| 
Posts and words
Loading ...what was the point of this non-sense. I got me thinking about nationality as a basis of inter-national cricket. Why national? Why should a talent like A Flower have to waste his career in a largely losing team. Why not create 5 strong franchises and lets get the best talents playing each other. Lets dump nationalities and get some real quality in. Way out there but worthy of consideration perhaps
Kallis hits fastest ever Test 50
By Will 5 years ago, at the start of March Add your comment below
Well, an unsuprisingly-dominant day by South Africa ended with Kallis hitting the fastest ever Test 50, against the weakest ever Test bowling attack (surely?). Zimbabwe are just a disgrace, and I feel so sorry for their supporters having to watch them in this state. A good achievement nonetheless for Mr Kallis. He knocks Botham off the top spot which he had held for 23 years!
More on the records broken today at Cricinfo and the Beeb
Tags: southafrica |
9 Responses to “Kallis hits fastest ever Test 50”
March 4th, 2005 at 9.06 pm
March 4th, 2005 at 9.25 pm
“Way out there,” Ram? You’re so far out there, I bet you can see Mars! I agree with the sentiment – it’s a complete farce. But, de-nationalising a game like cricket would be the end of it, I reckon. In fact, doing it to any sport would ruin it. But, I’ll go with it for fun – so who would your 5 “franchises” comprise? Where would they be based, and why? Etc
March 4th, 2005 at 9.41 pm
Let have some fun. Clearly Australia and NZ would have to collapse into a single franchise.Neighbours and weakness of NZ. If a single NZ player doesn’t get in then tough! The Subcontinent could easily support 2 strong franchises. Pakistanis and Indians in a single team would do more for international peace than any team game. England would have to get their own franchise as they are the inventors of this beautifully frustrating game and have probably the strongest domestic financial structure. (why the hell do counties waste money on foreign talent – unrelated but bugbear nonetheless). I suppose West Indies and South Africa would have to collapse into a single franchise. The domestic structures of the countries need not be dismantled but lets get a higher level of cricket going. Cricket is dying in places like WI. I believe player movement should be fluid but I would like to see some kinda salary cap and draft system like they have in the NBA. I would prefer the franchises to have a fixed geographical abode. Anyway perhaps national cricket should still exist but the franchise circuit will be for the top most players. I saw the Champions League in football and the quality of footie was such a higher standard than the dross in the premiership. strength v strength is the way to go. Another far out suggestion from slightly closer to earth, perhaps the moon, why don’t we have a full time under 19 circuit along with the international circuit and teams like Zim and Bang could join this circuit. I suppose there won’t be any money in it though.
March 4th, 2005 at 10.53 pm
Interesting, Ram. I want to read it again tomorrow to digest it, but, just quickly, what do you mean regarding the U19 circuit? Have the minnows (Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Kenya, etc) play the international U19 sides?
March 4th, 2005 at 11.40 pm
yeah, i think Zim and Bang could easily dominate or at least compete with sides of this level. Also formalising the U-19 would be a great way of nurturing new talent without the need to rush them into international or franchise cricket.
March 4th, 2005 at 11.49 pm
Oh yeah i hope the franchise system doesn’t wreck international prestigious series such as ashes or an ind-pak series that could be accomodated by the significantly reduced schedule. But as to who the selectors will be is a huge headache.
March 5th, 2005 at 3.28 pm
I don’t know Ram…Cricket’s never been one to be bold. We like to take a decade to mull over a problem, and then act on it when it’s too late. I just feel Zimbabwe and the minnows shouldn’t be allowed into World Cups, but there ought to be a reform of the rankings system.
For example, Zimbabwe should be rewarded with more points if they beat South Africa in a Test than England would if they beat South Africa. This obviously has huge implications and is more than a little controversial, but controvesy is par for the course I suppose when discussing the futures of ailing cricket sides…
March 5th, 2005 at 3.32 pm
I thought that was the case already. Don’t you get infinite points for beating australia. I am sure thats how the rankings system works but what’s the point of the ranking system apart from the deal of calling yourself number 1. Maybe a trophy or something should be there. Or is there one already?
March 5th, 2005 at 5.50 pm
The rules for the ICC Championship are here and state:
The number of points earned by a team for any given Test or series depends on two factors: the result (won, drawn/tied or lost) and the rating of the opponent against whom the result was achieved. The higher an opponent’s rating, the more points are earned for beating them. Points are ‘weighted’ in the same way as the match/series total.
As far as I can see, this doesn’t mean that Zimbabwe – the 2nd worst team – would gain MORE points than, say, England if either team beat South Africa. Zimbabwe would be rewarded with more points by beating Australia than it would by beating the West Indies. It’s one for the mathmeticians (can’t spell that word)…
Comments
« Cricket TV | Main | Is it me, or has Stick Cricket become impossible? »
