posted Nov 2, 2008

I throughly enjoyed watching yesterdays match, so for me it was a big success, even more so because the right team won!

The way England were talking about Pink Ferraris and so forth was so arrogant, they thought they would stroll through the stars. It was so funny to see them get demolished by 10 wickets, you don't see that very often.

In the intro Nasser Hussain was talking about how it is financially difficult for a cricketer compared to other sport stars. Samit Patel is "only on £80,000 per year plus £20,000 sponsorship. This is a chance for him to earn some real money."

I'm sorry but if £100,000 per year is peanuts to Nasser Hussain, then the right team definitely won!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 2, 2008

While 100k may be good money, Patel's career might only last 8-10 years so the opportunity to earn a larger sum is important in a way which wouldn't be the case in say a $20m football match involving England players.

I understand if you don't sympathize but Nasser was just stating a fact. Samit Patel is in the England one-day side and may play test cricket in the future. If he were at that level at in football, he'd be on 80k a week.

Having said that, I'm glad this nonsense is over and we can focus on real cricket, starting with the last Australia-India test followed by our tour there! I can't wait!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 3, 2008

English cricket now must say...Change we need.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 3, 2008

24 hrs later and its still funny

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 4, 2008

What odds on Harmison retiring again from ODI/20:20?
The selections for the 20:20 showed KP as carrying on the old English Cricket Problem of selecting your mates as opposed to the person best suited to the task in hand. How else do you justify the inclusion of Test Players as opposed to 20:20 specialists.
Also; Chris Gayle was surprised and pleased at the failure to include Anderson in the team, because even the potential for a swinging ball in such games restricts the destructive stroke play that was meeted out to Flintoff, Harmison and Broad. No doubt Anderson was overlooked for KP and AF's pal Harmy!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 4, 2008

Stanford's bleating that his West Indies team can beat any team is absurd - India is the 20-20 world champion - He should remember that

second, beating England does not mean his team can beat all teams - third, 20-20 is not real cricket - Test cricket is real cricket - Stanford can take his money and park his pride in Carribean somewhere where no cricket his played

else, he can eat some Indian curry and spice up his thinking

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 4, 2008

English fans must not get veyr angry that their team has lost to Stanford's superteam - KP was never fully involved in this match - ECB made a mistake - ECb thought that Stanford and ECB can launch a counter-attack on IPL - did not work

India is too powerful - England cannot dent Indian cricket - sorry, ECB you have to accept Indian BCCI and IPL are too big and too rich - BCCI is more affluent than the largest British cirportaions - ECB must reach upto IPL and seek admissions for its players - Maybe Lalit Modi miht consider taking Flintoff and KP

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 5, 2008

"Stanford's bleating that his West Indies team can beat any team is absurd - India is the 20-20 world champion - He should remember that"

So, what did you expect him to say?

'We beat England, but we're not good enough to beat India, and we never will?'

It's just a little bit of back-patting, and a pep talk, which every team engages in. It's all about believing in yourself, even if you're setting the bar high. If you don't set it high, you'll never get there....

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 5, 2008

Interesting indeed Shivfan, but its a pity it had to resort to the British Empire gripe.

Most I would agree with, but to imply that so many of us (English)view Twenty/20 as symbolic of the crumbling of a once proud empire is nonsense. Does the author (and many others) seriously believe that the likes of KP, FF etc., and fans under the age of 60, give a toss about the former British Empire?

I'm not interested in Twenty/20 purely because its crap!

add comment | complain about this comment