|
Post by stewart on Jun 5, 2009 22:19:33 GMT
As far as I am concerned, having played cricket at quite a high level between 1962 and 1995, these 20/20 matches are nothing more than an exercise in blind slogging, an ugly version of an otherwise beautiful game.
And yet, having witnessed today's opening match in the Blind and Ugly Slogging World Cup, I have to say that this has been one of the most disgraceful and humiliating performances by an England team in its entire history of playing sport of any kind.
I would say, in fact, that it ranks right up there with the 1950 World Cup disgrace when England lost 1-0 to the United States.
The difference between this form of "cricket" and Test Matches is rather like comparing a Derby winner to a selling plater at Fontwell, and yet if England display the same kind of naive and inept approach to the forthcoming Ashes series, it can only end in another 0-5 whitewash.
We have been beaten by Holland in a cricket match, for God's sake !! Have we ever sunk to a lower pitch than that ?!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jun 6, 2009 7:57:09 GMT
Stewart calm down it`s not real cricket, like you said it`s just a slog-fest. Sir Donald of Bradman would be spinning in his grave if thought for one moment that this form of the game was to be taken seriously, it misses so many facets of the real game that it is not really comparable!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2009 10:20:46 GMT
I must confess I don't get too worked up about England - or Great Britain - winning or losing at any sport. Holland's win brought a smile to my face and games like that make an event for me.
I enjoyed the 20/20 games I saw at Taunton and made it to the finals day at the Oval in 2005 won by Somerset. Yet I've learnt you've got to take these things in moderation. Over-exposure to bloody awful 40/45 overs games in the Pro40 National Not Just on a Sunday League (which is getting the chop anyway) has rather put me off watching limited overs cricket on too regular a basis. We all know the commercial arguments - and the wonderful moments limited overs cricket can provide - but, over a sustained period, I tend to agree it's the longer form of the game (4 and 5 day cricket) which maintains the interest, produces the most distinctive memories and provides the best platform for analysis. One-day cricket is for the moment and the turnstiles - good luck to it - but rather blurs after a while. Trying to follow a cricket team on a weekly basis - just like you do in football - eventually deadened my mind.
At the moment it's all 20/20 but it looks like there's about to be overkill and I wonder if its shelf life will prove to be rather limited: 10 to 15 years from its introduction in 2003? Then what?
|
|