ICC Cricket World Cup - Part 2

First topic message reminder :

Table

New Zealand	5	9	1.591
England	5	8	1.862
Australia	5	8	0.812
India	4	7	1.029
Bangladesh	5	5	-0.27
Sri Lanka	5	4	-1.778
West Indies	5	3	0.272
South Africa	5	3	-0.193
Pakistan	5	3	-1.933
Afghanistan	5	0	-2.089

Pool Fixtures

Thu, May 30 
10:30 England vs South Africa  (The Oval)

Fri, May 31 
10:30 West Indies vs Pakistan (Trent Bridge)

Sat, Jun 1 
10:30 New Zealand vs Sri Lanka (Cardiff)
13:30 Afghanistan vs Australia (Bristol)

Sun, Jun 2 
10:30 South Africa vs Bangladesh (The Oval)

Mon, Jun 3 
10:30 England vs Pakistan (Trent Bridge)

Tue, Jun 4 
10:30 Afghanistan vs Sri Lanka (Cardiff)

Wed, Jun 5 
10:30 South Africa vs India (Southampton)
13:30 Bangladesh vs New Zealand (The Oval)

Thu, Jun 6 
10:30 Australia vs West Indies (Trent Bridge)

Fri, Jun 7 
10:30 Pakistan vs Sri Lanka (Bristol)

Sat, Jun 8 
10:30 England vs Bangladesh (Cardiff)
13:30 Afghanistan vs New Zealand (Taunton)

Sun, Jun 9 
10:30 Australia vs India (The Oval)

Mon, Jun 10 
10:30 South Africa vs West Indies (Southampton)

Tue, Jun 11 
10:30 Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka (Bristol)

Wed, Jun 12 
10:30 Australia vs Pakistan (Taunton)

Thu, Jun 13 
10:30 India vs New Zealand (Trent Bridge)

Fri, Jun 14 
10:30 England vs West Indies (Southampton)

Sat, Jun 15 
10:30 Australia vs Sri Lanka (The Oval)
13:30 Afghanistan vs South Africa (Cardiff)

Sun, Jun 16 
10:30 India vs Pakistan (Old Trafford)

Mon, Jun 17 
10:30 Bangladesh vs West Indies (Taunton)

Tue, Jun 18 
10:30 England vs Afghanistan (Old Trafford)

Wed, Jun 19 
10:30 New Zealand vs South Africa (Edgbaston)

Thu, Jun 20 
10:30 Australia vs Bangladesh (Trent Bridge)

Fri, Jun 21 
10:30 England vs Sri Lanka (Headingley)

Sat, Jun 22 
10:30 Afghanistan vs India (Southampton)
13:30 New Zealand vs West Indies (Old Trafford)

Sun, Jun 23 
10:30 Pakistan vs South Africa (Lord’s)

Mon, Jun 24 
10:30 Afghanistan vs Bangladesh (Southampton)

Tue, Jun 25 
10:30 England vs Australia (Lord’s)

Wed, Jun 26 
10:30 New Zealand vs Pakistan (Edgbaston)

Thu, Jun 27 
10:30 India vs West Indies (Old Trafford)

Fri, Jun 28 
10:30 South Africa vs Sri Lanka (Edgbaston)

Sat, Jun 29 
10:30 Afghanistan vs Pakistan (Headingley)
13:30 Australia vs New Zealand (Lord’s)

Sun, Jun 30 
10:30 England vs India (Edgbaston)

Mon, Jul 1 
10:30 Sri Lanka vs West Indies (Riverside Ground)

Tue, Jul 2 
10:30 Bangladesh vs India (Edgbaston)

Wed, Jul 3 
10:30 England vs New Zealand (Riverside Ground)

Thu, Jul 4 
10:30 Afghanistan vs West Indies (Headingley)

Fri, Jul 5 
10:30 Bangladesh vs Pakistan (Lord’s)

Sat, Jul 6 
10:30 India vs Sri Lanka (Headingley)
13:30 Australia vs South Africa (Old Trafford)




Knock Out Fixtures


To Follow

I don't think there's any perfect format, which we see in other sports where there aren't that many good teams. Someone cited a Rugby League format that sounds horrendous, expanding to 16 will add some real rubbish in and mismatches like are seen in h Rugby Union World Cup. Yesterday was a bad enough mismatch, without adding six even worse teams.

