Ian Chappell has written that McGrath will go down as one of the three greatest Australian fast bowlers -- along with Lindwall and Lillee -- but he then asserts that he would be thought of as the third greatest, behind those two (in that order).
I know that Ian Chappell was a great Aussie captain (and one that I used to admire greatly when he played), and I am a mere fan and pontificator. But I strongly disagree with the notion that McGrath was inferior to Lindwall or Lillee. Ian Chappell's view is coloured by his prejudice against "medium-pacers", just as Imran Khan (and many others) dismiss or disregard Kumble as a great leg-spinner because he "doesn't turn the ball". The craft of spin bowling involves variations of pace, bounce, flight AND direction, just as the craft of fast bowling involves variations of bounce, length, movement in the air and off the pitch AND speed. Merely because McGrath wasn't a tearaway fast bowler (like Lillee and Lindwall in their prime were) shouldn't take away from the fact that he was a true master of his craft.
Lindwall was definitely a more complete cricketer than McGrath (Lindwall got a couple of test centuries!), but McGrath was much the better bowler. In tests, McGrath finished with a bowling average of 21.64, considerably better than Lindwall's 23.03 and Lillee's 23.92. Glenn McGrath was the greatest Australian fast bowler of all time. Period. He competes with Sir Richard Hadlee (av 22.29, but playing for a weaker side), the late Malcolm Marshall (av 20.94), Joel Garner (av 20.97), Curtley Ambrose (av 20.99) and Fred Trueman (av 21.57) for the title of the greatest fast bowler since Syd Barnes (189 wickets in 27 tests at 16.43 apiece). Of that group of the greatest fast bowlers of all time (Barnes, Marshall, Garner, Ambrose, Trueman, McGrath, Hadlee), only one (Trueman) was considered the fastest bowler of his generation (apart from one or two seasons of Frank Tyson in his prime), while the only other express-fast bowlers were Marshall, Garner and Ambrose.
Just below that group of the very best belong Lillee, Lindwall, Imran Khan (av 22.81), Shaun Pollock (av 23.19) and Michael Holding (av 23.68). Courtney Walsh (av 24.44) played on a bit longer than ideal in order to take over the record for the most test wickets of all time (although he "bowled faster for longer than any man in history" as Cricinfo aptly puts it, referring to his 17-year test career). Warne and Murali have since overtaken Walsh for wickets, as has McGrath.
Cricket World Cup 2007 (11-29th April)
Moderator: Moderators
-
PKBasu
- Member
- Posts: 36882
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 6:04 pm
- Please enter the middle number: 1
- Location: New Delhi / Kolkata
- Been thanked: 8 times
Re: Cricket World Cup 2007 (11-29th April)
Actually, I think two more fast bowlers should probably be fitted into the top-most tier -- Alan Davidson (the left-arm medium-pacer from Australia, who averaged 20.53, but in a relatively short career of 10 years in which he got 186 wickets in 44 tests) and Allan Donald of South Africa (330 wickets at 22.25 apiece).
Wasim Akram (av 23.62) and Waqar Younis (av 23.56) belong in the next category with Imran, Lillee, Lindwall, Holding, etc.
Wasim Akram (av 23.62) and Waqar Younis (av 23.56) belong in the next category with Imran, Lillee, Lindwall, Holding, etc.
-
BSharma
- Authors
- Posts: 12076
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:51 pm
- Please enter the middle number: 1
- Location: USA
Re: Cricket World Cup 2007 (11-29th April)
The Cricket World Cup has mercifully come to an end. There were some highlights; a few curtain calls by players such as Herschelle Gibbs' six sixes, Malinga's four wickets in four balls and Adam Gilchrist's superb century that turned the tides for Australia in the final match; a swan song by a few great cricketers; a couple of major upsets of India and Pakistan; the dominance of Australian team, and the emergence of Bangladesh as an ODI team.
There are several lessons to be learned from this World Cup and woe comes to those who do not learn from their mistakes. There were many slip-ups and there were some glaring blunders made by ICC and the organizers.
The Problems:
For starters, the World Cup was loooong. There were far too many teams at the tournament and many matches were expected to be one-sided and the predictions turned out to be true in most cases. The over-priced tickets left the locals staying at home rather than watching the action in the stadium and those who went to see the matches found themselves forced to behave like the dull British cricket crowd instead of the colorful and vibrant people that they are. The thousands of foreign visitors expected to come to West Indies and fill up the stadiums never materialized and ICC’s attempt to popularize cricket in nearby Canada and USA via the World Cup did not occur. The specter of match-fixing continued to haunt the World Cup and Bob Woolmer’s unfortunate and sad demise made the conspiracy theorists work overtime. While the Sports-India members wondered during the early stages of the tournament if the teams fully understood the ramifications of the Net-Run-Rate,
the highly rated and experienced crew of umpires and match referee made a farce of the World Cup final with their lack of knowledge of cricket rules. 
