ICC Cricket World Cup - Part 4

First topic message reminder :

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

alfie wrote:Good to see Morgan handling the short ball.  Has seen Behrend - orff...now taking to Lyon.

Keep the foot down lads I fancy an "early" night

Alfie I'm afraid this is the worst thing I have seen posted all World Cup.

I do my best

Agreed LIW.

Aus were a team who had relied heavily on a handful of stand out stars, and Carey exceeding expectations but for the most part were pretty ordinary players delivering ordinary performances. And in Maxwells case just rubbish.
England are very much a side of equals. Although Roy's the one having a golden time at the moment everyone has made major contributions. Well OK except Vince and Moeen. But even the injured Rashid has delivered some important moments.

That said the net result, aside from yesterday, hasnt always been as good for England as it has for Aus. But taking Starc apart the way they did elevates Englands performance in my eyes to another plane.

But overall despite all of Englands quality through the team they have lost more times than India and as many as Aus.

Are England the best TEAM? No question. Do they have the best star performers? Probably not. Have they played the best cricket as a team? That's debatable ( as evidenced in the past few posts!)

But yes the last point, certainly yesterday, they are the ones who are stepping up in the crunch moments so far.

KP_fan wrote:

msp83 wrote:  A tournament that is not a year round league, should have that surprise element, that unpredictability, that tension, that pressure. And the closer you get to the title, the stronger the performance should be.

As you rightly note--> tournament in last several editions was  top-8 teams in QF & & then sudden death format takes over, rendering round robin results of little value
So we moved to now ( like in 1992)---> to-4 team in sudden death format.

It's better than the previous editions but still not adequate reward for consistency in round-robin....therefore proposed an IPL like 3 games to decide semi-finalists and guaranteeing one of top-2 in the finals.



The other extreme would be to decide the top-2 based on bi-laterals and let them play in the final , every four years (like the test championship is planned to be)

The one in italics IMO is a balance between the two scenarios in bold

If the World Cup has to be given to the most consistent team, then they could give it to the side ranked top for the most duration during a 4 year cycle. A tournament needs drama, theatrics, competition. We need results like 1996 and 1983. There should be enough scope for surprises. 1983 was so very crucial for the current state of evolution of Indian cricket. 1996 altered the landscape of cricket in Sri Lanka. Even 2007 for that matter, was instrumental in the evolution of Bangladesh though it took another 7 or 8 years for that young batch of 2007 to get there. It is not necessary that the most consistent team in the 4 year cycle or even for that matter the group stages have to win the title.

I find it quite sad they way Kohli reacts to defeats. It shows very little class

If I was NZ I would focus a lot on getting Eng openers early.
Bring the ball in, in-cutter, in-dippers in-swingers, cramp them for room and tuck them in....6 or 7 dots in a row and given them a release ball....angled across off tempting a flash or bumped in sucking them to a hook.

Get an opener ( or both) early....and Root will start slowly creating pressure.....2 down and come Morgan...get Ferguson to bowl fast and short body line.... 3 down and panic sets in...Stokes plays a 4RPO match saving inning.

Key is to get Eng's opener's early...and If I have seen it....I am sure NZ would have seen it too.
How much skill they have to execute this plan will be the make or break of NZ in the finals.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I find it quite sad they way Kohli reacts to defeats. It shows very little class

Wide outside the off-stump and arms shouldered to let it go

KP_fan wrote:If I was NZ I would focus a lot on getting Eng openers early.
Bring the ball in, in-cutter, in-dippers in-swingers, cramp them for room and tuck them in....6 or 7 dots in a row and given them a release ball....angled across off tempting a flash or bumped  in sucking them to a hook.

Get an opener ( or both) early....and Root will start slowly creating pressure.....2 down and come Morgan...get Ferguson to bowl fast and short body line.... 3 down and panic sets in...Stokes plays a 4RPO match saving inning.

Key is to get Eng's opener's early...and If I have seen it....I am sure NZ would have seen it too.
How much skill they have to execute this plan will be the make or break of NZ in the finals.

