World Cup 2015

First topic message reminder :

Warm Up game between Ind and Aus ongoing...
it's an official ODI...though after so much cricket why do these sides need a "warm-up"

India's bowling in melt-down and the two most dangerous guys in Aus side Warner and Maxwell get 100s

Looks like Ind will be chasing 375

Afghanistan bowling beautifully here, superb opening spells

On the net-run-rate issue, raf basically has it right. Over the course of the tournament it is calculated by your overall average run-rate scored minus the overall conceded. For the purpose of NRR if you are all out you are assumed to have batted 50 overs.

So taking Ireland, they have scored roughly 580 runs in 95 overs giving them a run-rate of 6.1, and conceded 580 in 100 overs, so 5.8 against, thus a NRR of around 0.3 (figures approximate for the purpose of calculation).

The only thing I would add is that a big win batting first is in practice worth more in your overall NRR (i.e. not just for that match, but the cumulative NRR for the tournament), because your run-rate whilst batting will be weighted over a longer innings. So for example it is better to win by scoring 300 and bowling the other side out for 100, than bowling them out for 100 and chasing it down in 15 or 16 overs.

As a coach I have been involved in NRR considerations a few times. I was always surprised when the opposition seemed less aware, for me it is fairly basic stuff.

atletico86 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Incredibly exciting game and many congratulations to Ireland.

I didn't see the UAE's innings but was surprised Ireland left out off spinner McBrine (who had bowled so tidily against the West Indies) and brought in an extra seamer. I think it's the seamers who are the weak link in Ireland's WC squad - they don't have the pace to be generally effective at this level.

We miss Murtagh, Johnston and big Boyd alot. It doesn't help that Craig Young (once of Sussex), who can bowl mid 80's has been resigned to the bench by big Phil who has a penchant for bits'n'pieces cricketers. Young has preformed very well (in the majority) over the last year. Peter Chase (played few games for Durham at end of last county season), who is also in the squad, can also bowl mid80's but lacks consistency in his line and length. Graeme McCarter, who got released by Gloucestershire should have been in the squad also, although he doesn't have raw pace he is relatively consistent and better than Mooney or Cusack as a bowler. McCarter is in Australia in case someone gets injured (or breaks curfew!!).

My heart couldn't take today, barely survived it. Two from two, but still think we have to win two more to qualify!

Looking forward to tonight, Up the minnows!

Thanks for that input, Atletico. Good to hear from you again.

I seem to recall that big Phil was never too keen on Murtagh even when he was fit and available. Strange and plain wrong to my mind. He's been a reliable mainstay of Middlesex's attack for several seasons.

I didn't realise McCarter was Irish qualified. I saw him playing for Gloucs against Surrey at the Oval in a CC match early last season. He wasn't digging up trees but he just about held his own and got the odd wicket. Like you, I would have thought he could / should have made the Ireland squad.

Afghanistan have a very good chance at getting their first win in this tournament. Scotland haven't really been in this World Cup so far.

Can't believe no one's commented - photo finish right now for the Scots!!

Afghanistan need eleven off nine balls with a wicket in hand

nine off seven. Such pressure

Five off six. The extra ball proving a death knell

What a game, what a win! Afghanistan snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, and win by a single wicket. Absolutely brilliant

kingraf wrote:What a game, what a win! Afghanistan snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, and win by a single wicket. Absolutely brilliant

Best two games of the tournament have been between teams who probably won't be allowed into the next one

Olly wrote:

kingraf wrote:What a game, what a win! Afghanistan snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, and win by a single wicket. Absolutely brilliant

Best two games of the tournament have been between teams who probably won't be allowed into the next one

That's more to do with how they match up against the big boys. Ireland have served the cause well, now we need another scalp.

Olly wrote:

kingraf wrote:What a game, what a win! Afghanistan snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, and win by a single wicket. Absolutely brilliant

Best two games of the tournament have been between teams who probably won't be allowed into the next one

All they have to do is qualify on merit.