The forecast was for rain; the match between Australia and Sri Lanka was stopped a few times because of rain, and the umpires had plenty of time to review the Duckworth-Lewis rule, but the ineptness of the officials in-charge of the match is a symptom of what ails ICC -- bureaucracy, an out of control ego of the ICC head honchos, and advancement of people who pray at the altar of ICC.
There are several lessons to be learned from this World Cup and woe comes to those who do not learn from their mistakes. There were many slip-ups and there were some glaring blunders made by ICC and the organizers.
The Problems:
For starters, the World Cup was loooong. There were far too many teams at the tournament and many matches were expected to be one-sided and the predictions turned out to be true in most cases. The over-priced tickets left the locals staying at home rather than watching the action in the stadium and those who went to see the matches found themselves forced to behave like the dull British cricket crowd instead of the colorful and vibrant people that they are. The thousands of foreign visitors expected to come to West Indies and fill up the stadiums never materialized and ICC’s attempt to popularize cricket in nearby Canada and USA via the World Cup did not occur. The specter of match-fixing continued to haunt the World Cup and Bob Woolmer’s unfortunate and sad demise made the conspiracy theorists work overtime. While the Sports-India members wondered during the early stages of the tournament if the teams fully understood the ramifications of the Net-Run-Rate,
the highly rated and experienced crew of umpires and match referee made a farce of the World Cup final with their lack of knowledge of cricket rules. The forecast was for rain; the match between Australia and Sri Lanka was stopped a few times because of rain, and the umpires had plenty of time to review the Duckworth-Lewis rule, but the ineptness of the officials in-charge of the match is a symptom of what ails ICC -- bureaucracy, an out of control ego of the ICC head honchos, and advancement of people who pray at the altar of ICC. -
BSharma
- Authors
- Posts: 12076
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:51 pm
- Please enter the middle number: 1
- Location: USA
Re: Cricket World Cup 2007 (11-29th April)
Part II
The Solution:
The World Cup must become shorter and the local organizers should be professionals and experienced at holding a major event and must be given more control of the big show. The number of teams vying for the World Cup should be limited to ten and should include the top two qualifiers from the pre-world cup tournament along with the top eight teams in the world. Bangladesh and Ireland would have made the 2007 World Cup if they had to come through the qualifying tournament. Divide the ten teams into two groups with each team playing the other teams in its group and let the top two teams in each group advance to the semifinals. The victors of the semifinal matches would play to decide the World Cup champion.
The ICC must arrange tournaments where teams such as Canada, Bermuda, Scotland, Netherlands, Kenya and others could play against the “A” teams of test playing nations to improve their cricket standard. ICC should facilitate the entry of promising players from these countries into state or county teams in test playing nations.
Cricket will remain a game of the former British colonies unless it is spread widely in the rest of the world. ICC must have a reasonable plan to promote cricket in China, Japan, Korea, Germany, Spain, Italy, USA, Mexico, South America and Africa. Baseball made inroads in Japan, Korea and Central America, and basketball has become popular in many countries because of the efforts of their officials.
ICC must hire its top officials based on professionalism, knowledge of sports, marketing and proper understanding of the conditions that prevail in different countries, and ability to deal with cricket officials of many countries. Racism, rich versus poor, politics and egos have no place in cricket either at ICC or at local levels.
The Solution:
The World Cup must become shorter and the local organizers should be professionals and experienced at holding a major event and must be given more control of the big show. The number of teams vying for the World Cup should be limited to ten and should include the top two qualifiers from the pre-world cup tournament along with the top eight teams in the world. Bangladesh and Ireland would have made the 2007 World Cup if they had to come through the qualifying tournament. Divide the ten teams into two groups with each team playing the other teams in its group and let the top two teams in each group advance to the semifinals. The victors of the semifinal matches would play to decide the World Cup champion.
The ICC must arrange tournaments where teams such as Canada, Bermuda, Scotland, Netherlands, Kenya and others could play against the “A” teams of test playing nations to improve their cricket standard. ICC should facilitate the entry of promising players from these countries into state or county teams in test playing nations.
Cricket will remain a game of the former British colonies unless it is spread widely in the rest of the world. ICC must have a reasonable plan to promote cricket in China, Japan, Korea, Germany, Spain, Italy, USA, Mexico, South America and Africa. Baseball made inroads in Japan, Korea and Central America, and basketball has become popular in many countries because of the efforts of their officials.
ICC must hire its top officials based on professionalism, knowledge of sports, marketing and proper understanding of the conditions that prevail in different countries, and ability to deal with cricket officials of many countries. Racism, rich versus poor, politics and egos have no place in cricket either at ICC or at local levels.
-
jayakris
- Moderators
- Posts: 35014
- Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 7:24 am
- Antispam: No
- Please enter the middle number: 5
- Location: Irvine, CA, USA
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 7 times
- Contact:
Re: Cricket World Cup 2007 (11-29th April)
Great posts, Bhushan. Cricket apologists will make apologies, but you speak the truth ..
