T20 World Cup: Live Matches Discussion

First topic message reminder :

Hi all,

I've set up our very own 606v2 T20 World Cup SuperBru tipping competition for anyone who is interested.

http://www.superbru.com/worldt20/player_home.asp

First game is Sri Lanka v Zimbabwe on Tuesday, September 18 at 19:30 (local time) in Hambantota.

The full list of fixtures is here:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/world-twenty20-2012/content/series/531597.html?template=fixtures

The pool code for 606v2: playsacs

Everyone is welcome.
Enjoy the matches and best of luck to your team.

Who do you think will win?

Porterfield long ago lost his claim to open the batrting, or indeed anywhere in the order. When we go into big matches with a big chance of losing a wicket in the first few overs then we are simply making trouble for ourselves. Poreterfield's captaincy skills aren't so great that he should be guaranteed a place when his batting has gone to sh1te.

Rain is the number one enemy of the Irish cricket fan!haha

Porterfield has had a poor season for Warwickshire as well, I think he's just going through a bad patch. He scored a few against India at the last (50 over) WC so I don't think he's become a bad player.

The real news from an Ireland perspective is that Boyd "I'm so irish my ultimate aim is to play for England" Rankin has been left out. Brave move, particularly with Gayle in the opposition. Mind you I like Max Sorensen, good player. Surprised that Ireland persist with Jones ahead of Murtagh, who has a lot of T20 pedigree.

Mike Selig wrote:Porterfield has had a poor season for Warwickshire as well, I think he's just going through a bad patch. He scored a few against India at the last (50 over) WC so I don't think he's become a bad player.

The real news from an Ireland perspective is that Boyd "I'm so irish my ultimate aim is to play for England" Rankin has been left out. Brave move, particularly with Gayle in the opposition. Mind you I like Max Sorensen, good player. Surprised that Ireland persist with Jones ahead of Murtagh, who has a lot of T20 pedigree.

Have we heard which Irish players were worst affected by the gastro bug - that could have been a factor in the selections

Murtagh's significant county experience should count I think. What happened to Hamish Marshel though Wasn't he qualified for Ireland?

Narine to bowl the first over after the interruption. An interesting move, hoping the wet outfield won't affect him too much.

and Joyce bowled around his legs, lovely bowling!

2 overs lost to the rain, a 19 over match now. Hope the damn rain stays away.

oh dear, all going horribly wrong for Ireland. Stirling goes for the pull but there's no conviction in the shot and it's top edged straight to Gayle at mid-wicket. Poor poor shot and Ireland on the ropes...

ireland need to increase this rate. they need to go for 150 min

Wilson gone, Ireland need something special from the O'Briens here.

Wilson gone after a decent effort at rebuilding.

Rain break really didn't help Ireland at all.

msp83 wrote:Murtagh's significant county experience should count I think. What happened to Hamish Marshel though Wasn't he qualified for Ireland?

He qualified last April. However, finances got in the way - Marshall is also now England qualified, so Gloucester gets a decent whack of money from the ECB for him, which they'd lose if he played for Ireland. And Ireland can't afford to match the £s
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ireland/content/story/519441.html

Ireland have lost a wicket or two too many here to be able to really take advantage of the last few.

Ireland need a big last five overs here.

3 overs to go. Ireland need to be aiming for 140.

Nice little knock from elder brother Niall.

Gayle makes the mistake of trying to fire in 6 yorkers. Gets one wrong. Big 6 from Johnson.

140+ would put a bit of pressure on the West Indies.

but they're not going to get it. Ordinary knock from Kevin O'Brien, moves way too early there and is cleaned up.

Brain freeze! That's not your game Kevin, play to your strengths.

uncomplicated whallop by Jones over cow corner for six

Bumble's non knowledge of Irish cricket has really got my goat up today.

no-ball from Narine? WTF?

Feel Ireland could have taken a few more risks with their running. That free hit should have been 2.

not enough that...

Ireland haven't disgraced themselves with this batting effort, but I think this is not enough.

kind of annoying because I feel that inexperience cost them 10 - 20 runs..They had resources left and they didnt push hard enough for 2's

Agree partly with mysti, but inexperience not really the reason for Ireland anymore with their pedigree.

It's a decent effort, but unless Dockrell has a magic spell it won't be enough.

More rain.

Needs to be remembered that Ireland had given themselves a great chance of knocking England out of the previous WC when rain denied them. And rain undoubtedly hindered their innings today.

Ireland can bat in these short formats!!

I just felt they had to go for it abit more . I really cant see there bowling winning them a game v a test side..

looks like its gonna be a 5 over 44 target. lameooo

as it always does the t20 world cup has inspired me to smash balls out the park on EA cricket 2005

Graeme Hick was a beast

Comments above are understandably focusing on Ireland so I'll just quickly throw in that it was a good and disciplined performance from the West Indies. They kept the pressure on and never allowed Ireland to get away - the run rate always seemed circa 6.5. Backed up by effective fielding with several decent boundary stops.