But yeah it goes to show you can have exciting matches between weak teams, even if its largely meaningless in the context of the wider competition.

Stella wrote:

Olly wrote:

kingraf wrote:What a game, what a win! Afghanistan snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, and win by a single wicket. Absolutely brilliant

Best two games of the tournament have been between teams who probably won't be allowed into the next one

That's more to do with how they match up against the big boys. Ireland have served the cause well, now we need another scalp.

Can't disagree with Olly, but I think Stella makes a good point on general competitiveness.

Questions for me would be: what sort of crowds are these games attracting? How many games will they end up winning vs. the big 8, or even Bang/Zim?

I am absolutley against the reduction to 10 teams, but maybe there is a happy medium of say 12 teams in the next tournament.

Stella wrote:

Olly wrote:

kingraf wrote:What a game, what a win! Afghanistan snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, and win by a single wicket. Absolutely brilliant

Best two games of the tournament have been between teams who probably won't be allowed into the next one

That's more to do with how they match up against the big boys. Ireland have served the cause well, now we need another scalp.

I thought at the start, given the group Ireland are in, that 3 wins might be enough to see them through. The way Pakistan have performed so far, they have a mountain to climb to overhaul Ireland already. It would be great to see Ireland make it through again.

Gooseberry wrote:

All they have to do is qualify on merit.

But the qualification system is palpably uneven. For a start out of 106 countries playing the game, only 12 are even given the chance of qualifying on ranking. Moreover, the way the ranking system works, allied to the fact that the countries rather than the ICC control the fixtures means in practice the 8 sides qualifying on ranking are basically decided now. How is that "on merit"?

And to top it all, the qualifying tournament will take place in Bangladesh! Nothing like home advantage eh?

Gooseberry wrote:
But yeah it goes to show you can have exciting matches between weak teams, even if its largely meaningless in the context of the wider competition.

1. Still a damn sight more context than all the usual bilateral series in both tests and ODIs (now there's cricket without context for you).
2. Ireland's win over UAE was vitally important in keeping their hopes of a quarter-final place alive.
3. Next WC is set to have a round-robin format featuring 10 teams, of which only the top 4 will progress. How many meaningless matches do you think that will produce once it becomes clear that:
- 2 or so sides are basically far ahead of everyone else and will certainly qualify
- 4 or so sides are pretty much doomed about half-way through the matches
??

The Round Robin is certainly flawed. Putting aside the lack of entertainment of numerous dead rubbers - what about the potential for spot and match fixing.

There are essentially three wealthy cricketing nations now - the lesser cricketers outside of those three teams will be obvious targets for corruption.

VTR wrote:
Questions for me would be: what sort of crowds are these games attracting?

5,000+ apparently for UAE vs Ire. Not huge, but more than most test match days attract everywhere apart from Aus and Eng. Moreover #IREvUAE was the number 1 trend on twitter yesterday towards the end of the game (so we are not even talking middle of the night). Apparently it was the buzz of the talk in the subcontinent as well.

People do care about these matches, and this is despite the non-efforts of the ICC marketing department (seriously if you were a casual cricket fan would you care about teams who the governing body have a more or less open contempt for? What do you think the effect on the casual cricket fan is when they hear the ICC say basically these teams aren't any good and shouldn't be here?).

I have said it for a long time, but market it properly and these games would get substantial interest (and this is clearly borne out by the social media buzz). As would tournaments like the intercontinental cup and the WCL. Remember how engaged this board got over the qualifiers to WCL 8 a couple of years ago when France were playing? Cricket fans will watch cricket when it's on, if it mean something.

VTR wrote:How many games will they end up winning vs. the big 8, or even Bang/Zim?

Well Ireland have one already.

But let's push this argument further for a minute... how many games will Bang/Zim win against the "big 8"? or even further, how many games will WI/Pak (the weaker big 8 sides) win against the other 6? Or go one further, how many games will Eng win against the better sides?
If you reduce this ad infinum you get a WC with about 3 teams. Or come to mention it in 2007/2003 you hand the trophy to Australia at the start given how far ahead they were.