In the middle of all this, one country, Australia, keeps showing that only they have any real sports culture among all the cricket countries together. The Aussies keep on winning at the world cup. To me, what is mindboggling is that stat posted in the other thread that McGrath has faced only a handful of balls (4?) in his 39 matches in the world cups. That is one of the most incredible statistics in all of world sports, showing the total professional domination of one team against the minnows (all the rest of the countries) when it comes to something that matters, the world cup - which to me is pretty much the ONLY thing that ultimately matters, if you look at cricket like other top team sports of the world.
Other countries who play cricket should be ashamed of allowing this kind of disparity in class with the Aussies. Unfortunately, unless some countries who actually know a thing or two about sports culture in general (like USA, China, Germany, Japan, Korea, Brazil, Spain, Argentina etc) take the game seriously, this situation may not change. It is not likely to change any time in the near future, and the only hope is for the Aussies to get bored and lose interest in cricket! If you look at all those countries with "real sports culture", Australia is only barely in their league, but they are more than good enough in cricket, which is still played by countries who are mostly in the dark ages, in sports.
If you needed proof for how world cricket is still decades behind in "sports culture", you only have to look at the "umpires' joke" that happened at the end of the final on saturday.
Those who don't see what I am getting at only needs to take a look at how thoroughly the officials at even a college football game in the US do their job (and there are some 1000 odd such officials who work every saturday during the college football season in the US). I am constantly amazed at how rarely they make a mistake on the rule-book matter and how thorough the official rule book is in American football. If anybody need a proof, take a look at how fast the officials got a correct call on the famous "one-point safety" in a college football game between Texas and TexasA&M in 2004. This was based on an obscure rule in the big college football rulebook, that NOBODY in the stands (including the coaches) knew - and in fact this rule probably does not even exist in pro football. And this happened at the Memorial stadium in Austin, where the spectators know their football like religion. The ABC announcers were absolutely stumped. The rule, I believe, had never been used, because the odd game situation had never happened. The officials got it dead right and called it on the spot wthin a minute, leading to days of discussions by others - and to this day I am amazed at that. What that shows is the level of details that goes into preparing the officials for these things. Yeah, they too make human mistakes, but how rarely that happens also shows the care and collective intelligence put into sports in its totality.
The money brings in some advances like newer technolgies etc in cricket (yes, some of the things they do these days on TV telecasts is topnotch stuff), but the human resources behind running this game around the world is waaaay behind the times.
.. but then again, I said these things matter only "if you look at cricket like other team sports of the world" .. Many cricket fans, and ICC etc, would just simply disagree with me on that, and would not want it to be much different than what it has always been, and perhaps not even want it to have much more global reach. So it will probaby remain so, for a long time. That is fine too, if they can at least put a stop to match fixing, murders, street violence, and the disgusting need for supreme courts to intervene to decide who makes money off people who are fooled into believing the game to be more than what it really is.
Jay
In the middle of all this, one country, Australia, keeps showing that only they have any real sports culture among all the cricket countries together. The Aussies keep on winning at the world cup. To me, what is mindboggling is that stat posted in the other thread that McGrath has faced only a handful of balls (4?) in his 39 matches in the world cups. That is one of the most incredible statistics in all of world sports, showing the total professional domination of one team against the minnows (all the rest of the countries) when it comes to something that matters, the world cup - which to me is pretty much the ONLY thing that ultimately matters, if you look at cricket like other top team sports of the world.
Other countries who play cricket should be ashamed of allowing this kind of disparity in class with the Aussies. Unfortunately, unless some countries who actually know a thing or two about sports culture in general (like USA, China, Germany, Japan, Korea, Brazil, Spain, Argentina etc) take the game seriously, this situation may not change. It is not likely to change any time in the near future, and the only hope is for the Aussies to get bored and lose interest in cricket! If you look at all those countries with "real sports culture", Australia is only barely in their league, but they are more than good enough in cricket, which is still played by countries who are mostly in the dark ages, in sports.
If you needed proof for how world cricket is still decades behind in "sports culture", you only have to look at the "umpires' joke" that happened at the end of the final on saturday.
Those who don't see what I am getting at only needs to take a look at how thoroughly the officials at even a college football game in the US do their job (and there are some 1000 odd such officials who work every saturday during the college football season in the US). I am constantly amazed at how rarely they make a mistake on the rule-book matter and how thorough the official rule book is in American football. If anybody need a proof, take a look at how fast the officials got a correct call on the famous "one-point safety" in a college football game between Texas and TexasA&M in 2004. This was based on an obscure rule in the big college football rulebook, that NOBODY in the stands (including the coaches) knew - and in fact this rule probably does not even exist in pro football. And this happened at the Memorial stadium in Austin, where the spectators know their football like religion. The ABC announcers were absolutely stumped. The rule, I believe, had never been used, because the odd game situation had never happened. The officials got it dead right and called it on the spot wthin a minute, leading to days of discussions by others - and to this day I am amazed at that. What that shows is the level of details that goes into preparing the officials for these things. Yeah, they too make human mistakes, but how rarely that happens also shows the care and collective intelligence put into sports in its totality.
