There is really nothing else to say after this (esp to the clueless
alvey's of the world)

http://cricket-online.tv/delhi-daredevils-vs-royal-challengers-bangal...

This is the killer verdict. Home team already out. Basically a dead
match. What an atmosphere!!!

Note to idiots: Listen to the roar when South African Van der Merwe
took out India's national hero Sehwag or when Steyn got Gambhir

Roebuck is a chameleon: he has a long history of adapting his viewpoint so
that he writes whatever the readership might want to hear.

Considering that the ICC and their members play some half a dozen
"Nation Passion" tournaments a year, that last sentence is quite
something.

Sycophantic hyperbole.  If T20 is so wonderful, then it was the World T20 of
2007 which ignited the flame, especially in India.  And if it isn't, then
this tournament is of no consquence.

Roebuck is a chameleon: he has a long history of adapting his viewpoint so
that he writes whatever the readership might want to hear.

Not really. This tournament is not just about T20. Like IPL, this is a
tournament involving domestic teams. It goes one step ahead of IPL in
that there are fewer big names here. If it can still produce cricket
of this quality and fill stadiums like it has, then it is of
consequence. There was nothing "fresh" about World T20 of 2007. It was
the same old national teams playing an abbreviated odi tournament.

On Oct 19, 5:17 am, Mohan <dpuse... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

Not really. This tournament is not just about T20. Like IPL, this is a
tournament involving domestic teams. It goes one step ahead of IPL in
that there are fewer big names here. If it can still produce cricket
of this quality and fill stadiums like it has, then it is of
consequence. There was nothing "fresh" about World T20 of 2007. It was
the same old national teams playing an abbreviated odi tournament.

Yes but then it ends up like soccer. Instead of having national flag
waving crowd you have partisanship at a different level. People will
scream for the team from their town or region, wave flags of that
team's colour.

Which is fine. The goal is not to eliminate partisanship at all, but
to get rid of the stupid restrictions that nation vs nation system
places on the game.

On Oct 18, 7:04 am, "tendulkar.com" <tendulkar.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
There is really nothing else to say after this (esp to the clueless
alvey's of the world)

http://cricket-online.tv/delhi-daredevils-vs-royal-challengers-bangal...

This is the killer verdict. Home team already out. Basically a dead
match. What an atmosphere!!!

Note to idiots: Listen to the roar when South African Van der Merwe
took out India's national hero Sehwag or when Steyn got Gambhir

This is what Peter Roebuck has to say in The Hindu:

http://www.hindu.com/2009/10/17/stories/2009101756201500.htm
"Indeed the tournament has surpassed expectations, providing a
richness absent in technically superior endeavours. ... First and
foremost CL has none of the tiresome flag waving that emerges when
countries lock horns. ... Indeed, the crowds have enhanced India’s
reputation as a host by providing exuberant and warm hearted backing
for the cricket. ... All sorts of hitherto hidden talents have been
given a chance to prove their worth. It has been the freshest
tournament staged for years."

Considering that the ICC and their members play some half a dozen
"Nation Passion" tournaments a year, that last sentence is quite
something.

There is really nothing else to say after this (esp to the clueless
alvey's of the world)

http://cricket-online.tv/delhi-daredevils-vs-royal-challengers-bangalore-highlights/

This is the killer verdict. Home team already out. Basically a dead
match. What an atmosphere!!!

Note to idiots: Listen to the roar when South African Van der Merwe
took out India's national hero Sehwag or when Steyn got Gambhir

On Oct 19, 7:55 am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf... at (no spam) artifax.net> wrote:
snip
Roebuck is a chameleon: he has a long history of adapting his viewpoint
so
that he writes whatever the readership might want to hear.

I am aware of that. But no harm in quoting him when he is talking some
sense :-)

Considering that the ICC and their members play some half a dozen
"Nation Passion" tournaments a year, that last sentence is quite
something.

Sycophantic hyperbole. If T20 is so wonderful, then it was the World T20
of
2007 which ignited the flame, especially in India. And if it isn't, then
this tournament is of no consquence.

