T20 World Cup: Live Matches Discussion

First topic message reminder :

Please feel free to discuss every ball of the 2012 T20 World Cup here.

Who do you think will win?

Sorry, my mistake indeed.

...and then there were four Well done the semi finalists ...

No real hard luck stories - sure India would have profited had run rates from round one carried forward , but everyone know the rules before the tournament started...the other teams were well seen off , even if some games were close , and I reckon the top four have earned their spots.

Bit of a contrast in match ups now : the best two teams , in my opinion , clash in one , and I fancy Sri Lanka to win ; while Australia and West Indies , who both look more like three or four stars and a bunch of fielders making up the numbers , will go head to head again , and it really could go either way depending on which of the big guns fire. My money on Australia who might have got their meltdown out of the way yesterday...but to be honest any of the four could be champions : T20 is a bit like that - skill is required but a bit of luck on the day can determine the outcome rather more than in any longer format...

So I did vote at last : for Sri Lanka - seemed daft that they had the best record and nobody thinks they will win !

That's them stuffed then

I'm going for SL (have seen a lot of Ajmal and co. and played him better in the most recent series than before) to go through. Who they play is anyones guess - I don't see either WI or Australia as anything like the best team in the tournament. I'll go with Australia on this occasion - primarily because I think their aggressive style of cricket works well against WI in these conditions. However, if Narine gets into the Aussie middle order it could easily go WI's way too.

It is almost impossible to predict what Pakistan will do, so I won't bother.

There has been too much talk about Australia being a one-man team IMO: their bowling has pretty much fired as a unit, which is a big reason as to why they are where they are. Watson has of course been the main man with the bat, and the match against Pakistan shows the trouble they could be in if he gets out early, but equally some of the guys down the order are actually good players and could score runs. West Indies's batting relies as much as Australia's on one man, and their bowling more so. This isn't to say that Australia will beat the West Indies, but they certainly have the more balanced side as things stand.

Mike Selig wrote:It is almost impossible to predict what Pakistan will do, so I won't bother.

There has been too much talk about Australia being a one-man team IMO: their bowling has pretty much fired as a unit, which is a big reason as to why they are where they are. Watson has of course been the main man with the bat, and the match against Pakistan shows the trouble they could be in if he gets out early, but equally some of the guys down the order are actually good players and could score runs. West Indies's batting relies as much as Australia's on one man, and their bowling more so. This isn't to say that Australia will beat the West Indies, but they certainly have the more balanced side as things stand.

Agree that Australia have got the better bowling unit. In fact if Gayle doesn't produce an absolute special, the advantage is with Australia because of this better bowling unit.

Shelsey93 wrote:I'm going for SL (have seen a lot of Ajmal and co. and played him better in the most recent series than before) to go through. Who they play is anyones guess - I don't see either WI or Australia as anything like the best team in the tournament. I'll go with Australia on this occasion - primarily because I think their aggressive style of cricket works well against WI in these conditions. However, if Narine gets into the Aussie middle order it could easily go WI's way too.

Huh? Australia have lost only one match. Who do you think are better?

WI could offcourse beat australia. The gayle factor could beat anyone. Its just wether it happens or not. If gayle is out cheap- Aus all the way

ShankyCricket wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:I'm going for SL (have seen a lot of Ajmal and co. and played him better in the most recent series than before) to go through. Who they play is anyones guess - I don't see either WI or Australia as anything like the best team in the tournament. I'll go with Australia on this occasion - primarily because I think their aggressive style of cricket works well against WI in these conditions. However, if Narine gets into the Aussie middle order it could easily go WI's way too.

Huh? Australia have lost only one match. Who do you think are better?

Well, the Aussies have been very reliant on their strong top-order.

In a crunch, close game (which they haven't had yet) I think their bowling is questionable, particularly at the death and also somewhat in the spin department.

Overall I think its too close to call. I do think that the winner will come from the other semi though.

Shelsey93 wrote:

ShankyCricket wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:I'm going for SL (have seen a lot of Ajmal and co. and played him better in the most recent series than before) to go through. Who they play is anyones guess - I don't see either WI or Australia as anything like the best team in the tournament. I'll go with Australia on this occasion - primarily because I think their aggressive style of cricket works well against WI in these conditions. However, if Narine gets into the Aussie middle order it could easily go WI's way too.

Huh? Australia have lost only one match. Who do you think are better?

Well, the Aussies have been very reliant on their strong top-order.

In a crunch, close game (which they haven't had yet) I think their bowling is questionable, particularly at the death and also somewhat in the spin department.

Overall I think its too close to call. I do think that the winner will come from the other semi though.

Their middle order is better than that of Pakistan. I agree with the rest of it but I think its a bit much to say that they are not among the better sides in the competition. Who are better? England? NZ? India?

Before the tournament I'd have had India, Pakistan, SL, England and SA as the best teams.

