Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[gouravk]

as a captain no doubt he's right at the top there. i donno abt great and all. the fact is that rajasthan batting is inherently weak, it was warnes captaincy that was helping themselves perform way above potential up until this point.

[ramshorns]

I do not think a well captained team should never be bowled out for 16 overs in a 20 over game, and that is my main point. 

Warne should never have been judged as a great captain or an inspirational leader after 5 or 6 games in a format like this which most people here did, the reason I brought this up.

Same thing goes for Dhoni.  All of a sudden he looks like he has no clue when the Hayden's and Hussey's are not around.

Jump up and down with conclusions.

As I said many times things will even out, Rajasthan will end up losing their share of games no matter what Warne does.

He is still miles ahead of Other captains and that includes VVS laxman...  ... btw how can u blame a batting failure to the captain who is in the team as a bowler...

Right he is miles ahead and that explains why his team folded up in 16 overs and shot out for 103.

I thought people on this DG blamed captains when the batsman failed to deliver.  I guess that is limited to select few that likes of you identified.


 

[gouravk]

read my post above.

[ganavk]

Warne takes himself out and brings on Trivedi.

12.1 Trivedi to Nayar, no run, slightly short in length, stops on the batsman, mistimes a cut to point 
12.2 Trivedi to Nayar, 1 run, again a touch short of length, outside off, cut to deep cover
12.3 Trivedi to Uthappa, no run, length delivery on the off stump line, punched down the track
12.4 Trivedi to Uthappa, FOUR, bangs in a short one on the off stump, Uthappa, on the front foot, goes for a pull and top edges it high and over the 'keeper's head 
12.5 Trivedi to Uthappa, SIX, yet another bouncer - head high- and Robin connects well with his pull shot this time and sends it sailing over fine leg  12.6 Trivedi to Uthappa, no run, fuller, turned to midwicket 

Warne' decision to use Trivedi instead of himself has hastened the end. You would have thought he would have bowled himself.

Funny thing --captaincy!!

One day you are on top of the world, the next in the dumps. like the famous cp thread sequence turned on its head -- hero to zero 

True...and that applies to all the captains. Luck plays a major part too..

[Zacked]

I do not think a well captained team should never be bowled out for 16 overs in a 20 over game, and that is my main point. 

Warne should never have been judged as a great captain or an inspirational leader after 5 or 6 games in a format like this which most people here did, the reason I brought this up.

Same thing goes for Dhoni.  All of a sudden he looks like he has no clue when the Hayden's and Hussey's are not around.

Jump up and down with conclusions.

As I said many times things will even out, Rajasthan will end up losing their share of games no matter what Warne does.

He is still miles ahead of Other captains and that includes VVS laxman...  ... btw how can u blame a batting failure to the captain who is in the team as a bowler...

Right he is miles ahead and that explains why his team folded up in 16 overs and shot out for 103.

I thought people on this DG blamed captains when the batsman failed to deliver.  I guess that is limited to select few that likes of you identified.


 

atleast his team is on top of the poits table.. and yes the same team which was written off by everyone for not having a superstar init...

[gouravk]

look we should take into account moderation here - yes a captain is responsible for the team but not wholly responsible - it is not precise science that we can talk about percentages.

[kban1]

Warne takes himself out and brings on Trivedi.

12.1 Trivedi to Nayar, no run, slightly short in length, stops on the batsman, mistimes a cut to point 
12.2 Trivedi to Nayar, 1 run, again a touch short of length, outside off, cut to deep cover
12.3 Trivedi to Uthappa, no run, length delivery on the off stump line, punched down the track
12.4 Trivedi to Uthappa, FOUR, bangs in a short one on the off stump, Uthappa, on the front foot, goes for a pull and top edges it high and over the 'keeper's head 
12.5 Trivedi to Uthappa, SIX, yet another bouncer - head high- and Robin connects well with his pull shot this time and sends it sailing over fine leg  12.6 Trivedi to Uthappa, no run, fuller, turned to midwicket 

Warne' decision to use Trivedi instead of himself has hastened the end. You would have thought he would have bowled himself.

Funny thing --captaincy!!

One day you are on top of the world, the next in the dumps. like the famous cp thread sequence turned on its head -- hero to zero 

True...and that applies to all the captains. Luck plays a major part too..

Absolutely.

