| Series | Countries | Live Scores | Fixtures | Results | News |
Features
|
Photos | Blogs | Statistics | Archive | Video & Audio | Games | Mobile | |||||||||||||||||||||
« Bosses using 'player power' as cover-up | Move to the top changes Warner's life »
February 14, 2009Posted on 02/14/2009 in New Zealand in Australia 2009
Not an appropriate end to an absorbing series
Mark Richardson feels cheated at not having an appropriate end to what has been an absorbing one-day series between Australia and New Zealand and wants to know why Sunday's Twenty20 couldn't be converted into a 50-over game. He writes in the New Zealand Herald:
Sure, I'd imagine sponsorship and broadcasting deals around the twenty20 fixture would be in place and block the road but I'd imagine where ever that final game was played it would have pulled a huge crowd and I don't think Sydney twenty20-goers would have felt cheated had they been given an extra 60 overs of cricket to watch. And, frankly, this series deserved a winner and that winner found over 100 overs of cricket.
- Why the IPL needs an upgrade
- Yuvraj tackles the toughest ball
- Bracewell's cricket journey
- Greg Chappell on ending a lean batting spell
- DRS has changed the game
- It's crunch time for England's top five
- Fleming recalls back-from-dead tales
- Can England retain their top six for Sri Lanka?
- BCCI's high-handedness must stop
- What next for Yuvraj