2015 World Cup - Finals

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, New Zealand v Australia, Melbourne (05:30 BST)


* * * * * * * *

Having no clear favourites for the semi's makes for an intriguing couple of games.

kingraf wrote:Can't judge him off a world cup. Look at his record. Won a series in UAE, won a series in Sri Lanka, won a series in New Zealand. We were #1 in the world until two or three months ago. You're joking if you honestly think his track record doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The India game was the only one which was under par captaincy, but everyone has those.

As for CT, hardly a fair comparison, we had players out, and Robin Peterson batting at #3. Was a hobbling team.

In ODIs...world cup is all that matters now that CT is finished for good.
the bilateral and occasional tri-series are masala for spectators.....and practise / preparation for world cups and trial grounds before bringing a player into tests.

we are judging him on big games, in big tournaments over two major tournaments...he fluffs it in big games as a captain

re: missing key players.....in this day and age....every one is missing some key players most times....it's not a justification but sounds more like an excuse

Stella wrote:Abbott was bowling well, then they dropped him. That was a weird decision.

It seems it was indeed....

http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015/content/story/853587.html

CT isn't finished. It's slated for 2017 in England. World test championships were cancelled. I also like the suggestion that teams don't take ODI's seriously between world cups. Like it isn't their livelihoods. Sure it's just practise

Missing players is always a valid excuse. Ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Think NZ would be in the final of they lost Boult, Williamson, and Mccullum? Not even worth debating.

VTR - Well, the cupboard really isn't bare, I can tell you that much. Marchant is bowling fast and furious again. Rabada is maybe a year from call ups, but he's tearing through teams. Hardus Viljoen is a nice 150kph type bowler. Chris Morris merits a second crack. Parnell lost his way against India, but on balance, when he is alright, he adds more. Then you have guys like Tsotsobe, who took wickets for fun in the domestic league, and has a fantastic ODI record. Despite the fact that Tsotsobe is actually round about the same pace as Philander, he's three, four inches taller, and a left armer, so the angle and extra bounce makes the bouncer a valid ball for him to bowl. Beuran Hendricks doesn't have the most eye catching of records, but he's a left armer who hoops it around a bit, so could be picked on potential.

I'm just tired of Philander. He's forever pulling up, and while there's the off chance that he might have a chronically degenerated hammy injury, his bulging stomach indicates he isn't living the lifestyle a player with such problem needs to. He's basically living off the first seven tests of his career. Done nothing in ODI, really, and 50 wickets in his first seven matches, 60 odd sticks in his last 20.

Cheers kingraf, that's a good overview and it sounds like there is a rich stock of fast bowlers. As an England fan I am pretty envious!

I think you are right about Philander, sounds like he is out of shape and maybe complacent after that unbelievable start to his Test career. I never really though of him as an ODI player, especially with how the game is at the moment, he is right arm over bowling at low 80mphs - that kind of bowling is getting destroyed these days.

msp83 wrote:DL needed revisiting a long time back....... It favors the chasing side.......

Which is why they were using Duckworth Lewis Stern for the world cup, the method was changed 6 months ago to account better for high scoring games. 
I see the bad losers still cant handle it though. Maybe they should check the weather forecast next time,  or just blame the sky gods.

Gooseberry wrote:

msp83 wrote:DL needed revisiting a long time back....... It favors the chasing side.......

Which is why they were using Duckworth Lewis Stern for the world cup, the method was changed 6 months ago to account better for high scoring games. 
I see the bad losers still cant handle it though. Maybe they should check the weather forecast next time,  or just blame the sky gods.

I am a bad loser, no doubt, I hate losing, and I hate an unfair contest.

We've drawn Real Madrid in the quarters kingraf. Now that's a Hollywood story if we beat them.

The MCG is a much bigger ground than anything in NZ. That's not necessarily a bad thing though Taylor's running between wickets does. Hard to put fielders in catching positions the way the likes of McCullum bat.

