2015 World Cup

First topic message reminder :

March

Semi-finals

24 Semi-final 1, South Africa v New Zealand, Auckland (01:00 GMT)

26 Semi-final 2, India v Australia, Sydney (03:30 GMT)

Final

29 Final, Melbourne (05:30 BST)

I checked in the middle of the night and say it was something like 5 for 1...at that point it was game on. As it is it appears the chase was pretty comfortable, Bangaldesh got well abover the rate straight away despite the early lose and ended up with 6 wickets and 2 overs to spare in a canter home in bat friendly conditions.
Certainly closer than many games have been and Scotland had a real sniff but in the end no nail biter.

It is fair to say though that Bangladesh can be given a game by teams at this level.

England's fate out of their hands now, I think - though, it is rather unlikely that Bangladesh will defeat New Zealand.

Duty281 wrote:England's fate out of their hands now, I think - though, it is rather unlikely that Bangladesh will defeat New Zealand.

The way things are going they might not need to, a win over England would be enough for them

The Loaded Dog wrote:Felt sorry for Coetzer and Scotland after having posted a quite sizeable total of 318 but that was also a gutsy reply from Bangladesh.
Some huge hits from Mushfiqur and Rahman.

Absolutely right, LD.

I know this may sound hard on Scotland given their set up and that they still topped 300 but they didn't make the most of their closing overs when batting. From 250/3 off 42 at this beautiful but small Nelson ground, they should have been looking to reach 350.

England's bowlers should be much more of a challenge for Bangladesh but our forthcoming opponents have shown they're Tigers and not P*ssy Cats!

Just one observation on international one day cricket from this World Cup.

The potential massive onslaught that the batting team (provided it has a few wickets in hand) can now realistically make in its closing overs seems to have made the concept of a par score so much more difficult, if not nigh on impossible, to assess.

What the hell is going on in the England dressing room?

Steve Finn has taken to wearing a bra, presumably to deflect attention from KPs absence

Spoiler:

Worse still he appears to be wearing last seasons trousers.

Looks like Saker could do with a girdle.

guildfordbat wrote:Just one observation on international one day cricket from this World Cup.

The potential massive onslaught that the batting team (provided it has a few wickets in hand) can now realistically make in its closing overs seems to have made the concept of a par score so much more difficult, if not nigh on impossible, to assess.

Sounds simple but really the aim has to be as many runs as possible - you have to back yourself to get 330-350 to be in with a shout.

Olly wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Just one observation on international one day cricket from this World Cup.

The potential massive onslaught that the batting team (provided it has a few wickets in hand) can now realistically make in its closing overs seems to have made the concept of a par score so much more difficult, if not nigh on impossible, to assess.

Sounds simple but really the aim has to be as many runs as possible - you have to back yourself to get 330-350 to be in with a shout.

Hi Olly - what I was really trying to get at was that until quite recently a decent pundit before play began could have a look at the wicket plus perhaps the size of the outfield and come up with a score (the par score) which the side batting first would need to get beyond to be ahead in the game. Admittedly, even a good pundit could over or under estimate the par score by 10 to 20 runs but generally he would be close to the right area. Nowadays, knowing what that right area / the par score should be is so very much harder to call as the amount of runs that the last dozen overs can realistically yield is massively bigger than at any time in the past.

300 is still a good score. Little more chaseable, but seven years ago, we chased down 434. In 2011, England nearly chased down 338. 300 is now more of a 50-50, but I'd always rather be the team defending it, than chasing it.

It's only real been Sri Lanka (against England) and India (against Australia in 2013) that I can think if who chased down 300+ with effortless ease.

kingraf wrote:300 is still a good score. Little more chaseable .... 300 is now more of a 50-50, but I'd always rather be the team defending it, than chasing it ...

H Raf - yes, 300 is still a good score. You say you would always rather be the team defending it. I would probably agree with you at the start of each second innings - back my opening bowlers and first change to get amongst the wickets, have the opposition 3 or 4 down for 60 odd and there's little coming back from that. Pretty near ideal scenario for the team bowling second.