The money brings in some advances like newer technolgies etc in cricket (yes, some of the things they do these days on TV telecasts is topnotch stuff), but the human resources behind running this game around the world is waaaay behind the times.
.. but then again, I said these things matter only "if you look at cricket like other team sports of the world" .. Many cricket fans, and ICC etc, would just simply disagree with me on that, and would not want it to be much different than what it has always been, and perhaps not even want it to have much more global reach. So it will probaby remain so, for a long time. That is fine too, if they can at least put a stop to match fixing, murders, street violence, and the disgusting need for supreme courts to intervene to decide who makes money off people who are fooled into believing the game to be more than what it really is.
Jay
Last edited by jayakris on Tue May 01, 2007 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
BSharma
- Authors
- Posts: 12076
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:51 pm
- Please enter the middle number: 1
- Location: USA
Re: Cricket World Cup 2007 (11-29th April)
Jay,jayakris wrote: Great posts, Bhushan. Cricket apologists will make apologies, but you speak the truth ..
Jay
It is not too often that an Oklahoma Sooner acknowledges in public that he learned a thing or two sitting at the feet of a Texas Longhorn -- my comments about USA, Korea, Japan, Germany, etc were taken from your previous posts in the cricket thread.
Re: Cricket World Cup 2007 (11-29th April)
To bring some closure to this World Cup fiasco, here is the last ball commentary from cricinfo:jayakris wrote: Ladies and gentlemen,
It has officially started.
"Umar Gul to Gayle, 1 run, straight and full, clipped into the leg side and a huge cheer as the batsmen scurry through for a single "
Jay
Boos ring out
35.6 Symonds to Vaas, no run, missed, a loud appeal, not out but mercifully it's all over and Gilchrist lets out a roar
Who would have thunk it? That this is how it will end?!
-kujo
Last edited by kujo on Tue May 01, 2007 3:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Cricket World Cup 2007 (11-29th April)
Good to see the problems being listed and a solution proposed for it...BSharma wrote:
For starters, the World Cup was loooong. There were far too many teams at the tournament and many matches were expected to be one-sided and the predictions turned out to be true in most cases.
You may have the interest of this game at heart Doc, but the reality is quite different. I really suspect, whether there will ever be a reduction in the number of teams participating in World Cup cricket.
The current format takes 51 games to decide the final winner of the World Cup. 51!! Your solution (which I like) proposes 10 teams to play the World cup - resulting in 23 games to decide the winner.
You might already know that the next World cup in 2011 is jointly hosted by India, Pak, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. (Add China, when we get around to hosting this the next time!!
1987 - India &Pak; 1996 - India, Pak & SL; 2011 India, Pak, SL & Bangla)They have split the 51 games thusly, India: 22 games (including the final); Pakistan: 14 games (including one semi-final); Sri Lanka: 9 games (including one semi-final); Bangladesh: 6 games (including the opening ceremony and opening match).
One of the major reasons why this Asian bid won over Aus -NZ bid is the fact that ICC can "rake in" 400 Million USD more!! Here is the cricinfo quote:
Bindra said he was questioned by the ICC members at the executive board meeting in Dubai earlier this week "for half an hour" when he told them the 2011 World Cup, if held in the subcontinent, would generate USD 400 million more. "I told them that the ICC makes USD two million from a match day whereas we make USD 8.77 million, which is more than four times.
If you are making more than USD 8 Mill per match as an organisation, it is unlikely that you would reduce the number of matches. Especially if next World cup is going to be held in the sub-continent!!
BTW, I might tweak your format to add two more teams into this mix, for a total of 12 teams - 6 teams per group to play round robin. With top two teams from each group making the semifinals. This will result in a total of 33 games to decide the winner. There should be 4 teams (Zimbabwe, Kenya, Ireland and Bangladesh?!) apart from the usual 8 top test teams to take part in this gala!
cheers
-kujo
ps: If India can not win a bid on it's own (do the necessary politiking) and host a World Cup entirely within its' borders, they might as well not host it. I hate this coalition business (United/ Progressive / Alliance or whatever) that must be an offshoot of the typical Indian politics; what with its' seat sharing formulas (match sharing in this case)!!
Last edited by kujo on Tue May 01, 2007 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
BSharma
- Authors
- Posts: 12076
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:51 pm
- Please enter the middle number: 1
- Location: USA
Re: Cricket World Cup 2007 (11-29th April)
The Cricket World Cup has ended and we should also end our discussion about it sooner rather than later. Moderators can move this post into another appropriate thread.
kujo has made some valid and interesting points regarding the financial aspects of the matches at cricket World Cup. Here is another view on this subject -- the issue is quality versus quantity.