I think Henry did enough to merit his place again and his pace should be more suited to the conditions. It'll be interesting to see what Boult and Southee can generate.

NZ has extra days to recover and come down from today's high. McCullum can't win a toss to save himself but he would've batted first had he won so given the weather it was probably a good toss to lose for once.

We're finally in the final and whatever I'm proud of the Black Caps and the NZ nation who has got behind them. It's going to be difficult but I'm hoping for another fairytale to the one you've asked for kingraf.

I like how saying the DL has been revised somehow means that it is now perfect. Lowest common denominator thinking. Every right to feel aggrieved at a system that rewards scoring at >6 an over with five wickets inhand only slightly more than being bowled All out before your allotted overs. The fact that it's new doesn't make it beyond reproach. Also, any team that uses the potential of the weather to make their decisions is playing negative cricket. Mccullum woulda batted first, and rightly so. Can't control the weather, so unless the forecast is for armageddon, I'd rather we don't make plans on account of weather interrupting play. What happened if it didn't rained? I'll tell you what, the line would have then been "what kind of a muppet makes his decision on a weather forecast". Also, if the system is really foolproof explain how it decides being 216/3 means you'd be on 268 in a 38-over match (an improvement of 52 runs) , but being 281-5 means you'd only be 298 (a seventeen run improvement) in a 43-over match? According to this alternate reality, we would have only scored at 8 an over at the death... despite scoring at 13 in the real world.

I'm not even a sore loser, but if you don't understand why we feel aggrieved, then I have no clue what game you watched.

Indeed Kia, beating our city rivals having been smashed off the park against them, and winning only one of the last ten or something would definitely be the underdog story of the year

Who said Hollywood films had to make any sense?

Was a little miffed we drew you guys again TBH. Don't mind facing Barca, it's a toss up. There's always a busy crossbar, and with the rub of the green, we win. Against you lot, seems an ideology issue. The way you play seems rather good at neutralising our strengths, as such generally, you'll win. Combine that with our current rut, and I'm honestly resigned to a defeat

Atleti has been awful of late and the return leg is in the bernabeu

DL method effed Sa over? Damn, this is the second world cup where theyve suffered from that

DL was absolutely atrocious. If I'm not mistaken, we would have set NZ more if Faf and AB knocked it around at five an over, and we ended up on 245/3. They would have chased >300. The rule isn't working well when you can set a larger total by scoring less.

From where they were, SA would probably have scored 330ish. Sure if ABV suddenly fird they would have got more. Equally though as we have seen in the past, they could easily have folded for less than 300.

Rather than blaming DL, you guys should look at the quality of the bowling. Tahir excepted it was abysmal.

kingraf wrote: Also, if the system is really foolproof explain how it decides being 216/3 means you'd be on 268 in a 38-over match (an improvement of 52 runs) , but being 281-5 means you'd only be 298 (a seventeen run improvement) in a 43-over match? According to this alternate reality, we would have only scored at 8 an over at the death... despite scoring at 13 in the real world.

Because wickets are a thing and can be taken. Lower order batsmen are less likely to score quickly. Theres a heck of a lot of assumptions that AB would continue to score at that rate and not get out for the remaining overs. If SA had continued to bat the way they were chances are they wouldve continued to lose wickets at the same rate, and not able to sustain the scoring rate as they got into the tail, they did lose 2 in those post rain overs and de villiers had given several chances in his innings. The simple fact is that we will never know if DLS made the difference or not, but we do know that New Zealand won a game in which the rules were followed and in which SA won the toss and chose to bat because that almost always confers an advantage. Maybe the In terms of issues with cricket laws DLS is not the biggest problem or most unjust, and there is always an element of luck in the game. 

