Best. Test Match. Ever.

[partygirluk]

Wowser.

[chezlaw]

fantastic /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[The_Bends]

Amazing game. Cricket is simply an awesome sport.

[cognito20]

OK, I take back that earlier comment I made in another thread about England being practically dead and buried. Australia's going to have a fight for the Ashes this time. I still think they're going to retain them, mind you, but England has a shot, which is more than you could say for them about the past decade or so. What a match. Definitely one of the 3 best I've ever seen, along with 1) the India-Australia one in 2001 where India followed on, Laxman hit 281 in the second innings in a 480+ partnership with Dravid, and Ganguly perfectly times the declaration to give Australia 75 overs to collapse to Harbhajan Singh's spin, which they proceed to do, and 2) the 1999 match in Barbados where West Indies beat the Aussies by one wicket when Lara hit a match-winning, 1-day-plus 153 not out in the second innings in what may have been the best combination of fierceness and perfect control in a batsman I have ever seen. Now if my team could just WIN one of these great matches they keep playing in, it'd be great. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

This match was so good that my brother and my wife, both also American /images/graemlins/smile.gif, the former of whom is not a cricket fan (like 99.999% of Americans) and the latter of whom is not even a -sports- fan, watched it with me on Dish Network and were entranced by it. This match may actually have made a cricket fan out of my brother. He kept asking me questions about the play and was fascinated by it. My wife requires more work. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Incidentally, does anyone else think that that shot by Gilchrist in the second innings was one of the most amateurish shots ever attempted by a top batsman in Test cricket? I wouldn't expect MCGRATH to attempt something that egregious, never mind one of the world's 3 best batsmen. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

--Scott
Quite possibly the _only_ native-born American Australian cricket fanatic /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

Caught the end of the Windies game which was awesome especially in a pub filled with West Indians but the best game I'd seen until now was England in Sydney 1999. First day started with Taylor out eighth ball and ended with Gough taking a hatrick to bowl Aus out for 322.

England needed to win to tie the ashes, it went to the fourth day with England in with a real shout but sadly fading away. Anyone remember the outragous piece of luck that saved Slater in the second innings (he went on to make a probably series winning 123)?

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, does anyone else think that that shot by Gilchrist in the second innings was one of the most amateurish shots ever attempted by a top batsman in Test cricket? I wouldn't expect MCGRATH to attempt something that egregious, never mind one of the world's 3 best batsmen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awful but it's the way he plays, if he had got it over the fielder the pundits would have been full of praise. He has looked in bad nick so far, I like to think our bowlers are too good for him /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Quite possibly the _only_ native-born American Australian cricket fanatic

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep spreading the word, it would be great if America could rediscover cricket.

Good luck for the third test. Old Trafford is a spinners paradise so we may need to sabotage Shane if we're going to win this one.

chez

[Wilbix]

Holy crap! Does anyone know if there's any way for me to see these on TV in Canada? I almost crapped my pants just watching the scoring updates on skysports' website! Absolutely ridiculous finish!

Also, can someone educate me on why not everyone is allowed to play test matches and how a country qualifies to be allowed to play? I am thinking of the New Zealand v. Zimbabwe test that was just played that only lasted two days. That's pretty brutal. Something like 452-9 to beat 59 and 99 allout.

In any case, go England! I don't know why, but I'm for them.

[SossMan]

i'm very confused.

are steroids involved?

someone told me the last out was not a out?? What do you all think?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
someone told me the last out was not a out?? What do you all think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything about it looked out and I don't see how any umpire could have given it not out.

Replays show the glove was off the bat (so technically its not out) but the current rules don't allow use of technology so I reckon the decision was wrong but not bad.

There were several wrong decisions during the match, probably favoring England on balance, but the only two I thought bad were a magnificent ball from Lee (I can't remember who to) which was plum LBW and Pietersons dismissal.

Completely OT but my TV has just exploded.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Holy crap! Does anyone know if there's any way for me to see these on TV in Canada? I almost crapped my pants just watching the scoring updates on skysports' website! Absolutely ridiculous finish!

Also, can someone educate me on why not everyone is allowed to play test matches and how a country qualifies to be allowed to play? I am thinking of the New Zealand v. Zimbabwe test that was just played that only lasted two days. That's pretty brutal. Something like 452-9 to beat 59 and 99 allout.

In any case, go England! I don't know why, but I'm for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ICC (international cricket council) are responsible for who has test status.

Zimbabwe cricket (http://content.cricinfo.com/zimvnz/content/story/215473.html)

Can't help with watching it on tv but cricinfo normally have pretty good ball by ball commentary on-line.

chez

[Wilbix]

Why does the ICC not allow more countries to play tests? They could set up divisions and have teams relegated and promoted on a year-to-year basis and we wouldn't have to suffer with drubbings like that. It seems unfair that most countries are only allowed to play ODIs - how are they to develop a test side? Just my opinion...

[cognito20]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the ICC not allow more countries to play tests? They could set up divisions and have teams relegated and promoted on a year-to-year basis and we wouldn't have to suffer with drubbings like that. It seems unfair that most countries are only allowed to play ODIs - how are they to develop a test side? Just my opinion...

