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?

Pollard strikes, that should be the end of it!.

nope, that's it, Bailey goes for a big shot but drags it a bit and it goes down deep mid-wicket's throat.

lovely innings from Bailey, but not nearly enough unfortunately...

Bailey gone...well played.

Me too...need some sleep. Congrats WI , and good night all...

Pollard gets Bailey. Fine innings from the captain. At least he's saved some pride.

And another 1.

well then- what an innings byWI, oz out for sure

Good to see the players having a bit of a laugh together.

Anyone else find this "pulse question" thing completely inane? I always thought that if they'd put the same question in different circumstances then the answer would be reversed... take this one, "who is the stronger captain?" Ask that after the group match and everyone says Bailey...

Well it should be a great final.

I'm tending towards a Windies victory now in the Final although SL should be up for it at home. I wish both teams the best of luck.

"who is the stronger captain?" what a silly question!

well I supported england, then Aus , now WI- This offcourse = SL win

Southend? Turn it up Junior!

mystiroakey wrote:well I supported england, then Aus , now WI- This offcourse = SL win

You think you've got problems! I supported France, then Ireland, then Afghanistan!

Think they should bring Narine back on and try and get done with it.

Yes, he comes back and gets Hogg.

I really don't like Australia that much. I wasn't betting on India winning the title, and I had no pleasant surprises there. Didn't give England a chance particularly as they were without their best batsman. I was hoping that the West Indies would win it, but we all know they are a bit fickle. But they have managed to progress so far, and now they are through to the final, Ravi Rampaul finishes things off.

There we go. Well done Windies.
They completely obliterated Australia.

msp83 wrote:I really don't like Australia that much. I wasn't betting on India winning the title, and I had no pleasant surprises there. Didn't give England a chance particularly as they were without their best batsman. I was hoping that the West Indies would win it, but we all know they are a bit fickle. But they have managed to progress so far, and now they are through to the final, Ravi Rampaul finishes things off.

Bad holiday experience?

There it is.

Well done to the West Indies and Sri Lanka. You feel it's not a good match-up for the West Indies, you would fancy Sri Lanka to cope much better with Narine than their opponents do with Mendis. Gayle will of course be key, but so will Samuels who usually plays spin well, he'll have to bat a bit more responsibly.

Linebreaker wrote:If they get over 130 I'll be happy.

Linebreaker - so you're happy although, I guess, not ecstatic!

Linebreaker wrote:

msp83 wrote:I really don't like Australia that much. I wasn't betting on India winning the title, and I had no pleasant surprises there. Didn't give England a chance particularly as they were without their best batsman. I was hoping that the West Indies would win it, but we all know they are a bit fickle. But they have managed to progress so far, and now they are through to the final, Ravi Rampaul finishes things off.

Bad holiday experience?

The place itself is actually quite nice but I can see your point about the actual players... tend to agree to some extent. Know what you mean, etc.

Sri Lanka is a quality outfit in limited over cricket, and playing at home their strength doubles.
Lanka have the better balance, but West Indies have Chris Gayle, and a few others who also can hit it big. I want the WI to win, I won't be disappointed if Lanka win it though. Looking forward to a good game of cricket.

Linebreaker wrote:

msp83 wrote:I really don't like Australia that much. I wasn't betting on India winning the title, and I had no pleasant surprises there. Didn't give England a chance particularly as they were without their best batsman. I was hoping that the West Indies would win it, but we all know they are a bit fickle. But they have managed to progress so far, and now they are through to the final, Ravi Rampaul finishes things off.

Bad holiday experience?

That's a good one LB!.

guildfordbat wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:If they get over 130 I'll be happy.

Linebreaker - so you're happy although, I guess, not ecstatic!

Relieved that it's now over and resigned to the fact that they were comprehensively outplayed, Guildford. Does that make sense?

Maybe happy is too strong a word in retrospect. Certainly not ecstatic. You're right there!

How can you not like the brash aussies!!

But then everyone loves the WI's - back involved in international cricket - about time.

Hey mysti, we're probably gonna run into another brick wall in Rosario on Sunday (Sat nite for you)

Ah... it's all character building stuff I suppose.

congrats to windies!!

however sri lanka favs in final IMHO.

Linebreaker wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:If they get over 130 I'll be happy.

Linebreaker - so you're happy although, I guess, not ecstatic!

Relieved that it's now over and resigned to the fact that they were comprehensively outplayed, Guildford. Does that make sense?

Maybe happy is too strong a word in retrospect. Certainly not ecstatic. You're right there!

