd be up for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuro Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 I think the Texan millionaire seems to care more about himself than the game. Am a massive cricket fan so it will be interesting to watch how it unfolds... if the pitch holds up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Kane Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 Basically the ECB needed a big backer for their proposed 20:20 Premier League, which is designed to ward off the threat of the IPL (which it won't). English authorities have long been secure that county cricket was the best domestic form of the game & haven't really taken the steps to ensure that the top overseas players return each year. Suddenly the IPL comes along with liberal limits on overseas players & vast, vast wealth to throw at it & of course all the big guns' heads are turned. To combat it the ECB basically copies the idea but hasn't got the backing to bankroll it, enter Stanford. He volunteers to put up the cash on the condition that England play this mickey mouse 'Super Series' which he claims will 'benefit Carribean cricket' or, put another way, line his pockets. The ECB also thought that all this would deter players from playing in the IPL, which occurs during a window within which England usually play their opening or 'lesser' test series. Of course it hasn't worked like that & Pietersen, Flintoff, etc have all been sounded out to join the IPL, even for a matter of weeks as it will further raise the profile of the league & of course they'll get bumper pay deals. So the ECB is left tied contractually to this farce of a series on a slow, low pitch with inadequate floodlights, run by a man who likes a fondle of Matt Prior's pregnant wife. All so that they can stave off the threat of Indian domestic cricket taking all their money & recruiting all their stars. What people don't seem to realise is that 20:20 is being completely whored to death, yes it's a great alternative & in India (where they seem to care not for Test cricket) it will probably stay as the dominant form of the game but in England all this overkill will surely dent the appeal. The 20:20 cup was a fantastic idea & has in some extent re-vitalised the stagnant domestic market, but now clubs will be without their marque players & crowds will be down, why go & see Worcestershire vs Glamorgan with solely journey-man cricketers playing when the week after you can see England vs Australia in the same format, for a little extra but with International players? I'm probably speaking from a biased viewpoint as I prefer the longer, traditional form of Test Cricket but for me the views of some journalists is right & this 'series' is serving only to demean & somewhat trivialise the game. 50 over cricket should be the form to be replaced, it drags on sometimes & essentially comes down to the opening 15 overs & the final 10 overs being exciting with a lull in the middle, the authorities should do away with that & let 20:20 take it's place. That's your lesson for today children, next week I'll educate you on my views on the NFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuro Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 50 over cricket should be the form to be replaced, it drags on sometimes & essentially comes down to the opening 15 overs & the final 10 overs being exciting with a lull in the middle, the authorities should do away with that & let 20:20 take it's place. I totally agree with this; the 50-over format should be sacrificed in view of the changes to the game. I don't think it would be too sorely missed. Test matches will still be the pinnacle of all cricket formats, and long may it stay that way. For the spectator they are also the most fascinating and certainly if you have (and take) the time to follow them closely, live, then they are very rewarding to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Kane Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 How poor was this match, England were abmissmal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsteve Posted November 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 Test cricket has more appeal to me, and should stay as the mainstay of the English summer, but 20:20 has attracted many more people to cricket than ever before. But, as Tom says, it is being overplayed. On to last night's game - I didn't watch it as I refuse to give Sky the money, but saw the scorecard in the early hours. What a farce. A complete and utter thrashing by a team that were there for the taking. Now Pieterson has come and said that there was not enough focus on cricket on the lead up to the match (see my comments above!) If they'd just accepted that moaning was not going to get them anywhere, but get on with it, they might have set themselves up financially for the rest of their lives. After losing, the appeal of the IPL must be ever-stronger than before, leaving the ECB in a more difficult situation. The ECB really need to sort themselves out and accept England will lose players to the IPL. If they don't find a compromise, English Test cricket will suffer. Why not look to have a 5-Test summer so that the players can do the IPL before the Test season starts? Yes, this will mean less revenue in this country, but its better than having an England side void of the key players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.