Harsha, This is a very good observation. I agree with you. Even God can't change this type of situations. Let us learn from other countries. 20:20 is not a very big event. Why such kind of celebrations. POLITICS
RE:FOOD FOR THOUGHT
by Sarath Chandra on Sep 27, 2007 08:27 PM Permalink
True Dominic, 20:20 is not a very big event. But it will become a big event from now on because India won it. Sometimes, we win big tournaments. If we can't, we say whatever we won as big tournaments, if there is a way.
RE:FOOD FOR THOUGHT
by Sarath Chandra on Sep 27, 2007 09:58 PM Permalink
Simply, for a big event, the professionals plan their career around it and fans care so much that they don't want to lose it. The 20-20 tournament that just happened doesn't qualify as a big tournament, "before" India won it, either way.
Many top players rested (by themselves or by their boards, whatever excuses they gave), and nobody would have remembered this tournament if India lost in the first round. The fans, on average, wouldn't have cared even a 1000th of what they did for the 50 over world cup, if India lost. No team planned or prepared for this so called "world cup".
RE:RE:FOOD FOR THOUGHT
by sanjay on Sep 27, 2007 10:03 PM Permalink
u suck ru insane u mean 2020 was played by unprofessionals players.as far as i am concerned all team very presented by their 50 over players.
RE:RE:RE:FOOD FOR THOUGHT
by sanjay on Sep 27, 2007 10:23 PM Permalink
my dear friend this format is going to be future of cricket u looked how many close matches were played in the 2020 series. it will always be remembered that our team won the first cup.remember that some raised their voice when first 50 over match was introduced , they called it paijama cricket . wat happened now?.we play more 50 overs than tests
RE:FOOD FOR THOUGHT
by sanjay on Sep 27, 2007 10:45 PM Permalink
they did not because they cant take risk.i understand it was not a major cup because it was first time introduced.so wat i was played with high intensity
RE:FOOD FOR THOUGHT
by Sarath Chandra on Sep 27, 2007 10:40 PM Permalink
Would they (all of them you addressed) do that if they thought it was as important as the 50 over world cup? I don't think so. They would have tried their best to somehow play. Because any professional wants to play, whatever the cost, in the most important events in their sport. You see tennis players playing with injuries in grandslams, not on the general ATP circuit. Players preserve themselves for the best events. Not skip them because they are afraid their career will be over. What is the point in having a career that doesn't have you play the sport's biggest events? This line of reasoning sounds right to me. That is all.
RE:FOOD FOR THOUGHT
by sanjay on Sep 27, 2007 10:16 PM Permalink
wat do u want say ru saying it was played by professional so we should not celebrating
RE:RE:RE:FOOD FOR THOUGHT
by Sarath Chandra on Sep 27, 2007 10:22 PM Permalink
The advantage with the written word is you can read it again and again till we understand it. It is not the same as talking. I cannot say what I want to say in any other words than I said it already. Simply, the tournament became more important after India won it. Before the tournament, not many gave ot much importance.
RE:FOOD FOR THOUGHT
by Sarath Chandra on Sep 27, 2007 10:16 PM Permalink
I said what I wanted to say, Mate. This tournament is not as big as it is made out to be. And the reasons for that are stated in the posts above.
Of course, this is my opinion. Anybody else is free to hold their own opinion for their own reasons (of course this goes unstated).
RE:RE:RE:FOOD FOR THOUGHT
by Sarath Chandra on Sep 27, 2007 10:17 PM Permalink
Of course we can celebrate this victory as any other victory. But I don't think this is a major event, before India won it. As I said, if India lost, nobody would have cared.
RE:FOOD FOR THOUGHT
by sanjay on Sep 27, 2007 10:35 PM Permalink
sachin , dravid , sourav did not play because if they had played and india lose their career would be over. that expected our young player to do bad , then it would have said that we dont have player to replace them. and about kallis it again politics of south african board[ battle of black and whites]. and murali was injured dislocated his shoulders.
RE:FOOD FOR THOUGHT
by Sarath Chandra on Sep 27, 2007 10:10 PM Permalink
I didn't say that 20-20 was played by unprofessional players. I said that professional players plan their career around a big event, like the cricket world cup, olympics, grandslams. Whether I suck or I am insane is anybody's opinion. I cannot argue with that. As for the rest, the facts are there for everybody to see.
RE:FOOD FOR THOUGHT
by Sarath Chandra on Sep 27, 2007 10:29 PM Permalink
Yes, I am sure that 20-20 can be the future of cricket and people may prepare much more for this tournament's latter editions. And players like Sachin, Dravid, Ponting, Sourav, Murali, Kallis won't drop out for various reasons in future editions. And teams will play 20-20 series in preparation for the major event, and plan for it 2-3 years before the event. And media will hype it like they did the 50 over world cup and people will abuse amd argue with each other on the message boards about what teams should be taken to the main event. But that doesn't change the past. Does it? Nothing of thhis sort happened for this tournament. One captain (Ponting) wasn't even sure how much respect he has to give for this format.
RE:FOOD FOR THOUGHT
by sanjay on Sep 27, 2007 10:26 PM Permalink
its not about india winning made it important. it was peoples enjoyment and effort all players put in for their teams made it important each and every team gave their 150% to win the cup.
RE:RE:FOOD FOR THOUGHT
by Sarath Chandra on Sep 27, 2007 10:34 PM Permalink
Your second sentence is certainly right (except 150%). However, I don't think people would have been disappointed even a 1000th of how much they were disappointed for the 50 over world cup, if India lost here. For me, that settles the issue, of how important this tournament was for Indian media and public. I can understand us hyping thhis victory as great "after" the evennt, now that there is a future for this format, which was created "because" India won. That future would have been in real doubt, if India lost.
RE:RE:RE:FOOD FOR THOUGHT
by sanjay on Sep 27, 2007 10:36 PM Permalink
sachin , dravid , sourav did not play because if they had played and india lose their career would be over. that expected our young player to do bad , then it would have said that we dont have player to replace them. and about kallis it again politics of south african board[ battle of black and whites]. and murali was injured dislocated his shoulders
RE:RE:RE:FOOD FOR THOUGHT
by sanjay on Sep 27, 2007 10:38 PM Permalink
no really dear this format was sucessfull in many places before being introduced
RE:RE:RE:RE:FOOD FOR THOUGHT
by Sarath Chandra on Sep 27, 2007 10:42 PM Permalink
Anyway Sanjay, It was nice discussing with you. I have to go for lunch. Maybe some other time. Bye.