I read a report today that India is now ranked #9 in ODI, one spot behind Bangladesh. One can argue about the merit of Maruti Suzuki Cricket Ratings issued by ESPN STAR Sports and one could play the blame game for India’s downfall, but those are not the reasons why I am putting my thoughts together in this post.
One theme that struck me while reading Jay’s previous post in this thread was about how there is Australian cricket team and then there are the rest of the teams -- all of them minnows in comparison to Australia. Cricket is after all a good old boys’ game -- everyone is happy as long as all the eight members live happily in the club. There is no incentive for India, Pakistan, England, West Indies, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and South Africa to work very hard at the cricket WC because they all qualify for it automatically and barring an upset, they all make the quarterfinal stage, which keeps their cricket fans happy and satisfied. Once in a while, a hard working young team such as Kenya or Bangladesh or Ireland will come along and unsettle the status quo.
The status quo of the so called elite eight teams can be put into disarray if cricket is widely spread to Germany, USA, Spain, Japan, etc (it is not likely to happen with the current set up at ICC) or the qualification for cricket World Cup can be modified. Give incentive to the teams for reaching the final of the World Cup and give them an automatic place at the next World Cup. Add a third team -- the host nation -- into the mix and let the rest of the cricket teams play a qualifying tournament to vie for a place in the Cricket World Cup. Limit the teams at the WC to eight so that the so called elite teams have to work hard to beat out Bangladesh, Ireland and other upstarts. Once there are about 24 cricket teams that are good, increase the number of slots at cricket WC to 16.
World Cup football is one of the biggest sporting events in the world and FIFA has sent invitations to 207 member countries to play in the World Cup football qualifying tournament. There are 32 teams that will play in the main tournament and only one team gets an automatic entry -- the host nation. No wonder every team, including the defending champion, has to work hard to get into the tournament. There is no complacency in football as it occurs in cricket at the big dance.
kujo has made some valid and interesting points regarding the financial aspects of the matches at cricket World Cup. Here is another view on this subject -- the issue is quality versus quantity.
I read a report today that India is now ranked #9 in ODI, one spot behind Bangladesh. One can argue about the merit of Maruti Suzuki Cricket Ratings issued by ESPN STAR Sports and one could play the blame game for India’s downfall, but those are not the reasons why I am putting my thoughts together in this post.
One theme that struck me while reading Jay’s previous post in this thread was about how there is Australian cricket team and then there are the rest of the teams -- all of them minnows in comparison to Australia. Cricket is after all a good old boys’ game -- everyone is happy as long as all the eight members live happily in the club. There is no incentive for India, Pakistan, England, West Indies, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and South Africa to work very hard at the cricket WC because they all qualify for it automatically and barring an upset, they all make the quarterfinal stage, which keeps their cricket fans happy and satisfied. Once in a while, a hard working young team such as Kenya or Bangladesh or Ireland will come along and unsettle the status quo.
The status quo of the so called elite eight teams can be put into disarray if cricket is widely spread to Germany, USA, Spain, Japan, etc (it is not likely to happen with the current set up at ICC) or the qualification for cricket World Cup can be modified. Give incentive to the teams for reaching the final of the World Cup and give them an automatic place at the next World Cup. Add a third team -- the host nation -- into the mix and let the rest of the cricket teams play a qualifying tournament to vie for a place in the Cricket World Cup. Limit the teams at the WC to eight so that the so called elite teams have to work hard to beat out Bangladesh, Ireland and other upstarts. Once there are about 24 cricket teams that are good, increase the number of slots at cricket WC to 16.
World Cup football is one of the biggest sporting events in the world and FIFA has sent invitations to 207 member countries to play in the World Cup football qualifying tournament. There are 32 teams that will play in the main tournament and only one team gets an automatic entry -- the host nation. No wonder every team, including the defending champion, has to work hard to get into the tournament. There is no complacency in football as it occurs in cricket at the big dance.
Last edited by BSharma on Tue May 01, 2007 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
BSharma
- Authors
- Posts: 12076
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:51 pm
- Please enter the middle number: 1
- Location: USA
Re: Cricket World Cup 2007 (11-29th April)
It is a sad commentary on cricket in the sub-continent that India, Pakistan, or Sri Lanka cannot host the cricket World Cup on its own because the other sub-continental teams would not let it happen. I can bet that if China became a cricket powerhouse, it would host the cricket WC without sharing it with India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, or Bangladesh.kujoku wrote: You might already know that the next World cup in 2011 is jointly hosted by India, Pak, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. (Add China, when we get around to hosting this the next time!!
ps: If India can not win a bid on it's own (do the necessary politiking) and host a World Cup entirely within its' borders, they might as well not host it. I hate this coalition business (United/ Progressive / Alliance or whatever) that must be an offshoot of the typical Indian politics; what with its' seat sharing formulas (match sharing in this case)!!