This group stage is dragging a bit, I can only see two groups of five or maximum six as a format the ICC would even consider. Even then India and Pakistan might not be drawn together!

The only other alternative is a split format where top seeded teams come in after a first group stage.
Then everyone would complain even more that it's set up to stop the mid rank teams progressing. It would also be seen as a way of denying the minnows a chance of glamour fixtures, and the world cup is really the only time they get to play the top sides ( how often do Aus play Afghanistan Ireland or Scotland outside a world cup?.
VTR is right ...you cant have it all.

I do agree that a straight knock out would be more exciting but the reality is it's not what fans really want. In soccer the premier league has made the FA cup a sideshow despite all the pointless games and it being shared between a narrow range of clubs ( something about Liverpool lol etc).
Yes its partly driven by money. What generates the money; the audience. This is what people want.

I'll hold my hand up and say though that id be more scathing of this format if typical England had turned up and they were in south Africa position. We certainly would've lost interest by now. Of course were it a group stage format they'd also be out 5 games in, so we would've lost interest anyway.

Some rain around this morning at Edgbaston but it should clear to start on time. Could be a bowl first kind of day in England.
There is a chance of an upset here, if SA can motivate themselves. It's certainly about time Makram started living up to his potential and adapt his game to the shorter formats.
SAs big all formats issue batting wise is playing spinners. Thats less of thing against NZ, not that their seam attack isnt strong and capable of exploiting any helpful conditions. But SA can dish that back if anyones fit. I certainly wouldnt expect this to be a spinners pitch
Kpf has pointed out that NZ are sitting high without having really faced much here and remain a bit of an unknown quantity which is fair to some extent, although a lot of folk had them tipped as the dark horse coming in and results in recent times plus the way theve steam rolled opposition so far suggests they are in that elite bracket. But if SA can balance a side and get players producing near their best they should be capable of winning against the odds.
I've rubbished SA quite a bit partly as a counter to certain folk trying to argue they were a top 4 side but they are by no means the worst side here and haven't yet fallen apart like WI. 5th place and a morale boosting win against a top 4 side isnt beyond them

Still have NZ as favourites but I'm trying to convince myself this will be entertaining and worth following.

SA v NZ pretty much sums up SA's inability to rise to the occasion.

Excluding World Cups the head to head is 39-19 to SA, World Cups only it's 5-2 to NZ.

Galted wrote:SA v NZ pretty much sums up SA's inability to rise to the occasion.

Excluding World Cups the head to head is 39-19 to SA, World Cups only it's 5-2 to NZ.

Is the Angry Kiwi at work aware of this statistic? Perhaps it's best you keep it to yourself.  

Haha, he takes the day off whenever NZ are playing and has a big beer and cricket themed party all on his own.

That's quite a shocking difference to be honest.
It's hard to call SA chokers this time, their failure is down to not being good enough coupled with the Steyn and De Villiers situations as much as not performing to potential.
That's usually Englands job.

Galted wrote:Haha, he takes the day off whenever NZ are playing and has a big beer and cricket themed party all on his own.

So it's not KiwiRedDevil then. Remember him? I'm sure he'd be feeling quietly confident.

I am in broad agreement with Goose on this...