Not really. This tournament is not just about T20. Like IPL, this is a
tournament involving domestic teams. It goes one step ahead of IPL in
that there are fewer big names here. If it can still produce cricket
of this quality and fill stadiums like it has, then it is of
consequence.

There was nothing "fresh" about World T20 of 2007. It was
the same old national teams playing an abbreviated odi tournament.

On Oct 19, 7:55 am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf... at (no spam) artifax.net> wrote:

Roebuck is a chameleon: he has a long history of adapting his viewpoint
so
that he writes whatever the readership might want to hear.

Here's another commentator who is known for his balanced views
(though, in this particular case, he too has a vested interest in this
tournament).

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/there-is-now-life-beyond-internationals-and-for-that-we-must-rejoice/529759/1
"The Airtel Champions League is an idea that is finding its feet and
if you measure its success by the quality of cricket and the
opportunity it is giving players who were otherwise confined to
narrower worlds, it has already worked.

There is now life beyond international cricket as we knew it and for
that alone we must rejoice.

There are two ways of globalising a game. One is to allow as many
countries as possible to play it and the ICC is, very quietly, doing a
very nice job. The other is to allow as many players as possible a
stage on which to perform. This is what I hope the Champions League,
and in course of time all the feeder tournaments, will do."

end quote

I don't agree with the "ICC is doing a very nice job" part, but it is
the second way of expanding the game that I have been arguing for all
these years.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:04:51 -0700 (PDT), tendulkar.com wrote:
There is really nothing else to say after this (esp to the clueless
alvey's of the world)

Absolutely!

I'm actually quite enjoying this Slog'n'Flog. Especially with the IPL sides
doing so very, very badly and the sides without imports doing so very, very
well. Iirc, all three of the sides that are already through to the semis
have a combined total of imports that's about four less than any of the
three IPL flopchises that started this comp with such high expectations.
Interesting hey? Looks like Regionalism is a far better motivator on both
sides of the boundary than supporting some mercenaries in the pay of actors
& businessmen.  

cheerio

alvey  

"Mohan" <dpuse... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:7fe4f62d-db87-48ee-a9d2-729210b22109 at (no spam) y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...



On Oct 19, 10:40 am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf... at (no spam) artifax.net> wrote:
"Mohan" <dpuse... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:947f2e30-b82a-42e2-812b-ac837fed1654 at (no spam) k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com....

snip

And this growing side-by-side may apply to other sports,
but given cricket's limitations (so few national teams, spread in
different parts of the world, etc) once club cricket establishes its
popularity, international cricket will pale in comparison.

Don't see it myself.  International rugby has only as many competent
international teams.  Rugby become professional only in 1995 and the
European (UK mainly) club competitions have grown enormously since that
time, with many NZ, Australian and South African players giving up playing
for their country in order to earn better wages at English or French clubs,
but this hasn't really threatened the primacy of Test matches.

Andrew

On Oct 19, 2:07 pm, jzfredricks <jzfredri... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 19, 1:57 pm, Mohan <dpuse... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

Which is fine. The goal is not to eliminate partisanship at all, but
to get rid of the stupid restrictions that nation vs nation system
places on the game.

So you support dropping the IPL's "4 foreign player" rule?

No comment?

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:04:51 -0700 (PDT), tendulkar.com wrote:
There is really nothing else to say after this (esp to the clueless
alvey's of the world)

Absolutely!

I'm actually quite enjoying this Slog'n'Flog. Especially with the IPL sides
doing so very, very badly and the sides without imports doing so very, very
well.
Let us look at the actual results: Of the four matches played (in both

Iirc, all three of the sides that are already through to the semis
have a combined total of imports that's about four less than any of the
three IPL flopchises that started this comp with such high expectations.
Interesting hey? Looks like Regionalism is a far better motivator on both
sides of the boundary than supporting some mercenaries in the pay of actors
& businessmen.  
As opposed to players being in the pay of boards run by lawyers,

cheerio

alvey