I know that's not entirely your point (you have to stop somewhere, see later), but it does show the silliness of the argument.

VTR wrote:I am absolutley against the reduction to 10 teams, but maybe there is a happy medium of say 12 teams in the next tournament.

I cannot accept that 12 is a happy medium. 12 teams would in all likelihood have excluded UAE and Scotland, so the best two matches so far wouldn't have happened. 12 teams out of 106 is also a significantly smaller proportion than most sports (e.g. Football 32 out of 190odd, rugby 20 out of 120odd). I simply don't see the argument for reduction at all, unless it's based on the overlong group stages (note that the 2019 group stage will actually be longer, as will the tournament overall) or on mismatches (which by and large in this WC have failed to happen).

For me the optimal number of sides is one that:
a. shows a decent proportion of the total sides out there playing cricket (in line with other sports)
b. allows for a coherent and free-running format (so nothing silly like 17 sides), where meaningless matches are as few as possible
c. (because people seem to care) minimises the chances and number of mismatches (although again it should be pointed out that most mismatches here have taken place between the test playing teams, so... I'm not sure why there's so much more fuss over mismatches with associates)

There seems to be an obvious format of 16 teams, in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 progressing through to quarter-finals. All the results matter, upsets matter, short and sweet. Other people have come up with variants on 3 groups of 5 (or 6) with the top placed team going through to semis (or top 2 to quarters) and some kind of tie-breaking format for the other places.

These all make far more sense than what is planned for 2019.

The problem as Mysti pointed out, is that cricket really only has one country with Fort Knox.

Fifa could have Djibouti vs Papa New Guinea as the final and it would draw massive.

Well I'm just throwing a few thoughts out there, playing devil's advocate if you will.

My worry is how the Associates ever become competitive. Kenya, for example had no path to progress from the WC 2003 Semi-Final appearance and now don't even feature. It's a big shame - I could see Ireland going the same way when some of the key players retire. Maybe not sinking quite so far, but perhaps losing some ground to other Associates.

How do Afghanistan go forward or have they already peaked?

Outside of World Cups its a closed shop and seems to be getting worse. It's cause and effect I suppose of wider decisions that the ICC take, which then make an expanded tournament unviable.

It is a pretty damning indictment of your marketing ability to say you can only sell a wc final if India are in it.

It is also patently false (see interest in Ire vs UAE on the subcontinent).

And if it were true then surely the solution would be to try to engage other new markets? Not sure that saying to the US, China et al "you should care about cricket but you're not allowed to play on its main stage" is the right way but hey...

VTR wrote:Well I'm just throwing a few thoughts out there, playing devil's advocate if you will.

My worry is how the Associates ever become competitive. Kenya, for example had no path to progress from the WC 2003 Semi-Final appearance and now don't even feature. It's a big shame - I could see Ireland going the same way when some of the key players retire. Maybe not sinking quite so far, but perhaps losing some ground to other Associates.

How do Afghanistan go forward or have they already peaked?

Outside of World Cups its a closed shop and seems to be getting worse. It's cause and effect I suppose of wider decisions that the ICC take, which then make an expanded tournament unviable.

Ireland have a good youth and domestic set-up. The side playing (and doing well) in this WC features players like Dockrell and Stirling (and the likes of Balbirnie) who are a product of that set-up. They did have a "golden" generation in the 2007 WC, but they built that up through the youth ranks (France played Ireland U19s in 2003, and their side featured Rankin, Kevin O'Brien, Wilson, Porterfield and Morgan; that side basically stayed together from U15s through to senior cricket, with some additions of Joyce, Johnson, Niall O'Brien etc.). When you look at the guys being produced by the youth set-up they will remain there or thereabouts.