I wasnt implying warne is a bad captain --just saying that its  a game of tactics. as long as a captain employs the tactics or makes the effort, its ok because thats all he can do. some of it is dependent on the success of the tactic thereof.

[ramshorns]

I do not think a well captained team should never be bowled out for 16 overs in a 20 over game, and that is my main point. 

Warne should never have been judged as a great captain or an inspirational leader after 5 or 6 games in a format like this which most people here did, the reason I brought this up.

Same thing goes for Dhoni.  All of a sudden he looks like he has no clue when the Hayden's and Hussey's are not around.

Jump up and down with conclusions.

As I said many times things will even out, Rajasthan will end up losing their share of games no matter what Warne does.

He is still miles ahead of Other captains and that includes VVS laxman...  ... btw how can u blame a batting failure to the captain who is in the team as a bowler...

Right he is miles ahead and that explains why his team folded up in 16 overs and shot out for 103.

I thought people on this DG blamed captains when the batsman failed to deliver.  I guess that is limited to select few that likes of you identified.


 

atleast his team is on top of the poits table.. and yes the same team which was written off by everyone for not having a superstar init...

For now yes, let us see how it plays out.

My point is never about Warne, but more an observation on the DG where every other player is either cast as a  great captain or a player after each game and I do not agree with it.

[dhruvdeepak]

So much for Warne being an inspirational leader or a great captain.  A team shot out for 103 and could not even last 20 overs.

This again proves 20-20 is not to be taken seriously, as it is only for entertainment value and any team can just trash any other team.  That will never happen in Test cricket or any other form of serious cricket where a supposed good team will ever lose to a so called weak team.

Consider this as a sample from top of my head.

Deccan trashes Mumbai who today is trashing Rajasthan who chased 210 odd against Deccan and failing to even last 20 overs today.  How whacky is that?

what sort of assessment is this.
because any team can win on any given day, the game is not to be taken seriously. 
 
what do you want from a game of cricket? it is not clear. you want clear supremacy to be established?
how do teams that are 7 matches old do that? that also you are talking about a 5-2 record (and kpxi have 5-1).

so everytime australia loses a ODI we are to say "what a silly game not to be taken seriously, see see, anyone can win on any given day"? isnt that the whole point of cricket? that anyone can win?

hopefully you still arent on about the same old VVS story. because im going to have to gavomit (thats when you gag and you vomit at the same time) if that is the case.

the best part is i find it funny that "T20 cricket should only be taken for entertainment value".
and here i thought i watched cricket and any sport for entertainment.

[gouravk]

then why dont you make your main point about warne ? why focus on observations about the DG ? is the DG really worth that much ? esp considering there are hallucinating mods who seem to think i belong to a saudi arabian oligarchy 

[ramshorns]

So much for Warne being an inspirational leader or a great captain.  A team shot out for 103 and could not even last 20 overs.

This again proves 20-20 is not to be taken seriously, as it is only for entertainment value and any team can just trash any other team.  That will never happen in Test cricket or any other form of serious cricket where a supposed good team will ever lose to a so called weak team.

Consider this as a sample from top of my head.

Deccan trashes Mumbai who today is trashing Rajasthan who chased 210 odd against Deccan and failing to even last 20 overs today.  How whacky is that?

what sort of assessment is this.
because any team can win on any given day, the game is not to be taken seriously. 
 
what do you want from a game of cricket? it is not clear. you want clear supremacy to be established?
how do teams that are 7 matches old do that? that also you are talking about a 5-2 record (and kpxi have 5-1).

so everytime australia loses a ODI we are to say "what a silly game not to be taken seriously, see see, anyone can win on any given day"? isnt that the whole point of cricket? that anyone can win?

the best part is i find it funny that "T20 cricket should only be taken for entertainment value".
and here i thought i watched cricket and any sport for entertainment.

Sorry in Test cricket and even in ODI's these kinds of topsy turvy results are not seen.  And Australia getting beat is more likely in 20-20 than in other formats.  That does NOT make it it competitive for me.

Yes 20-20 is just for entertainment especially that test cricket is still around.  It just does not cut it for me though I admit occasionally I do enjoy the big hits.

hopefully you still arent on about the same old VVS story. 

what about the VVS story? I think he is the leader of the Deccan chargers and that is where it stands.

because im going to have to gavomit (thats when you gag and you vomit at the same time) if that is the case.

