Champions Trophy - England and Wales 2013

First topic message reminder :

Jayawardene does bugger all but scratch around for 18 balls looking horribly out of form, then comes down the track and smacks the bowler straight over his head for a six. Class!

Ball again. Jesus umpires, get on with it

I think it should be alright msp, although not too certain. You can never trust the British weather tho

msp83 wrote:How's the weather shaping up for tomorrow? Chance for a T-20 at least?
Michael Clarke remains a doubtful starter for Australia tomorrow.

Beeb says cloudy throughout but clear

GSC wrote:

msp83 wrote:

GSC wrote:Both Williamson and Taylor can feel slightly hard done by with their dismissals but ultimately both correct I think.

Agree on the Taylor wicket, but not really sure on the Williamson one. Think England were very lucky to get away with it.

Maybe, but on the replay theres a slight bit of heel on it. Lucky, but the right decision

BBC's Jonathan Agnew thinks it was a no-ball having seen the replay, and I think I agree. Anyways it doesn't matter at the end.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

BRING ON THE SEMIS!!!! 

Even if it was a no-ball, it was still about a 1 in 100 chance that the Kiwis would have pulled it off. Today, an Australian win or draw will ensure England top the group, whereas a Sri Lanka win will mean it comes down to NRR.

Think there has been altogether too much fuss over the "no ball" incident.
Consider : 

Until quite recently , the umpire on the field was the sole arbiter of no balls.
But in fact no umpires were ever likely to call a bowler for overstepping the crease by a millimeter...for one reason because they couldn't be certain in real time with the naked eye , and also because a minuscule overstep makes absolutely no difference to the ball being delivered : if there is no advantage to the bowler at all , why worry ? 
Obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere , but simply cutting it close is just not a problem for anyone. One might warn a bowler he was risking a no ball call if he was edging closer and closer to infringing , but most umpires would sooner let a bowler get away with a close one rather than make a mistake themselves and make a no ball call that wasn't justified ! Apart from the injustice , it wastes everyone's time...
If anything , I fancy international umpires have been even more tolerant of close no balls now that they have the potential safety net of a check via TV if a wicket falls to a delivery they suspect might have been illegal.
And it certainly seems to me that TV umpires are reluctant to interfere unless an overstep is quite clear. Which is as it should be...in this case , if it is fairness we are after , the  benefit of any doubt surely ought to go to the bowler.

msp83 wrote:

GSC wrote:

msp83 wrote:

GSC wrote:Both Williamson and Taylor can feel slightly hard done by with their dismissals but ultimately both correct I think.

Agree on the Taylor wicket, but not really sure on the Williamson one. Think England were very lucky to get away with it.

Maybe, but on the replay theres a slight bit of heel on it. Lucky, but the right decision

BBC's Jonathan Agnew thinks it was a no-ball having seen the replay, and I think I agree. Anyways it doesn't matter at the end.

 
It was a game changing lucky break
If it was not a noball...then they would have run 2+1 run for the no ball + a Free Hit+Williamson staying.........and compare that to the margin of defeat.
NZ would believe they were hard done by.
 
From an England point of view they should be worried...their bowling line-up went for 10+ runs per over for the last about 8 to 9 overs...against lower middle order batsmen and ones not known for their hitting skills ( Williamson)
 
To me if the conditions are not ultra-seaming Bresnan remmains a 5th bolwer...and not amongts the top3 seamers

The SL performance was worrying.

Not sure about the NZ one. Williamson teed off well and England were more preoccupied by rain

Definitely wasn't a no ball...the HD stills prove that. Plenty of well respected former players (Iain O'Brien of NZ being one) agree that it wasn't due to part of the foot being behind the line at release (it was miniscule, but just about).

England bowled well - James Anderson is peerless in such conditions. Two games to go...

Mitchell Johnson bowled to the left, then to the right, then straight and got a wicket!

Crazy first few balls to the game

Sri Lanka 40-2 after 10. Kusal Perera went in the first over yet again with Mitchell Johnson being the bowler, and Clint McKay then got the massive wicket of in-form Kumar Sangakkara. Sri Lanka have promoted Lahiru Thirimanne up to 4 ahead of Mahela Jayawardene, but he has struggled to get going as of now.

Australia still in control, but Dilshan and Thirimanne are slowly building a partnership. Sri Lanka 58-2 after 14.