Well they have to do damage with the new ball, because bowlers 4/5/6 (Neesham, Santner, De Grandhomme) are all mediocre at best.

KP_fan wrote:If I was NZ I would focus a lot on getting Eng openers early.
Bring the ball in, in-cutter, in-dippers in-swingers, cramp them for room and tuck them in....6 or 7 dots in a row and given them a release ball....angled across off tempting a flash or bumped  in sucking them to a hook.

Get an opener ( or both) early....and Root will start slowly creating pressure.....2 down and come Morgan...get Ferguson to bowl fast and short body line.... 3 down and panic sets in...Stokes plays a 4RPO match saving inning.

Key is to get Eng's opener's early...and If I have seen it....I am sure NZ would have seen it too.
How much skill they have to execute this plan will be the make or break of NZ in the finals.

What a revolutionary tactic. I didn't know trying to get the openers out was really the done thing.

KP_fan wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I find it quite sad they way Kohli reacts to defeats. It shows very little class

Wide outside the off-stump and arms shouldered to let it go

Not a troll/wind-up, he just seems to unload like a child.

lostinwales wrote:

KP_fan wrote:If I was NZ I would focus a lot on getting Eng openers early.
Bring the ball in, in-cutter, in-dippers in-swingers, cramp them for room and tuck them in....6 or 7 dots in a row and given them a release ball....angled across off tempting a flash or bumped  in sucking them to a hook.

Get an opener ( or both) early....and Root will start slowly creating pressure.....2 down and come Morgan...get Ferguson to bowl fast and short body line.... 3 down and panic sets in...Stokes plays a 4RPO match saving inning.

Key is to get Eng's opener's early...and If I have seen it....I am sure NZ would have seen it too.
How much skill they have to execute this plan will be the make or break of NZ in the finals.

What a revolutionary tactic. I didn't know trying to get the openers out was really the done thing.

Big achievements in cricket are not revolutionary but are simple things done perfectly....look at Anderson's action or Dravid's technique.

And yes when tucking them in....NZ should have 2 mid-wkts, catching fine leg and atleast a wide slip.
NZ's world-cup chances hinge on getting English opener's early.

And when I look back at Eng's last 3 games, 3 wins against big sides.......you let openers' play for 20 overs...game is gone....you get 1 in 10 overs and you have some chance.....you pluck both out in 10 to 12 overs and you push them hugely back......and if you get 2 early Morgan might fall early too.

Well I can't disagree with you on the NZ plan , KP_fan... though I would suggest that it is so obvious as to hardly need stating ! All - or nearly all - England's big scores in recent times have been built on great , fast , starts from Bairstow and Roy (or Hales). Getting one or both early is almost essential for any team wishing to restrict England.
Certainly not impossible : Boult and Henry are a formidable opening pair ; the pressure of a final will be large ; and one might almost think the England pair are "due" for a slip up...

Not sure about the rest of the prescription though : Morgan found some form against Australia - though the short stuff tested him again ; Root might not score at 140 but he is busy enough : and Stokes does what he needs to do ...plus there is a chap called Buttler who perhaps has a point to prove after a lean tournament by his standards...

I will certainly not write off NZ . I said all along they were legitimate contenders for this WC : they play for each other and to the limit of their abilities ; so even if they lack quite the overall class of some other teams they are always capable of getting a result. And in Williamson they have arguably the batsman of the WC . - plus potential high scorers in Guptill (due a score , surely ? , Taylor and Latham ... I don't think they can go this last lap successfully against England ; but I will not , as an England fan , be counting any chickens (or Kiwis!) before the game is done. Should be a good game for you neutrals.

New Zealand do have 20 overs of junk tonget through but Sri Lanka showed that its possible to get England in a tizz with negative bowling, especially if they are chasing a relatively low total and feel they need to be responsible and not throw wickets away.
What we saw against Aus seemed to be a reaction to that. The openers werent reckless against the opening seamers but did score positively and maybe took more risks than were required given they only needed 4.5 an over. As soon as Lyon was in he was hit out of the park (almost literally).
England are just much more comfortable playing that way. Theres a chance they could ship wickets to the junk but will be scoring fast off it, they wont let themselves get into the nervous mess they did against Sri lanaka.
Its lords and a fresh strip. It should be a high scoring game, which suits englands batting. If they can figure out a way of getting to Williamson early I dont see how they lose this.