[/ QUOTE ]

The basic answer to this is that two of the countries (Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) playing Test match cricket -at the moment- are not of Test caliber and regularly get beaten like a West Virginian woman who talked back. Although, come to think of it, Zimbabwe pre Mugabe-insanity, when they had their best players, was a competitive albeit not very good, but certainly legitimate Test side. I certainly think that Zimbabwe's Test status should be suspended indefinitely until the political situation there clears up, as they are obviously not of Test class with their current squad. Bangladesh was selected for Test status for 3 basic reasons: 1) the fanaticism of the Bangladeshi people for the sport, 2) the fact that there are 150+ million of those Bangladeshis, which bodes well for their very long-term chances...they will probably not be as horrible 10 years from now as they are now, and 3) a win over Pakistan in the 1999 World Cup in England at Northampton, albeit in a dead rubber match (Pakistan already qualified for Super Six, Bangladesh already eliminated) that was widely rumored to have been fixed since Indian bookmakers were offering 66-1 odds against Bangladesh winning and there was quite a bit of last-minute action on them. Just on current performances, they do not deserve their Test status either, and the "long-term potential" argument is going to fall by the wayside if they don't start showing some results soon.

I think that Kenya should certainly be granted Test status after their performance in the 2003 World Cup, where they became the first non-Test squad to ever reach the semifinals, and gave eventual world champion Australia and runner-up India very, very competitive matches before losing. Other than the Kenyans, I cannot think of a single other country that deserves Test status now, although I do agree that the Associate ICC Members should be allowed to play full 5-day Test-format matches against one another, and perhaps conditional Test status be granted to a team that does so well over a period of time that it's obvious that they're ready to take a step up. It's going to be a while before that happens, though.

Here's a somewhat related trivia question: What 2 countries played in what is considered the first-ever full international cricket match, in 1849?

[Wilbix]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the ICC not allow more countries to

Here's a somewhat related trivia question: What 2 countries played in what is considered the first-ever full international cricket match, in 1849?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no clue...but I'll guess..... England and India?

[cognito20]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why does the ICC not allow more countries to

Here's a somewhat related trivia question: What 2 countries played in what is considered the first-ever full international cricket match, in 1849?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no clue...but I'll guess..... England and India?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Believe it or not, the UNITED STATES and CANADA played in what is considered the first international cricket match that year. Amazing but true. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Wilbix]

in THAT case, it's a travesty that these noble countries are not allowed to participate in tests!!! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Though we are playing two 3-day matches, starting today against Bermuda. Hopefully I can get down to watch some at some point. 3-days sounds like there will be a lot of draws though. 2 innnings each in 3 days- they'll have to be quick to get a result.

[skp]

The Ashes areen't being shown in Canada. Pity. Instead, we got the triangular one day series between India (sans Tendulkar), Sri Lanka, and West Indies (sans Lara), the best of Asia (sans Tendulkar and Dravid) vs. best of Africa, and now the triangular series between India, New Zealand and Zim.

Yawn.

I will however be in Sydney in October and am looking forward to the test match betwen the Aussies and the Rest of the World. Also hoping to get out to Melbourne for the 3rd ODI.

Anyone know if there is any hype Down Under for that series? If not, will there be once the Ashes are completed?

[Wilbix]

What network is showing it?

[skp]

Asian Television Network (ATN). It costs about $15 a month through your local cable company or Bell Expressvu. They have actually been showing a lot of cricket although they dropped the ball with lack of Ashes coverage.

The focus of ATN's cricket coverage is on India. I think that one of ATN's sister channels - ATN Tamil - will be televising a lot of Sri Lanka cricket in the future. You shoudl check out their website for more details.

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
The Ashes areen't being shown in Canada. Pity. Instead, we got the triangular one day series between India (sans Tendulkar), Sri Lanka, and West Indies (sans Lara), the best of Asia (sans Tendulkar and Dravid) vs. best of Africa, and now the triangular series between India, New Zealand and Zim.

Yawn.

I will however be in Sydney in October and am looking forward to the test match betwen the Aussies and the Rest of the World. Also hoping to get out to Melbourne for the 3rd ODI.

Anyone know if there is any hype Down Under for that series? If not, will there be once the Ashes are completed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Australians can be skeptical when it comes to things like the Rest of the World match. Having said that the punters will probably get behind it even if it seems a bit gimmicky.
The sheer volume of talent will get people through the turnstiles.

If you have never been to a ODI at the MCG I suggest you do so. Not sure if the rennovations on the 'G' will be totally finished but rest assured 85,000 at the 'G' is an awesome day out.

Enjoy

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
in THAT case, it's a travesty that these noble countries are not allowed to participate in tests!!! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd love to see Canada and the USA play more cricket. However its hard to see how teams that can't yet compete at the top level and who will generate relatively little interest can force there way into the test match arena when there is already so little time for the top teams and traditional rivals to play each other.

I'd love to hear ideas, I can't think of any other way than to start with one day cricket, play a few test matches at some sort of guest level, and have them make an iresistable case for inclusion at the top level.

chez

[jacki]

Could you people speak American please?

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you people speak American please?

[/ QUOTE ]

Home Run, touchdown, 3 pointer.

Is that better?

Do you feel included now?.

[Wilbix]

I'd think Canada, US, and other similar countries could play tests among one another. Obviously we couldn't even stand on the same ground as the English or Aussie teams. But I would take a week off work to go watch a test between Canada and the States.

Also, we need more TV coverage of cricket here. A half hour of highlights once a week (at 1:30 in the morning) is not enough. Some of the sports networks should think about showing some cricket instead of showing the 2003 WSOP for the 273rd time.