However - and this is where I feel the international one day game has changed - I would be far less confident now than in the past if my opponents batting second had, say, 7 or more wickets in hand going into the last 20 overs even if (and this is where things are different)) they were some fair way behind the required rate.

I'm really trying to emphasise that the last 10 to 20 overs of an ODI now give so much more potential for run scoring than was ever previously considered feasible and that this makes it much more difficult to say what is a par or even winning score.

West Indies. At least England arent the worst test side at this world cup.

Gooseberry wrote:West Indies. At least England arent the worst test side at this world cup.

Its close I would say. Though if Windies pull this out of the hat, then they aren't taking that hard-earned tag off England just yet!

Gooseberry wrote:West Indies. At least England arent the worst test side at this world cup.

Wouldn't go that far, at least the Windies have beaten a test playing nation

That run out!

I agree with guildford that Scotland should have scored a good 20 runs more against Bangladesh. IMO that was a great opportunity for them.

I would also like to point out that the associates have been battered by the top teams (namely Aus, NZ, Ind and SA) but then so have all the other sides. Aus, NZ, Ind, SA beat Eng, SL, Pak and WI (say) just as comprehensively as they have been beating the associate sides. The real gulf at this WC is between the top teams and the rest. Let's not forget that UAE gave SL a very close game etc.

In truth the problem is with the format which is interminable. I think we are all bored by the group stages, because some sides are so far ahead. Frankly the same will happen with the proposed format in 2019 (10 teams in 1 group???) - in fact the bottom 2 sides will have more matches so probably even more mismatches. The problem is that a format which makes all the games matter is the very thing the ICC (well, the big 3) don't want, because one bad match and all of a sudden you're out.

People saying that the reason associates are being excluded is because they're not competitive are deluding themselves. Had every side played like Bermuda did in 2007 we would still have 16 teams, probably with the same format. I have heard a first hand account of a meeting following the 2007 WC where one representative of a full member (I won't say which one) went as far as saying "they [Ireland] don't bring in even 1/100th of the money we do, why should they have the same chance of progressing to the latter rounds?" Why indeed?

I may come to regret saying this but I think England will beat Bangladesh fairly comfortably. In fact I think the likely England-India quarter-final is shaping up to be one of the more interesting ones and I wouldn't be that surprised to see England shading it. Unless SL beat Aus in which case we get Aus-SA which would be fun.

Mike Selig wrote:I agree with guildford that Scotland should have scored a good 20 runs more against Bangladesh. IMO that was a great opportunity for them.

I would also like to point out that the associates have been battered by the top teams (namely Aus, NZ, Ind and SA) but then so have all the other sides. Aus, NZ, Ind, SA beat Eng, SL, Pak and WI (say) just as comprehensively as they have been beating the associate sides. The real gulf at this WC is between the top teams and the rest. Let's not forget that UAE gave SL a very close game etc.

In truth the problem is with the format which is interminable. I think we are all bored by the group stages, because some sides are so far ahead. Frankly the same will happen with the proposed format in 2019 (10 teams in 1 group???) - in fact the bottom 2 sides will have more matches so probably even more mismatches. The problem is that a format which makes all the games matter is the very thing the ICC (well, the big 3) don't want, because one bad match and all of a sudden you're out.

People saying that the reason associates are being excluded is because they're not competitive are deluding themselves. Had every side played like Bermuda did in 2007 we would still have 16 teams, probably with the same format. I have heard a first hand account of a meeting following the 2007 WC where one representative of a full member (I won't say which one) went as far as saying "they [Ireland] don't bring in even 1/100th of the money we do, why should they have the same chance of progressing to the latter rounds?" Why indeed?

I may come to regret saying this but I think England will beat Bangladesh fairly comfortably. In fact I think the likely England-India quarter-final is shaping up to be one of the more interesting ones and I wouldn't be that surprised to see England shading it. Unless SL beat Aus in which case we get Aus-SA which would be fun.