Thought West Indies's fielding was good to very good. The bowling was ok, but for me not enough variation at the death - against the better batting line-ups their batsmen will have to fire.

Rained off.

West Indies through without winning a game as England last time. Omens?

What kind of muppets organise a tournament for the start of the monsoon season? Oh yeah, the same kind who think a World cup with 10 teams is a good idea...

So thats Zimbabwe, ireland, and most likely Bangladesh out tomorrow..

hmm who could have predicted that?!

CF wrote:So thats Zimbabwe, ireland, and most likely Bangladesh out tomorrow..

hmm who could have predicted that?!

Your point is?

the way the groups are done is terrible, we need to make groups more intresting, also it will elimnate pointless dead rubber games!

there's two things that could be done to improve the interest of the group stages

1 - have the weaker team play the last game, and not the first two. Ideally the first (increases the chance of a shock, "stronger" team being underprepared etc.) and last.

2 - don't have the groups for the next stage already in place before the competition. RIDICULOUS! Finishing top of the group should have meaning, so if you're going to have super eights with two groups of four have the top team of two groups with the second-placed teams of the other two, and vice-versa.

16 teams, 4 groups of 4, top 2 through to quarter finals. 31 matches. All done within a month (50 overs) or just over a fortnight (T20). Unless you fix it so the (likely) bottom two teams of each group play each other last you're unlikely to get many dead rubbers.

Simples.

Except you could have a surprise results, and India and/or England may not play enough matches to keep the TV companies happy...

I don't think you can cater too much for predictability anyway: of all the recent tournaments the most predictable was 2007 - may as well have handed Australia the title at the start? Ironically enough that also produced 2 major upsets.

I'm personally in favour of 12 teams for the World T20, and 16 (yes, 16) for the World Cup.

Yes, upsets are perhaps somewhat more likely in T20 (though international result don't actually support that theory) but I think the World T20 must be short and sweet. And also needs to have enough games between major nations to keep the sponsors and more importantly neutral spectators happy.

The groups of three at the start isn't that bad a format. Its perhaps a little harsh on the team that gets eliminated, particularly when weather comes in (in '07 Scotland got one game, and Ireland only completed one at each of the last two). But it does mean that we quickly get to important matches, and that the top teams have to be on their A game from ball one - unlike the current 50-over format which allowed England to lose to Ireland and Bangladesh and still reach the QFs ahead of both them... Which order you play the games in depends on a lot of factors - ideally the unseeded team should play the last game, but stuff like putting a big game as the opening match and big games at the weekend in some countries also needs to be considered, so its not that simple.

What I'd then do is say that the sides that go through carry the points they took against the other side that got through from their group through to the Super Eight. Pre-seeding the Super 8 ensures that fans know where there team will play and when, which can be important (i.e. it means England fans can plan to be in Kandy rather than Colombo if they are going out), and is probably a good thing. By carrying the points forward matches which otherwise might have no importance effectively become part of the Super 8 stage. This system was used in the '07 World Cup, which I'll come back too.

I'd also like to see qualifying for the T20 tweaked, to stop poor Full Members (i.e. Zimbabwe) getting things easy which good Associates (i.e. Ireland, Afghanistan) have to do things the hard way. Ideally I'd say that the top 8 Full Members at a set cut off in the Rankings (perhaps allowing for host nations to automatically qualify - i.e. Bangladesh in 2014) would qualify, and that the rest should compete with the Associates at a final qualifier. Perhaps the top 6 teams from the Group Stages of the Qualifier could be joined by the two non-qualifying Full Members for final qualifying play-offs. Could create some interest in the tournament and would certainly be fairer. In the long term I'd of course like to see more Full Members. This won't happen but its what I'd like.

For a 50 over World Cup I'd like 16 teams - I think that many can be accomodated into a better format. The '07 World Cup was over-long but the format had potential to produce some superb cricket. Cutting down the teams isn't the only way to reduce the schedule.

I'd like 4 groups of 4, from which the winners and runners-up go into the Super 8 (following a similar format to the T20 - to cut down matches perhaps both qualifying teams from a group could go into the same Super 8 group, carrying their points forward from their previous meeting). Then semis and a final. Quarters are good but difficult to accomodate without a boring group stage like 2011 or a format which is probably a little too short (Mike's suggestion). My proposal would see the the number of games cut to 35 - 14 less than 2011 and more with genuine meaning.

You know what the silly thing is if Ireland delayed Australia's chase by 3 balls in our first match, we would have qualified for the Super 8s and not the WIndies. there would have been some furore if that happened, but i guess not much will be said as its only a poor associate that feels the brunt of the ICC's ineptness. Also 1 and a half games is scant reward for playing 11 T20s in 12 days.