Linebreaker -yes, makes sense and you're taking it the right way. To an extent you were unlucky in that almost everything went for the Windies on the same day that Aus had an absolute stinker!

mystiroakey wrote:How can you not like the brash aussies!!

But then everyone loves the WI's - back involved in international cricket - about time.

I know, it's confusing. It's not as if the West Indies ever behaved badly whilst they were dominant is it? They never slowed down the game to a crawl when in danger of losing (and people complain of over rates now?), Michael Holding certainly never kicked at the stumps when an umpiring decision went against him, and Colin Croft would never have barged into an umpire in the back whilst running into bowl...

I'm always astounded by how short people's memories are... The dominant Australian team was brash to the point of arrogance of course. But no more so than any dominant side in the history of all sports. I suspect what they did wrong was that they never quite reached the depths of the West Indian side of the late 90s/early 00s whilst rebuilding, so people never had time to feel truly sorry for them.

What with Gayle's struggles towards the end of the WI innings? Hopefully he would be fit and available for the final.

I can see the appeal the Windies may have on fans of other nations (they are my 3rd or 4th team too probably) but I also have had those mental scars from the late 70s early 80s watching us get taken apart. So it's nothing new to me.

In fact, tonight was very reminiscent of some of those days when Australia looked simply hopeless against them.

(would you believe they've gone straight to a replay of 1985 series vs WI as I type... Haynes has already clubbed a few fours... and another but now Mathews had cleaned up Larry Gomes)

Mike Selig wrote:Anyone else find this "pulse question" thing completely inane? I always thought that if they'd put the same question in different circumstances then the answer would be reversed... take this one, "who is the stronger captain?" Ask that after the group match and everyone says Bailey...

Mike - totally agree. As well as the answer too often being geared to the state of the match being shown, the questions can be poorly and sloppily worded allowing for different interpretations.

A question earlier this week was ''Can the West Indies win this tournament?''. It soon became clear that the answers were being interpreted as responding to the question ''Will the West Indies win this tournament?''. For me, these were (and still are) two separate questions with ''Yes'' and ''No'' answers respectively.

yes and maybe

Linebreaker wrote:

(would you believe they've gone straight to a replay of 1985 series vs WI as I type... Haynes has already clubbed a few fours... and another but now Mathews had cleaned up Larry Gomes)

Thanks, Linebreaker. I'm sure Larry Gomes selflessly sacrificed his wicket for the team. It's been a few months since I raved about the immense value of Gomes to a team of many all time greats. Regular posters can blame you for giving me another opportunity.

guildfordbat wrote:
Thanks, Linebreaker. I'm sure Larry Gomes selflessly sacrificed his wicket for the team. It's been a few months since I raved about the immense value of Gomes to a team of many all time greats. Regular posters can blame you for giving me another opportunity.

Guildford - that took over 10 minutes. What kept you?

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:
Thanks, Linebreaker. I'm sure Larry Gomes selflessly sacrificed his wicket for the team. It's been a few months since I raved about the immense value of Gomes to a team of many all time greats. Regular posters can blame you for giving me another opportunity.

Guildford - that took over 10 minutes. What kept you?

Oddly for a team that have got to the final I'd say that was WI's first complete performance of the tournament.

It certainly lays down a marker and gives them momentum for the final. They start as second favourites but they can now certainly win.

For WI a concern might be that SL's top three play spin well, and therefore that the lesser spinners (and Badree, who I'd describe as pretty much a medium-pacer) could go the distance. That might mean Sammy, who has underbowled himself thus far, having to take a bit more responsibility.

Giving Doherty (or any spinner other than Ajmal/ Narine) the last over against Gayle and Pollard was a recipe for disaster in my book. I called what would happen from the moment he got the ball in his hand. This was probably the result of poor selection from Australia, who would have found more utility from Clint McKay than either White or Doherty in my view.

I thought it was very similar to the one v england tbh- just even better

mystiroakey wrote:I thought it was very similar to the one v england tbh- just even better

Against England they didn't fire with the bat down the order. Charles rode his luck and England weren't quite on their A-game but once we got into Pollard, Bravo etc. we were on top.

The score they made v us perhaps should have been chased. There was no chasing that score today for Australia.

Perhaps the wrong place but I just noticed that Chris Gayle won't be at the CLT20 - none of Somerset (who, like Afridi at Hants, he was registed for so would be able to play), RCB, Sydney Thunder or Jamaica qualified!

Perhaps this could be a lesson to all those who think England would have gone from poor to near-winners with KP: having the best in the world doesn't always lead to success.