SA had their chances to win this, they blew it and maybe missed out on some chances by millimeters...or in other cases gained from them.  There have been much worse incidents with DL and previous systems which genuinely have screwed teams over (including SA who couldnt count and got caught out trying to game the system), its continuing to improve. SA also only had to look up to see the rain was coming, and would have access to the radar and local eye witness reports of the rain moving in. Maybe they couldve started hitting earlier, maybe they woudlve lost the wickets faster and then not been able to score the few big overs they did in the last 5....aai though its guesswork. Its certainly wrong to be so certain that DLS was grossly unfair in its rejigged target, and NZ could easily have had  their innings interrupted and had to adjust their tactics mid innings. Maybe they wouldve picked a different team had they known it was a short match. Maybe they wouldve used different bowlers differently during SAs if they had known it would be truncated and been forced into putting Anderson in for 3 at the death. Maybe possibly wouldve couldve shouldve...didnt happen. NZ did win, under the same rules of the same game that SA won their other ties under.


All that aside the original point I was picking up is that their is a myth perpetuated every time its used by fans (and sometimes payed professional commentators/journos) that its somehow based on Geoff Boycotts mum batting date and isnt modified to account for changes in scoring rates and game rules, when in actual fact it is regularly modified and improved. Yes sometimes it doenst quite fully account for the specifics of a  game (like New Zealands stronger tail and SA lacking depth to their bowling) but I strongly suggest a bigger dose of humility in being beaten by a side who have been running over pretty much everyone for a year intheir backyard in a game in which there were many chances for both teams to have taken a decisive wicket (or not given one away) regardless of the rain interruption.

Lol, you're really trying to suggest there's a doubt of who benefits more? NZ were up a creek without a paddle. Faf was in, AB was in, Miller in the dugout, JP in the dugout. Last five Overs before rain were excess of 7 an over. Five overs after rain were 13 an over. Mccullum had nearly finished his best bowlers allottment (and indeed had finished it as per DL). His fifth bowler was travelling for serious tap, and Vettori wasn't plugging up an end. He'd taken a risk (almost bowling Boult out in pursuit of a wicket). Let's also not forget that DL adjusted our total by 31 post delay despite the fact that we scored 65. Like I said, had we scored at five an over for the Loss of no wicket... the score would have been adjusted higher. Thats not the way the game is supposed to work. To attempt to argue that a team suffering that in a semi final isnt bad luck is humorous.

It hasn't been improved. It's been adjusted. There's a marked difference in those statements. If we batted 43 overs to 281/5 and they adjusted by only 17 runs, and in another match we batted 38 overs, and they adjusted the 216/3 score to 268, I wouldn't be peeved. But when the two happen in the same game... You know there's a system glitch. You do understand what DL actually does right? The supposition is that had we known it was a 38-over game, we would have scored 268. Had we known that it was 43-over game... from 268, we would have gotten 298, so thirty runs in five overs. Despite the fact that we actually scored double that?

London - You're also supposing for some strange reason that David Miller would have kept slogging in the 43rd over with Six to go... having already hit a six for the over... You do understand that he went berserk purely because it was the last over?

I also dont understand why AB keeps being mentioned as the destructive force... did you miss Miller flogging the Anderson and Southee? AB was a spectator in the final five, and we still scored at 13. If Miller still had 36 balls left instead of 4, it could have been Harlem Shake

Raf, DL didn't favor SA, but I would say the dropped catches and the missed run-outs really did them in. Even with the last 2 overs to go, they were pretty much in the game and then the set batsman was badly missed, even in the last over a run-out was missed. If either of those chances were taken, we might have had a different result......

Msp - Yes. I agree. More than anywhere else, we lost the game in the final three overs. You'll remember I called almost immediately that we choked. Between the dropped catch, the missed run outs, and Steyn ceasing up (he'd conceded only two in the first two balls before he went down. We lost, and we shouldn't have. 100%.

Where I take issue, is the fact that less than twelve hours later, the match is now being redesigned (AB was now apparently the destroyer in chief. Mccullum still needing overs from his fifth bowler heading onto the final twelve being an example of NZ being in control, and other similarly opaque theories). I like Mccullum and his style of captaincy. But I think people are a little fooled by his aggression. There's this idea that he had more tricks up his sleeve. He didn't, he played his hand by bowling Boult almost all the way through, he played his hand by leaving an expensive Anderson with overs to go. It had backfired, and he got saved. The most explosive team in the last fifteen overs all geared up for an assault, and then they only have five overs left. There's nowt wrong with it. Every captain needs a bit of luck. We've had our share. Suggesting Mccullum was similarly damaged by the delay is ridiculous.

