BBL|05 Semi Final 1 - Adelaide Strikers vs Sydney Thunder @ Adelaide Oval

[Art Vandelay_]

Well I guess some things never change in cricket. SA and trophies at least

 

[Kram]

I've brought it up well before tonight, clearly the timing was never going to look good. As a Scorchers fan, you don't think your view is clouded just a tad?

It's pretty much how every cricket tournament is always played barring the IPL apparently. It's fine, just win the bloody game when it matters, if you can't beat a 4th ranked side at home in a semi then you don't bloody deserve to play in a final!

 

[Kram]

The absolute only reason that CA would be interested in it is so they can milk some extra revenue from having one extra big game.

 

[Speedie41]

People have been calling for this since the Stars choked in either the first or second season of the comp after dominating the home and away games. I'm happy to hear CA may be reviewing it.

Was the 3rd season in which we went 8-0 then choked the semi. Every other year we've just choked in the semi.

 

[Taylor]

As I've mentioned a few times now, with all the pitches basically identical these days, home ground advantage is minimal. There is certainly no fear factor to traveling.

I'm not sure how the rain thing is remotely relevant when it's a Summer sport and rain is unlikely.

Watch tomorrow night if the scorchers have their chance at a third rained off.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I'm a Thunder fan and even I feel it is a ridiculous system.

The worst thing is a team can come 3rd and HOST the final....to me that is just plain wrong. Top 2 side should host the final, period.

Honestly don't see the problem with 3rd hosting the final. Happens in many local cricket leagues without fuss.

1v4 2v3 (or other variants if there are more finalists) and if the home teams lose then the highest still in hosts the final.

Why should it be any different for BBL? And what does it matter when ODI and T20 wickets are fairly homogenous?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Honestly don't see the problem with 3rd hosting the final. Happens in many local cricket leagues without fuss.

1v4 2v3 (or other variants if there are more finalists) and if the home teams lose then the highest still in hosts the final.

Why should it be any different for BBL? And what does it matter when ODI and T20 wickets are fairly homogenous?

IPL sysyem is much better. The reward for top 2 should be hosting the final. That is the 1 v 2 game first up. 3 v 4 in an elimination game next. Loser of 1 v 2 gets a 2nd chance against the winner of 3 v 4. Simple system, much fairer.

 

[Taylor]

IPL sysyem is much better. The reward for top 2 should be hosting the final. That is the 1 v 2 game first up. 3 v 4 in an elimination game next. Loser of 1 v 2 gets a 2nd chance against the winner of 3 v 4. Simple system, much fairer.

It doesn't sound so simple, it is a whole extra week of convolution.

The easiest way for it not to feel unfair is to not sign players who will play for their country during Big Bash and don't choke on your home deck in the final when the pressure is on.

Great teams don't lose finals.

...and sides shouldn't play other teams more than the opposition do otherwise some get easier four points and others play the best sides twice. That is why it is fair how it is.

 

[eddiesmith]

So I've heard that apparently after tonight's game, Cricket Australia have ruled the WACA and MCG not available for the final on Sunday night...

 

[Art Vandelay_]

IPL sysyem is much better. The reward for top 2 should be hosting the final. That is the 1 v 2 game first up. 3 v 4 in an elimination game next. Loser of 1 v 2 gets a 2nd chance against the winner of 3 v 4. Simple system, much fairer.

Disagree.

Again why should the BBL have double chances (and extend the tournament) when that's not the case in the majority of leagues around the nation?

The tournament goes long enough as it is. Can't delay the more important Shield matches any longer.

We don't have second chances at the World Cup. You lose at the knockout stage and sayonara.

The reward for top 2 is a home final. That's enough. You lose given that privilege then that's bad luck, stiff cheddar, tough t***ies

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So I've heard that apparently after tonight's game, Cricket Australia have ruled the WACA and MCG not available for the final on Sunday night...

Thunder vs Stars, make it happen please. I'll be in Melbourne for the tennis, would love to see Huss one last time

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Disagree.

Again why should the BBL have double chances (and extend the tournament) when that's not the case in the majority of leagues around the nation?

The tournament goes long enough as it is. Can't delay the more important Shield matches any longer.

We don't have second chances at the World Cup. You lose at the knockout stage and sayonara.

The reward for top 2 is a home final. That's enough. You lose given that privilege then that's bad luck, stiff cheddar, tough t***ies

Delay the Shield season for a whole what 2 days...the Shield games don't start till Thurs/Friday anyway. 2-3 days is plenty to get back for the Shield games. The IPLE system is better, especially in a T20 where 'luck' does play a role unfortunately.

