England in India

[puddleduck]

If Trescothick didn't want to play then that was up to him, not any of you, *points his finger at Adarsh and Sai*

He has been as loyal a servant to England as they come over the last 4 years, and with this break who's to say he won't repeat his form over the next 4 years. If missing one winter tour helps him to focus on his future then so be it.

As much as some Indian fans like to believe, it is a GAME, not a religion :

 

[harishankar]

Thank you for the arithmetic help, I guess I've spent the last 19 years of my life forgetting mathematics. It is all good to say that 'common sense would infer this and that' but rules are created for a reason. The rules will not be applicable for each situation, but then, no one wants to take the risk of going against the rules, based on a personal whim. One person's common sense does not equal another person's. Common sense is a farcical notion in itself. If common sense was so common, the fans at Guwahati should have never come to the stadium, seeing as it was raining so much in the days past.

Mate, why do you take it so personally?

And why haven't you addressed my question which is this: if there are other better ways to tackle weather delays like having a reserve day, why don't the ICC use that option rather than carry out useless pitch inspections endlessly when the match is bound to be hopelessly curtailed even if play does take place? Of course, as I said, the ICC are more bothered about commercial interests so they wouldn't do so, which is exactly what I said. The rules are in favour of promoting television, not the crowds at the grounds.

Besides, even though crowd behaviour is despicable, isn't it more a sympton rather than a disease? Whether you have a different standard of common sense or not doesn't bother me, but surely you'll agree that the situation was something that was created by the officials involved and the callous attitude of the local association combined with a total disregard for the interests of the paying public.

Commercial interests obviously are obviously treated as superior to the common sense which you mentioned... otherwise why have 7 ODIs in such a short space of time when they could well have had 4 or 5 ODIs, which is more than sufficient on a tour like this?

 

[sohum]

I think you will also find that the paying public in India, as you so refer to them, much prefer ODI matches than test matches. While the opinion of more knowledgeable cricket fans will not follow that pattern, more people are likely to come and watch a game if it is an ODI. I am not saying that this is right or wrong. Apart from commercial interest, by having 7 ODI's, the BCCI is saying that they are ready to take international cricket to less travelled areas--so that people who normally do not get the chance to watch cricket now have that opportunity. Money will always have an effect on everything, and we cannot take the idealistic approach (similar to the moralistic approach employed by outsiders in the Guwahati situation) and say that "the BCCI should not run after the money."

The situation may have been created by the officials and the local association, but the reaction was not. It is like suing a cigarette company because of getting cancer. Or a gun company because someone got murdered. Well, not exactly, but I would understand if the crowd did not have as violent a reaction. I do not believe that the situation created by the officials involved heightened the level of anticipation of the crowd to such a level that they would resort to violence in response.

And why haven't you addressed my question which is this: if there are other better ways to tackle weather delays like having a reserve day, why don't the ICC use that option rather than carry out useless pitch inspections endlessly when the match is bound to be hopelessly curtailed even if play does take place?

I feel like I am repeating myself when I say a rule that has been set will not be applicable to every situation. This is one such situation. We always have to look at the present and not the future. What if there is a chance of a 30-over match today, and you decide to utilize the reserve-day instead, and instead watch a downpour of torrential rain which washes out any chance of a game? You would look awfully stupid as an official: "We were hoping that the weather would stay good, so we decided not to have a short match. Umm.... sorry for all the people who came here both days. See you in two years." Apart from that, reserve days mean that all the television equipment, and production facilities will have to be hired for both days. You cannot tell a company, "We want you on Monday, and maybe on Tuesday." That would result in needlessly spent money in hiring production facilities for double the time, than it required, in the small case that you had a rain-interrupted match.

In short, and I may rest my case here though I cannot be certain, although the officials may have acted kind of brashly iff (if and only if) they made the crowd feel that there was a high possibility of a game being played, I certainly don't think they heightened the tension to such a level that the crowd needed to resort to violence. I would have sympathized with the crowd, for example, if they were violently forced to go out of the stadium when the umpires decided to call the game off.

 

[harishankar]

I agree with your point about the risk playing on a reserve day. However, if a ODI match has less than 35 overs per side as a result of weather delays, it should not be played, I feel and the chance of playing a full game on a reserve day should be taken... For one thing, playing a curtailed ODI match becomes too much of a lottery if it is an important tournament... Maybe in a bilateral series it is less of an issue.

Haven't the ICC rules regarding reserve days in their own tournaments (the ICC championship and the World Cup)? If so, I would be interested to know what say about playing a curtailed game or abandoning it to play on a reserve day... I would be grateful if you can provide any links to rules regarding this.

 

[sohum]

The ICC decided that number should be 25 overs, and then reduced it to 20 overs. A single ODI match hardly holds meaning in the large scheme of things, and in the bigger series' (such as tri-series, etc.), the final usually has a reserve day. Twenty20 cricket has shown, unfortunately perhaps, that 20 overs of cricket per side is enough to provide the audience a sufficient amount of excitement.

