ICC Cricket World Cup - Part 4

First topic message reminder :

Yes, England expected to be unchanged. Long boundaries apparently, which will suit England's excellent running ability!

If there were a decent replacement in the wings, I think Rashid's place would be under severe threat. He's got figures of 7/403 from 69 overs in the World Cup so far, which is hardly illuminating stuff.

Pakistan up to 144-1 after 28 and the win predictor has their median score at 317. Given they have to win by 316 that would give them a chance at least, but you think they'd have to do much better than the average.

Another 200 runs from here would be 344 and they'd have 28 runs to play with. Can they realistically get more than that? It would take something hugely special to get up to 400.

robbo277 wrote:Pakistan up to 144-1 after 28 and the win predictor has their median score at 317. Given they have to win by 316 that would give them a chance at least, but you think they'd have to do much better than the average.

Another 200 runs from here would be 344 and they'd have 28 runs to play with. Can they realistically get more than that? It would take something hugely special to get up to 400.

Such a shame, I wanted fireworks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babrra_massacre

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:Fakhar Zaman has been exposed as a very mediocre batsman. Averages 250 vs Zimbabwe and averages 34 against everyone else. Flat track bully vs minnows.

Ditto Morgan

KP_fan wrote:

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:Fakhar Zaman has been exposed as a very mediocre batsman. Averages 250 vs Zimbabwe and averages 34 against everyone else. Flat track bully vs minnows.

Ditto Morgan

Averaged 80 last summer vs India.

Duty281 wrote:Looks like Pakistan aren't even bothered about chasing the impossible dream - they just want to win it in the conventional fashion. Shame.

In the real world , winning an ODI by 320 runs is simply not possible . However much some commentators might want to suggest it might be an outside chance. In fact if it were to happen we would be accusing the loser of taking a dive... So why make a mockery of a game of cricket by pretending ?

Pakistan would doubtless prefer to finish with a win. Which is hardly guaranteed anyway. Best just enjoy it as a contest for pride between two closely related countries...

robbo277 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:Fakhar Zaman has been exposed as a very mediocre batsman. Averages 250 vs Zimbabwe and averages 34 against everyone else. Flat track bully vs minnows.

Ditto Morgan

Averaged 80 last summer vs India.

you still count bilateral ODIs
FTBs, Minnow basher and ones performing in bilateral ODIs,, IPL and nets  only are all in the same bucket

KP_fan wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:Fakhar Zaman has been exposed as a very mediocre batsman. Averages 250 vs Zimbabwe and averages 34 against everyone else. Flat track bully vs minnows.

Ditto Morgan

Averaged 80 last summer vs India.

you still count bilateral ODIs
FTBs, Minnow basher and ones performing in bilateral ODIs,, IPL and nets  only are all in the same bucket

So you can only judge players on a 2 month period every 4 years?

robbo277 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:Fakhar Zaman has been exposed as a very mediocre batsman. Averages 250 vs Zimbabwe and averages 34 against everyone else. Flat track bully vs minnows.

Ditto Morgan

Averaged 80 last summer vs India.

you still count bilateral ODIs
FTBs, Minnow basher and ones performing in bilateral ODIs,, IPL and nets  only are all in the same bucket

So you can only judge players on a 2 month period every 4 years?

That's almost true. The higest grade of rankings for cricketers is reserved in my view of following counts:

1-50 over World Cups
2- Champions Trophy
3-T-20 world cups
4- test-matches with special focus on overseas performances *
Rest are all transactional and will be forgotten

* a bit more explanation due

Haha, T20 World Cups as a good way of ranking cricketers.

You should pay more attention to bilateral ODIs, KP_Fan, then maybe your predictions won't be all over the place!

Duty281 wrote:Haha, T20 World Cups as a good way of ranking cricketers.

You should pay more attention to bilateral ODIs, KP_Fan, then maybe your predictions won't be all over the place!

you are making it sound like
"20 World Cups as a good way of ranking cricketers" is the only way I pointed

I gave a 4 point criteria for judging the greatness ( or mediocrity)....
and T20World-cup IMO does test temperament / pressure handling skills that bread and butter IPL / bilateral limited overs do not

Is that how you ended up with SA as number 2?

KP_fan wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:Fakhar Zaman has been exposed as a very mediocre batsman. Averages 250 vs Zimbabwe and averages 34 against everyone else. Flat track bully vs minnows.

