Comments on: Innings victories in cricket – good or bad?

By: King Cricket

King Cricket — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:08:23 +0000

Click the link in the right sidebar if you dare.

By: Deep Cower

Deep Cower — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:30:33 +0000

“As for bats in weird places…”

Please, oh please, tell me that’s not what I think it is.

By: D Charlton

D Charlton — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:03:53 +0000

Yes, Deep Cower, read the old stuff.

KC does few match reports anymore – and animals being conspicuously indifferent to cricket are conspicuously absent.

As for bats in weird places…

(But he can hit the mark from time to time.)

By: King Cricket

King Cricket — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:27:34 +0000

Suppose that’s it really. The beauty of Test cricket is in the variety and first innings declarations and ‘trying to take 20 wickets’ are the most common types of matches at the minute.

Read the old stuff, by the way. The site’s been on the slide for a while now.

By: Deep Cower

Deep Cower — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:04:26 +0000

@KC: “A tight finish is a bonus” – That’s fair. My point was that this should not be one of the standards when judging the overall quality of a test match.

“Equally, a vast first innings that takes one result out of the equation doesn’t help matters” – No, it tests the mettle of the other side. Sometimes, like in chess, it’s important to know how to draw too.

By the way, I stumbled upon this blog only recently and am thoroughly enjoying it.

By: Vim

Vim — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:29:56 +0000

“With regard to the India V Sri Lanka series I think I’m right in saying that the only reason it is not still 0-0 is because of two poor batting performances from Sri Lanka in the 2nd Test.”

Is it only allowed to be poor batting? Sreesanth bowled really nicely, he looked well up for it and was getting some decent movement.

Was it only poor batting by the Saffers today? I am sure an English fan wouldn’t say so.

By: King Cricket

King Cricket — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:29:37 +0000

When you’re watching the first four days, you don’t know how the match is going to pan out. A tight finish is a bonus.

Equally, a vast first innings that takes one result out of the equation doesn’t help matters.

By: Deep Cower

Deep Cower — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:49:48 +0000

There was one good reason the NZ-Pak test was good – fiery fast bowling that made sure that the batting was rendered inept. No, it is not the close finish – that has never been the hallmark of tests. It is ironic so many people over so many blogs are going gaga over the tight finish – an intrinsically “one-day” characteristic.

By: Alok

Alok — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:04:27 +0000

Indian crowds want to watch Tendulkar and Sehwag to bat. A win would also be good. But that is primarily why we want to watch test cricket.

By: Cricket Betting Blog

Cricket Betting Blog — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:33:56 +0000

Personally I prefer the New Zealand V Pakistan model of cricket, maybe because it is more suited to English cricket and it is were we are most successful.

England are never going to beat India or Sri Lanka on a pitch which is just a shoot out for the batsmen, England need more balanced conditions.

With regard to the India V Sri Lanka series I think I’m right in saying that the only reason it is not still 0-0 is because of two poor batting performances from Sri Lanka in the 2nd Test.

What really appeals to the Indian crowds I don’t know. I sometimes get the impression they would happily see a bore draw like the in the 1st test as long as Sachin Tendulkar gets a century.

They would seem to be happier with that, than a decent contest between bat and ball finishing on day 4 or 5.