I'm happy, I go for the Thunder but I feel for the Strikers as if you come first it shouldn't be elimination.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Delay the Shield season for a whole what 2 days...the Shield games don't start till Thurs/Friday anyway. 2-3 days is plenty to get back for the Shield games. The IPLE system is better, especially in a T20 where 'luck' does play a role unfortunately.

I'm happy, I go for the Thunder but I feel for the Strikers as if you come first it shouldn't be elimination.

Why? Why should it be any different to comps around the country? You keep dodging this point. Why is it good enough for district and club cricketers but its harsh and unfair on professional cricketers?

This giving 2nd chances is nothing more than unnecessary bullsh*t frankly. If you're not good enough to win when it matters, under the pressure of a cut-throat final, why should we reward that with a second chance?

No thanks.

 

[Kram]

I don't mind double chance finals in footy comps because they usually run for 20+ rounds and almost half the entire year. This cricket tournament goes for 8 rounds in just over a month..

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Why? Why should it be any different to comps around the country? You keep dodging this point. Why is it good enough for district and club cricketers but its harsh and unfair on professional cricketers?

This giving 2nd chances is nothing more than unnecessary bullsh*t frankly. If you're not good enough to win when it matters, under the pressure of a cut-throat final, why should we reward that with a second chance?

No thanks.

So lets just make the whole AFL finals purely elimination then. All finals, elimination...

No thanks, should be more of a reward for the minor premiers. Just because it occurs in district cricket doesn't mean it should at the top level. In fact, even in those comps I would be saying the same thing, when possible the top side deserves a 2nd chance first week. If you finish first you should get the safety of the double chance.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

So lets just make the whole AFL finals purely elimination then. All finals, elimination...

No thanks, should be more of a reward for the minor premiers. Just because it occurs in district cricket doesn't mean it should at the top level. In fact, even in those comps I would be saying the same thing, when possible the top side deserves a 2nd chance first week. If you finish first you should get the safety of the double chance.

Footy is a different kettle of fish. 6 month competition v just a tick over a month in between a busy schedule. Fair indication of which is more important and relevant

Also that's a final 8 system for which 1-2 deserve a substantial advantage over 8th. This is 1-4 where 1 and 2 get their advantage. If they waste it then that's bad luck.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Footy is a different kettle of fish. 6 month competition v just a tick over a month in between a busy schedule. Fair indication of which is more important and relevant

Also that's a final 8 system for which 1-2 deserve a substantial advantage over 8th. This is 1-4 where 1 and 2 get their advantage. If they waste it then that's bad luck.

Each to their own, lets agree to disagree. You won't convince me this is a good system right now. Heavily skewed towards teams finishing 3rd/4th in my view. You disagree, that is completely fine.

 

[Smartys Power]

May I ask why it matters if it's a 6 month season or a 8 week season?

 

[CD__]

No worse than Fleming commentating the Stars, or especially Ponting commentating Hurricanes games.

I have said it again and again. Commentators shouldn't commentate their teams. It isn't hard.

This can't be serious LP1? Waugh is infinitely more biased than Ponting/Fleming/Gilchrist...terrible call!

 

[JimDocker]

Such an annoying finals system. The Thunder won 4 bloody games for the season and will knock a team out who won 7, something has to be done when the team who has finished first has only made the final once in the entire BBL history. Home ground advantage is pretty negligible in T20, it's nothing like footy.

The BBL is a condensed competition. 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 makes sense. Just don't lose when it gets to the knock out stage.

 

[eth-dog]

1st has won 1 semi-final out of 5, it's definitely worth considering to have a double chance for the top 2.

 

[Oaktree]

That ramp shot by Nicholls off Putland that nearly went for six got very little credit during the commentary.

That was one of the shots of the tournament!

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Cricket has been doing the 1v4, 2v3 finals thing for many years. Why is T20 any different?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Very good question AH. Very good question.

 

[The Darkman]

I don't have a problem with the Thunder winning through to the final from fourth position & a 4-4 record in the H&A season. To me it's no different from Melbourne winning in 1900 after a regular H&A season of 6-8 & a final season record of 10-9. Fitzroy, despite a 11-3 H&A record had a season record of 13-5 but didn't win on the day when it mattered. Adelaide Strikers, despite having the best form coming into finals, lost when it mattered.

By coming fourth, the Thunder will have to travel for the final no matter where it is played. This will allow either the Stars or the Scorchers to prepare a pitch to suit their players. That is their disadvantage for coming fourth.

I don't really take the BBL too seriously as at least 14 of Australia's best players (plus Starc & Hazelwood) are not included in any of the teams as they are playing international matches. I want to watch Smith, the Marsh's, Warner (obviously a Thunder player), Wade etc play in the tournament & then see the size of the crowds but I don't think it will happen. If you want the tournament to reach it's full potential, then have the best players available.