Friday, 23 March 2007

What are these cricket commentators on?!

Since this Cricket World Cup start I've been following most of the matches and more so reading and listening to what the commentators have been saying. There have been 2 things I've noticed so far.

First, some or most have been saying the same thing about the bigger teams during their respective matches. So yesterday on sky they were going on about how Sri Lanka were well balances bla bla sure to get to the semi finals etc. They are the best team consisting of the best batting lineup and bowling attack. Then today they say pretty much the same about New Zealand. I'm sure I've heard this about at least one of the other teams (Australia or South Africa if not both). Fair enough this may have been different people saying these things on these occasions but it's the same people sitting at home watching and listening to this. It gets boring and devalues all the comment.

The second point is some articles written and comment on TV saying things like convincing win or emphatic win when a big gun has just beat a minnow is fine if this is truly the case. Here are some examples of matches so far where I believe this type of comment is fit.


Pak Vs Zim: Pakistan won by 93 runs (D/L method). Pakistan 349 (49.5 ov); Zimbabwe 99 (19.1/20 ov)

SL Vs. Berm: Sri Lanka won by 243 runs. Sri Lanka 321/6 (50 ov); Bermuda 78 (24.4 ov)

SL Vs. Ban: Sri Lanka won by 198 runs (D/L method). Sri Lanka 318/4 (50 ov); Bangladesh 112 (37/46 ov)

Ind Vs. Berm: India won by 257 runs. India 413/5 (50 ov); Bermuda 156 (43.1 ov)

Aus Vs. Neth: Australia won by 229 runs. Australia 358/5 (50 ov); Netherlands 129 (26.5 ov)

Note how these have all been won buy a margin of 200ish runs or more, the oppositions not scoring more than 150 runs and finished off way before the allocated 50 overs. As opposed to the following which have not been won with such a large margin or overs to spare. And the main point here is that the opposition are a minnow team (apart from Bangladesh).


NZ Vs Can: New Zealand won by 114 runs. New Zealand 363/5 (50 ov); Canada 249 (49.2 ov)

Eng Vs. Can: England won by 51 runs. England 279/6 (50 ov); Canada 228/7 (50 ov)

How can somebody justify saying that the above 2 matches were convincing wins and that End and NZ looked good out there when they have allowed a team like Canada to pretty much see through the 50 overs and score 200+. In my book it does not matter how many runs NZ and Eng scored here and what the margin is letting a minnow score 200+ is just not good.

The following paragraph which is referring to Tendulkar says this very nicely.

He must not think of the delectable half-century he made in the last match
against Bermuda. "Has the day come when we're seriously talking about Sachin
batting well against Bermuda?" one intelligent former Indian cricketer responded
when it was mentioned in passing that the little man looked sharp in the last
match. "When an elephant stamps on a fly, do we say 'well done, that's a great
kill'?"

I wish some of these sites didn't keep changing the headings of stories otherwise I would put some evidence up.

scores from CricInfo.