For you maybe. Wouldnt even watch, how hopeless the match up would be

guildfordbat wrote:

kingraf wrote:300 is still a good score. Little more chaseable .... 300 is now more of a 50-50, but I'd always rather be the team defending it, than chasing it ...

H Raf - yes, 300 is still a good score. You say you would always rather be the team defending it. I would probably agree with you at the start of each second innings - back my opening bowlers and first change to get amongst the wickets, have the opposition 3 or 4 down for 60 odd and there's little coming back from that. Pretty near ideal scenario for the team bowling second.

However - and this is where I feel the international one day game has changed - I would be far less confident now than in the past if my opponents batting second had, say, 7 or more wickets in hand going into the last 20 overs even if (and this is where things are different)) they were some fair way behind the required rate.

I'm really trying to emphasise that the last 10 to 20 overs of an ODI now give so much more potential for run scoring than was ever previously considered feasible and that this makes it much more difficult to say what is a par or even winning score.

Indeed Guildford. I'm not ignoring the change in status quo, which has turned the last ten overs into a free for all as long as the batting team has sticks in hand. Indeed you'll probably remember me moaning about this being the most likely eventuality when the rules were amended, if not, you will almost certainly remember me moaning about the fact that I moaned about this being the most likely eventuality. Ten years ago, I'd have said 250 was a reasonable go at it, five odd years ago 270 was pretty safe. I still think you have to be pretty on it to consistently back yourself to chase better than run a ball, though. Most of the explosive last ten overs have come batting first. The biggest chases this tournament (SL, Ire, Bang) did not have particularly big last ten overs. Just teams which got ahead of the run rate, and stayed there. When teams fell behind chasing big (us vs Ind, SL vs NZ) generakky a collapse has followed, or at the very least a limp home

Windies are in this game. India 70-3 with 115 still to get. Might be an interesting finish here...

84/4... two wickets before 100 and we have a street fight on our hands

This type of match is the flip side of the coin to the new rules. When the pitch has life, and there are five in fielders... batters can feel quite trapped.

Why is Smith bowling? Surely you need to keep the 4 quicks on and try to bowl India out in 40 overs. If the game gets past 40 overs India win anyway.

Poor captaincy I feel

Haha, what do I know!

VTR wrote:Haha, what do I know!

VTR - I know as little as you as I thought the same!

India again now favourites in my book as they need 61 more with 5 wickets left. Mind you, one or two more quick wickets would change that right round. 23 overs left but this game will be decided before 50 overs are bowled.

Haven't studied the tables but an India win is the better result for Ireland.

Dhoni goes and things can go very quickly

guildfordbat wrote:

VTR wrote:Haha, what do I know!

VTR - I know as little as you as I thought the same!

India again now favourites in my book as they need 61 more with 5 wickets left. Mind you, one or two more quick wickets would change that right round. 23 overs left but this game will be decided before 50 overs are bowled.

Haven't studied the tables but an India win is the better result for Ireland.

Yep, Ireland will want India to win this as the Windies are still in their sights

Re Smith, perhaps he was given one over too many there. He is medium pace and less likely to threaten than others. Windies need the last 5 wickets within 12 or so overs now

kingraf wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

kingraf wrote:300 is still a good score. Little more chaseable .... 300 is now more of a 50-50, but I'd always rather be the team defending it, than chasing it ...

H Raf - yes, 300 is still a good score. You say you would always rather be the team defending it. I would probably agree with you at the start of each second innings - back my opening bowlers and first change to get amongst the wickets, have the opposition 3 or 4 down for 60 odd and there's little coming back from that. Pretty near ideal scenario for the team bowling second.

However - and this is where I feel the international one day game has changed - I would be far less confident now than in the past if my opponents batting second had, say, 7 or more wickets in hand going into the last 20 overs even if (and this is where things are different)) they were some fair way behind the required rate.

I'm really trying to emphasise that the last 10 to 20 overs of an ODI now give so much more potential for run scoring than was ever previously considered feasible and that this makes it much more difficult to say what is a par or even winning score.