Afghanistan also haven't simply come from nowhere (nice though the fairytale is) - they have a very good history recently of doing very well in U19 events, and have a host of talented cricketers. They also have the money to pay their cricketers who are basically full-time professionals. Whilst the facilities are not great compared to England and co, they compare very favourably to the vast majority of other cricketing nations in the world, and this picture of the Afghans training in a car-park which has several mortar holes is very nice and all that, but not actually the truth. They receive a decent amount of money from the ICC (although less than 1/10 of what Zimbabwe and Bangladesh get) and do pretty well with it (the truth being of course that it is cheaper, by an order of magnitude of about 20, to employ someone in Afghanistan than it is in Ireland, but they receive the same ICC funding).

The opportunities point is a key one though. These sides need more matches against sides of their level and better. Ireland need every touring side to England to play them not only in 1 ODI, but in 3. Afghanistan need the same from teams going to India, or the UAE. The other associates need matches against fellow and stronger associates (in the context of the WCL and ICC this actually happens). The weaker sides need regular regional tournaments.

Problem the associates have is none of the top sides want to play them for monetary reasons, and none of the lower ranked sides want to play them in meaningful games for fear of losing ranking points. It's a vicious cycle

Mike Selig wrote:
The opportunities point is a key one though. These sides need more matches against sides of their level and better. Ireland need every touring side to England to play them not only in 1 ODI, but in 3. Afghanistan need the same from teams going to India, or the UAE. The other associates need matches against fellow and stronger associates (in the context of the WCL and ICC this actually happens). The weaker sides need regular regional tournaments.

Its a shame but I just can't see it happening at the moment. The ECB would rather have a 7 game ODI series than 5 and let Ireland have 3 whilst a touring side is over here. People are still gladly shelling out £75 a ticket for such nonsense sadly.

The only hope is the paying public starts to see through it and some more sensible scheduling comes in. For example, the never ending diet of Ashes tests must surely become unpalatable at some point. You don't even have to go that far back to a time when Test matches would often struggle to attract crowds, pre-2005 it was fairly easy to get a ticket and at a reasonable price.

Maybe if the public start to reject never ending ODI series, back to back to back Ashes etc the calendar will be more open to let the developing nations play

Would you pay £60 to see England vs Scotland in an ODI? Also, would England out a full team out? These countries need to get a competitive league started, then go from there.

Stella wrote:Would you pay £60 to see England vs Scotland in an ODI? Also, would England out a full team out? These countries need to get a competitive league started, then go from there.

No I wouldn't but nor would I pay £75 to go and see an ODI in the next 7 game mega series. Though clearly a lot are as these games always sell out.

It would all have to level out so say a game vs. Aus was £40, Scotland £25. Obviously this isn't very likely to happen but you can live in hope!

VTR wrote:

Stella wrote:Would you pay £60 to see England vs Scotland in an ODI? Also, would England out a full team out? These countries need to get a competitive league started, then go from there.

No I wouldn't but nor would I pay £75 to go and see an ODI in the next 7 game mega series. Though clearly a lot are as these games always sell out.

It would all have to level out so say a game vs. Aus was £40, Scotland £25. Obviously this isn't very likely to happen but you can live in hope!

I must admit, I don't like these seven ODI series.

I used to really like the home tri-series but we don't do them anymore. In fact tri-series are pretty much dead around the world. Too much risk of the home team not making the final and some £100 tickets not being sold. Greed, greed, greed

Stella wrote:Would you pay £60 to see England vs Scotland in an ODI? Also, would England out a full team out? These countries need to get a competitive league started, then go from there.

So don't charge £60! I might pay £30 or thereabouts. Plenty of scots would pay that I reckon.

These countries do have a competitive league - it's the intercontinental cup, been running for a while now... In fact below the test system, there are numerous leagues which actually matter (in that if you win you get promoted, if you lose you get relegated, you know how leagues actually are meant to work). It's only the top tier which has all these meaningless bilateral series stuff.

Point is though that the associated need regular matches against better sides to improve.

Nobody likes seven match series'!!! Why would you? It's long and normally painfully one sided.

Great game today.....
it's not the quality but rather the equality of opponents that produce great games....
Equally mediocre opponents produce great games......but can they match up and produce exciting games vs. full sides?

