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?

I've just set up another Pool for the Champions League T20 which starts in a couple of weeks time. (13th October)

Pool Name: 606v2
Code: redopalp

Everyone is welcome to join.

Dwayne Bravo too is back, in place of his brother who never got a chance to bat in the only match he played.

England should have picked Briggs. Patel offers sod all with bat or ball, and just as importantly offers sod all in the field.

Yet again safety first from the most tedious cricketing nation in the world.

Why bowl briggs in the 2 warm up games but not play him in the tournament? England are laughable.

Disagree.

Briggs is slightly the better bowler, but Patel gets in (rightly) because we need him at 7 (in case the spin eats us up again) and he has more experience with the ball.

Patel as a Test cricketer is a different matter - I find that bizarre.

Just had a look at Johnson Charles' record. way below average. and its across formats even at the domestic level. If anyone charges Darren Sammy of nepotism then it will be dificult to defend.

Because they are bottlers, jimbo. They NEVER take the risk of doing what makes sense...i.e. picking bowlers that can bowl and batsmen that can bat. They ALWAYS have to pick some go between, bits and pieces type that may appear safer on paper but in reality rarely offers more runs than say Briggs would.

It's pathetic and weak.

Fists of Fury wrote:England should have picked Briggs. Patel offers sod all with bat or ball, and just as importantly offers sod all in the field.

Yet again safety first from the most tedious cricketing nation in the world.

Samit was brought up the other day as one of the only players for England to have got some runs in the sub continent last winter, and his bowling is underrated in T20 cricket. He gets through 4 overs cheaply and quickly and has an international economy of 6.84. Very good. And we needs his added batting at 7.

Charles is a curious player. He simply isn't very good. WI tend to pick a few of these, probably because of a lack of depth.

We're picking a bowler because he can bat a little bit (yet to prove it at international level), makes sense

Shelsey, sorry but that is incorrect. How often has Patel even looked like being a dynamic batsman in an England shirt? He will scratch around for 9 or 10 and then get out.

A pointless selection in all formats, he simply is not good enough.

Shelsey93 wrote:Charles is a curious player. He simply isn't very good. WI tend to pick a few of these, probably because of a lack of depth.

Ha, wouldn't put it past him to get a rapid 50 now Reverse mockers!

jimbohammers wrote:We're picking a bowler because he can bat a little bit (yet to prove it at international level), makes sense

But he has proved it, he scored plenty of runs in India last winter albeit in the ODI's. And he is an underrated bowler in T20's, he has an economy of 6.84 which is very good at this level.

Fists of Fury wrote:Because they are bottlers, jimbo. They NEVER take the risk of doing what makes sense...i.e. picking bowlers that can bowl and batsmen that can bat. They ALWAYS have to pick some go between, bits and pieces type that may appear safer on paper but in reality rarely offers more runs than say Briggs would.

It's pathetic and weak.

I think there are arguments both ways on Briggs/Patel, which have been made. Before the tournament started I thought Briggs should have played, but Patel is a useful cricketer in this format anyway.

West Indies have their own selection issues, and have gone for Badree, a spinner more in the Kumble/Rahul Sharma mould. They could be guilty of picking a side according to the opposition rather than their own strengths and the conditions. On the other hand it could be inspired.

Gayle as usual the key, a couple of early wickets and this West Indies line-up looks vulnerable. I'd be tempted to start with spin, Swann has got Gayle a few times in the past.

Let's hope for a game as exciting as the previous one.

Badree is a bit of a T-20 specialist even for T&T. Have played more T-20s than FC matches. After playing 43 T-20s, his economy rate is 4.59.

jimbohammers wrote:We're picking a bowler because he can bat a little bit (yet to prove it at international level), makes sense

Not really, england have opted for an all-rounder at 7 in view of their recent batting catastrophes, rather than picking 5 out and out bowlers.

I also find this "pick the best bowlers" a bit simplistic. No one would suggest Mullaly, Tuffnell and Giddins as a lower order was a good idea would they?