Ditto Morgan

Averaged 80 last summer vs India.

you still count bilateral ODIs
FTBs, Minnow basher and ones performing in bilateral ODIs,, IPL and nets  only are all in the same bucket

So you can only judge players on a 2 month period every 4 years?

That's almost true. The higest grade of rankings for cricketers is reserved in my view of following counts:

1-50 over World Cups
2- Champions Trophy
3-T-20 world cups
4- test-matches with special focus on overseas performances *
Rest are all transactional and will be forgotten

* a bit more explanation due

Why is it okay to judge on test matches, which are always bilateral, but laugh when people use bilateral ODIs.

You can only judge bilaterally, as anything else brings more variables in as conditions change so much from match to match, series to series, country to country.

So if we ignore nearly all cricket played, and add a sprinkling of personal bias, then and only then we can get a correct view on performance?

KP_fan wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:Fakhar Zaman has been exposed as a very mediocre batsman. Averages 250 vs Zimbabwe and averages 34 against everyone else. Flat track bully vs minnows.

Ditto Morgan

Averaged 80 last summer vs India.

you still count bilateral ODIs
FTBs, Minnow basher and ones performing in bilateral ODIs,, IPL and nets  only are all in the same bucket

So you can only judge players on a 2 month period every 4 years?

That's almost true. The higest grade of rankings for cricketers is reserved in my view of following counts:

1-50 over World Cups
2- Champions Trophy
3-T-20 world cups
4- test-matches with special focus on overseas performances *
Rest are all transactional and will be forgotten

* a bit more explanation due

If we remove bilateral ODIs, and rank based on world cups, then we can remove Virat Kohli's tag as "the greatest chaser" in International cricket, with only one 50 made in a chase in a world cup, and that was against England the other day...

Back to the game at hand, it's been a decent batting effort by the Pakistan team, but it won't be enough to see them through to the semi-finals. At 295-7 from 48 (effectively 8 down with Sarafaz retired injured) even 316 would be a stretch, which is the bare minimum to qualify.

The likes of imam and Babar were more interested in playing for their averages rather than trying to get Pakistan up to 400+. Embarrassing

The Fizz with another 5fer. One of the great limited overs bowlers lers

Pakistan are out

Mustafizur Rahman putting the breaks on Pakistan in this final over. 308-7 at the start goes for 2, 4, dot, wicket, wicket. Sarfaraz comes back out for the last ball and can only make a single. 315-9 and the semi-final hopes are over.

BBC now reporting that if Pakistan bowl Bangladesh out for 7, they'll go through on NRR.

robbo277 wrote:BBC now reporting that if Pakistan bowl Bangladesh out for 7, they'll go through on NRR.

Good luck with that

robbo277 wrote:BBC now reporting that if Pakistan bowl Bangladesh out for 7, they'll go through on NRR.

I'm glad it's a system which everyone understands!

Could do without hearing Atherton say "the fizz" 50 times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aranthalawa_masacre

It's nowhere near as inane and annoying as Universe Boss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_Canyon

Gooseberry wrote:Is that how you ended up with SA as number 2?

I am talking about parameters of judging good-great vs mediocre batsman?
Are you talking about the same?.....if not then you are creating a straw-man argument....and not for the first time

Afro wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:Fakhar Zaman has been exposed as a very mediocre batsman. Averages 250 vs Zimbabwe and averages 34 against everyone else. Flat track bully vs minnows.

Ditto Morgan

Averaged 80 last summer vs India.

you still count bilateral ODIs
FTBs, Minnow basher and ones performing in bilateral ODIs,, IPL and nets  only are all in the same bucket

So you can only judge players on a 2 month period every 4 years?

That's almost true. The higest grade of rankings for cricketers is reserved in my view of following counts:

1-50 over World Cups
2- Champions Trophy
3-T-20 world cups
4- test-matches with special focus on overseas performances *
Rest are all transactional and will be forgotten

* a bit more explanation due

Why is it okay to judge on test matches, which are always bilateral, but laugh when people use bilateral ODIs.

You can only judge bilaterally, as anything else brings more variables in as conditions change so much from match to match, series to series, country to country.

because aforesaid listed categories of games:

1-Have the highest level of intensity
2-test temperament by creating pressures that cannot be simulated in bilateral ODIs, T20s or IPL

So, the rules are, from now, that only performances in World Cups matter

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:  

If we remove bilateral ODIs, and rank based on world cups, then we can remove Virat Kohli's tag as "the greatest chaser" in International cricket, with only one 50 made in a chase in a world cup, and that was against England the other day...

