Genealogy Forum UK

How cool is that for the amateur Irish players!!!!

Kevin O'Brien scored the fastest century in World Cup history.

It was the biggest chase to win in the history of the competition.

I would love to have placed a bet on that match.

MarkCDodd wrote:How cool is that for the amateur Irish players!!!!

Kevin O'Brien scored the fastest century in World Cup history.

It was the biggest chase to win in the history of the competition.

I would love to have placed a bet on that match.

The danes beat them a few years ago as well!!!
(the pitch was like a newly mowed field though!)

I loved it; Boycott and (I think) Simon Mann were wittering on at the start of the match about how meaningless it was to include the minnows, how they could never put up a decent show against the top sides, what a waste of time it was to allow them to take part etc. etc. and then England go and play worse than a County side and are deservedly beaten. Boycs was singing a different tune by the end of the match.

Boycott....the only player who could cause permanent narcolepsy in cricket viewers.

The World Cup is great for the non test playing nations.

Ireland will now have an influx of new young people wanting to play cricket.

Not a cricket fan then Mark? For me cricket has always been the battle between the bat and the ball with the bat's main object being to protect it's wicket and the ball's to take it, runs are incidental and the only way to provide an unecessary result. I'd rather see a long, hard fought draw than a wham, bang, thank you ma'am slaughter over in a couple of days - bring back the timeless tests say I. Have you considered baseball rather than cricket?

Timeless tests may be great for people who've been fans for years, but the World Cup is a way to get people interested in the game. Timeless tests might be the quickest way to a long slow death!

I agree completely Sue, and I'm not advocating the removal of T20, World Cup or any other of the games that not only provide interest but much needed funding for the game as a whole, and I think my earlier post confirms that, no, I was just teasing Mark about his attitude to a certain Yorkshireman. Actually I'm inclined to agree with Mark to a certain extant, at least as far as attitude is concerned, as that Yorkshireman often seemed to be playing solely for himself rather than the team.

Ahem....I go to the cricket and sit in the 30 degree plus weather for 5 days to watch a test....

I love test cricket but that does not mean I have to like Boycott.

He was a totally boring player whose lack of offensive stroke play made him as interesting as grass growing.

I am not saying his "brick wall" technique wasn't skillfull.

It was just so utterly devoid of the risky stroke play that other great openers could turn on when the occasion required.

SRD wrote:Not a cricket fan then Mark? For me cricket has always been the battle between the bat and the ball with the bat's main object being to protect it's wicket and the ball's to take it, runs are incidental and the only way to provide an unecessary result. I'd rather see a long, hard fought draw than a wham, bang, thank you ma'am slaughter over in a couple of days - bring back the timeless tests say I. Have you considered baseball rather than cricket?

My thoughts entirely SRD.A man after my own heart.
What on earth are those strokes they do in one day cricket?
Colin Cowdrey and Tom Graveney will be turning in their graves!!

MarkCDodd wrote:Ahem....I go to the cricket and sit in the 30 degree plus weather for 5 days to watch a test....

Which is more than I do, but then we have TMS which is so much better than the ABC coverage.

I love test cricket but that does not mean I have to like Boycott.

He was a totally boring player whose lack of offensive stroke play made him as interesting as grass growing.

I am not saying his "brick wall" technique wasn't skillfull.

It was just so utterly devoid of the risky stroke play that other great openers could turn on when the occasion required.

You've prompted me to go and check his stats and it appears from them that you're right; according to http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/con ... /9187.html in 193 Test innings he didn't score a four ( surely that's wrong?) and only 8 sixes but in 34 ODI innings (incidentally in 36 matches so he can't always have opened) he scored 84 fours and no sixes. But his job was to break the opening bowlers:

John Thicknesse wrote:As opener he saw his first task as scoring heavily enough to protect his teams against defeat

and from the same article:

John Thicknesse wrote:How valuable he was to England is shown by the fact that only 20 of his 108 Tests ended in defeat, mainly when he failed.

It was a joy to see those arrogant, great, bowlers reduced to bowling run saving, rather than wicket taking, deliveries. I despair of the modern game with it's snooker table wickets and concentration on runs against wickets, so that all you need is good hand/eye co-ordination with little skill, lress intelligence and no application.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not really a Boycott fan, I think him selfish and arrogant, definitely not a team player (hence his 30 match sulk for not getting the captaincy), give me a Chris Tavaré every time, but his style is important to the game, and it's a style that's become redundant to the detriment of the game itself.

Rob wrote:

SRD wrote:Not a cricket fan then Mark? For me cricket has always been the battle between the bat and the ball with the bat's main object being to protect it's wicket and the ball's to take it, runs are incidental and the only way to provide an unecessary result. I'd rather see a long, hard fought draw than a wham, bang, thank you ma'am slaughter over in a couple of days - bring back the timeless tests say I. Have you considered baseball rather than cricket?

My thoughts entirely SRD.A man after my own heart.
What on earth are those strokes they do in one day cricket?
Colin Cowdrey and Tom Graveney will be turning in their graves!!

Oh I don't know, Cowdrey could teach a few ideas to some of the young pups around now; I always thought of him as one of the Cavaliers of the game, one of the great men of the game as a whole, not just as a player. I don't know so much about Graveney, although I seem to recall some pretty dangerous, unecessary, hooking against the fast Windies bowlers, but I always felt his spell as selector somewhat detracted from his all round record. But a very stylish bat certainly.

To me a good batsman is one who can defend when neded but accelerate when required.

Sachin Tendulker is the current master at test batting but probably one of the best one day batsmen as well.

He is arguably the best ever since we never got to see Sir Donald Bradman play the limited over game.

Currently I don't think Australia has a top ten test batsmen but in the history of the game they probably have three or four of the best ever (Bradman, Ponting, Waugh).

I used to love Brian Lara in test cricket and Viv Richards in the limited overs.

Barry Richards was fantastic but the sporting boycott against South Africa prevented him from showing his skills at his peak.

I think Kevin Pietersen is the best ever of the English.

Hello All
As for the happenings in the World Cup, I couldn't believe my ears
at the Ireland England result However fair play to Ireland they deserved the win,
and I hope they progress in the tournament.

As for England the one day signs weren't good in Australia, so I am not too hopeful
of us progressing very far but being an England supporter life is one long rollercoaster!
Fingers crossed

Ed

Mark: Whilst not disagreeing with you over most of that list I can't agree about Pietersen, he lacks the discipline required of great bats and plays far too selfishly, in that respect he's more like Boycott although their approach is so different. There was an interesting interview a while back, with a South African who was involved in picking promising youngsters at the time that Pietersen was a schoolboy, he said that he never regretted not taking up KP as his inability to read a match or to play for the team would always be a major drawback despite his obvious natural ability, he also said he was delighted when KP went to England as it would make it impossible not to pick him but his influence wouldn't do anything for England's long term record.

And, without forecasting the result of today's match, it looks like England think they've done enough this winter and it's time to go home.