Name:
Location: New Zealand

Approaching mid-life crisis

  • Betfair
  • Cricinfo
  • Planet Rugby
  • ATP Tennis
  • WTA Tennis
  • NZ Herald
  • Sportsfreak
  • Maptalk
  • Ult Betting Forum
  • Punt.com
  • Blogging It Real (NZ)
  • RugbyMan (UK)
  • Sportolysis (IND)
  • KiwiHerald
  • Michal Glowacki
  • Fraser Mills
  • 29 June 2006

    ODI cricket

    As Sri Lanka again bullied England into submission in last night's one-dayer, it re-raised in my mind a conflict that I can't quite resolve.

    ODI cricket is a bit of a lottery (esp. when compared to test cricket where the better side will usually win, or more to the point, not lose) and you'd expect results to be a bit random. Yet, over the last couple of years, we have seen sides (e.g. India and South Africa) rack up winning streaks so long that would make Roger Federer proud and I'm left wondering why?

    Sri Lanka 3-0 currently over England, WI 4-1 over India - these are your typical series score in ODI cricket at the moment whereas a few years ago you could bank on a team that got completely thrashed bouncing back and turning the tables in the next game (the "lottery" theory)

    Anyone out there with thoughts?

    Labels:

    1 Comments:

    Anonymous Anonymous said...

    mate, im stumped. (excuse the pun)

    One day cricket is an enigma, and thats why I watch it.

    Perhaps its because home sides are now playing to their pitches similar to test cricket.

    Perhaps its just that form swings so much more with one day cricketers (you must have noticed that teams seem to go through a rather high rotation policy), and with that the home sides can adjust their teams easier than the visiting side to combat a) poor form and b) certain strengths the visiting side brings.

    But yeah - I still think its a lottery.

    4:06 PM  

    Post a Comment

    << Home