Almost as ridiculous as claiming that needing to score 65 to adjust the total up by thirty is an example of a working system.

Ultimately South Africa just got really bad luck with the rain delay - it's unfortunate that it stopped them getting an unassailable total. But I still think the total they had was more than enough to be a match winning one, and the missed chances let New Zealand have a shot to win and they took it. 

It was a great contest, and for sure one that will go down in the annuls of history.

A legitimate argument can be made that South Africa may struggle to get themselves in a position to be in the final as strong as that again next time round - with many of their premier players getting on by 2019 - but ultimately that is too far ahead to predict anything.

Olly - Who knows what the future holds, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the top seven stays the same by 2019. It's a reasonably young batting squad
Amla 36 in 2019
De Kock 27
Faf 35
AB 35
Rossouw 30
Miller 30
Duminy 35

For batsmen, thats more than good enough. There might be replacements in terms of better players pulling through, but I don't think there'll be any age related changes. As for the bowlers. It's a little tougher. Impossible to crystal gaze with bowlers. Steyn is one of the top ten bowlers of all time, so you'd think, even at 36, he'll be picked if he merits it, and that he'll be good enough to make the adaptations which ageing may require. Difficult to see Morkel still making the grade at 35, not quite as skilled as a Steyn. Tahir will be forty, but that's still almost acceptable for a spinner, if we lack a capable replacement. Philander, on the other hand... can go. As of yesterday. Got more than enough pace to burn to not merit us persevering with him.

I'd expect some of them to still be there of course Raf, guys like Amla and AB should still be going good guns, but can't see the same 7 staying, and for the balance of the side I'd imagine Duminy would be most likely to not be in that side come 2019 (if there is an emerging all rounder on the horizon)

Steyn is a tough one - skills should still be there for certain, but will his body still be holding up at 36? It's debatable. 
Surprised Kyle Abbott wasn't selected after his QF performance - maybe a regret for SA looking back with hindsight.

And on the selection front - was Milne injured today? If so I'm slightly surprised NZ went for Henry instead of the experience of Mills in such a pressure game

Unfortunately Milne is out for the tournament I believe. Was glad they picked Henry tbh. Couldn't have survived losing another world cup match to a team that had Mills. The definition of containment. He's also not "representative" of the brand of cricket which Brendon Mccullum seems to play.

LD your radiator fixed?

Not yet... hands have been full lately. Will attend to on Friday.
Concrete pump crew here now...

We had 4-5 hours solid rain yesterday afternoon.
It was sunny and clear this morning (Wednesday) but it's clouding over again just before midday.
There will be more rain this afternoon and this evening but it is expected to be fine and sunny tomorrow for the 2nd big one.

kingraf wrote:London - You're also supposing for some strange reason that

I am not supposing anything, just saying what I believe the total may have been had there been no rain break, and stating that blaming D/L fo rthe defeat is allowing the players to abdicate all responsibility.

They would have won if the bowlers had performed better, if the fielders had caught the ball, if certain fielders had not barged people out of the way, if fielders had been holding the ball when they broke the stumps.

That game was in SA's power to win and they failed to do so because they were unable to perform basic skills when the pressure was high.

I haven't blamed DL for the defeat. There's only so many times I can say we didn't field well, NZ played well, we probably choked. Every body agrees. Where we don't agree is efficacy of the DL system, and hence that's the area of discussion. The adjustment is senseless, if scoring at six an over with five wickets in hand is adjusted nearly the same as being all out scoring at four and a half.

South Africa didn't have the best of deals with the D/L situation. I do feel for them, as they never seem to have much luck, call it what you will.