Haven't the ICC rules regarding reserve days in their own tournaments (the ICC championship and the World Cup)? If so, I would be interested to know what say about playing a curtailed game or abandoning it to play on a reserve day... I would be grateful if you can provide any links to rules regarding this.

I believe the ICC schedule reserve days for all Super 8 matches onwards, during the World Cup. You can perhaps check that up on the website for the cricket world cup (I think it's http://www.cricketworldcup.com/). Additionally, earlier the ICC ruling used to be that matches could be continued on a reserve day, whereas they have now, fortunately, changed that to have matches restarted.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Having reserve days is not the ICCs decision, it is the decision of the host country, unless it is actually an ICC tournament. The ICC encourage countries to schedule reserve days. So the absence of a reserve day can be blamed on no-one but the BCCI.

Additionally, earlier the ICC ruling used to be that matches could be continued on a reserve day, whereas they have now, fortunately, changed that to have matches restarted.

Fortuantely changed it to that? Are you kidding? When matches are restarted instead of continued, you end up with the farcical situation like in the 2002 ICC Champions Trophy final where the game was restarted on the reserve day, and ended up being washed out again, but if the game had been continued, there would easily have been enough time to complete it.

Continuing the game on the reserve day is obviously the best solution, as it gives more chance of getting a full game in.

 

[vizard]

Puddleduck

If Trescothick didn't want to play then that was up to him, not any of you, *points his finger at Adarsh and Sai*

It's his call yes but I think it woudlve been less of an issue if he talked straight and said well "i'm not feeling like it, off i go fellas, sorry for letting you down"..but instead we see a farce with 10 excuses comming up from 4 different people and it's all comical really.

 

[barmyarmy]

I agree. The Trescothick thing is very strange. If he was heading home because his wife was having an affair, as was reported at the time, it seems a lot like a ex-post facto rationalisation to suddenly realise people are on to him and change his story.

 

[puddleduck]

It was just an easy way for England to rest one of their key performers of the last 4 years

He's happy, Fletcher and the ECB were happy, so I'm happy. He is not one of those prima-donna footballers who wants to be in the press the whole time so if he felt that saying "it was personal reasons and would like to be left alone" meant that he got left alone, then so be it.

Would people rather something had been drastically wrong?

 

[Adarsh]

Well, there was no need to hide what he was doing. If he had problems with his health, why couldn't he just say it?

 

[puddleduck]

Well, there was no need to hide what he was doing. If he had problems with his health, why couldn't he just say it?

You seem to be missing the point entirely, why on earth does he have to say what is wrong?

His boss, the ECB and Fletcher, all felt that he was justified in going home, why does the World need to know?

As I said, it is not for you, or anyone else to judge him, it was and always will be his decision.

 

[Sureshot]

Lot of English fans have tried to defend their team's supposed indifference towards ODI's..and i might add, with some valid points too..But the fact remains and it's England players themself who have this attitude.

.

Winning The ashes was a great achievement by England, but Hoggard doesn't need to elevate it by trying to belittle the World Cup. This really sums it all up.

ANY TEAM ? Then why is it that generally World Cups have been won by the best teams of the era ..West Indies of late 70's & 80's..India in 1983, Sri Lanka revolutionised ODI cricket in 1995 and went on to win 1996 and then the Australian teams which were and are still, the best who won 1999 & 2003.
He also seems to have forgotton that anyone can beat a team on given day to win World Cup, but u need to reach the finals for that 1st..England havent made past group stages for last 2 and well made to so-called Q/F in 1996 by winning 2 games in group.

Australia aren't the best current ODI side.

3rd behind India and Pakistan imo.

People are moaning about Tres, it's uncalled for.

Some may say it's only a stomach bug, but in Pakistan there are nasty stomach bugs, And he nearly had it for 4 months (?). Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

He was saying he couldn't eat, sleep or eat.

 

[harishankar]

I don't think any tournament and particularly bilateral series can be considered as "build-up" to the world cup. ODI cricket is such that momentum can shift so suddenly and playing the same team in a 5-7 match series is not the same thing as playing different teams over a round-robin format or knock-out tournament. The pressures are different, the team strategies will be put under enormous pressure in a world cup situation while in a tri-nation or bilateral series, you can employ a similar strategy for most games since you know the opposition team so well.

The World Cup will be a whole new ball game. I don't think form over a longer period of time matters during the build-up to the World Cup. The dynamics are different in the World Cup format.

 

[vizard]

OK Sureshot maybe we aren't the best ODI side at present but that's your opinion..and that wasn't the post was all about anyways, but you convinietly chose to ignore the main issue there . Nevermind.

 

[Stephen Bailey]

The World Cup will be a whole new ball game. I don't think form over a longer period of time matters during the build-up to the World Cup. The dynamics are different in the World Cup format.

Exactly. Who would've bet on England reaching the final of the Champions Trophy in 2004, after their shambolic performance in the NatWest Series earlier in the summer? I'm bored with the amount of ODI cricket now, I've listened to parts of only two games in this series because of I've had enough of it.