New Zealand by 30 runs.

The key statistic is - England have five batsmen averaging 45+ at this tournament, New Zealand have one. Roy's averaging 71, Root 69, Stokes 55, Bairstow 49, Morgan 45. Williamson for the Kiwis is averaging 91. But if Williamson doesn't make a score in the final, no one else is likely to. Meanwhile, England have a queue of high-performing batsmen. And it's also about pace - England have 8 batsmen scoring at a strike rate of over 90 at this World Cup, Kiwis have just two.

It's no surprise that at this World Cup England have crossed 300 multiple times, while New Zealand never have (and never really looked likely to).

New Zealand's path to victory tomorrow is so narrow. They have to bat first, because conditions demand they must and because they'll lose it by halfway if they don't, and Williamson must make a century. It's not probable they'll cross 300 even if Williamson does 'ton up', because most of their top order is dysfunctional, but they will likely make around 280. Such a score would put it in the realm of 'defendable' - though England would still be favourites as they're such brilliant chasers - with three NZ bowlers averaging under 25 and a fourth, Matt Henry, coming off an excellent display against the Indians.

Meanwhile, England have multiple ways in which they can reach the promised land. Bat first, make 300+ and win the game by half-time is the easiest way. Six batsmen in the England side are capable of scoring centuries so it shouldn't be a drama to do just that. What a chance for this England team to join Sir Alf Ramsey's immortals of 1966 and Sir Clive's colossuses of 2003.

alfie wrote:Well I can't disagree with you on the NZ plan  , KP_fan... though I would suggest that it is so obvious as to hardly need stating  !  All - or nearly all - England's big scores in recent times have been built on great , fast , starts from Bairstow and Roy (or Hales).  Getting one or both early is almost essential for any team wishing to restrict England.
Certainly not impossible :  Boult and Henry are a formidable opening pair ; the pressure of a final will be large ; and one might almost think the England pair are "due" for a slip up...

Not sure about the rest of the prescription though : Morgan found some form against Australia - though the short stuff tested him again ; Root might not score at 140 but he is busy enough : and Stokes does what he needs to do ...plus there is a chap called Buttler who perhaps has a point to prove after a lean tournament by his standards...

I will certainly not write off NZ .  I said all along they were legitimate contenders for this WC : they play for each other and to the limit of their abilities ; so even if they lack quite the overall class of some other teams they are always capable of getting a result. And in Williamson they have arguably the batsman of the WC . - plus potential high scorers in Guptill (due a score , surely ? , Taylor and Latham ... I don't think they can go this last lap successfully against England ; but I will not , as an England fan , be counting any chickens (or Kiwis!) before the game is done.   Should be a good game for you neutrals.

Spot on, Alfie. I believe we're the stronger team and should win but that doesn't mean we will. IF NZ win the toss and make circa 250 (almost a given they would bat), it could be a walk in the park if we get going from the start or a possibly a different story and certainly a nervy time for at least a while if we lose a couple of early wickets, as our opponents showed to India's cost.

lostinwales wrote:I think also that the England stats are not seen as significant as they actually are. This is because so often the success is shared between several players. Starc's wicket taking has been exceptional, and he's a really good bowler, but the number of wickets he has taken may also indicate that the other Australian bowlers have not been performing at the same level. The wickets are more shared out for England - between Archer Woakes and Wood.

Batting - England have got more 50's than any other team and have the same number of 100's as India - but these are shared out over more players.

You could suggest that they have been flat track bullies. But then some of their worst performances have been against poorly rated teams.

They have not been as consistent as they would have liked this championship, but when they have had to deliver they have been the best performing team.

Very fair point, lostinwales.

Different format and a different era but the same illustration. Richard Hadlee took 9 tenfers in his Test career. Malcolm Marshall, Michael Holding, Andy Roberts and Joel Garner who were operating in tandem much of the same time as Hadlee took 8 tenfers combined. Extremely good or even great bowler that Hadlee was, he would not have edged out any of the other four mentioned in my World XI at the time.

