Number of people watching the VB series

[Django]

Apart from the Aussie supporters, it would be interesting to find out how many people are actually watching the matches involving the "machines" from Australia! The result is more or less known much before the first ball is bowled that these "machines" are going to do their job to perfection. In the last match against the WIndies, although the Aussies were 43-5 when the rain came, I would have put my money on Australia winning without any hesitation because Martyn and Lehman were still batting.

Agains this boring predictability, look at the current SA-England series where "humans" are playing. There is some element of contest and therefore the matches are more interesting / entertaining to watch.

As the saying goes "Even contest is the essence of sport".

[vvvrulz]

You gotta be kidding me right, 43-5 at over 6 an over required, and you say they would have strolled home !?

I think the Windies were robbed.

[Paoli]

8.5 an over was the asking rate. And if they weren't bowled out, theyd have run out of time.

[Seamer]

The thing is that both the Windies and Pakistan have some classy and exciting players that the games can often be unpredictable. Gayle, Lara, Inzamam, Afridi - when guys like that go off, anything can happen. Thats why the crowds are coming

[vvvrulz]

Exactly, there is room for upsets.

[Django]

If you look at similar situations in the past 10 years or so you will find that the Australian “machines” have won on most occasions. The World cup 2003 matches – Australia Vs England and Australia Vs New Zealand are two examples.



I am not referring to the Pakistan-WIndies matches at all. These matches are good contests where there is a contest and the result is certainly not predictable. Glorious uncertainties of cricket are evident when “humans” are playing. But when the “machines” from Australia are involved the matches are boring and monotonous.



With respect to the issue of the high asking run-rate that the Aussies needed when rain stopped play, there have been numerous occasions in the past when even the “human’ teams chasing a reasonable target have scored more than 10 runs an over to win the match after being in serious trouble early-on. So I would still back the “robots” to have won the match.

[Paoli]

Yeah but they had more time in WC 03 and NZ only lost because they bowled Bond for 3 more fruitless overs after he'd already claimed 6-fer.

They should've kept him for later.

[vvvrulz]

Had Bond been back, Australia would have been bundled out. I dont think the Aussies are anywhere near as invincible as you claim they are, I have no doubt they would've lost that night, and its a pity the rain said otherwise.

[Django]

With their record in the past few years, if the Aussies are not invincebles, I am not sure what the definition of "invincibles" is.

After the first innings in the Adeliade ODI against the West Indies today, I rest my case about the invincibility of the "machines" from Australia.

We have reached a stage where some "machine" or the other will always perorm its task and watching games involving Aussies has become nothing but boring!

[Zainub]

Australia are definately not invincible, their ODI team is quite beatable, as was proved by England in the ICC Champions Trophy and India in a couple or so games in the Last VB series. If everyteam in the world played to its true potential, probably for the exception of B'desh & Zimbabwe, all the other test playing nations could beat them on their day.