Can the minnow vs. regular side games generate interest and hence TV ratings and gate monies...the answer to those queries will decide how much platform can these sides be given on a big stage like the world cup.

Rather then wasting the highly "saleable" world cup slots on weak team vs strong teams mismatched games.....the organizers(ICC) would much rather have more strong vs strong games such as the 1992 world cup format where all played all and there were so many tough and meaningful games.....


Re: the strength of the sides...I think IRE is at the level Zim were in 1990s when they first got admission......and just a shade better then current Zim side......and definitely better than BD.

I think Afghanistan has the potential to grow.....they are a good bowling side......exciting pace bowlers like their neighbors Pak a bit weak in organized technically correct batting skills.
Given the influecne Ind and Pak have on Afghanistan and the passion they have....they will developvery fast.

KP_fan wrote: ...

I think Afghanistan has the potential to grow.....they are a good bowling side......exciting pace bowlers like their neighbors Pak a bit weak in organized technically correct batting skills.
Given the influecne Ind and Pak have on Afghanistan and the passion they have....they will developvery fast.

I also believe Andy Moles is a good string to the Afghanistan bow. I know of him a bit from his days opening the batting for Warks. A level headed and down to earth guy.

Knows the game and takes it seriously but not too seriously. Quick story. As anyone can tell, Moles likes his food. There was one occasion in a Championship match when he was 90 odd not out at tea. Too nervous to eat anything then, he celebrated his century soon after the resumption by calling for and polishing off a can of coke and a ham sandwich between overs!

Andrew Nixon nails it here:
http://www.cricketeurope4.net/DATABASE/ARTICLES2015/articles/000028/002843-p.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The 92 WC is a classic case of rose-tinted spectacles TBH.

kingraf wrote:Nobody likes seven match series'!!! Why would you? It's long and normally painfully one sided.

Who has the time to watch so much cricket anyway?

Just seen the highlights.

Such a shame for Scotland that ball didn't hit the stumps for the run out at the end.

Well done though Afghanistan.

Back to the actual cricket, I would be a little interested to see how teams would react to a six boundary rider adaptation. I personally have a huge suspicion that with the the fact that every body seems to own the mjolnir as a bat, and the permanent placid pitches, not to mention the outrageous skill set which some batters possess. Basically I think that the moment 200 was scored, so relatively soon after a team chased down 434, a Pandora's Box was opened. They say in the PED game, that the black market is miles ahead of the Drug police. Think the batting patterns are just eons ahead of any rule changes ICC could hope to make.

Terrific win for Afghanistan. Hopefully they and Ireland will take a few more sides down and keep the fight and flag alive for the associates and help the game grow, something the clowns governing the game do not want to happen.......

I think the associate nations should be offered places in more of these tri-nation ODI tournaments that we often get. Perhaps the ICC should move to make that a compulsory move? I mean the lesser nations will NEVER emerge fully if they aren't integrated into the calendar of matches against the test playing nations. Given proper chances I honestly believe lesser nations will become stronger. Look at football for this. Thirty or forty years ago African nations were a joke at World Cups and seen as the whipping boys of the group but when more places were given to them they began to develop and now when each World Cup comes around there is always an African team put forward as a genuine contender. Cricket should take note.

saw highlights...of the afgnistan game....

--shenawari is a sledge-hammer of a batsman, muscles, arms, jerky....nothing subtle or wristy or stylish...brute power, jerkier than Kevin o Brien

--ball was seaming all day...quite appreciably and in these conditions, decent bowling attack that afganistan had...and shapoor at 140+ kph leaft arm is a high quality bowler...like Nehra in 2003

--horrible fielding and catching lapses...both sides letting the opponent come back from dead.

Light drizzle here (@08:30), heavier near the SCG... but it should clear by 2pm.

guildfordbat wrote:

atletico86 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Incredibly exciting game and many congratulations to Ireland.

I didn't see the UAE's innings but was surprised Ireland left out off spinner McBrine (who had bowled so tidily against the West Indies) and brought in an extra seamer. I think it's the seamers who are the weak link in Ireland's WC squad - they don't have the pace to be generally effective at this level.