This format is being savaged this time around mainly because the semifinalists are seen as being decided way too early...leaving a lot of basically meaningless matches .  I suppose this is partly because it allows for 45 matches , making it almost inevitable a lot of them won't be too significant.
If the popular "4 groups of 4 " were being used there would be just 24 group games so it would matter less if the groups were sorted rather early. But then presumably one would face the prospect of (quarter finals ? ) which would probably match the same Big Four against a bunch of underperformers : the hope being that there would be a bit more prospect of an upset than as is presently the case.
Judging by the way Afghanistan is getting mauled it is likely Scotland Ireland Nepal or whoever would have been knocked out pretty quickly .Might have been some interest in local battles , etc ...but I'm not sure India beating Hong Kong by 300 runs would have filled too many grounds . In other words there probably wouldn't have been too many important and competitive matches under that method either.
Of course we don't know. Can't know in advance. If the old SA had turned up , Pakistan been more consistent ...or even rain falling at different times/locations ...we might be now looking at an exciting last couple of weeks .  Or not...

In face there have been a number of interesting games : England - Pakistan produced both a fairly close contest and an upset ; NZ-Bangladesh , Australia-West Indies - even the Australia-Sri Lanka match - kept interest going well into the chasing innings. Just that there are so many games they've been a bit lost in the pack.

Do we prefer a shorter event (31 matches rather than 48) with six more punching bags or the relative certainty that the best four teams will contest the semi finals (and all the major teams will at least be assured of having one match against each other ) ? I think you can argue either way but in truth the tournament will be as good or as disappointing as the weather and the relative strengths of the contestants allow...and those variables could affect either format. There really isn't a perfect solution.

I guess for this one we ought to hope that Bangladesh can upset Australia and SA win their next couple of games to at least keep things nominally open ? But the clashes between the main contenders will be interesting in themselves as a bit of a guide to the knockouts so I don't think it will be as dull as some fear.

VTR wrote:I don't think there's any perfect format, which we see in other sports where there aren't that many good teams. Someone cited a Rugby League format that sounds horrendous, expanding to 16 will add some real rubbish in and mismatches like are seen in h Rugby Union World Cup. Yesterday was a bad enough mismatch, without adding six even worse teams.

This group stage is dragging a bit, I can only see two groups of five or maximum six as a format the ICC would even consider. Even then India and Pakistan might not be drawn together!

The Rugby Union World Cup has held firm at 20 teams for at least the last 4 tournaments (2003, 2007, 2011 and 2015) and if you look at the scores in 2015 vs 2003 then the minnows have closed that gap. There were only 3 scores of 60 or more in the 2015 World Cup (and none 70 or more) and 2 of those were Uruguay who were the weakest team drawn into the group of death. Back in 2003, there were 13 scores of 60 (9 different teams conceded 60 or more), including 2 scores over 100.

World Cup money is big for these countries and knowing they will qualify or have a fair shot at qualifying is big for these countries development. With the cricket World Cup, the regular change in format and especially in the numbers of teams hurts the team on the fringes of the top group.

Bangladesh is probably cricket's success story, beating England in the last tournament to qualify for the quarter-finals. This year's tournament doesn't have quarter-finals, but they're 5th currently and will probably finish top 8. Adding Ireland, Canada and Kenya would probably see more thrashings which would hurt this tournament, but would probably help further down the line.

the charade of "Next Umpiring Inspection due in 30 minutes"
& Minnow bashing has taken the sheen off this world cup

Rained-off should not be allowed in the world-cup....reschedule it at another date, another dry location should be imposed strictly on the host nation
Else find other host nations

Looking a bit damp again today ...

KP_fan wrote:the charade of "Next Umpiring Inspection due in 30 minutes"
& Minnow bashing has taken the sheen off this world cup

Rained-off should not be allowed in the world-cup....reschedule it at another date, another dry location should be imposed strictly on the host nation
Else find other host nations

Think it's been explained fairly clearly that having reserve dates for all of 45 group games would be a logistical impossibility ...

Rather unusually numerous wet days combined with the long format have combined to mess with things , true. But that's just bad luck.