That is your problem.  Just do not be around your Girl friend if you have one.

[gouravk]

these results are topsy turve becoz the playing field is different. i will give you an analogy. in our college days often the guys who did the best at vivas and interviews were not necessarily those who were toppers in theory exams. its a different playing field, requires a different skill set. thats why these so called "topsy turvy" results.

[justforkix]

Sorry in Test cricket and even in ODI's these kinds of topsy turvy results are not seen.  And Australia getting beat is more likely in 20-20 than in other formats.  That does NOT make it it competitive for me.

Analogy: take the top 8 NFL teams or top 8 NBA teams or top 8 college FB/BB teams - Each of them can beat the other on any given day. So, NFL, NBA, College FB and College BB are also NOT competitive for you ?!?

[gouravk]

i think rams meant to use some other word than competitive here - perhaps he meant authentic.

[ramshorns]

Sorry in Test cricket and even in ODI's these kinds of topsy turvy results are not seen.  And Australia getting beat is more likely in 20-20 than in other formats.  That does NOT make it it competitive for me.

Analogy: take the top 8 NFL teams or top 8 NBA teams or top 8 college FB/BB teams - Each of them can beat the other on any given day. So, NFL, NBA, College FB and College BB are also NOT competitive for you ?!?

I think in cricket it is different, as I explained.  Test cricket is its original form or its offshoots like the 3 and 4 day game, unlike in any other sports you mentioned.  So I will not agree on that analogy.

[justforkix]

I have no clue what you are trying to say - if teams can beat each other on any given day, it makes it non-competetitive and non-serious version of cricket 

In tests, if you leave out Australia, India, SL, SA, Eng, (NZ and Pak to an extent) can beat each other in tests on any given test, depending on conditions.

In ODIs, NZ, SL, India, Eng, WI, Pak can beat other on any given day.

By your definition, cricket itself then is non-competetive

[cricinfo]

I have no clue what you are trying to say - if teams can beat each other on any given day, it makes it non-competetitive and non-serious version of cricket 

In tests, if you leave out Australia, India, SL, SA, Eng, (NZ and Pak to an extent) can beat each other in tests on any given test, depending on conditions.

In ODIs, NZ, SL, India, Eng, WI, Pak can beat other on any given day.

By your definition, cricket itself then is non-competetive

i think rams is saying cricket is not cricket

[ramshorns]

I have no clue what you are trying to say - if teams can beat each other on any given day, it makes it non-competetitive and non-serious version of cricket 

In tests, if you leave out Australia, India, SL, SA, Eng, (NZ and Pak to an extent) can beat each other in tests on any given test, depending on conditions.

In ODIs, NZ, SL, India, Eng, WI, Pak can beat other on any given day.

By your definition, cricket itself then is non-competetive

That is true cricket in its unaudulterated state over the last 9 or so years for most part is non-competitive when you have Australia in the mix.

[cricinfo]

I have no clue what you are trying to say - if teams can beat each other on any given day, it makes it non-competetitive and non-serious version of cricket 

In tests, if you leave out Australia, India, SL, SA, Eng, (NZ and Pak to an extent) can beat each other in tests on any given test, depending on conditions.

In ODIs, NZ, SL, India, Eng, WI, Pak can beat other on any given day.

By your definition, cricket itself then is non-competetive

That is true cricket in its unaudulterated state over the last 9 or so years for most part is non-competitive when you have Australia in the mix.

so you love that right ? things are predictable enough for you....i think we can take your ideas a step forward where we can also say who is a good bowler or a good batsman and they should always be the topmost performer in theri teams right ? Am i talking about a game or a computer program with liberal hardcoding and no input parameters 

[LosingNow]

Back to the Indians.. SRT is set to come back next match.. will he captain the team. SP has been doing a wonderful job so far!!

[cricinfo]

some idiots misbehaved

Harassed: Despite heavy security, cheerleaders of the Jaipur team had a tough time as a section of the crowd made obscene gestures and even threw mineral water bottles at them.

[pipsqueak]

these results are topsy turve becoz the playing field is different. i will give you an analogy. in our college days often the guys who did the best at vivas and interviews were not necessarily those who were toppers in theory exams. its a different playing field, requires a different skill set. thats why these so called "topsy turvy" results.

or maybe it is all fixed so that interest is sustained till the end and the semi-finalists aren't crystal clear already. suddenly, the comfortably numb bottom-league teams are winning matches.   