After seeing everybody play in the tournament I can't look far past Sri Lanka and Pakistan. I still prefer the look of India and SA to Australia too, and arguably a firing England.

On performance during the tournament Australia and Sri Lanka have been the best, but that counts for zero now we're at the knockout stage.

Shelsey93 wrote:Before the tournament I'd have had India, Pakistan, SL, England and SA as the best teams.

After seeing everybody play in the tournament I can't look far past Sri Lanka and Pakistan. I still prefer the look of India and SA to Australia too, and arguably a firing England.

On performance during the tournament Australia and Sri Lanka have been the best, but that counts for zero now we're at the knockout stage.

What is this "firing England"? Without KP, they were just not good enough.

SA? Really? They have been awful.

ShankyCricket wrote:

SA? Really? They have been awful.

Agreed. But looking at the teams objectively one with Steyn and Morkel opening the bowling, Botha as a spinner and Peterson and Kallis in reserve is going to be strong. Then add in AB (not firing on full cylinders of late), Amla, Kallis with the bat and Duminy and you have a good side.

Without KP England could still have fired. From the evidence of the tournament their batting needs a lot of work, but I still think they are arguably a better all round team than Australia, who have got though to this stage off the back of strong performances from a very small number of players.

Shelsey93 wrote:

ShankyCricket wrote:

SA? Really? They have been awful.

Agreed. But looking at the teams objectively one with Steyn and Morkel opening the bowling, Botha as a spinner and Peterson and Kallis in reserve is going to be strong. Then add in AB (not firing on full cylinders of late), Amla, Kallis with the bat and Duminy and you have a good side.

Without KP England could still have fired. From the evidence of the tournament their batting needs a lot of work, but I still think they are arguably a better all round team than Australia, who have got though to this stage off the back of strong performances from a very small number of players.

Really??? Apart from the spin department, I fail to see in which department they hold the edge over Aus. You may say pace bowling but Cummins and Starc for my money are comfortably better than Broad/Dernbach. Finn has carried England's pace attack. Batting wise, its a no brainer. Even without Watson, players like Warner, Hussey and White are better than Morgan/Wright/Hales.

Though I don't know how badly England would have to perform to attract criticism from you and accept that they look pretty listless without KP

I'm talking about on paper here rather than in the tournament.

On paper I think England have the better pace attack, and by some distance (particularly when the Aussies don't have Harris in their team). In this tournament the pace attacks have performed as well as each other - both have occasionally been whacked but on the whole done their jobs.

Over the last few years Australia have constantly had issues closing out close matches, because of a lack of death bowlers. Starc and Watson have both been pummled at the end of an innings on a couple of occasions. I don't think Starc or Cummins are better than Broad at this stage.

Oh, and, somewhere on this thread I did criticise the England teams performance here quite a lot. I've also never said England are a better team without KP - just that one player won't necessarily win you a tournament, and that, in the first instance, England had no choice but to omit him.

BTW not sure why you rate Botha as a spinner. He barely spins it.

Starc is a very good death bowler, I can't remember him getting tap too often. Every bowler at the death goes around the park at some stage, but Starc's yorker from around the wicket usually does pretty well.

However he's not as good as Broad (yet); Broad had a very good tournament. Finn is superior to Cummins.

However Australia's bowling attack has been considerably better than England's in this tournament. Apart from the West Indies match they haven't conceded 160. England, apart from New Zealand (and Afghanistan) always have.

If Australia are top-heavy (which they are) what are Sri Lanka?

Whilst my gut reaction would be to agree with Shelsey's assessment that the winner should come from the SL-Pakistan semi, I'm not sure it's borne out by anything we've seen this tournament.

Starc and Cummins are certainly better than the highly overrated Dernbach. But Broad has far more experience, and at this stage, I would say that experience makes him a better bowler.
In the batting department A Pietersenless England only have Morgan as a proven world class batsman. Wright played a couple of good hands in the tournament but his overall record is at best average. Hales is inexperienced, Kieswetter is nothing more than ok. Buttler and Bairstow are tallented but not yet proven in this format at the highest level.
Australia on the other hand have a very fine top 3. Watson, Warner and Hussey. But the rest of the lineup has similar problems to those of England.

anyone watching the women? Greenway has just produced a nice bit of fielding which allied to chaotic running has NZ 0/1 after five balls, England having inserted them into bat.

Watching it MfC. Nice work. Nearly a second wicket there too now.

Scratch that, found one.

Thought I would stick it on!!

Comeon england

I am not a big knowledege on the womens game- Do they ever hit 6's!

Occasionally, maybe on average one per innings or thereabouts?

I think the West Indies have a couple of big hitters who have been clearing the ropes fairly regularly.

Yes they do. The rope is in a few metres though.

some, but not nearly as often as the men mysti.

lovely combination of deliveries from Brunt: the short one followed up by a pin-point yorker, but Devine is equal to the task and keeps it up.