We miss Murtagh, Johnston and big Boyd alot. It doesn't help that Craig Young (once of Sussex), who can bowl mid 80's has been resigned to the bench by big Phil who has a penchant for bits'n'pieces cricketers. Young has preformed very well (in the majority) over the last year. Peter Chase (played few games for Durham at end of last county season), who is also in the squad, can also bowl mid80's but lacks consistency in his line and length. Graeme McCarter, who got released by Gloucestershire should have been in the squad also, although he doesn't have raw pace he is relatively consistent and better than Mooney or Cusack as a bowler. McCarter is in Australia in case someone gets injured (or breaks curfew!!).

My heart couldn't take today, barely survived it. Two from two, but still think we have to win two more to qualify!

Looking forward to tonight, Up the minnows!

Thanks for that input, Atletico. Good to hear from you again.

I seem to recall that big Phil was never too keen on Murtagh even when he was fit and available. Strange and plain wrong to my mind. He's been a reliable mainstay of Middlesex's attack for several seasons.

I didn't realise McCarter was Irish qualified. I saw him playing for Gloucs against Surrey at the Oval in a CC match early last season. He wasn't digging up trees but he just about held his own and got the odd wicket. Like you, I would have thought he could / should have made the Ireland squad.

He is indeed, Co Derry born and bred. He is back home now and will be playing interpro cricket for the Northwest (where young McBrine is captain). Disappointed he didnt get 'A' contract but surely will once Cusack is given the boot (should have been a year ago). Guildford, I have never seen a coach who places so much on loyalty than Phil Simmons, which is why Murtagh wasn't picked initially. He also has an obsession with bits'n'pieces all-rounders seems to cram as many into a side as possible.Very frustrating as Young is far better than Cusack and Mooney, (as are Chase and McCarter probably).

Think we need to beat Zim and Pakistan to qualify. we haven't played Zimbabwe often recently and think it will be even (maybe have us slight favourites). We played Pakistan twice in Ireland in 2013, tied one match and narrowly lost the other. Both games were in the balance so you never know!

Mike Selig wrote:

Stella wrote:Would you pay £60 to see England vs Scotland in an ODI? Also, would England out a full team out? These countries need to get a competitive league started, then go from there.

So don't charge £60! I might pay £30 or thereabouts. Plenty of scots would pay that I reckon.

These countries do have a competitive league - it's the intercontinental cup, been running for a while now... In fact below the test system, there are numerous leagues which actually matter (in that if you win you get promoted, if you lose you get relegated, you know how leagues actually are meant to work). It's only the top tier which has all these meaningless bilateral series stuff.

Point is though that the associated need regular matches against better sides to improve.

Couldn't agree more Mike. what about having some 2019 World cup games in Scotland, Ireland and Holland. Ireland playing in dublin would be a sellout and great atmosphere. That would be a dreame!!!

Darren Sammy the last of a dying breed. The military mediums.

Ball Tampering?

Just checking it I think.

97-1 after 23. Interesting discussion about team balance. Very few teams in the could successfully have only seven recognised batsmen, and no fifth bowler.

I've been hoping that someone... anybody (well... anybody accessory to requirements) in the team could roll their ankle and we get Albie Morkel in. Good for five or six overs, and is in magnificent form with the bat.

Always wondered what happened to him after that 50 off 18? about 5-6 years ago wasn't it?
Did he have a poor run of form afterwards and fall out of favour with selectors?

Ja, he had a horrid run of form, then became a T20 mercenary. Also dealt with a bit of depression, or at least mental exhaustion if I recall. He's back in his groove now, but Behardien, to be fair, was in ridiculous form in the domestic one day cup (averaged 229), and Albie was injured, so selectors decided to not look into selecting him.

Always thought having brothers playing in the same team has a positive affect... thinking of the Waughs mainly.

Old man Gayle gets Faf!

Chris Gayle goes bang bang. situation looking a little less inviting now