What would the options for "another dry location" be? I am genuinely interested /baffled by that comment. Do you mean something like there's a reserve day but the match is in the UAE?

And to address the second point, England (and Wales) are well worthy of hosting the World Cup given how good the facilities are. Yes the weather might suck, but so would the experience at the ground for spectators in a lot of nations.

VTR wrote:What would the options for "another dry location" be? I am genuinely interested /baffled by that comment. Do you mean something like there's a reserve day but the match is in the UAE?

And to address the second point, England (and Wales) are well worthy of hosting the World Cup given how good the facilities are. Yes the weather might suck, but so would the experience at the ground for spectators in a lot of nations.

Should also be noted we are having unusually poor weather - this time last year the ground was scorched and you could barely fine a blade of green grass on the outfield due to lack of rain...can't control the weather!

Definitely, don't think we should be barred from ever hosting the World Cup again because the weather was freakishly bad in one particular year. Have to remember that in spite of this, probably 90% of matches will be completed

alfie wrote:

KP_fan wrote:the charade of "Next Umpiring Inspection due in 30 minutes"
& Minnow bashing has taken the sheen off this world cup

Rained-off should not be allowed in the world-cup....reschedule it at another date, another dry location should be imposed strictly on the host nation
Else find other host nations

Think it's been explained fairly clearly that having reserve dates for all of 45 group games would be a logistical impossibility ...

Rather unusually numerous wet days combined with the long format have combined to mess with things , true. But that's just bad luck.

I didn't say reserve day for every game ( because not every game will get washed out)
If a game gets rained out on a scheduled day...then play that game another day ( when its dry) on the same venue or another venue.

Complete rained out games would be no more than 7 to 10 and so find a flexible way to accommodate them as suggested above.

If a host cannot show such flexibility...nor can have 45 reserve days....then they have the option not to be hosts

Toss at 11:30. 49 overs per side. Shouldn't be any further interruptions as a dry day is forecast.

49 overs. Because an extra 10 minutes of cricket is entirely out of the question!

Play expected to start at 12pm and reduced to 49 overs per side.

Isn't that a bit nonsense? If they can judge now that it is ready in 55 minutes, surely it is okay to start 10 mins earlier at 11.50 and keep it at 50 overs each

Duty281 wrote:Toss at 11:30. 49 overs per side. Shouldn't be any further interruptions as a dry day is forecast.

49 overs. Because an extra 10 minutes of cricket is entirely out of the question!

Don't stop for lunch and make them eat when they are sat on the balcony with their feet up watching their teammates!

Jeremy Coney: Ex-New Zealand captain on BBC Test Match Special wrote:
New Zealand have only played three games and not started for 12 days. They have only had one bat below number five so if the ball does swing for Rabada and Ngidi, South Africa could put them under a lot of pressure.

Interesting prospect. If SA can put NZ in and get wickets first up then it could be a low total for New Zealand. Even in their 3 completed games, they haven't had to bat big yet. South Africa's best hope?

Duty281 wrote:Toss at 11:30. 49 overs per side. Shouldn't be any further interruptions as a dry day is forecast.

49 overs. Because an extra 10 minutes of cricket is entirely out of the question!

Should play 50 overs of the first innings, 48 of the second and then come back on the reserve day for the last two.

https://twitter.com/coachsim13/status/1141280755227725824?s=21

Another little insight into the shambles that has been Afghanistan’s prep for this tournament as I posted yesterday

KP_fan wrote:

alfie wrote:

KP_fan wrote:the charade of "Next Umpiring Inspection due in 30 minutes"
& Minnow bashing has taken the sheen off this world cup

Rained-off should not be allowed in the world-cup....reschedule it at another date, another dry locatihffgon should be imposed strictly on the host nation
Else find other host nations

Think it's been explained fairly clearly that having reserve dates for all of 45 group games would be a logistical impossibility ...

