General cricket thread
Discussion
SydneyBridge said:
Kohli again, 50th one day century
Going to be a big score
Ps. Why is David Beckham there?
Haha, I guess he likes cricket.Going to be a big score
Ps. Why is David Beckham there?
Edited by SydneyBridge on Wednesday 15th November 11:56
He loves it.
He was also at the Las Vegas formula one race last night/this morning, our time.
jazzybees said:
SydneyBridge said:
Kohli again, 50th one day century
Going to be a big score
Ps. Why is David Beckham there?
Haha, I guess he likes cricket.Going to be a big score
Ps. Why is David Beckham there?
He loves it. He was also at the Las Vegas formula one race last night/this morning, our time.
RichB said:
jazzybees said:
SydneyBridge said:
Kohli again, 50th one day century
Going to be a big score
Ps. Why is David Beckham there?
Haha, I guess he likes cricket.Going to be a big score
Ps. Why is David Beckham there?
He loves it. He was also at the Las Vegas formula one race last night/this morning, our time.
ChocolateFrog said:
That must be the biggest anti-climax to a tournament since we won the Rugby WC.
Hi. I’m a bit confused. I may be missing something.Are you talking about England rugby team. When they won the World Cup, in 2003.
Against Australia (massive rivals).
The game went to extra time, (after the scores were even after 80mins)
Then the game was won with the last kick of the match, by John Wilkinson .
I think my biggest surprise was when England lost to Afghanistan, which seemed (and proved) to show the route to a quick way home. But some of the teams are not really of high class cricket and only there to make up the numbers and draw in spectators for the money. But why am I saying this? After all, England beat Malta only 2-0 and Malta scored one of the goals. But the proof of some so-called "international" and "interesting" matches has to be France V Gibraltar the other day. I mean, 14-0 can hardly be worth watching. Rather like the cry to return to rugby comprising only five teams, although in this I am highly against.
jazzybees said:
ChocolateFrog said:
That must be the biggest anti-climax to a tournament since we won the Rugby WC.
Hi. I’m a bit confused. I may be missing something.Are you talking about England rugby team. When they won the World Cup, in 2003.
Against Australia (massive rivals).
The game went to extra time, (after the scores were even after 80mins)
Then the game was won with the last kick of the match, by John Wilkinson .
LotusOmega375D said:
Well a damp squib end to an utterly forgettable tournament. What did we have? 48 matches and maybe 3 went down to the wire? Glad it’s all over. Well done Australia.
Rubbish tournament, designed to ensure India get to final and win. I agree that the BCCI is ruining cricket. Indeed the big 3 and their money ruin the game. As a question, why were there so few Aussie supporters at the final? Was the sale of tickets offered first to the locals and Oz fans later when it was all sold out? Little groups of five or six were shown as the match neared the end when it was obvious who was going to win, but the panoramic camera view was just a mass of blue.
GloverMart said:
jazzybees said:
ChocolateFrog said:
That must be the biggest anti-climax to a tournament since we won the Rugby WC.
Hi. I’m a bit confused. I may be missing something.Are you talking about England rugby team. When they won the World Cup, in 2003.
Against Australia (massive rivals).
The game went to extra time, (after the scores were even after 80mins)
Then the game was won with the last kick of the match, by John Wilkinson .
Thank you for your explanation.
I didn’t see it from that point of view.
I now understand the point , Mr Frog was making.
Thank you.
The problem with the tournament just gone was the lack of jeopardy in the group stages. Australia lost their first two matches and won. I had a spreadsheet running to calculate the math for England to qualify and it was a joke, we lose 3 on the bounce, but still arent mathematically out.
Would be better with smaller group stages, quarters, semis, final. Would probably force closer matches as teams would absolutely need wins to get through, plus it would put the s
t teams (like England) out of their misery sooner.
Would be better with smaller group stages, quarters, semis, final. Would probably force closer matches as teams would absolutely need wins to get through, plus it would put the s
t teams (like England) out of their misery sooner.lowdrag said:
As a question, why were there so few Aussie supporters at the final? Was the sale of tickets offered first to the locals and Oz fans later when it was all sold out? Little groups of five or six were shown as the match neared the end when it was obvious who was going to win, but the panoramic camera view was just a mass of blue.
The BCCI made it very hard to buy tickets..968 said:
Rubbish tournament, designed to ensure India get to final and win. I agree that the BCCI is ruining cricket. Indeed the big 3 and their money ruin the game.
To an extent, but ECB and CA always had more of the wider cricketing family as a concern when they had more power and made sure of a more equal split and fixtures albeit them taking more.Now India don't give a fck about anyone or the wider health of cricket and simply have self interest and the hysterical nonsense of the contrived ipl.
There's no going back such is the appetite in the Indian domestic market for such facile and phoney entertainment.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff