Champions Trophy 2017

Ditto...same as packer cricket.

horace wrote:

skully wrote:I guess it's a step up from the current plethora of T20 garbage.

aye....half rotted compost>unsorted garbage

Do you mean the warm-ups? Or the "real" matches of the CT?


I have to say I like the 50 overs format. (And I swear I am not saying this just because England - for once - have come out the other end of a couple not looking their customary substandard sheepish ....)

T20 is still to a large extent hit-and-giggle, subject to too much chance/fluke, etc. When teams pretty much have to go for broke in the batting throughout, not just elegance and style, but quality and game structure suffer. It's a form of entertainment, a low form if you are a serious fan of the game, but financially important, important also to an extent in bringing new spectators in, incl young ones. (Though if it perpetuates  short-attention-span expectations and interest quickly evaporates, a two-edged sword obviously.) Also it does put a premium on good fielding, which is no bad thing fo any cricket.

But to me (at least/FWIW), 50 overs is different. It does allow structure in a game, in other words planning, ebb-and-flow, changearounds in a match at almost any point, evolving thought and strategy as well as ball-by-ball tactics.

In other words, if played well, it's a proper miniature of the full game. And miniatures can be valuable.

Now, true, in 50 overs a side you can get unedifying spectacles, dispiriting hysterical flaying, failing and flailing at the ball, cheap theatricals, gurning pyjama-clown shows - affected (or at worst, infected) by T20 or T10 or however far 20 overs a side may be reduced by conditions. But I suppose the worst of T20 affects the full game too - slapstick reverse-sweeps, rushes of blood, WWF-type confrontations, and the rest of it.

I'm definitely not arguing for the worst of cricket. I just think that in more cases than not, 50 overs (properly, competitively played by relatively skilful, proficient teams - always a fair requirement of spectators, for any form of the game) is a pretty neat format. And luck plays a much lesser role than T20.

So that's a view.

Petey. I must say I can remember few moments of intense interest about 50 over cricket. I have zero about T20.

I was just expressing a personal view ...

not issuing propaganda, or imposing requirements


My burbles on the England v Ireland game probably conveyed what - for me - were my points of genuine interest, excitement in places. And regard for skills where shown.

Not being critical.

Only 3 more sleeps.

skully wrote:Only 3 more sleeps.

I see the Sheep no longer pick Latham against proper sides.

Don't see how England are one of the favourites for this, with a bowling attack consisting of Liam Plunkett, Wood, Stokes, Woakes & 2 ordinary spinners.

For the first time we are consistently posting big scores, but I always feel like its an effort to defend any score.

Still, should be interesting. At least it's not T20.

I see Warner managed to get out cheaply again before the game was called off. The guy has become a real liability.

Coverage in Aus on Foxsport 7 (Ch 507), starting with Eng v Bangers on Thursday evening.

Wouldn't it be good to see the Bangles knock off the Poms?

...and yes BD,  spot on about the re-inventor.

I am not sure the WC is meaningless enough for him to make a competent contribution.

The selection of Reeks ffs would suggest the NSP consider the WC is a meaningless bust.

Puddle must've passed the embarrassing photos of MEW onto Reeks.

I always assumed the pix involved Kjnr and Reeks ffs

Maybe Reeks is comfortable with his sexuality.

lol...not that there is anything wrong with that, other than mutually poor taste....bit like a Taipan - Merls tryst.

horace wrote:Wouldn't it be good to see the Bangles knock off the Poms?

Fantastickkkhhhh.

skully wrote:Puddle must've passed the embarrassing photos of MEW onto Reeks.

I've not been following cricket as enthusiastically as I had in the past, but is this even English?

I don't understand most of it either. If it's about an Australian cricketer, I've just started replacing the names with twat, and it makes perfect sense.

Also applicable to variations of Kohli.

JKLever wrote:

skully wrote:Puddle must've passed the embarrassing photos of MEW onto Reeks.

I've not been following cricket as enthusiastically as I had in the past, but is this even English?

Looks something like golden showers going stale.

In Skully speak - Puddle = Mitch Marsh (dad's nickname was Swampy), MEW = Mark Waugh (his initials), Reeks = Henriques.

Of course it is far less opaque for you guys when these folk are referred to by their proper nicknames; Mere, Kjnr and Reeks FFS

JKLever wrote:

skully wrote:Puddle must've passed the embarrassing photos of MEW onto Reeks.

I've not been following cricket as enthusiastically as I had in the past, but is this even English?

Due to the ongoing selection of the exceedingly ordinary Mitchell "Puddle" Marsh (the youngest Marsh after Geoff "Swampy" and Shaun "Bog"), there was an inference amongst Aus posters that the younger Marsh had compromising photos of Aus selector Mark "MEW" Waugh. The selection of Moses "Reeks" Henriques suggests that he now may have the photos.

Or what horrie said.

The Glossary is a useful place to visit to dust of the cobwebs, MrLever.

Some of those eke-names are redolent of a certain degree of 'festivity' ... not that there's anything wrong with that.