It's interesting you raise this point.
This is almost what I was discussing with my brother after the Eng game...true greatness will elude Kohli as an ODI batsman unless he plays a defining inning in the semis or finals.....especially if we have to chase.

he's had a below par world-cup....got 50s in 6 out of 8 games and always going ~ 6RPO....never converted to a hundred.
His chance to play a Kohli trademark inning was against Eng to bat through.

We have a high bar for ODI greatness and along with having an allround good record following are the 3 real greats

Kapil's 175 in 1983 an inning was ahead of it's time .......along with other good scores and host of wickets....in that world cup
Dhoni unbeaten 120 SR hundred in the final of 2011 world cup
and Tendulkar's mega world cup 2003 in SA with a crowning glory 100 in a chase vs Pak.

then we have had good players who have performed credibly in world cup and Champions trophy......Rohit, Dhawan, Sehwag and Ganguly.

KP_fan wrote:

Afro wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:Fakhar Zaman has been exposed as a very mediocre batsman. Averages 250 vs Zimbabwe and averages 34 against everyone else. Flat track bully vs minnows.

Ditto Morgan

Averaged 80 last summer vs India.

you still count bilateral ODIs
FTBs, Minnow basher and ones performing in bilateral ODIs,, IPL and nets  only are all in the same bucket

So you can only judge players on a 2 month period every 4 years?

That's almost true. The higest grade of rankings for cricketers is reserved in my view of following counts:

1-50 over World Cups
2- Champions Trophy
3-T-20 world cups
4- test-matches with special focus on overseas performances *
Rest are all transactional and will be forgotten

* a bit more explanation due

Why is it okay to judge on test matches, which are always bilateral, but laugh when people use bilateral ODIs.

You can only judge bilaterally, as anything else brings more variables in as conditions change so much from match to match, series to series, country to country.

because aforesaid listed categories of games:

1-Have the highest level of intensity
2-test temperament by creating pressures that cannot be simulated in bilateral ODIs, T20s or IPL

What about when this ODI Super League comes in? Does that have more pressure than bilateral ODIs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020–22_ICC_Cricket_World_Cup_Super_League

^the superleague wiill give context to bilateral ODIs and that its being brought in is a realization that they have diminished in relevance as they stand now

It's  sad to see pak go out....on form they are the second best side ( after the Aussies) in my view

They have pace....and wrist spin and their top, middle and lower order is firing....they showed chasing ability in under huge pressure and on tough spinning pitches.......and are the only side that blew BD away when BD was chasing.

And most important they are the case in point that you don't need to bust your backside practicing / strategising in low intensity bilateral games for 4 years.

They raised their levels tremendously at the highest stage.
Some might say they left a bit more for a bit too late......BUT had NZ & pak's games vs Ind and Lanka been completed...Pak might have easily sailed throuhg to semis.

Aus is the  other side that was in tatters before the tournament......got their best squad in time for world cup and got their optimal 11 in about their 5th or 6th game.

A small applause for BD to...finished 6th and from a minnow have risen to be a consistent mid-table side.
they need to add sting to their bowling...especially pace and seam to make one more cut upwards

KP_fan wrote:
And most important they are the case in point that you don't need to bust your backside practicing / strategising in low intensity bilateral games for 4 years.

Or they're a case in point that talent only gets you so far, because they haven't succeeded at doing anything here.

Pakistan aren't the second best side, no way
They got bombed out by the Windies and should have lost to Afghanistan. They deserve to go out, and about are the fourth best team on a good day

South Africa are the second best side arent they KPF?

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

KP_fan wrote:
And most important they are the case in point that you don't need to bust your backside practicing / strategising in low intensity bilateral games for 4 years.

Or they're a case in point that talent only gets you so far, because they haven't succeeded at doing anything here.

NZ's game vs India & Pak's vs Lanka  raining out....is not their lack of startegizing, but a Force Majeure .

The team that proudly busted their back for 4 years planning, startegizing, developing an aggressive brand, lost faith in their 4 years of work in their moment of truth ....and get dad's help to bring boundary in and pour concrete in the pitch......and had divine grace of winning those two tosses.

It took all of the above in Italics to keep Pak out

VTR wrote:Pakistan aren't the second best side, no way
They got bombed out by the Windiess and should have lost to Afghanistan. They deserve to go out, and about are the fourth best team on a good day

Eng got choked out by Lanka and may go on to win the world cup.