Just as the partnership was developing into something significant, the X man comes to Australia's rescue. Doherty got Dilshan to edge to slip, where Shane Watson completed an excellent onehanded diving catch. Sri Lanka 92-3 in the 23rd over. Mahela Jayawardene joins Thirimanne.

The Sri Lankan run rate has been hovering around the 4 an over mark for quite some time. Australia have never let them get away, even when that partnership was developing between Dilshan and Thirimanne.

The 2 Australian spinners, Doherty and Maxwell, have bowled 9 overs between them for combined figures of 1-31.

Lahiru Thirimanne reaches 50.

Doherty continues to keep the Lankan batsmen quiet, but Mahela has started taking the attack to Maxwell. Sri Lanka 128-3 after 31.

Johnson comes back and gets Thirimanne. Sri Lanka 128-4.

Skipper Angelo Mathews ahead of Dinesh Chandimal.

Sri Lanka 151-4 after 36.

Mathews goes, Faulkner with the wicket. The batting powerplay again, proving to be the undoing of a batsman. Will they send Kulashekhara again?

Its Dinesh Chandimal who joined Jayawardene. Australia in control at the moment.

Sri Lanka 178-5 after 40.

Doherty finishes with 1-30 of his 10.

That's the 50 for Mahela Jayawardene.

SL 186-5 after 42. 8 an over from here on will take them to 250.

msp83 wrote:Doherty finishes with 1-30 of his 10.

That should never be allowed to happen

Great reader comment sent into Cricinfo:

Cliff wrote:If Aussie help NZ to qualify, should we finally forgive them for the underarm incident?

It's a start I suppose

that was a very good spell from Doherty, however he is a very average bowler and shouldnt be allowed to bowl a spell like that

SL not able to move through the gears. 190-5 after 43.

11000 runs in ODIS for Mahela.

Kulasekara is runout in the 48th over, and SL are 234-7.

253/8 the final score. Australia need to get the runs in 29 overs to qualify - nigh on impossible.

C'mon Aussies, give up on qualifying and try for the win!

Sri Lanka finish with 253-8. Mahela remaining unbeaten on a classy 84.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:253/8 the final score. Australia need to get the runs in 29 overs to qualify - nigh on impossible.

C'mon Aussies, give up on qualifying and try for the win!

The full set of scenarios:

• If Sri Lanka win this, they are through to the next round.
  
• If Australia win this in 29.1 overs or less, they are through to the next round.
  
• If Australia win this after 29.1 overs, New Zealand are through.
  

253 is a decent total, nothing more. Sri Lanka do have Malinga and Herath, but if the ball doesn't swing, then it is not that challenging to deal with Kulasekara, and Aranga is inexperienced ind not in great form. So this score can be chased. But the Australians are in a difficult situation. They have to win big to qualify, and reach 254 in 29 overs at least. That means go on the attack from ball one, if someone like Watson gets in and bats those 29 overs, then they do have a chance. But more often than note, allout attack from ball one could mean quick wickets. That could open the way to a Sri Lankan win as well. Interesting placed, this game is.

If SL restrict Australia to 164 or below, they'll not only go through, but also will top the group.

Massive advantage to topping the group, purely in the case of rain meaning auto progression.

Australia are going at better than a run-a-ball after 16 overs, but they've lost half the side. 101-5. Voges and Wade at the crease.

Australians have taken the batting powerplay. Wade and Voges trying to take Malinga on. Australia 109-5 after 17. They need another 145 in 73 balls to qualify.

Matthew Wade, coming in at 7 today, is batting on 28 of 18 balls.

Not anymore msp, gone for 31

Aussie seem in a big rush to get out.  Why not just pace it carefully now rather boshimg themselves out?

Australia can win this through nudging and nurdling, thus sending NZ through.

Australia 163-7 after 24. Voges is still there and we all know Mitchell Johnson, who's just joined him can bat, but a qualification, with 91 needed of 31 balls seems too far away, and even the win looks distant.

Australia 168-7, that means England are topping the group regardless of whatever be the result of this game.

And as the Aussies pass 164, England win the group and will play the Saffers at The Oval on Wednesday!

#rainrainrain

I believe England have topped the group!

Bring on the Saffers!

And Mitch J is gone now. Australia 168-8.

Aussie couldn't get it done,  seemed in such a rush.

But SL versus India is tasty for Thursday.