blockerdave
ICC Chairman
There’s a lot of runs to be had with the edge to third man. Ian Bell made a career of it.
General Cricket Discussion
- Thread starter aussie1st
- Start date
Ed Smith
Gaffer
Is there anything I could say about Cricket that you couldn't use to kill Ian Bell?
blockerdave
ICC Chairman
I don’t know - I’m happy to keep trying
NILAYSHAH60
Dreamcatcher
Heard of Mahela Jayawardene? He had a lot of runs coming down the third man. It was more like the finesse in his batting. Ian Bell was more like a player who used deft touch. I think he was the best ever white ball player for England until 2015. Also a very reliable Test player who scored over 7,000 Test runs. He liked playing against teams from the sub-continent and India in particular (even KP, Cook & Root have scored loads of runs against India. Graham Gooch batted on a different level against the Indians)
I mean did you forget about KP?
NILAYSHAH60
Dreamcatcher
Ian Bell was the only active player amongst the leading run-scorers that time. I am actually talking about the time when Australia, India and England played in the Carlton Mid Tri-Series. He had infact missed a double ton in one of the matches.
WubbaLubbaDubDub
The Man With The Glip Glops
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox One
@Velocity @wasteyouryouth - Continuing our discussion here. Hear me out... I know this is not going to happen but I gave this a little more thought.
2 Groups
Group A (Based on current rankings)
Based on the current rankings, Pakistan play Sri Lanka home and away, South Africa play West Indies home and away. Winner from both the teams series gets promoted, loser gets relagated or stays in the same group.
I understand a county like scenario wont work but if financially big teams play 2 teams from Group B, that would help them. Also have a rule that if Zimbabwe played Pakistan and England in one of the cycles, next cycle they play India, New Zealand.
2 Groups
Group A (Based on current rankings)
- India
- New Zealand
- Australia
- England
- Pakistan
- South Africa
- Sri Lanka
- West Indies
- Bangladesh
- Afghanistan
- Ireland
- Zimbabwe
Based on the current rankings, Pakistan play Sri Lanka home and away, South Africa play West Indies home and away. Winner from both the teams series gets promoted, loser gets relagated or stays in the same group.
I understand a county like scenario wont work but if financially big teams play 2 teams from Group B, that would help them. Also have a rule that if Zimbabwe played Pakistan and England in one of the cycles, next cycle they play India, New Zealand.
wasteyouryouth
Verified
I think it's difficult to ensure that test cricket is seen as the pinnacle of the sport without excluding teams. It's already an exclusive club of 12, with the World Cup even more exclusive.
Also, I don't think India, England or Australia would entertain the possibility, even if it's remote, of dropping into a second tier. Look what happened after the 2007 World Cup. The most inclusive World Cup with 16 teams but because India failed to qualify the format was blamed. The teams in the tournament has since been shrunk by more than a third. Although money is more of a factor there I think.
I'd sooner see something that took inspiration from the Women's Ashes where all formats are counted to a series victory. I think test cricket needs to retain its importance but also recognise that the format is not the be all and end all. If It disappeared tomorrow you'd probably lose fewer fans than if T20 disappeared.
Have one 12 team Cricket Championship over four years.
Everyone plays a series v another team (home or away - alternate, like the Six Nations).
Series must have at least five matches (at least one of each format). Test matches count as 15 points, ODI as 5 points and T20 as 3 points.
You finish with a series between the top two sides to adjudge the winning team.
-
You could have a phased test match championship.
Phase 1: 4 groups of 3. Home and Away over two years. Two match series.
Phase 2: The group winners go into a top group, runners up into a second group and third placed teams into a third group. Or maybe two groups like you suggested (at least this way teams would have a chance to prove themselves rather than being excluded from the outset.
Or maybe into a knockout with the group winners in a semi final then final. Other teams could play for placement.
Final standings, in either format, could then determine seeding for the next tournament.
Could start with something like this
Last edited:
WubbaLubbaDubDub
The Man With The Glip Glops
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox One
Like this idea as well. As a fan I just want things to make more sense in cricket. I want ODI's to abolished. Cricket should only have two formats and that is T20 and test matches.
wasteyouryouth
Verified
Haven't laughed this much in some time
I really think she doesnt get the credit deserved. Easily the best cricketer of all time, man or woman or other that is. She is the Gary Sobers of women cricket but just much better. Amazingly beautiful and good spirited as well.
Khan Sahab54
#titans
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2020
- Location
- Rawalpindi
- Profile Flag
- Pakistan
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
Could India become mighty like West Indies and Australia of old?
They are producing formidable young cricketers at an impressive rate
www.espncricinfo.com
How well would these players stand up to test cricket and on neutral pitches (not doctored ones as they normally do in India). The opposition bowlers are very weak now also, the class spinner as Warne/Kumble or a Lillee/Marshall, or a Gavaskar/Richards.
The issue with cricket is that T20 has destroyed all the teams, except India due to its popularity and IPL. Indians play in no global leagues and some test specialists play county cricket.