That game against Afg 230ish runs on the board.....against 4 spinners on that near square turning pitch....was worth a win and a half for pak.

I think if the last 5 batsmen of the "best team of this forum" were given to bat twice also, that team would have still lost chasing 230

Sorry not buying it, and nor do I think England are the best team in the tournament. To have Pakistan second though is laughable. The performance vs Windies (who have been awful, unprofessional and lazy) was abysmal, they deserve to go out and aren't anywhere near the standard of the top three

KP_fan wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

KP_fan wrote:
And most important they are the case in point that you don't need to bust your backside practicing / strategising in low intensity bilateral games for 4 years.

Or they're a case in point that talent only gets you so far, because they haven't succeeded at doing anything here.

NZ's game vs India & Pak's vs Lanka  raining out....is not their lack of startegizing, but a Force Majeure .

The team that proudly busted their back for 4 years planning, startegizing, developing an aggressive brand, lost faith in their 4 years of work in their moment of truth ....and get dad's help to bring boundary in and pour concrete in the pitch......and had divine grace of winning those two tosses.

It took all of the above in Italics to keep Pak out

How are you so sure they'd have won that? And they'd have taken New Zealand's place, if any, let alone ignoring that they'd have played differently with different pressures. And they could have won more games, but they didn't, it wasn't a 100% record with a tie that cost them.

And to think, England actually used their time to become a better team and went back to that brand of cricket to win two crunch games. Under tournament pressure, which you harp on about.

You need to remember your own words, cos you are looking foolish now. The whole conspiracy is sad, and indicates an immaturity about Indian cricket fans. But aside from your nonsense, you claimed tournament pressure kills teams, and then England blew everyone away under the biggest pressure and you tout this instead. Let's remember that they had to go and beat two teams, even if you believe that your allegations, and did it with ease.

Your opinions are often the most ludicrous on here, but it's even better when you have opinions that contradict your own.

Now now chaps ...as Pal Joey says , we shouldn't all line up to kick KP_fan to death...opinions , it is.

But I do have to question him about an inconsistency : In Theory 1 of the World Cup , we saw that if a chasing team apparently sets itself to attain a certain target and falls short by , say , forty runs ; it follows that had the target been forty runs less they would still not have won because they'd have set their sights lower and hence been bowled out for that much less...ie , same result.

Then when assessing recent results - and pitches , "fair" and otherwise - KP_fan asserts that had England bowled properly to Australia they'd have knocked them over for under 250 and probably won... In this case the lower target actually improving their capacity for chasing.
So is it the pitches or the pressure that matter ?

Seems to vary depending which subjective point you want to push on a day...

Inconsistency, from kpf????

-India's strength are the two wrist-spinners who in the usually dead middle overs will pick wickets and change games

--the format itself is tough and will be a true test and real ranking of who stands where
If your team finishes in the top-4 you can be proud you have a world class team...because beyond that , the occasion, nerves, conditions / toss and temperament will make it into a lottery.

My prognosis on how table will read at the end of Round Robin
1-Aus
2-SA
3-Eng
4-Ind
5-NZ

Honestly though his is right in a fair but of which hes saying, it's more the inability to admit he might have got things wrong at times and the pretending hes said the same thing all along and is smarter than other that wrinkles. And cherry picking facts as opinions to support his arguments after the fact. Plus the blatant ant England bias. Plus the outright self admitted trolling at times.

But ...if you can over look that ....

I dont thinks hes too far off saying that over the last few rounds Pakistan have performed as well as anyone.
England without Roy were a mess, and Moeens been exposed once again as just not good enough. Morgans confidence seems to have taken a knock too. On top of which Rashids shoulder is clearly hampering him with the ball and in the field.
New Zealand havent been good and were straight up weak without Ferguson
Indias weak middle order has been exposed with the injuries and they have stuttered at times.
Aus have just gone about their business and won games, but to be honest I've never seen them look terrifying. 3 batsmen and two bowlers then a load of filler. They have sorted out a better ballance for the side and Warner is in incredible form batting in a way that really works for this tournament, at least when they are chasing anyway.