SA has to own up...its shortcomings.

bowling was mediocre at best.... throughout the tournament...couldn't defend 7RPO against NZ ...even conceded  nearly 300 to Zim.

and they need a serious/ stable guy as a leader to take care of bowling, fielding and team selections....not someone playing with too many permutations, just because he has a sharp mind ( which arises when you simultaneously vary  all the 3 variables)


Ind v. Aus tomm

Its the steady, well rounded  quietly focused Indians vs the extremely talented, full of match winners, overly talkative in the media and short of a genuine spinner Aussies.

India's bowling is looking very good.......and top 4 batters are in super form against new ball...raina at 5 does well only against poor attacks or if the top 4 have given a good platform.
 
The Key for India--- top 4 should not crash to the new ball in the first 15-20  overs...... for numbers 5 to 8 can contribute eithr from a set platform or in small increments.

if Ind can avoid the crash of top-4...then it's "game on"

so it all comes down to not losing the top order early.....and with conscious awareness and application they can avoid this.
after all this is an ODI

Batting first will also be an advantage in this semi-final...although it wasn't yesterday.

Big day tomm

Without wishing to make too fine a point of it... India are facing down the barrel. 132-1 after 25, Australia could be looking 350, or at least 330.

Could've been more, should be enough tho

I'm always amused by listening to India bat in ODIs on the radio. You hear the crowd go absolutely berserk and initially think 4 or 6, only to find out from the commentators seconds later that it was in fact an edged single to third man.

Not going well for India here. Raina in now, I expect a lot of short stuff and his wicket sooner rather than later

Half way stage of India's innings. 115/4 compared to Australia 132/1 at the same stage.

The run deficit by itself is not an issue but I strongly suspect India have already lost too many wickets to turn this round.

Guess they're giving it back then. Back being the Operative word. WC is going to Aus

India fighting back here. Think on balance Aus is a little far away, but good fight back here.

Rather depressing state of affairs when the four best teams meet in the Semi's and the run rate on 3/4 (and almost likely 4/4) innings is >6.

India running out of balls and wickets here. Even by Dhonis standards, this will take an extraordinary effort.

Yeah, we've entered that stage where it goes from needing to be really good, to needing to be nothing short of Herculean

Jadeja run out. Fat lady can start warming up

100 or so from 6 overs. Into miracle territory

Dhoni happy to see out Johnsons spell. Not entirely sure why, you cant really afford not to go for everything at this point

Dhoni goes.

It'll be NZ vs Australia

Well done LD. Going to need a special NZ performance to undo this Aussie side but I must keep the faith and hope they have one more special performance in them.

Didn't really get Dhonis innings there. Unless he planning to take the lesser bowlers for 25 an over, he let it drift for too long.

Game over, Australia win comfortably in the end.

Rather tame from India at the end

Strange chase from India all around really. Think Rahane and Dhoni let things drift for 3-5 overs too long, and once Rahane got out Dhoni really had to throw caution to the wind. Plan was clearly to target Watson but he only had 2 overs so even if they went for 50-odd that wasn't going to be enough.

It was in some way a fairly old fashioned/English chase, always 20 or so runs behind. Think New Zealand and Australia would have gone about it differently, and I think in years to come their template will be followed more and more.

Clarke captained very well. He's very good at not letting things drift and always having one of his main bowlers up his sleeve. He was helped by the fact that all his bowlers bowled well.

Undoubtedly the best two teams currently into the final. I make Aus favourites, but NZ have plenty of match winners up their sleeve.

While all the talk has been about the batting - it is the two best bowling sides who have made the final.

LondonTiger wrote:While all the talk has been about the batting - it is the two best bowling sides who have made the final.

Though NZ's batsmen won them the semi final.

LondonTiger wrote:While all the talk has been about the batting - it is the two best bowling sides who have made the final.

True, but they are probably both the best batting sides as well - packed with big-hitters and both bat a long way down. Only SA could claim to have a batting lineup that compares in these conditions.