PDA

View Full Version : Which one was the best match report?


LateCut
June 19, 2005, 04:49 PM
In my opnion the best match report was produced by The daily Telegraph and the close second is Rabid Imam's report.

What do you think?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ZOAOBYZ4XFNOTQFIQMFCM5OAVCBQ YJVC?xml=/sport/2005/06/19/scaust19.xml&sSheet=/sport/2005/06/19/ixsporttop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=11118

Bangladesh (250-5) beat Australia (249-5) by five wickets

A very un-Australian team lost to Bangladesh by five wickets in their opening NatWest game in one of the all-time one-day upsets. Quiet and so subdued that even Glenn McGrath was muted, their demeanour was anything but that of World Cup holders and Test champions.


Fast worker: Mohammad Ashraful scored a run-a-ball century
To add to the tourists' troubles, the Australian batsman Mike Hussey faces an inquiry today by the Match Referee Jeff Crowe of New Zealand under ICC's Clothing and Equipment Regulations. The Western Australian lefthander, who has also played for three first-class counties, appeared to use a bat which was entirely covered in manufacturer's logos on the back. The regulations specify that logos must not 'exceed 50 per cent of the total surface area of the back of the bat'.

Australia's amazingly demoralised mood stems from some combination of their two defeats last week, the disciplinary action which had to be taken against Andrew Symonds and may have to be taken against Hussey, and perhaps the realisation that their empire is finally in decline. England could not have asked for a better opportunity than today to make it four consecutive victories over Australia in the three forms of the game.

To compound all their difficulties Ricky Ponting chose to bat first in conditions made for seam and swing. The Australians normally play to their strongest suit, to dictate the game; and they would not have had much practice if they had sent Bangladesh in and run through them for 80. But it was still a horribly high-risk decision because the pitch had been sweating under covers for two days.

Mashrafe Mortaza bowled wicket-to-wicket superbly in conceding five runs from his first six overs, and Nazmul Hossain supported him as well as a supposed 17-year-old could. But if Bangladesh had possessed another seamer of Mortaza's quality, Australia's innings might never have got off the damp ground.

Even then the loss of three early wickets allowed Mohammad Rafique to bowl with the pressure on the batsmen for a change, instead of the usual 100 for no wicket. The left-arm spinner and Aftab Ahmed, with his dibbly-dobblies, whisked through their overs for very few boundaries: Damien Martyn hit his first and 107th ball for four but no others.

England will have noted that Michael Clarke, in getting off the mark at this mild crisis-point, went after a wide half-volley with no use of his feet and could have been caught at slip if there had been one. Thereafter he worked as assiduously as Martyn in running between the wickets but as soon as the fourth wicket pair accelerated they cover-drove catches.

Coming together in the 44th over Hussey, with his controversial bat logo, and Simon Katich added 66 with real panache. But while Katich could fill in for Symonds as a batsman, he could not replace him as a big spinner of the ball and Australia's lack of options were exposed. Shane Watson could be recalled today, but he was hit for eight an over by Somerset and seems a better batsman than bowler. The day of Shane Warne's recall to the one-day team has to be approaching.

Bangladesh, at the start of their reply, were as subdued as Australia but they perked up as soon as Australia's three pace bowlers had finished their opening spells. Brad Hogg has shortened his run-up a la Warne but not increased his control of length; Clarke cannot match his predecessor Darren Lehmann for wiliness, while Hussey would hit his own medium-pace a long way.

On a dried pitch against this motley change-bowling Mohammed Ashraful went to town. When McGrath came back, Ashraful smacked him over extra-cover twice, with scarcely a protest from the bowler, let alone a stomp. With his captain, Habibul Bashar, the pair added 130 in 23 overs before Adam Gilchrist under-armed a run-out.

Bangladesh needed 73 off 10 overs and 38 off five, Australia having been 100-1 on at the day's start. Ashraful cheekily went down on one knee to sweep McGrath off middle stump, and went to his century (the first for Bangladesh against a major country in internationals) at a run a ball with his dazzling eye and strokeplay. Even though he was caught at long-on, going for broke instead of singles, Bangladesh had four balls to spare over the World Cup holders.

Sham
June 19, 2005, 04:56 PM
Rabeed Imam's piece was not a match report. A match report is a write-up that reports on what happened in the match. Similarly, Andrew Miller's piece is not a match report either.