Indeed Guildford. I'm not ignoring the change in status quo, which has turned the last ten overs into a free for all as long as the batting team has sticks in hand. Indeed you'll probably remember me moaning about this being the most likely eventuality when the rules were amended, if not, you will almost certainly remember me moaning about the fact that I moaned about this being the most likely eventuality. Ten years ago, I'd have said 250 was a reasonable go at it, five odd years ago 270 was pretty safe. I still think you have to be pretty on it to consistently back yourself to chase better than run a ball, though. Most of the explosive last ten overs have come batting first. The biggest chases this tournament (SL, Ire, Bang) did not have particularly big last ten overs. Just teams which got ahead of the run rate, and stayed there. When teams fell behind chasing big (us vs Ind, SL vs NZ) generakky a collapse has followed, or at the very least a limp home

All very fair, Raf. Think we're pretty much as one.

Btw, I don't remember any moaning from you. I do though recall you raising understandable concerns and reminding us of them.

kingraf wrote:This type of match is the flip side of the coin to the new rules. When the pitch has life, and there are five in fielders... batters can feel quite trapped.

The new ODI rules have really reignited the format. I get on the ICC a lot, but they've struck gold with the odi format

At risk of muscling in on msp's bromance with Ashwin, the number 8 is batting sensibly and providing valuable support to Dhoni.

Now that was a poor decision to bring on Smith, to be milked for 5 off the over. The game is almost gone, so you have to back one of your quicks to take 2 in 2 at this stage

Samuels continues as I type

VTR wrote:Now that was a poor decision to bring on Smith, to be milked for 5 off the over. The game is almost gone, so you have to back one of your quicks to take 2 in 2 at this stage

Samuels continues as I type

Yes, poor and bizarre. Almost as if the match had been conceded with 20 runs or so still needed.

guildfordbat wrote:

VTR wrote:Now that was a poor decision to bring on Smith, to be milked for 5 off the over. The game is almost gone, so you have to back one of your quicks to take 2 in 2 at this stage

Samuels continues as I type

Yes, poor and bizarre. Almost as if the match had been conceded with 20 runs or so still needed.

This kind of thing makes you wonder about match fixing. Even us armchair captains can see how ridiculous that end was. Quite suspicious to be honest

Olly wrote:

kingraf wrote:This type of match is the flip side of the coin to the new rules. When the pitch has life, and there are five in fielders... batters can feel quite trapped.

The new ODI rules have really reignited the format. I get on the ICC a lot, but they've struck gold with the odi format

400 scored three times in a week doesn't excite me

kingraf wrote:

Olly wrote:

kingraf wrote:This type of match is the flip side of the coin to the new rules. When the pitch has life, and there are five in fielders... batters can feel quite trapped.

The new ODI rules have really reignited the format. I get on the ICC a lot, but they've struck gold with the odi format

400 scored three times in a week doesn't  excite me

Yes, I generally find the more exciting games to be the lower scoring ones. Feel that's been borne out in this WC so far.

Astonishing captaincy. How can you leave a total of 9 overs unused from your strike bowlers? I get the idea of giving Samuels or Smith an over or two to break things up and maybe get a wicket from the batsmen relaxing ever so slightly, and it worked once, but then...

Truly bizarre and I really hope not sinister. Meanwhile India will now almost certainly top their group, so face probably England in the QFs. Don't think that one is a given at all.

kingraf wrote:

Olly wrote:

kingraf wrote:This type of match is the flip side of the coin to the new rules. When the pitch has life, and there are five in fielders... batters can feel quite trapped.

The new ODI rules have really reignited the format. I get on the ICC a lot, but they've struck gold with the odi format

400 scored three times in a week doesn't  excite me

So you weren't entertained watching Gayle's 200, De Villiers's ridiculous innings or the Warner/Maxwell show the other day?

I also think the new rules are more conducive to producing lower scoring thrillers as well.

guildfordbat wrote:At risk of muscling in on msp's bromance with Ashwin, the number 8 is batting sensibly and providing valuable support to Dhoni.