Gooseberry wrote:New Zealand do have 20 overs of junk to get through but Sri Lanka showed that its possible to get England in a tizz with negative bowling, especially if they are chasing a relatively low total and feel they need to be responsible and not throw wickets away.
What we saw against Aus seemed to be a reaction to that. The openers werent reckless against the opening seamers but did score positively and maybe took more risks than were required given they only needed 4.5 an over. As soon as Lyon was in he was hit out of the park (almost literally).
England are just much more comfortable playing that way. Theres a chance they could ship wickets to the junk but will be scoring fast off it, they wont let themselves get into the nervous mess they did against Sri lanaka.
Its lords and a fresh strip. It should be a high scoring game, which suits englands batting. If they can figure out a way of getting to Williamson early I dont see how they lose this.

New Zealand by 30 runs.  

Alfie and others above a certain age - spot the youngster who never saw Geoffrey Boycott, Graham Gooch and Wayne Larkins send down 12 overs as England's fifth bowling combo in a World Cup 60 over final. Now that was junk!

You know Gooch has better ODI bowling figures than Moeen does right.....just dont tell Nathaniel.
I'm old enough to remember him imitating (willis?) in a test.

So New Zealand need to remove the openers for not many, then ideally take the other 8 wickets for not many as well. If they bat first they will be looking to conserve wickets whilst making a mountain of runs

This is like Craig's road maps again!

England need to not Pick Vince or Wayne Larkins.

I am old enough to have seen Luke Wright picked as an allrounder in ODIs. The therapist is still working through that one

Gooseberry wrote:You know Gooch has better ODI bowling figures than Moeen does right.....just dont tell Nathaniel.
I'm old enough to remember him imitating (willis?) in a test.

Could you imagine what a modern ODI batsman would do to Gooch's medium pace with this non-swinging white ball? If he went for less than 20 an over, it would be a good effort. The old red ball, slow scoring ODIs, he was more effective.

Gooseberry wrote:Agreed LIW.

Aus were a team who had relied heavily on a handful of stand out stars, and Carey exceeding expectations but for the most part were pretty ordinary players delivering ordinary performances. And in Maxwells case just rubbish.
England are very much a side of equals. Although Roy's the one having a golden time at the moment everyone has made major contributions. Well OK except Vince and Moeen. But even the injured Rashid has delivered some important moments.

That said the net result, aside from yesterday, hasnt always been as good for England as it has for Aus. But taking Starc apart the way they did elevates Englands performance in my eyes to another plane.

But overall despite all of Englands quality through the team they have lost more times than India and as many as Aus.

Are England the best TEAM? No question. Do they have the best star performers? Probably not. Have they played the best cricket as a team? That's debatable ( as evidenced in the past few posts!)

But yes the last point, certainly yesterday, they are the ones who are stepping up in the crunch moments so far.

I think the above highlighted paragraph sums up the England side. Because of the quality of Stokes as a batting all rounder and Woakes as a bowing all rounder, they are not reliant on bits and pieces players, and instead have an XI that each have and know their roles and who have each contributed at points through the tournament. We're less reliant on 3 or 4 top class players contributing (although Roy seems to be a big difference-maker in this tournament - wonder if the same would have been the case if Hales rather than Vince was the reserve batsman?).

I think at times they've played the best cricket of the tournament (especially Thursday), but they've also had a couple of below mediocre performances that led to unexpected defeats and put the pressure on the later group games.

alfie wrote: as an England fan , be counting any chickens (or Kiwis!) before the game is done.   Should be a good game for you neutrals.

That is true neutral cricket viewers will watch the game with keen interest even though no team from sub-continent is in finals....and such viewers will be a few times more than the population of Eng & NZ put together.....awaiting to see a new world champion in cricket.

