Comments on: Saving the game

By: Arun

Arun — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:21:00 +0000

I am still a fan of test cricket.. prefer watching it to the shorter versions like ODIs and 20-20 matches..

I appreciate ur concern for the bowlers, but likening a 20-20 game to a rape scene is going a little over-board don’t u think.. i hope there aren’t too many women who read that observation of urs..

By: nikhil

nikhil — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:46:00 +0000

The super-sub’s been done away with.
Another thing you should have made a mention of is the limitation in the number of overs a bowler bowls.

Imagine a bowler like Muralitharan bowling 20 overs on a spinning track )
That wont encourage wannabe bowlers though, since this would mean fewer opportunities to break into a team.

By: Sri Harsha

Sri Harsha — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:03:00 +0000

Hey VK,

Came across u’re blog accidentally and i kinda expressed the same kinda opinion regarding the impact of this historic match on One-day cricket, in my blog.

Gud to know tht there are people who share the same opinions.

Keep it up!

By: airanand

airanand — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:53:00 +0000

after reading ur series of articles on the match, (and also tons of others), I am still left wondering whether what I watched was real.. it was sheer drama.. but as you say the bowlers were murdered.. but then there is fat chance of the ICC doing anything to correct this.. this match is now (and quite justifiably) the “greatest ODI ever played”!!

By: Aparna S Mallya

Aparna S Mallya — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:01:00 +0000

Cricket, in most cases, has been a batsman’s gain. If we r asked to choose between watching our team bat or watching it field, i guess most of us would choose the former. This, ofcourse is unfair on the bowlers. I hope after the SA/Aussie phenomenon, suggestions to improve the conditions for bowlers will be taken into account. Maybe you could write to them about these suggestions.

By: Vijay Krishna

Vijay Krishna — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:43:00 +0000

@KM: Thanks for the comment. I’ve fixed it now.

By: Karthikeyan Muthurajan

Karthikeyan Muthurajan — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:32:00 +0000

The template was not too good. The left side links on upper where the real posts are started only after the left side links.

When initially saw your blogs, i misunderstood no posts are there..

By: Hi

Hi — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 06:28:00 +0000

PROBABLY YOU WERE’NT AWARE. SUPER SUB HAS BEEN ABOLISHED BY ICC w.e.f 21st MARCH 2006. EVEN PRIOR TO THIS DATE, IT WAS ONLY OPTIONAL AND BOTH CAPTAINS CAN AGREE NOT TO IMPREMENT IT AS IN THE CASE OF THE JUST CONCLUDED SA – AUS SERIES. YOUR COMMENTS ON THE SYSTEM BEING BOWLER – UNFRIENDLY IS QUITE VALID.

By: Vijay Krishna

Vijay Krishna — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:23:00 +0000

No, in the 12-a-side game, there won’t be a supersub. And the entire team must be named before the toss, including the exact functions of the 2 players.

By: Vijay

Vijay — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:44:00 +0000

True that the recent innovations in LOIs have made them more bowler-unfriendly.. I agree with point nos 1,2,3,6 and 7.. but 4 and 5 r quite over the board. U want 12 people in the team (to be announced before the toss) and one more super-sub (to be announced after the toss)? I guess naming super-sub after the toss will itself go a long way in what u expect out of the game..