I liked Andrew's piece the best as a write-up, because it was flattering and yet totally credible. I thought Rabeed Imam went slightly overboard, something I am happy to forgive given how much crap we have taken in the last few days. It was time to give some back and he did, but in terms of quality, Andrew's was amazing!

As for match reports, quite a few have been pretty good fun to read!

CTazim
June 19, 2005, 05:03 PM
Also Telegraph the tabloid is flawed when it mentions Ash's was "the first [century] for Bangladesh against a major country in international". Bangladesh had a century against Zimbabwe. In that regard Telegraph should terminate "incompetent" reporters who do not do their homework. Similarly Hughes, Warne and others should make every effort to keept their feet out of their mouths and also their head from their rear end. If they need referrals let me know, I am willing to volunteer to find them a good proctologist.

Finally, Why did it open with a very "un-Australian" team... It seems that it is trying to again undermine Bangladesh's achivement. Shame on Telegraph and SHAME on you for even trying to make us grade a tabloid class paper like the Telegraph in this forum!

Edited on, June 19, 2005, 10:05 PM GMT, by CTazim.

Sham
June 19, 2005, 05:08 PM
I don't know if it was an un-Australian team, but it was a very un-Australian performance.

Look, we all know that the Aussies haven't been at their best, and sure, the papers are going to point that out. But who cares? We beat them and thats that! Whether they played at their best or not is their problem, not ours. Two days ago, no one would have given us a chance against the Aussies even if they weren't at par, but we showed that when the best team in the world has an off-day, we can take them down. Thats what is important.

Lets not get overly sensitive about everything that is written in the papers.

Tasin
June 19, 2005, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by CTazim
Also Telegraph the tabloid is flawed when it mentions Ash's was "the first [century] for Bangladesh against a major country in international". Bangladesh had a century against Zimbabwe. In that regard Telegraph should terminate "incompetent" reporters who do not do their homework. Similarly Hughes, Warne and others should make every effort to keept their feet out of their mouths and also their head from their rear end. If they need referrals let me know, I am willing to volunteer to find them a good proctologist.

Finally, Why did it open with a very "un-Australian" team... It seems that it is trying to again undermine Bangladesh's achivement. Shame on Telegraph and SHAME on you for even trying to make us grade a tabloid class paper like the Telegraph in this forum!

Edited on, June 19, 2005, 10:05 PM GMT, by CTazim.


I guess what was meant was that it is the first century scored in "100 deliveries" against any major cricket playing country.

He got out in the 101th ball.




Edited on, June 19, 2005, 10:32 PM GMT, by Tasin.

Sham
June 19, 2005, 05:34 PM
Yeah, they dont consider Zimbabwe a major cricketing country. Still a minnow!

Spitfire_x86
June 19, 2005, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Sham
Yeah, they dont consider Zimbabwe a major cricketing country. Still a minnow!
Opi scored that century against the all time best Zimbabwe team, which beat India and South Africa few months later in 1999 WC and went to super six. (without any walkover)

That team was better than the English team of 1999.

LateCut
June 19, 2005, 06:14 PM
CTazim! This is not a grading exercise. Just a pulse on the reporting of the game. We had not had much success as a test playing nation. We got our share of criticism and unfair reporting. Now that we have pulled a shocker, there is a fair bit "irrational exuberance". I just wanted to gauge what the forum member think of which of the reports that are considered to be balanced in our view.

CTazim
June 19, 2005, 06:21 PM
LateCut!! "Irrational EXUBERANCE", boy you sound like Alan Greenspan ;). You see It's confusing for me when on one hand you say "we got our share of criticism.." implying that you are a Tiger fan (not that I doubt you are :) and saying Telegraph has the better reporting on the other.

Edited on, June 19, 2005, 11:22 PM GMT, by CTazim.

LateCut
June 19, 2005, 06:29 PM
You better believe I am! I have slept no more than two hours since game. I am pupmed up. I saw the other game and was desperately pulling for the Aussie. But it did not happen. I hope we will pull of another one on Tuesday. I am thinking about excuses to cut office on Tuesday. May be forum members could help me. Perhaps somebody could start a thread on "Most creative excuse for staying at home on Thursday and watching the gam on the tube".

Goood luck fellows.:great::bravo::fire::fanflag:

Edited on, June 19, 2005, 11:32 PM GMT, by LateCut.