The more I delve into cricket, the more reasons I find why it struggles to become popular among the masses outside the former British colonies. While basketball, motor sports, tennis and other sports are spreading into new territories, cricket remains stuck in 19th or early 20th century. The British try to rule cricket as if they are still the masters of the colonies, the West Indians feel that they are entitled to cricket glory based on their magnificent teams in the 70’s and early 80’s, and the Indians and Pakistanis consider themselves new rulers based on the money that they can bring to the table. If one looks at this scenario carefully, one finds that being the best in cricket has nothing to do with each of these country's claim to be the new rulers of cricket.
Re: Cricket World Cup 2007 (11-29th April)
Actually even in globally competitive soccer, it will be a major shock if someone outside brazil,argentina,germany,france,italy wins.BSharma wrote: There is no incentive for India, Pakistan, England, West Indies, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and South Africa to work very hard at the cricket WC because they all qualify for it automatically and barring an upset, they all make the quarterfinal stage, which keeps their cricket fans happy and satisfied. Once in a while, a hard working young team such as Kenya or Bangladesh or Ireland will come along and unsettle the status quo.
in tennis, again a major shock if someone outside of federer,safin,roddick,hewiitt,nadal win.
Its not too different from what i can see.Though one can say soccer lacks a single dominating team.
-
BSharma
- Authors
- Posts: 12076
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:51 pm
- Please enter the middle number: 1
- Location: USA
Re: Cricket World Cup 2007 (11-29th April)
In the past seven World Cup cricket, Australia has won it 4 times, finished second once and was in QF twice. It is the only dominant team in cricket. Soccer has more than one dominant team and in the past seven World Cup tournaments, there have been 5 different winners with Brazil and France winning it twice. Brazil is considered one of the best teams in soccer and its record in the past seven World Cup is: 2 championships, one runner up and 3 other QF appearances.genius wrote: Actually even in globally competitive soccer, it will be a major shock if someone outside brazil,argentina,germany,france,italy wins.
in tennis, again a major shock if someone outside of federer,safin,roddick,hewiitt,nadal win.
Its not too different from what i can see.Though one can say soccer lacks a single dominating team.
Here is the comparison of Cricket and Soccer World Cup finishes of various teams (teams are listed in order of finish):
FIFA Football World Cup:
2006 (in Germany): Italy, France, Germany, Portugal; losing QFs --- Argentina, Ukraine, England, Brazil
2002 (in South Korea/Japan): Brazil, Germany, Turkey, Korea; losing QFs --- England, Senegal, Spain, USA
1998 (in France): France, Brazil, Croatia, Netherlands; losing QFs ---Italy, Germany, Denmark, Argentina
1994 (in USA): Brazil, Italy, Sweden, Bulgaria; losing QFs ---Spain, Netherlands, Germany, Romania
1990 (in Italy): Germany, Argentina, Italy, England; losing QFs --- Yugoslavia, Ireland, Czechoslovakia, Cameroon
1986 (in Mexico): Argentina, Germany, France, Belgium; losing QFs ---England, Spain, Brazil, Mexico
1982 (in Spain): Italy, Germany, Poland, France; losing QFs --- USSR, England, Brazil, Austria
World Cup Cricket:
2007 (in West Indies): Australia, Sri Lanka, South Africa/New Zealand; losing QFs --- Bangladesh, England, Ireland, West Indies
2003 (in South Africa/Kenya/Zimbabwe): Australia, India, Kenya/Sri Lanka; losing Super Six --- New Zealand, Zimbabwe; fourth place teams in Pool A and B --- England, South Africa
1999 (in England): Australia, Pakistan, New Zealand/South Africa; losing Super Six --- India/Zimbabwe; fourth place team in Group A and B ---England/West Indies
1996 (in India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka): Sri Lanka, Australia, India/West Indies; losing QFs --- England, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa
1992 (in Australia/New Zealand): Pakistan, England, New Zealand/South Africa; fifth to eighth place --- Australia, West Indies, India, Sri Lanka
1987 (in India/Pakistan): Australia, England, India/Pakistan; fifth to eighth place --- West Indies, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe
1983 (in England): India, West Indies, England/Pakistan; fifth to eighth place --- New Zealand, Australia, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe
In previous 7 Football World Cups in past 25 years: 5 different winners, 15 different semifinalists, 28 different quarterfinalists
In previous 7 Cricket World Cups in past 24 years: 4 different winners; 9 different semifinalists, 12 different quarterfinalists
In 1983 and 1987, 8 teams including Zimbabwe were invited to Cricket World Cup tournaments. South Africa was the new and ninth team invited in 1992 and Zimbabwe did not make the QF. 12 teams were invited in 1996 and the top 8 ranked teams made the QF. 1999 saw 12 teams at the WC and Zimbabwe edged Sri Lanka for the QF stage. New Zealand forfeited its match against Kenya because of security concerns in Kenya in 2003 and probably lost a chance to advance to SF.