What I would like to see is a contest.....a cliff-hanger and not a one-sided walloping like the Wimbledon ladies final that just ended.....& who would have thought petite Halep would steam roll Serena like this
I have not even a bet now on the final game.....so I will be fully  neutral

Will be watching the game along with 30-40 others at our club tomorrow - looking forward to it, glad I’ll be travelling up there around 9:30ish so I’m not bound up getting nervous...!

Hopefully whatever happens both teams do themselves justice with their performance. Nothing worse than “what could have been” in these finals

Very cloudy with a touch of drizzle 20 miles or so south of Lord's - don't think that was expected! Hopefully will clear before the scheduled start although Duty is our weather expert.

guildfordbat wrote:Very cloudy with a touch of drizzle 20 miles or so south of Lord's - don't think that was expected! Hopefully will clear before the scheduled start although Duty is our weather expert.

I’m about 6 miles ESE and it’s pretty cloudy and a bit chilly. Can’t imagine the weather’s going to let this one go, especially now that Wimbledon’s immune to it.

Might be a delayed start after some rain earlier, but it's clear for the rest of the day.

Still raining now, actually. Looks bloody miserable. Probably will be a delayed start.

Thanks, Duty - knew you would be onto it.

One good thing about Test grounds in this country nowadays is that the drainage systems work well.

Pitch looks to have a green tinge to it too - bowl first day?

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Pitch looks to have a green tinge to it too - bowl first day?

Would be a brave call, but I certainly wouldn't like to be facing Boult in these conditions!

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Pitch looks to have a green tinge to it too - bowl first day?

Think about it before deciding to bat first, I'll give you that.

Toss at 10:15. First ball at 10:45.

Think I would actually field first.

Morning all, today is the day
Like others I would want to win the toss and bowl first but I love bating first...

Duty281 wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Pitch looks to have a green tinge to it too - bowl first day?

Would be a brave call, but I certainly wouldn't like to be facing Boult in these conditions!

Perfect conditions for Woakes too...and Guptill hasn’t been on form so far. A tough one, might be a good toss to lose and let the other captain decide!!

New Zealand to bat, slight advantage England?

NZ win the toss and bat.

It's England bowlers, in conditions they love, against a horrendously out-of-touch NZ batting order (except Kane Williamson!). I make England 90-10 favourites.

Hoping for a close game. Seems the conditions would provide for a bit of life for the bowlers to work with. That should be fantastic. May not be the worst toss to lose...

I am actually surprised that NZ chose to bat considering their frailties...

Kane Williamson has read the pitch better than many throughout the tournament other than that Pakistan game. Will Guptill and Nicholls weather the early challenge and give their side a platform?

The HQ, over the years, have had some high scores, and team batting 1st have done well in recent times. What negates New Zealand's toss advantage is the overhead conditions that are particularly important when you play cricket in England. What aggravates their situation is the pathetic form of their opening acts. Williamson has been a virtual opener for most of the tournament.

I am just hoping that the emotion of this occasion does not affect England. I would be more confident for England if this was not at home for them. Weight of expectation can do strange things.

Come on, England! One shot at sporting immortality.

They should be the most confident playing at the home of cricket, I would say. I'm sure they're glad they're not in Colombo.
Yes.. it's a huge occasion and there's massive expectations but where else would they want to be other than a WC Final at Lord's?

Its just me being nervous PJ

I still cant believe that Dharmasena gets to umpire this final, he is the poorest umpire around.

eirebilly wrote:Its just me being nervous PJ

I still cant believe that Dharmasena gets to umpire this final, he is the poorest umpire around.

I understand.

Yeah, hopefully we won't notice the umpires.

Brave Kiwi call to bat...

Can see how they are going to play this already ! Probably their best chance , to be fair. If Guptill comes off they could get a flier . They probably don't expect to get 300 : but there may be enough there for the bowlers all day to make any chase a challenge.

England need to bowl a lot better than in the round game against Australia here...

England have started like they did against Australia in the group phase - quite short.

Great call from Erasmus. Great call not to review.

At least Erasmus is the other umpire

I thought he was gone then, great call by Erasmus and good not to review there.

Two great decisions that over ! Erasmus to give a not out and Morgan not to review ...confident appeal and had me fooled live...

Sir Chris Woakes