Rather unusually numerous wet days combined with the long format have combined to mess with things , true. But that's just bad luck.

I didn't say reserve day for every game  ( because not every game will get washed out)
If a game gets rained out on a scheduled day...then play that game another day ( when its dry) on the same venue or another venue.

Complete rained out games would be no more than 7 to 10 and so find a flexible way to accommodate them as suggested above.

If a host cannot show such flexibility...nor can have 45 reserve days....then they have the option not to be hosts

You know , I did consider that "floating reserve day" idea...but honestly , it just isn't practical. Teams are already fixtured in every few days in different parts of the country ; and you have no way of knowing in advance which or how many games need to be rescheduled ... Unless you are going to leave a spare ten days or so before the semis it is really not a starter...

England has successfully hosted several of these events . Haven't had a final or a semi ruined by rain to my recollection. Think I can recall one or two other hosts who have found the closing stages a bit affected by weather...it really is just luck. And it won't render the final lineup this time undeserved , I think.

New Zealand winning the delayed toss and bowling first. Lungi Ngidi back for South Africa. No JP Duminy, even South Africa can see the obvious finally! Think though Markram is yet to prove himself in this format, think this is the best possible South Africa 11 from the available players. Miller is a better bet at 6 than 5, with Morris coming in at 8 there is decent batting depth. Phehlukwayo is someone who has improved a lot with the bat though he's not quite a number 7. But the lad has decent temperament, and South Africa should stick with him as the lower middle order hitting all-rounder long enough to give him the best chance to evolve into that role. Think with Steyn not available, Chris Morris should be in there as one of the 3 seamers in a South Africa lineup, with Rabada and Ngidi as the led seamers.

Hope the Saffers put in a bit more application than the Windies and Bangladesh have done in the past couple of days. They played like already vanquished teams.

As for the discussions on formats, think the 1996 format is what should go with. With a little bit of modification. Only the top 8 sides should directly qualify. The last 4 full members and the top 4 associate sides should play a qualifying tournament and best 4 should make it. Then there should be groups of 6, QFs, Semis and then the final. Top sides get 5 games and with 4 of the weaker sides being distributed across the 2 tgroups, top sides have to play really play badly to lose out on QFs.

alfie wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

alfie wrote:

KP_fan wrote:the charade of "Next Umpiring Inspection due in 30 minutes"
& Minnow bashing has taken the sheen off this world cup

Rained-off should not be allowed in the world-cup....reschedule it at another date, another dry locatihffgon should be imposed strictly on the host nation
Else find other host nations

Think it's been explained fairly clearly that having reserve dates for all of 45 group games would be a logistical impossibility ...

Rather unusually numerous wet days combined with the long format have combined to mess with things , true. But that's just bad luck.

I didn't say reserve day for every game  ( because not every game will get washed out)
If a game gets rained out on a scheduled day...then play that game another day ( when its dry) on the same venue or another venue.

Complete rained out games would be no more than 7 to 10 and so find a flexible way to accommodate them as suggested above.

If a host cannot show such flexibility...nor can have 45 reserve days....then they have the option not to be hosts

You know , I did consider that "floating reserve day" idea...but honestly , it just isn't practical.  Teams are already fixtured in every few days in different parts of the country ; and you have no way of knowing in advance which or how many games need to be rescheduled ... Unless you are going to leave a spare ten days or so before the semis it is really not a starter...

England has successfully hosted several of these events . Haven't had a final or a semi ruined by rain to my recollection.  Think I can recall one or two other hosts who have found the closing stages a bit affected by weather...it really is just luck.  And it won't render the final lineup this time undeserved , I think.

It is impractical but has half a chance of working in England and Wales. 2015 the World Cup was Australia and New Zealand and would surely have been impossible.

Ah, Trent Boult. Such a delight to watch.

alfie wrote:

You know , I did consider that "floating reserve day" idea...but honestly , it just isn't practical.  Teams are already fixtured in every few days in different parts of the country ; and you have no way of knowing in advance which or how many games need to be rescheduled ... Unless you are going to leave a spare ten days or so before the semis it is really not a starter...