This tournament remains grossly uneven though - a team can have six overseases in the squad and 4 in the team, but the players have to be registered during the qualifying tournament - a county can't play more than two overseas in the FLt20 so its likely that at most they'll have three registered. Bonkers. Then Narine, Pollard and Bravo are allowed to be included in their IPL teams as overseas players instead of playing for T&T who don't have any overseas...

I must say the quality of the cricket this afternoon disappointed me somewhat. Gayle batted well (though Aus managed to starve him of the strike somewhat) but the rest of WI's cricket was very ordinary. They bowled OK for the first 8 or 9 overs of Aus's innings before losing it a bit (Russell's over was hopeless). Their running between the wickets was shoddy, and their fielding poor. Neither Sammy nor Russell are remotely justifying their places at the moment: Russell in particular is basically a specialist fielder. Aus were, Bailey aside, poor with bat and ball and in the field. Their strategy was pretty poor too. Their running between the wickets was good though.

For a semi-final of a world event, I thought the standard was shoddy. In fact I'd go as far as to say that from an "out-cricket" viewpoint - that is, not just batting ang bowling (so fielding, running between the wickets, gameplan, etc.) - no side has particularly impressed me throughout. Contrast this to the last T20 where both England and Australia had clear gamplans (for Aus it was attack with pace early with the ball and blast through the opposition - England relied on a powerhouse top 3, Morgan as a finisher and an unrelenting bowling attack) and were excellent in these other aspects, and I confess myself disappointed.

Maybe I'm becoming too perfectionist and am no longer enjoying T20 for the WHAM-BAM fun that it originally was (even meant to be?), but both teams who've reached the final seem a bit one-dimensional to me (SL rely on their top 3, while WI rely on Gayle with the bat and Narine with the ball).

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I must say the quality of the cricket this afternoon disappointed me somewhat. Gayle batted well (though Aus managed to starve him of the strike somewhat) but the rest of WI's cricket was very ordinary. They bowled OK for the first 8 or 9 overs of Aus's innings before losing it a bit (Russell's over was hopeless). Their running between the wickets was shoddy, and their fielding poor. Neither Sammy nor Russell are remotely justifying their places at the moment: Russell in particular is basically a specialist fielder. Aus were, Bailey aside, poor with bat and ball and in the field. Their strategy was pretty poor too. Their running between the wickets was good though.

For a semi-final of a world event, I thought the standard was shoddy. In fact I'd go as far as to say that from an "out-cricket" viewpoint - that is, not just batting ang bowling (so fielding, running between the wickets, gameplan, etc.) - no side has particularly impressed me throughout. Contrast this to the last T20 where both England and Australia had clear gamplans (for Aus it was attack with pace early with the ball and blast through the opposition - England relied on a powerhouse top 3, Morgan as a finisher and an unrelenting bowling attack) and were excellent in these other aspects, and I confess myself disappointed.

Maybe I'm becoming too perfectionist and am no longer enjoying T20 for the WHAM-BAM fun that it originally was (even meant to be?), but both teams who've reached the final seem a bit one-dimensional to me (SL rely on their top 3, while WI rely on Gayle with the bat and Narine with the ball).

I tend to agree. No team in the tournament has been flawless (or as near to as you'd expect for a winner of a global event). The same could probably be said at the 2011 World Cup when India won despite their bowling making little impact on the tournament.

There were indeed two stand-out teams in 2010, in England and Australia. Nobody has achieved those high standards.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
Maybe I'm becoming too perfectionist...

I think you've just spent too much time around me...

I agree with the general gist of the post though. I think this tournament has shown that you can get very far in a T20 tournament on the back of a few players performing. SL have essentially had their top 3 and then Mendis and Malinga (with the odd support act), WI have had Gayle and, erm... even Narine hasn't exactly set the world on fire, Australia have had Warner, Watson, and their seamers...

Perhaps as teams and players have figured T20 out more it's just become a bit more formulaic? With the preferred method being to keep wickets in hand and have a bash at the end. You know which balls are likely to go the distance, which shots each batsmen is likely to play and at what time in their innings, etc. I don't know what it is, but certainly this tournament has lacked a bit of spark. Perhaps it's also lacked that magical innings (Gayle could have played it today had he faced more balls, and Morgan played a gem in a lost cause, but we haven't had Morgan's knock against the West Indies last time (including that ridiculous shot off Rampaul over short 3rd man) or Hussey's knock against Pakistan, or Yuvraj's knock against Australia in the first tournament...) or spell (Mendis of course had that ridiculous success against Zimbabwe, but...)?

What do others think? Or have you just enjoyed it for what it is? I look to T20 to provide the game with innovations (all these reverse thingies, the slow bouncer, the wide yorker, opening with spin becoming fashionable again...). Nothing has stood out this tournament really...