Making the QF in World Cup cricket is a lot easier than in World Cup football. In 2007, it took one upset victory over India and Pakistan for Bangladesh and Ireland to make the QF stage. World Cup Football requires a team to do a lot better to make the QF.
Last edited by BSharma on Wed May 02, 2007 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
PKBasu
- Member
- Posts: 36882
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 6:04 pm
- Please enter the middle number: 1
- Location: New Delhi / Kolkata
- Been thanked: 8 times
Re: Cricket World Cup 2007 (11-29th April)
I see that Jay and Bhushan have had a field day attacking cricket 
. Where does one begin?! On Jay's point about the World Cup being THE tournament in cricket, this is of course false. One-day cricket is a form of cricket that is a variation on the main version of the game -- and the epitome of cricket is test cricket, where batting and bowling skills are truly tested over 5 days in changing weather and ground conditions.
Australia's current dominance of ODI cricket is not significantly different from Brazil's dominance of football (soccer) between 1958 and 1970, when Brazil won the World Cup three out of four times (with a special injury to Pele in the early stages enabling Brazil to be knocked out early in 1966, allowing hosts England to squeak to victory over Germany in the final).
Of course, soccer is a much more universal game than cricket is. But in terms of Bhushan's own stats, there is no significant difference in the diversity of teams in the final stages, especially when you consider that the soccer World Cup has 32 teams while cricket had 16 this time (and only 8-14 in previous editions cited by Bhushan). Here are the numbers cited by Bhushan:
In the past 7 Football World Cups in past 25 years: 5 different winners, 15 different semifinalists, 28 different quarterfinalists
In previous 7 Cricket World Cups in past 24 years: 4 different winners; 9 different semifinalists, 12 different quarterfinalists
And, no, it didn't require Ireland and Bangladesh to earn just one victory each to make the QF. Ireland upset Pakistan, but they also had an upset tie with Zimbabwe; without the latter, the victory over Pakistan wouldn't have enabled them to make the QF. And Bangladesh had to beat Bermuda in a rain-curtailed match in order to qualify for the QF, even after beating India.
As for the umpiring "errors" in the final that Jay compares unfavourably to American football: there were numerous examples of absolutely brilliant umpiring throughout the tournament, and commentators were often surprised (upon checking the rule-book) about the correctness of umpires' decisions that they had initially attacked. In the final, there were several errors of judgement by the umpires and match-referee, not any bending of the rules of cricket (or even of ODI cricket). Given that there was provision for a reserve day, the umpires could have decided that the final would be carried over into the next day (50 overs a side) rather than being curtailed to 38 overs a side (which changes the nature of the contest). From there on, they made a hash of it by attempting to enforce the rules in the face of adverse weather conditions. Had everyone agreed that the reserve day could be used, the frenzy to fit the match into a rain-curtailed day would have been avoided. This represented an error of judgement, not any sign of incompetence (or lack of knowledge of rules) on the part of the umpires. Had this been any other ODI match, the umpires were perfectly right, but a shortened match like this (and the extreme unfairness of one team having to play against the rain as well as the opposition) was unworthy of a World Cup final.
Such errors of judgement are made by all sports' umpires/referees on occasion: should Zidane have received a red card for that head butt, did Maradona use the "hand of god" in scoring the key goal against England in 1986, did England score the match-winner in 1966 when Charlton was offside...the list is long! Singling out cricket for uniquely harsh criticism betrays a deep-seated bias -- that is also evident in the fact that Jay refers to it as the "bug game". I lived in America for 7 years, and tried hard to understand/appreciate the great American gladiatorial sports. Unfortunately, I found them rather absurd steroid-driven spectacles: "football" had nothing to do with the foot (apart from the rare free kick), baseball was a pale imitation of cricket's little cousin, rounders, and "hockey" was one big spectacle of war- and injury-making on ice. Only basketball was a real sport. But surely, basketball at the highest level (the NBA!) is even less of an international sport than cricket -- leave alone the other ridiculous American spectacles.
. Where does one begin?! On Jay's point about the World Cup being THE tournament in cricket, this is of course false. One-day cricket is a form of cricket that is a variation on the main version of the game -- and the epitome of cricket is test cricket, where batting and bowling skills are truly tested over 5 days in changing weather and ground conditions.Australia's current dominance of ODI cricket is not significantly different from Brazil's dominance of football (soccer) between 1958 and 1970, when Brazil won the World Cup three out of four times (with a special injury to Pele in the early stages enabling Brazil to be knocked out early in 1966, allowing hosts England to squeak to victory over Germany in the final).