On the match itself, it was a slightly improved batting performance from us, but we lost wickets at vital times. Also the 1st rain brk killed our early momentum. Some bad decision making from a couple of guys (KOB & Stirlo), personally i think its from a lack of playing the elite internatinal teams regularly. For example, outside of this tournament we have played one token T20/ODi against the 'big traditional 8' full members in 2012.

personally t20 is where we need to expand first- surely that makes more sense as it is the entry level of the sport .

just have a typical 16 team set up comprising of 4 groups of 4- then into quarter finals.

Meant to say something about Ireland.

This tournament will go down as a disappointment for them and I think 2012, without success against Full Members and a lot of rain and mediocrity even during the season, will go down as their most disappointing year since they emerged on to the world scene.

What they mustn't do though is beat themselves up too much. Its a measure of their progress that they can't be satisfied with qualification for major tournaments.

I think their personnel needs to be looked at more closely. In particular, they need to look at Joyce's T20 place (he should be opening if he plays), and need to find a couple more agrressive batsmen somewhere. The bowling needs some work in the short forms too.

In some ways Ireland's current lot are probably a better FC/ One-day team than T20 team. In a hypothetical Test Match in Stormont I'd expect an attack of Rankin (I know he's retiring), Murtagh, Johnston and Dockrell to be pretty tough work for a Zimbabwe or Bangladesh, and a batting line-up of Porterfield, Joyce, Stirling, the O'Briens and Wilson to be a touch classier too. I don't think T20 comes naturally to Porterfield or Joyce - they like to wait for bad balls, and you can't do that and win very often against top T20 sides.

mystiroakey wrote:personally t20 is where we need to expand first- surely that makes more sense as it is the entry level of the sport .

just have a typical 16 team set up comprising of 4 groups of 4- then into quarter finals.

One-sided T20 matches (and I'd have hoped the teams that played here would have run their opponents close, but in the event they haven't really) are very boring though - more so than a one-sided ODI I'd say. I'd expect those teams ranked 13-16 to really struggle in International T20 - Netherlands are OK and a threat if RTD and Cooper play, but I think Namibia, Scotland and UAE would struggle big-time against better teams at this stage, in this format.

List A is the format which those teams play more often, and also a format in which they perhaps have a better chance of getting into the game.

Also, I still see the World Cup as the flagship competition and the World T20 as a bit of an extra. I think it lets the sport down if we have a World Cup for which it is extremely difficult to qualify for, as some administrators are proposing.

mystiroakey wrote:t20 [...] is the entry level of the sport .

It is?

I would have both tournaments with 16 teams.

I'm not a fan of two pool stages, it didn't work when they briefly tried it in the (football) Champions league either. In my experience it produces a long line of predictable matches, you get halfway through the matches and it's clear who the better teams are. As in the 2007 WC (I've commented before that that tournament suffered from Australia being so much better than everyone else - in fact it also suffered from Sri Lanka being obviously the 2nd best side, New Zealand the 3rd and South Africa the 4th).

The pre-seeding is an interesting one, I take on board Shelsey's point. But in this tournament it seems likely that it will result in the 4 first placed sides being in one group, and the 4 second places being in the other. I'm not sure that's particularly fair.

Mike Selig wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:t20 [...] is the entry level of the sport .

It is?

it certainly will be yes- it will be the game that gets in the olympics- it will be the game other countries take up first

mystiroakey wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:t20 [...] is the entry level of the sport .

It is?

it certainly will be yes- it will be the game that gets in the olympics- it will be the game other countries take up first

It's not the game other countries are taking up first at the moment... Saying it's the "entry level" suggests it's an easier game to play/get into, which is wrong for so many reasons.

You are right in that if cricket is ever introduced at the Olympics it will be the format used.

Well i think its the perfcet starting game and much easier to get into

Out of interest why?

I disagree with mysti. I find T20 a much harder game to play than the longer form (we play 40 overs), probably because it doesn't really suit my batting style.

However, where I think mysti is right is that it being the shortest form of the game makes it probably a better format to attract new people to the sport.

Realistically though if you're targetting a non-cricket playing country 3 hours is already long?

The ICC have this obsession that T20 is going to crack the US market. They couldn't be more wrong:
- the US are used to long, drawn-out sports in which sometimes nothing happens for a while. Test cricket?
- the ICC thinks it's a format which can compete with baseball. That is ridiculous, you don't want to "compete" with the major sport of a country if you're some unknown sport.

IN the same way, some people mistakingly think that because T20 is shorter it can compete with more popular sports in non-cricketing countries. First of all, it's still twice the time. Secondly, who wants to compete? Draw your own niche, using what cricket best has to sell itself.

T20 is a very very tough form to play well, I would say harder than 50 overs because everything has to be done faster.

You need a format which best shows off cricket, which goes some way to teaching the basics and from which you can build. Indoor cricket anyone?