[broadbat]

Or it may be another indication of how difficult it is to keep form going for a length of time in this shortened format of the game.

[keep-it-cool]

Kingfisher is everywhere!!

[justforkix]

I have no clue what you are trying to say - if teams can beat each other on any given day, it makes it non-competetitive and non-serious version of cricket 

In tests, if you leave out Australia, India, SL, SA, Eng, (NZ and Pak to an extent) can beat each other in tests on any given test, depending on conditions.

In ODIs, NZ, SL, India, Eng, WI, Pak can beat other on any given day.

By your definition, cricket itself then is non-competetive

That is true cricket in its unaudulterated state over the last 9 or so years for most part is non-competitive when you have Australia in the mix.

What  - Aussies are 1 team and there are 5-6 other teams who can beat each other on any given day in any form of the game. So, cricket has been competetive for most part even with Aussies in the mix considering matches played by Aus and all the other teams mentioned above. Wny must one consider only matches involving Aus. There are 5-6 other teams also playing !!!! I really fail to understand your logic !!!

[ramshorns]

I have no clue what you are trying to say - if teams can beat each other on any given day, it makes it non-competetitive and non-serious version of cricket 

In tests, if you leave out Australia, India, SL, SA, Eng, (NZ and Pak to an extent) can beat each other in tests on any given test, depending on conditions.

In ODIs, NZ, SL, India, Eng, WI, Pak can beat other on any given day.

By your definition, cricket itself then is non-competetive

That is true cricket in its unaudulterated state over the last 9 or so years for most part is non-competitive when you have Australia in the mix.

What  - Aussies are 1 team and there are 5-6 other teams who can beat each other on any given day in any form of the game. So, cricket has been competetive for most part even with Aussies in the mix considering matches played by Aus and all the other teams mentioned above. Wny must one consider only matches involving Aus. There are 5-6 other teams also playing !!!! I really fail to understand your logic !!!

Niether do I understand yours.  Why should I eliminate any team to make it appear competitive, when all are playing on a level field?

[LosingNow]

I have no clue what you are trying to say - if teams can beat each other on any given day, it makes it non-competetitive and non-serious version of cricket 

In tests, if you leave out Australia, India, SL, SA, Eng, (NZ and Pak to an extent) can beat each other in tests on any given test, depending on conditions.

In ODIs, NZ, SL, India, Eng, WI, Pak can beat other on any given day.

By your definition, cricket itself then is non-competetive

That is true cricket in its unaudulterated state over the last 9 or so years for most part is non-competitive when you have Australia in the mix.

What  - Aussies are 1 team and there are 5-6 other teams who can beat each other on any given day in any form of the game. So, cricket has been competetive for most part even with Aussies in the mix considering matches played by Aus and all the other teams mentioned above. Wny must one consider only matches involving Aus. There are 5-6 other teams also playing !!!! I really fail to understand your logic !!!

There is none.

good sport = one team dominating in games that are played over a long duration... everything else is whacky!

[ramshorns]

I have no clue what you are trying to say - if teams can beat each other on any given day, it makes it non-competetitive and non-serious version of cricket 

In tests, if you leave out Australia, India, SL, SA, Eng, (NZ and Pak to an extent) can beat each other in tests on any given test, depending on conditions.

In ODIs, NZ, SL, India, Eng, WI, Pak can beat other on any given day.

By your definition, cricket itself then is non-competetive

That is true cricket in its unaudulterated state over the last 9 or so years for most part is non-competitive when you have Australia in the mix.

What  - Aussies are 1 team and there are 5-6 other teams who can beat each other on any given day in any form of the game. So, cricket has been competetive for most part even with Aussies in the mix considering matches played by Aus and all the other teams mentioned above. Wny must one consider only matches involving Aus. There are 5-6 other teams also playing !!!! I really fail to understand your logic !!!

There is none.

good sport = one team dominating in games that are played over a long duration... everything else is whacky!

Right I know you have great logic.

Shouting from roof tops after each game, asking for people's head if that person(S) is not who we like and changing by the minute.  That perhaps is what great logic is.

[justforkix]

I have no clue what you are trying to say - if teams can beat each other on any given day, it makes it non-competetitive and non-serious version of cricket 

In tests, if you leave out Australia, India, SL, SA, Eng, (NZ and Pak to an extent) can beat each other in tests on any given test, depending on conditions.