Of course, soccer is a much more universal game than cricket is. But in terms of Bhushan's own stats, there is no significant difference in the diversity of teams in the final stages, especially when you consider that the soccer World Cup has 32 teams while cricket had 16 this time (and only 8-14 in previous editions cited by Bhushan). Here are the numbers cited by Bhushan:
In the past 7 Football World Cups in past 25 years: 5 different winners, 15 different semifinalists, 28 different quarterfinalists
In previous 7 Cricket World Cups in past 24 years: 4 different winners; 9 different semifinalists, 12 different quarterfinalists
And, no, it didn't require Ireland and Bangladesh to earn just one victory each to make the QF. Ireland upset Pakistan, but they also had an upset tie with Zimbabwe; without the latter, the victory over Pakistan wouldn't have enabled them to make the QF. And Bangladesh had to beat Bermuda in a rain-curtailed match in order to qualify for the QF, even after beating India.
As for the umpiring "errors" in the final that Jay compares unfavourably to American football: there were numerous examples of absolutely brilliant umpiring throughout the tournament, and commentators were often surprised (upon checking the rule-book) about the correctness of umpires' decisions that they had initially attacked. In the final, there were several errors of judgement by the umpires and match-referee, not any bending of the rules of cricket (or even of ODI cricket). Given that there was provision for a reserve day, the umpires could have decided that the final would be carried over into the next day (50 overs a side) rather than being curtailed to 38 overs a side (which changes the nature of the contest). From there on, they made a hash of it by attempting to enforce the rules in the face of adverse weather conditions. Had everyone agreed that the reserve day could be used, the frenzy to fit the match into a rain-curtailed day would have been avoided. This represented an error of judgement, not any sign of incompetence (or lack of knowledge of rules) on the part of the umpires. Had this been any other ODI match, the umpires were perfectly right, but a shortened match like this (and the extreme unfairness of one team having to play against the rain as well as the opposition) was unworthy of a World Cup final.
Such errors of judgement are made by all sports' umpires/referees on occasion: should Zidane have received a red card for that head butt, did Maradona use the "hand of god" in scoring the key goal against England in 1986, did England score the match-winner in 1966 when Charlton was offside...the list is long! Singling out cricket for uniquely harsh criticism betrays a deep-seated bias -- that is also evident in the fact that Jay refers to it as the "bug game". I lived in America for 7 years, and tried hard to understand/appreciate the great American gladiatorial sports. Unfortunately, I found them rather absurd steroid-driven spectacles: "football" had nothing to do with the foot (apart from the rare free kick), baseball was a pale imitation of cricket's little cousin, rounders, and "hockey" was one big spectacle of war- and injury-making on ice. Only basketball was a real sport. But surely, basketball at the highest level (the NBA!) is even less of an international sport than cricket -- leave alone the other ridiculous American spectacles.
Last edited by jayakris on Sat May 05, 2007 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Cricket World Cup 2007 (11-29th April)
It is incorrect to criticize the umpires for the curtailing the match to 38 overs since they were simply following World Cup Rules as per clauses shown below.PKBasu wrote:
In the final, there were several errors of judgement by the umpires and match-referee, not any bending of the rules of cricket (or even of ODI cricket). Given that there was provision for a reserve day, the umpires could have decided that the final would be carried over into the next day (50 overs a side) rather than being curtailed to 38 overs a side (which changes the nature of the contest). From there on, they made a hash of it by attempting to enforce the rules in the face of adverse weather conditions. Had everyone agreed that the reserve day could be used, the frenzy to fit the match into a rain-curtailed day would have been avoided. This represented an error of judgement, not any sign of incompetence (or lack of knowledge of rules) on the part of the umpires. Had this been any other ODI match, the umpires were perfectly right, but a shortened match like this (and the extreme unfairness of one team having to play against the rain as well as the opposition) was unworthy of a World Cup final.
12.1.2 All matches shall have one reserve day allocated on which an incomplete match shall be continued from the scheduled day.
12.1.3 Every effort will be made to complete the match on the scheduled day with any necessary reduction in overs taking place and only if the minimum number of overs necessary to constitute a match cannot be bowled on the scheduled day will the match be completed on the reserve day.
The mistake they did was to order a restart when Australia had already won the match.
Re: Cricket World Cup 2007 (11-29th April)
And, what a mistake it was, embarassing for the ICC - to say the least. The match for all intents and purposes was over. By taking the offer of lights, SL has already conceded the match to Aus. Pretty much everyone knew that Aus has won (except for the 4/5 umpires/referees involved) , both by official rules and by practical reality...shibi wrote:
12.1.3 Every effort will be made to complete the match on the scheduled day with any necessary reduction in overs taking place and only if the minimum number of overs necessary to constitute a match cannot be bowled on the scheduled day will the match be completed on the reserve day.
The mistake they did was to order a restart when Australia had already won the match.
SL captain was magnanimous enough to allow this charade to happen and fulfill some pig-headed umpire's decision to be played out....
cheers
-kujo
Last edited by kujo on Sat May 05, 2007 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.