NZ not scoring enough runs at the moment, just 16-1 after 5.

not a great shot from Devine there, choosing to go for the big hit to where the fielders in the deep are. Brunt takes the easy catch, and NZ are 17-2.

can we get Sarah Taylor in the men's team? we need a decent keeper-batsman in the shorter form

think that's out. Yes, stumped by a distance! lovely bowling from Colvin, flight, dip and turn, and quick hands from Taylor does the rest. NZ 42-4 after 11 overs and in real trouble here.

Sanjay thought Holly Colvin was a wrist spinner!

Don't commentators have to do a bit of homework? First of all we had the ludicrous non-knowledge of associate cricket from Bumble, Bhogle and co, now this.

Sarah Taylor I would rate as technically the best keeper in the game right now.

it's disappointing TBH, I understand commentators not being sure about some guy on debut who's barely played any FC cricket (like that SL bowler), but Colvin has been around for a long time (as have most of the Associates)... Lack of homework as you say.

you might have to define "in the game" a bit more precisely, but if you're talking international (men and women) you're probably not far off...

msp83 wrote:Starc and Cummins are certainly better than the highly overrated Dernbach. But Broad has far more experience, and at this stage, I would say that experience makes him a better bowler.
In the batting department A Pietersenless England only have Morgan as a proven world class batsman. Wright played a couple of good hands in the tournament but his overall record is at best average. Hales is inexperienced, Kieswetter is nothing more than ok. Buttler and Bairstow are tallented but not yet proven in this format at the highest level.
Australia on the other hand have a very fine top 3. Watson, Warner and Hussey. But the rest of the lineup has similar problems to those of England.

If I was picking a combined lineup from the respective squads (sorry KP) in SL it'd be:

Watson
Warner
M. Hussey
Morgan
D.Hussey
Wright/Maxwell
Wade
Broad
Swann
Finn

With one of Hogg/Patel/Briggs slotting in as 2nd spinner - I can't decide

Alot of love for greenway- Not suprised either. Top catch that was

Greenway really is a fantastic fielder isn't she? England's bowlers have lost their length a bit though.

Pete- No Gayle!!!

oh sorry- you only did aus and england.. DOH

England should have too much skill and experience for NZ....Target of less than 100 should be straightforward.

12 - 0 off three overs. Edwards played several good shots as well as playing and missing about 5 times....

34/1 off 8. England have this under control right now, particularly as their two best players are out in the middle, but a few tight overs and the required rate goes up all of a sudden.

Compare and contrast the ignoronamus with Nasser in the commentary box: Lydia Greenway comes in, "nobody on the sweep, that's a surprise" first ball Greenway tries the lap sweep. At least someone knows his stuff.

Taylor hits a 6 62 - 2. Need 32 off 8 overs with 8 wickets in hand...

OHH A 6!!!

Very professional from England. Fielding has outshone New-Zealand's considerably (a couple of excellent catches notwithstanding), batswomen have been a lot more creative and assured as to which areas to score in. Bowling has been fairly even, the difference is England have put the poor balls away a lot better, and been a lot more positive.

Lydia Greenway out to her favourite reverse-sweep. All over bar the shouting though.

well to be honest a target of less than a hundred was never going to trouble a batting line-up of England's quality. Edwards and Marsh set it up, Greenway and Taylor finishing it off comfortably.

England will feel they bowled a few too many loose balls, but other than that a very polished performance.

"Perhaps a little stutter in the run chase" says Ian Ward. Eh? England were always in control there.

Nice to have Nasser commentating, easily the stand out of the Sky team throughout the world cup.

the commentators clearly expect alot !! that seemed like a very accomplished win

England were always in control, but, having watched all their televised games home and away over the last two or three years, I thought this was only a 7 or 8 out of 10 effort.

Their performance with the ball declined a bit in the last few overs, and there were some fumbles in the field. They also never got the rate up towards the type of range that would get them 130+ batting first (of course, their first priority was probably just to make sure they won). The fact that they still won by so much, against one of the major teams, shows just how far ahead of the pack they are.

Australia could be interesting though. We've beaten them comfortably in the last few encounters, but I think they're more likely to capitalise on any slight lapses.

Pakistan doing very well here- SL only 117 of 18

I don't think Sri Lanka have enough under the usual circumstances. But Pakistan is Pakistan, they are capable of making heavy weather of any chase.

Strange innings from Sri Lanka, and Dilshan in particular. Jayawardene played well but Dilshan's slow going has to have had a major hand in Sangakara getting out so soon. Then Mendis came in and tried to thrash everything for 4.

Still, a good last over from Perera (Gul too full) means Pakistan have to chase 140. Pressure on that, they are slightly favourites but given the pitch is a typical slow turner it could be tough.

Intriguing match in prospect.

No surprises Matthews with the first over. Expect a few cutters.