Gayle's tactic of scoring at a slow rate even by Test standards in the early overs is an interesting development. He's really the only player who does that thus far, but you'd also think he's the only one who can pull it off - he scores so many runs aerially that whether its the powerplay or not is of little concern to him, and he backs himself to be able to turn 2 off 10 into 20 off 14 once he feels in.

I wonder though if others will try that a bit more having seen the consistency he's had since starting to take a bit more of a look.

Watson's done that a fair bit as well to be fair. Against India he had 5 off 13 or something at one stage. I think in general batsmen have figured out that you can have a look early on, even if just for 3 or 4 balls and get set.

Thin dividing line between success and failure. Kiewswetter tried to play himself in then the moment he tried an attacking shot he was out. Admittedly that was a player who was well out of form....

Perhaps the key is that only one or two players can do that - recognised by the whole team as being too valuable an asset to throw away lightly, either because they are clearly the best or because they are in top form. If it's anyone else it can put too much pressure on the rest of the team and they start to panic.

There was just one person that picked WI in the poll above. That person was...

If you remember, England wasn't terrific during the group stages in 2010 but managed to play consistent, good cricket there after.
I think Sri Lanka showed remarkable consistency in the tournament so far. Their top 3 are class act, but against England, when the top 3 didn't complete the task they had started, Jeevan Mendis, Angelo Mathews and Perera all chipped in. Kulasekhara has been consistent, Mathews kept things quite or picked up important wickets at times as he did against Pakistan, Lasith Malinga, Ajantha Mendis, Rangana Herath, all produced match winning performances. Even young Akhila Dananjaya played his role. What more could you ask for?

msp83 wrote:If you remember, England wasn't terrific during the group stages in 2010 but managed to play consistent, good cricket there after.
I think Sri Lanka showed remarkable consistency in the tournament so far. Their top 3 are class act, but against England, when the top 3 didn't complete the task they had started, Jeevan Mendis, Angelo Mathews and Perera all chipped in. Kulasekhara has been consistent, Mathews kept things quite or picked up important wickets at times as he did against Pakistan, Lasith Malinga, Ajantha Mendis, Rangana Herath, all produced match winning performances. Even young Akhila Dananjaya played his role. What more could you ask for?

msp - I take strongly the point you are making.

In a team innings of just 120 balls almost anything can happen. Thus in a t20 international I would rarely predict one side to be a surefire winner (matches against Zimbabwe excepted ). That's partly why I don't dismiss the West Indies' chances tomorrow. However, I do have doubts over too many of their support players. They don't seem good, strong or savvy enough. In particular, I'm not convinced that others will be able to set or reach the necessary target if Gayle goes cheaply.

PS I noticed you mentioned the 606v2 Hall of Fame yesterday. It's planned to start that again shortly and would be good to have you on board.

Leff wrote:There was just one person that picked WI in the poll above. That person was...

leff- am I right?

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

msp83 wrote:On a side note, has Walsh received the credit that is due to him? No other fast bowler over 35 bowled as good and as consistently as he did during the last 3 years of his career, and he could bowl at over 140 KPH even at the age of 38. He's a real legend of the game for me.

Walsh is a legend. But Hadlee was more effective (albeit at 125kph) over the age of 35.

I second that...Hadlee was the most potent...and even deadly bowler at that age even until the day of his retirement.
and we don't know if he was only 125kph...because there were no speed guns.....I suspect he was more in the 125-135kph.

The only other bowler as potent and deadly I have viewed is Akram.

Hadlee was truly the Sultan of Swing

In his early days Hadlee was a tearaway, and probably came in at around 140. Post 1980 or so when he deliberately cut down his run up in search of accuracy and longevity I saw him clocked a couple of times in the high 120s (speed guns happened occasionally).

I played against Hadlee in a club match when he was 45 or so (apologies to everyone for re-telling this one ). He hit a ton in 15 overs for HSOB batting first - granted it was a small field, but the 6s were hitting the top of the pine trees on the boundary. Bowling, he ambled in off a few paces, and our opener cover-drove a 4. The next ball he ambled in, and the ball whistled past the nose.

I batted #8, and came in when Hadlee was bowling his 2nd spell (at that point the run rate required was phenomenal). The best I could manage was 2 play-and-misses outside off stump before the over finished. The next over I wound up at the other end, and Hadlee finished us off the over following.

good to know someone who played with Hadlee.

i remember in early 1980s there was a bowling speed tournament in england.......where the considered fastest bowlers participated.....Marshal won...Hadlee clocked around 90mph.
you are right he may have been in high 120s by late 80s.