Yes WI and Aus teams in their eras were a spectacle and mighty indeed but the other teams in those eras had a vast amount of great players as well and thats what cemented their legacy.
Bevab
Staff Member
Let's see..
Australia - have one of the best pace bowling units in their history, the third greatest test batsman in history, a bloke who currently averages 60 and shows no signs of stopping to be so good and two ATG talents ready to step it up.
England - have their greatest batsman since Barrington, arguably their greatest all-rounder ever, possibly their best pace bowling partnership.
India - arguably their greatest team ever.
New Zealand and Bangladesh - too many players to list so let this be simple; their greatest team ever is active now.
South Africa - have started declining after a flurry of retirements and poor planning in terms of replacing them. Still have very exciting talents yet to establish themselves and an ATG bowler, arguably their best keeper batsman and their best spinner since Tayfield. If Markram works out, add an ATG opener to the list.
Sri Lanka - a team in decline but expecting a small island nation to churn out talent to replace a golden generation is a far stretch. Still think they could do better with a proper leadership structure off the field.
Pakistan - in the middle of a long overdue rebuild process but they've got the right key players/potential ATGs to build around with a very exciting group of youngsters coming through.
West Indies - ah, the great conundrum. I'd argue they are on the rise after a dismal decade but they're nowhere near their former glorious past. Still would expect them to continue doing better in the next decade.
Zimbabwe - corruption has led to the downfall of both cricket and country but they do seem to be trying to bring back their best form. Stagnant probably.
Afghanistan and Ireland - too early to decide but Afghanistan can easily do much, much better if they start selecting players who deserve to be there instead of whoever they like. Ireland missed out on test cricket by about 5-10 years for their golden generation but some proper investment could see them be the next New Zealand in a few decades.
Is the state of cricket worse now? Hard to say, I don't think keeping the game a closed bubble is the right decision which would be the biggest reason why the sport is stagnant. However, is it fair to say that teams in the past were simply better competition? I would probably say no, modern fielding and bowling standards are ludicrously high in comparison to the past. Modern batting has benefitted from better bats but the decision to keep pitches quite bowler friendly has been excellent and has maintained a sense of equality if not slightly overpowered in terms of bowling.
And finally, I believe current teams could do better. Bangladeshi and Afghani cricket is being held back massively by corrupt administrations and poor leadership, the young talents there are ridiculously good. India should be dominating world cricket not because of weak opponents, but because of their strong national pool that was always going to produce high quality cricketers once the developmental systems were more organised. The problem now and for most parts of our history has been incompetency and corruption at the highest echelon that has always decided our fate in world cricket.
Australia - have one of the best pace bowling units in their history, the third greatest test batsman in history, a bloke who currently averages 60 and shows no signs of stopping to be so good and two ATG talents ready to step it up.
England - have their greatest batsman since Barrington, arguably their greatest all-rounder ever, possibly their best pace bowling partnership.
India - arguably their greatest team ever.
New Zealand and Bangladesh - too many players to list so let this be simple; their greatest team ever is active now.
South Africa - have started declining after a flurry of retirements and poor planning in terms of replacing them. Still have very exciting talents yet to establish themselves and an ATG bowler, arguably their best keeper batsman and their best spinner since Tayfield. If Markram works out, add an ATG opener to the list.
Sri Lanka - a team in decline but expecting a small island nation to churn out talent to replace a golden generation is a far stretch. Still think they could do better with a proper leadership structure off the field.
Pakistan - in the middle of a long overdue rebuild process but they've got the right key players/potential ATGs to build around with a very exciting group of youngsters coming through.
West Indies - ah, the great conundrum. I'd argue they are on the rise after a dismal decade but they're nowhere near their former glorious past. Still would expect them to continue doing better in the next decade.
Zimbabwe - corruption has led to the downfall of both cricket and country but they do seem to be trying to bring back their best form. Stagnant probably.
Afghanistan and Ireland - too early to decide but Afghanistan can easily do much, much better if they start selecting players who deserve to be there instead of whoever they like. Ireland missed out on test cricket by about 5-10 years for their golden generation but some proper investment could see them be the next New Zealand in a few decades.
Is the state of cricket worse now? Hard to say, I don't think keeping the game a closed bubble is the right decision which would be the biggest reason why the sport is stagnant. However, is it fair to say that teams in the past were simply better competition? I would probably say no, modern fielding and bowling standards are ludicrously high in comparison to the past. Modern batting has benefitted from better bats but the decision to keep pitches quite bowler friendly has been excellent and has maintained a sense of equality if not slightly overpowered in terms of bowling.
And finally, I believe current teams could do better. Bangladeshi and Afghani cricket is being held back massively by corrupt administrations and poor leadership, the young talents there are ridiculously good. India should be dominating world cricket not because of weak opponents, but because of their strong national pool that was always going to produce high quality cricketers once the developmental systems were more organised. The problem now and for most parts of our history has been incompetency and corruption at the highest echelon that has always decided our fate in world cricket.