I think we have to start with Swann, Mike. Gayle looks far too comfortable against pace, and becomes a completely different player against high quality spin. Vulnerable, you could say. Ashwin had him on toast a few times.

Mike Selig wrote:

jimbohammers wrote:We're picking a bowler because he can bat a little bit (yet to prove it at international level), makes sense

Not really, england have opted for an all-rounder at 7 in view of their recent batting catastrophes, rather than picking 5 out and out bowlers.

I also find this "pick the best bowlers" a bit simplistic. No one would suggest Mullaly, Tuffnell and Giddins as a lower order was a good idea would they?

Cricket has evolved though, Mike. Even the likes of Finn can wield the willow to get a few boundaries now and again. Also, you could argue that if you're relying on the lower order for runs in a T20 then you are probably going to lose the game anyway.

msp83 wrote:Badree is a bit of a T-20 specialist even for T&T. Have played more T-20s than FC matches. After playing 43 T-20s, his economy rate is 4.59.

From what I remember he bowls just back of a length and gets the ball to either skid on or hold up off the pitch, which can make him a tricky customer. I remember NSW having all sorts of trouble getting him away when they tied I think it was in the CL last year. I would have thought he'd prefer a slow pitch to one coming onto the bat.

Fists of Fury wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

jimbohammers wrote:We're picking a bowler because he can bat a little bit (yet to prove it at international level), makes sense

Not really, england have opted for an all-rounder at 7 in view of their recent batting catastrophes, rather than picking 5 out and out bowlers.

I also find this "pick the best bowlers" a bit simplistic. No one would suggest Mullaly, Tuffnell and Giddins as a lower order was a good idea would they?

Cricket has evolved though, Mike. Even the likes of Finn can wield the willow to get a few boundaries now and again. Also, you could argue that if you're relying on the lower order for runs in a T20 then you are probably going to lose the game anyway.

It's not about making 50's from number 7 in T20 cricket though. If we need 16/17 for 2 with Patel and a batsman at the crease then I back us, but if you have Broad/Swann then Dernbach/Finn/Briggs coming in then we will struggle. Briggs's is never going to hit a 20 off 10 balls and that sort of knock can be crucial in these games.

Fists of Fury wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

jimbohammers wrote:We're picking a bowler because he can bat a little bit (yet to prove it at international level), makes sense

Not really, england have opted for an all-rounder at 7 in view of their recent batting catastrophes, rather than picking 5 out and out bowlers.

I also find this "pick the best bowlers" a bit simplistic. No one would suggest Mullaly, Tuffnell and Giddins as a lower order was a good idea would they?

Cricket has evolved though, Mike. Even the likes of Finn can wield the willow to get a few boundaries now and again. Also, you could argue that if you're relying on the lower order for runs in a T20 then you are probably going to lose the game anyway.

Hussey was at 7 in the semi-final against Pakistan last time...

I agree in T20 you can afford to have rabbits at 9, 10 and jack. I'm not sure there's anything drastically wrong with wanting an all-rounder at 7 though.

As I say, I'm kind of on the fence with Patel/Briggs. I like Briggs a lot, but I'm not convinced of the balance of any team with Broad at 7.

Suppose you're right. Broad at 7 isn't great. Shows our lack of depth in the all-round department, and also highlights Broad's failure to kick on and develop as a batsman as he really should have done over the past couple of years. He has regressed, if anything.

I won't be getting much support in my campaign for Patel to be at 7 in the Test series Vs. India then. But we'll leave that for now.

He may be average at cricket, but Johnson Charles is a fantastic name. And their are some serious wheels in this pitch. Finn has got some through real quick.

Ha, no you won't JD. He isn't anywhere near good enough to bowl to Indian batsmen. Just not a Test cricketer.

Gayle's in the mood...

Dernbach going again

Fists of Fury wrote:Ha, no you won't JD. He isn't anywhere near good enough to bowl to Indian batsmen. Just not a Test cricketer.