I was almost expecting India to mess this one up before the game got underway after they went through the tougher games rather comfortably. And they nearly did it too!. From 92-7 to 182 all out, the bowlers provided a reminder of their awful face that has been totally absent in the tournament otherwise. And then Rohit Sharma failed to surprise, Dhawan and Kohli, the 2 in-form batsmen failed, Rahane got a tough call and Raina failed.
But then the best thing that could happen to India in this situation happened, world's best finisher got some much valuable runs under his belt, and ones again saw his side through to the finish line in a calm and collected way.
Solid support from Ashwin too, it has to be said.
But Ashwin has bowled well in the tournament, doing well in his primary responsibility is the way to go always, the 2nd string makes his case a bit stronger.......
Jadeja has bowled well, but he hasn't been scoring enough runs. Won't call for Akshar or Binny as yet, the former isn't good enough with the bat, the latter not so with the ball. Anyways don't fix something that isn't broken. Perhaps promoting Jadeja up the order for the next game would be a good idea though.

Mike Selig wrote:Astonishing captaincy. How can you leave a total of 9 overs unused from your strike bowlers? I get the idea of giving Samuels or Smith an over or two to break things up and maybe get a wicket from the batsmen relaxing ever so slightly, and it worked once, but then...

Truly bizarre and I really hope not sinister. Meanwhile India will now almost certainly top their group, so face probably England in the QFs. Don't think that one is a given at all.

Mike - I share your thoughts and hope as above in all respects. Perhaps I'm too naive but my immediate thought at the time was that it was just poor and inexperienced captaincy.

Agree with you about the probable QF clash between India and England and it being hard to call. Did hear though that the weather in England's last two group games might not be too clever - hope that's not the case. If England are going to drop any further points, let it be because of their own failings and not the rain!

What are your thoughts on Ireland's game early tomorrow against Zimbabwe? As posted previously, I like Ireland and believe they've got a lot going for them. I don't know enough about Zimbabwe though to properly assess chances.

Olly wrote:

kingraf wrote:

Olly wrote:

kingraf wrote:This type of match is the flip side of the coin to the new rules. When the pitch has life, and there are five in fielders... batters can feel quite trapped.

The new ODI rules have really reignited the format. I get on the ICC a lot, but they've struck gold with the odi format

400 scored three times in a week doesn't  excite me

So you weren't entertained watching Gayle's 200, De Villiers's ridiculous innings or the Warner/Maxwell show the other day?

I also think the new rules are more conducive to producing lower scoring thrillers as well.

I didn't find Gayle's performance entertaining at all. Impressive? Maybe, not even sure about that. There's no prize in playing small, and there was nothing entertaining about smashing rather limited bowlers over fielders which weren't even there. Thought AB was brilliant, improvisational, just an artist wielding a wand... but he's done it before. He's done it better.

Even mates who only follow cricket casually aren't buying this new benchmark. The new rules is the equivalent to rugby doing away with the forward pass offence, and everyone being mesmerised at the increased number breakaway tries. The low scores resulting in thrillers is basically collateral the ICC took. And more importantly, it's hardly a new thing, low scoring thrillers, arguably the greatest cricket match of them all only had 426 runs. But make no mistake, the rules were created to create fatter scores.

As for Holder - I'm going with naivety, combined with just the right mix of doesn't know what he's doing. Not because I have any faith in Jason Holder's altruism (though he seems a nice enough guy) and integrity, but more that I can't understand why he'd score a battling 50 to give his team a sniff, and lead them all the way to a position from which victory was not far out if he was in for a fix.

Don't think I'd see too much into what Holder did. Afterall it was he who made it a contest at least in the first place, batting at 9.......

kingraf wrote:
Arguably the greatest cricket match of them all only had 426 runs.

England vs Australia at Edgbaston in '05 had more than 426 runs in it KR.

I might give you greatest ODI!