England has successfully hosted several of these events . Haven't had a final or a semi ruined by rain to my recollection.  Think I can recall one or two other hosts who have found the closing stages a bit affected by weather...it really is just luck.  And it won't render the final lineup this time undeserved , I think.

There is a minimum requirement on hosts when hosting international sporting events such as
-safety
-a minimum quality in hotels and facilities & grounds

One who doesn't have it does not get to host it ( such as Pak and Afg) on grounds of safety
or Qatar having to massively upgrade its infrastructure to host the world cup.

I would make handling rains as a criteria that the host has to be able to take care of if they want the event ( everything is "doable" for a price).
Bear in mind Wimbledon hosts nearly 900 games over 2 weeks and often times in peak of rains....but not one game have ever gotten rained-out at Wimbledon even in times before the closing dome roofs came.
They just moved the game to another court, at another time.

Admittedly cricket match is more complicated then a tennis game but there are only 5% games compared to Wimbledon.

It's a matter of incurring more costs on logistics and certainly doable....and will be done if imposed as an essential criteria.

Great start for New Zealand as Boult gets de Kock all cleaned up!

One of South Africa's two good batters already gone. A lot resting on du Plessis

why didn't Makram open
A seemingy good contest between quality seamers and good batsment in codntiions that are not absolutely flat

Dhawan ruled out of the World Cup. Massive loss for India.

Duty281 wrote:Dhawan ruled out of the World Cup. Massive loss for India.

Massive it would be if Bhuvi is ruled out.
Dhawan is a "digestible" loss

Big loss for India that.

NZ have started well here, but SA have rather let them bowl at them so far. Amla perhaps starting to get going there though with a couple of boundaries off Boult.

Haven't seen much of this Ferguson fella, but that was a heck of a good yorker, just as the two South Africans were starting to take control and kick the score on.

Duty281 wrote:Haven't seen much of this Ferguson fella, but that was a heck of a good yorker, just as the two South Africans were starting to take control and kick the score on.

Yes, I had a feeling he'd do well this tournament.

I'm impressed with the NZ pace bowler conveyor belt... they have good depth in attack.
He's right up there amongst the number of wicket takers albeit against the 'lesser teams' but I think he's a tough competitor. Exactly the kind you want.

I expect to see him continue this great form as far as NZ go in this WC.

Markram's cover drive

KP_fan wrote:

alfie wrote:

You know , I did consider that "floating reserve day" idea...but honestly , it just isn't practical.  Teams are already fixtured in every few days in different parts of the country ; and you have no way of knowing in advance which or how many games need to be rescheduled ... Unless you are going to leave a spare ten days or so before the semis it is really not a starter...

England has successfully hosted several of these events . Haven't had a final or a semi ruined by rain to my recollection.  Think I can recall one or two other hosts who have found the closing stages a bit affected by weather...it really is just luck.  And it won't render the final lineup this time undeserved , I think.

There is a minimum requirement on hosts when hosting international sporting events such as
-safety
-a minimum quality in hotels and facilities & grounds

One who doesn't have it does not get to host it ( such as Pak and Afg) on grounds of safety
or Qatar having to massively upgrade its infrastructure to host the world cup.

I would make handling rains as a criteria that the host has to be able to take care of if they want the event ( everything is "doable" for a price).
Bear in mind Wimbledon hosts nearly 900 games over 2 weeks and often times in peak of rains....but not one game have ever gotten rained-out at Wimbledon  even in times before the closing dome roofs came.
They just moved the game to another court, at another time.

Admittedly cricket match is more complicated then a tennis game but there are only 5% games compared to Wimbledon.

It's a matter of incurring more costs on logistics and certainly doable....and will be done if imposed as an essential criteria.