We will save that one for now then!

Big Chris looking ominous. Need to get him facing Finn and let Dernbach bowl at Charles.

Oooh fortunate, a top-edge lands in no man's land.

Good start for the West Indies. England need a wicket or two.

Broad on.

Might;ve gambled with an over of Swann at Gayle

Did anyone just see that stat on the bottom of the screen? Chris Gayle hits a six every 9.1 balls in T20 cricket. Amazing stat.

Gayle likes to take his time for the first few overs and feels better if the other opener can keep things going a bit then. But Charles isn't of much help, 6 of 9 balls and the big man had to go for it right away.

JDizzle wrote:Did anyone just see that stat on the bottom of the screen? Chris Gayle hits a six every 9.1 balls in T20 cricket. Amazing stat.

Cricinfo just posted that he gets a boundary every 4.7 balls. Some strike rate

More luck, another heave ending up with a 4 to 3rd man.

Sensational effort from Bairstow on the boundary. dreadful running from the West Indies, that's twice now they haven't pushed hard enough.

Given as 4, that's rubbish.

That wasn't 4, his foot was clearly off the tope when he touches it

Finn and Swann aside, our bowling is utter dross.

Come on, he was all over the bloody plastic rope!

Mike Selig wrote:

I also find this "pick the best bowlers" a bit simplistic. No one would suggest Mullaly, Tuffnell and Giddins as a lower order was a good idea would they?

I don't think too many would suggest they were the greatest bowling attack either.

I've heard Michael Holding expound the view that ''it is the job of the batsmen to bat, it is the job of the bowlers to bowl''. Not for me to tell one of the greatest cricketers of all time what the roles of players should be. However, it was probably easier for him to come to that view when he was regularly playing with a world class or near world class top three of Greenidge, Haynes and Richards followed by at least one or two other quality batters.

Charles wasting too many balls as he can't keep the singles going.
Can't believe this guy was picked as Chris Gayle's replacement in T-20Is when Gayle was kept out.

Good, hostile opening burst from Finn. Shame he couldn't bowl more balls at Gayle though.

guildfordbat wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

I also find this "pick the best bowlers" a bit simplistic. No one would suggest Mullaly, Tuffnell and Giddins as a lower order was a good idea would they?

I don't think too many would suggest they were the greatest bowling attack either.

I've heard Michael Holding expound the view that ''it is the job of the batsmen to bat, it is the job of the bowlers to bowl''. Not for me to tell one of the greatest cricketers of all time what the roles of players should be. However, it was probably easier for him to come to that view when he was regularly playing with a world class or near world class top three of Greenidge, Haynes and Richards followed by at least one or two other quality batters.

I don't mind telling him I think it's a simplistic viewpoint. I also find Holding can be a bit old-fashioned with his commentating sometimes. Brilliant when talking about the technicalities of fast bowling, but not my favourite.

Charles is really hurting West Indies here. 14 of 17. Poor effort

He isn't MSP. Gayle is taking us to the cleaners and they're at over 9 an over...it is rare that both openers can be going at such a rate, and Finn has kept Gayle quiet too.

Charles hasn't scored of 12 of the 17 balls he faced.

12 dot balls out of 17 faced for Charles... That's not great. To be fair, Gayle has refused a couple of makeable singles also.

LBW shout, just outside the line?

Looked pretty out on second viewing that LBW. Maybe height? Although I don't think England will mind Charles still being out there.

England did well in the last couple of overs of the PP there, mainly thanks to an excellent over from Finn who's bowled well.

Dernbach's over was a poor one. Broad was ok.

Trouble is Gayle can smack it at the same rate through the whole innings. England could do with him out.

They won't mind Charles hanging around for a bit longer tho...

Swann on and turn straight away.

Charles gets lucky with a heave, not as intended but he'll take them.

Decent start from Swann. still would have opened with him.

Hussain spot on there. Start with spin to Gayle.