As for the new format, I am most certainly not a fan of the deadly combination of new rules and horrible pitches invented by the clown who heads the CA and supported by all the rest of the idiots club that the ICC board. The day of 400 being the new 300 and 300 being chased down with ease, I just don't like it all. Absolutely horrendous, and one reason why I am content with scorecards of a majority of games during this WC.......

JDizzle wrote:

kingraf wrote:
Arguably the greatest cricket match of them all only had 426 runs.

England vs Australia at Edgbaston in '05 had more than 426 runs in it KR.

I might give you greatest ODI!

To be fair, good as Edgebaston was, I think the 99 match is the definitive match in world cricket. It's the greatest most fantastical, match in history. The bat drop, the near run out two balls before, it was bedlam.... and I can comfort myself in the knowledge that we didn't actually lose it. I won't pretend I'm not biased, mind you.

Fingers tightly crossed for Ireland in their must-win, pressure-laden game tonight. Victory should give them at least half a chance of qualifying for the quarter-finals.

Pakistan-South Africa threatened with rain; much like Bangladesh when they played Australia, I do not think Pakistan will overly mind if the rain gifts them a point.

guildfordbat wrote:
What are your thoughts on Ireland's game early tomorrow against Zimbabwe? As posted previously, I like Ireland and believe they've got a lot going for them. I don't know enough about Zimbabwe though to properly assess chances.

Hi guildford.

Zimbabwe aren't that bad TBH. They gave SA a run for their money for a while. Ireland's issue is really their (total) lack of firepower up front with the ball. You can go on all you like about the likes of Mooney and O'Brien being canny bowlers etc. but the truth is 75-77 mph simply doesn't cut it at world level once the batsmen are set, with the fielding restrictions etc. Even the UAE got after Ireland quite drastically at the death and that is a real issue, because I don't see an easy fix, except maybe giving Young a go, or bowling the likes of Stirling and McBrine at the death (but that comes with a massive risk as well obviously).

On the other hand Ireland's batting is good, even at this level. The likes of Stirling, Joyce, O'Brien (x2), Wilson et al have genuine quality and their is loads of depth there as well.

I suspect Ireland will want to chase. If they can limit Zimbabwe to anything underneath 300 then I'd fancy them. For that they will need a good start and their spinners to do the job.

Zimbabwe actually have a similar make-up. They have some good to very good batsmen, but are somewhat lacking in bowling firepower. It should be an interesting match. There is almost an expectancy that Ireland should win (or certainly there is a lot of pressure for them to do so). So far in the two "must win" games for them they have played some good stuff, some less good stuff but managed to get over the line both times. Will be a good test.

Hi Mike - thanks for your views.

Much as I like Ireland, their seamers' lack of pace is certainly a weakness in this tournament. As Atletico posted a week or so back, they've been hit hard by the unavailability (for different reasons) of Murtagh, Johnston and Rankin.

I too would be inclined to bowl Stirling at the death, probably with one of the seamers (but not Kevin O'Brien who particularly lacks pace and too often seems as if he's going to leak runs). I can understand your thinking of McBrine also bowling then but on balance would try to bowl him out somewhere between overs 11 and 35, looking to get and bank an economical return.

If Ireland's seamers can keep things reasonably under control throughout and if the death bowling isn't too expensive (significant 'ifs' admittedly), I would fancy another Ireland win. Sensible batting (Balbirnie's commendable efforts largely going under the radar), decent slow bowling (Dockrell's intelligent variations of flight and pace to be added to the options offered by Stirling and McBrine), good fielding as a team and all round nous will take some beating.

Styn looks on the money today. Surprised with his figures so far this world . Not the best so far.

Pakistan kind of lucky to not to have lost a wicket.. But if they can get in they could be ok.

As allways when you play SA . Forget about any idea of a par score . You need a platform and then you need to smash the mothers out of the spinners.. Just get as many as you can. And you may have a chance.

30-1

Steyn with the catch of the series.

And they are smashing the spinners out the ground.. Perfect start from pak. These spinners are not going to be able to look good v Asian opposition.