Pakistan have been a bit on off but a number of times they have shown they can mix it with these 4, including the games they won against them.
Had no games been rained off they probably would have made the top 4 although all manner of other factors and dynamics would have changed. But New Zealand got a point from one of their toughest games, and Pakistan missed an opportunities to get more.
It's a huge surprise from where they were but they really have lifted themselves, non more so than Amir who was so awful for a the year building up he only got a place through injury but has been one of the best bowlers in the tournament. Wahab Riaz another who's selection was questioned as a bit of a desperation move but stepped up and delivered a match winning performance.
Then the top 4 who Nathanial Jacob's derides so much have largely had a good tournament and adjusted their game away from T20 style blasting. Calling out more inconsistency in overblown self opinion two of them made huge scores batting against "one of the best bowlers in the world" yesterday. Hafeez in particular has surprised me by raising his game a bit. And Babar by showing he can bat sensibly.

I really didnt have them down as a top 4 side, but theyve played like one for much of this tournament and honestly I'd see them as a bigger threat in a semi final than I do New Zealand ( especially if Fergusson isnt fit)

Today's fixture...on paper one of the dullest and least meaningful games of the tournament.

Expect a last ball thriller.

Theres a couple of Indians maybe playing for places and the possibility of shuffling to experiment with a different order. No hint they will rest Bumrah or anyone else despite how important he is though.

Sri Lanka are just playing for pride, which they have severely lacked in recent times.

Not dead games though , are they , goose...

Finalists are settled ; but not who plays who. Hard to see Australia slipping against SA ; but it could happen. So India must make sure to win their game ...suspect they'd rather play NZ than the home team (although this time the boundaries will be more even )

True by the way that Pakistan finished well - while NZ ran out of petrol . Unfortunately for the former their poor start left them with just too much to do.
Will do something on the chances of the last four later. But to be honest I don't think any of them have the "perfect" team : all have weaknesses that could derail them. Which means this competition remains interesting right to the end,..

A good toss to lose for India and chase........Jadeja and Bhuvi both playing...so batting down to No. 9
let India show themselves they can chase and win and go in a more confident frame of mind into knock outs.....be prepared for chase situations.

Should be routine victories for Australia and India today to finish off the group stage.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

KP_fan wrote:
And most important they are the case in point that you don't need to bust your backside practicing / strategising in low intensity bilateral games for 4 years.

Or they're a case in point that talent only gets you so far, because they haven't succeeded at doing anything here.

NZ's game vs India & Pak's vs Lanka  raining out....is not their lack of startegizing, but a Force Majeure .

The team that proudly busted their back for 4 years planning, startegizing, developing an aggressive brand, lost faith in their 4 years of work in their moment of truth ....and get dad's help to bring boundary in and pour concrete in the pitch......and had divine grace of winning those two tosses.

It took all of the above in Italics to keep Pak out

How are you so sure they'd have won that? And they'd have taken New Zealand's place, if any, let alone ignoring that they'd have played differently with different pressures. And they could have won more games, but they didn't, it wasn't a 100% record with a tie that cost them.

And to think, England actually used their time to become a better team and went back to that brand of cricket to win two crunch games. Under tournament pressure, which you harp on about.

You need to remember your own words, cos you are looking foolish now. The whole conspiracy is sad, and indicates an immaturity about Indian cricket fans. But aside from your nonsense, you claimed tournament pressure kills teams, and then England blew everyone away under the biggest pressure and you tout this instead. Let's remember that they had to go and beat two teams, even if you believe that your allegations, and did it with ease.

Your opinions are often the most ludicrous on here, but it's even better when you have opinions that contradict your own.

I hear what you say and it's mostly personal against me & Indian fans ( why bring them in, when they are not here other then me?)....hardly any cricketing arguments.
It's called adhominem argument and rated as one of the lowest forms of argument ( alongside with strawman argument)

I have no more to add for now on this discussion.

I do agree India have been sensible in bringing Jadeja into their team today...

In fact I think they would generally be well advised to pick him all the time . I think it makes them a better balanced lineup. But it seems he's down the pecking order when it comes to the spinners for this format.

Pressure is off Sri Lanka now so I suppose if they can put a good score on the board this might yet be an interesting contest .

...and right on cue , Jadeja underlines my point by having Mendis stumped with just his fourth delivery

Sri Lanka unlikely to make 200 after this start. They are a woeful side, but they've scrapped well at this World Cup and picked up three wins, which is more than I believed they would get at the start.

What’s the point in SL batting first? They essentially robbed the fans of seeing a contest. IF India batted first they paying spectators would get the chance to see India potentially pile up 350. Instead this will be over by 2pm

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:What’s the point in SL batting first? They essentially robbed the fans of seeing a contest. IF India batted first they paying spectators would get the chance to see India potentially pile up 350. Instead this will be over by 2pm

They probably weren't planning to lose 4/50