In ODIs, NZ, SL, India, Eng, WI, Pak can beat other on any given day.

By your definition, cricket itself then is non-competetive

That is true cricket in its unaudulterated state over the last 9 or so years for most part is non-competitive when you have Australia in the mix.

What  - Aussies are 1 team and there are 5-6 other teams who can beat each other on any given day in any form of the game. So, cricket has been competetive for most part even with Aussies in the mix considering matches played by Aus and all the other teams mentioned above. Wny must one consider only matches involving Aus. There are 5-6 other teams also playing !!!! I really fail to understand your logic !!!

Niether do I understand yours.  Why should I eliminate any team to make it appear competitive, when all are playing on a level field?

No. you don't need to eliminte any team.

In tests/ODIs, lets say, the top 8 sides (Aus, Ind, NZ, SA, SL, Eng, Pak, WI) play each other. Aus play 7 games. Rest play 21 games. 21 competetive games and 7 one-sided games = competetive and not non-competetive because 21 > 7.

So, your logic is quite hollow.

[ramshorns]

I have no clue what you are trying to say - if teams can beat each other on any given day, it makes it non-competetitive and non-serious version of cricket 

In tests, if you leave out Australia, India, SL, SA, Eng, (NZ and Pak to an extent) can beat each other in tests on any given test, depending on conditions.

In ODIs, NZ, SL, India, Eng, WI, Pak can beat other on any given day.

By your definition, cricket itself then is non-competetive

That is true cricket in its unaudulterated state over the last 9 or so years for most part is non-competitive when you have Australia in the mix.

What  - Aussies are 1 team and there are 5-6 other teams who can beat each other on any given day in any form of the game. So, cricket has been competetive for most part even with Aussies in the mix considering matches played by Aus and all the other teams mentioned above. Wny must one consider only matches involving Aus. There are 5-6 other teams also playing !!!! I really fail to understand your logic !!!

Niether do I understand yours.  Why should I eliminate any team to make it appear competitive, when all are playing on a level field?

No. you don't need to eliminte any team.

In tests/ODIs, lets say, the top 8 sides (Aus, Ind, NZ, SA, SL, Eng, Pak, WI) play each other. Aus play 7 games. Rest play 21 games. 21 competetive games and 7 one-sided games = competetive and not non-competetive because 21 > 7.

So, your logic is quite hollow.

Looks like you are playing tag and a game of oneupmanship.

I do not care what my logic is, I think a competitive sport by definition is one where any team playing any other team team has a decent chance of beating the other.  When Australia is in the mix that possibility is reduced for better part of the last decade.  I do not want to look at the 2nd and 3rd best teams battling it out to get a feeling of competitivness.

Now if you want to adulterate a game like in cricket with 20-20 to add more excitement and entertainment and in the process also achieved the means at a better shot of beating teams like the Aussies it a whole discussion in itself.

But by definition cricket in its purest form is not competitive because of the Aussie angle in the last 10 years.  Remember those 17 or 18 game win streaks in tests twice.  IMO it is equivalent to an NBA team going on a 60 game winning streak twice.

In its adulterated version perhaps yes cricket is competitive.

[justforkix]

I don't agree with your logic of just looking ta the top team and concluding whether the sport is competetive. I don't understand it either. IMO, it is an incorrect way to decide the competetiveness in a sport. Then one could conclude that NFL is not competetive anymore because of the Patriots and NBA is not competetive because of Lakers/Spurs, EPL is not competetive because of ManU/Chelsea etc. etc.

[ramshorns]

I don't agree with your logic of just looking ta the top team and concluding whether the sport is competetive. I don't understand it either. IMO, it is an incorrect way to decide the competetiveness in a sport. Then one could conclude that NFL is not competetive anymore because of the Patriots and NBA is not competetive because of Lakers/Spurs, EPL is not competetive because of ManU/Chelsea etc. etc.

Fine you can draw whatever conclusions you want and in any which sport you want.

I do no think that NBA/NFL are in the same state as Aussies and the rest of the cricket playing countries are in Tests.  If not how else can one explain a team like Australia going unbeaten twice for more than a year in each instance.

[justforkix]

Yes, no doubt Aussies have been the dominant side for 10+ years. What I disagree is your conclusion that test cricket as a sport has been mostly non-competetive based on this.