If we are bringing tennis into it , I shall quote the great John McEnroe : "You cannot be serious !" A tennis tournament is all in one place , over a solid block of days , with a lot of courts which become steadily more available as the event goes on. Not remotely comparable to 45 widely scattered cricket matches tightly bunched to finish in time for the three important finals ... Yes , you could reschedule the odd game , depending on who was washed out and when and where each of them was due to play next ; but it would be very messy , might arguably disadvantage a team more than letting them take one point in the first place - and could easily (in a dreadful run of weather like this) still be trumped by more rain...
If you go back to small groups in the same location , less games , more spare days. : then yes , you can play over two days. But that isn't the case this time .

And forget about banning England from holding World Cups. Not going to happen. And anyway I rather suspect you are just stirring so will drop this now

Milk the spinners for singles, tick along the middle overs at 4s and then look to catch up against the strike bowlers.

It's like watching England 4 years ago. What could go wrong?

someone should take on Grandhomme

Nearly half way into their innings, South Africa aren't even able to score at 4 an over. The pitch is demanding and need batsmanship beyond slogging abilities, but the South African batsmen have made it look laborious and difficult out there.

de Grandhomme reminding me of Paul Collingwood in his bowling prime with this spell.

Looks tough for South Africa to exceed even 270 from this position. Not to mention they have a very long tail, with Phehlukwayo in at 7.

msp83 wrote:Nearly half way into their innings, South Africa aren't even able to score at 4 an over. The pitch is demanding and need batsmanship beyond slogging abilities, but the South African batsmen have made it look laborious and difficult out there.

Back when he was playing KP used to talk about 100 after 15 overs. I still see that as a bit of a benchmark when I'm checking in on England games I can't watch. A glance at the score, if we're 100 after 15 then a score north of 350 is on the cards, especially if we don't have a few down.

To only cross 100 in the 26th over isn't very smart from South Africa. The pitch may not be flat and you might say par would be 280-300, but that will require them to go at nearly 8s from here. It's a long way out to bat at that type of rate up on a pitch like this. Especially with New Zealand's primary pacers to come back on.

msp83 wrote:Nearly half way into their innings, South Africa aren't even able to score at 4 an over. The pitch is demanding and need batsmanship beyond slogging abilities, but the South African batsmen have made it look laborious and difficult out there.

we can only judge the pitch when both sides have batted
NZ sweated to chase down 244 vs BD
This is no more than a 300 pitch.......270 would be a fighting total IMO

Santner defeats Amla's defences. Some very picturesque wickets from the Kiwis today.

Very tough to get 270 now.

South Africa are devoid of confidence, hence their low scoring rate. Its not surprising really, their aim is probably to conserve wickets and get to some kind of workable total. It is a very England of 5 years ago type approach, but I can't blame them really

there is spin also in the pitch.....not an easy wicket
SA should not get bowled out......get whatever they can on the board and leave it to their bowlers

they need another steady 50 run parrtnership now

robbo277 wrote:

msp83 wrote:Nearly half way into their innings, South Africa aren't even able to score at 4 an over. The pitch is demanding and need batsmanship beyond slogging abilities, but the South African batsmen have made it look laborious and difficult out there.

Back when he was playing KP used to talk about 100 after 15 overs. I still see that as a bit of a benchmark when I'm checking in on England games I can't watch. A glance at the score, if we're 100 after 15 then a score north of 350 is on the cards, especially if we don't have a few down.

To only cross 100 in the 26th over isn't very smart from South Africa. The pitch may not be flat and you might say par would be 280-300, but that will require them to go at nearly 8s from here. It's a long way out to bat at that type of rate up on a pitch like this. Especially with New Zealand's primary pacers to come back on.

Yeah there's being cautious, and then there's plodding, and SA are plodding. The very least international batsmen should do is be able to rotate strike and put some intensity in running between the wickets, SA haven't even looked like doing that. Poor imo