ICC Cricket World Cup - Part 4

by alfie Thu 11 Jul 2019, 5:08 pm

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 Whistle

by VTR Fri 12 Jul 2019, 7:38 am

It needs cutting down I would say. Two groups of five would be better. Won't happen though, this format is perfect for the ICC to make the most money, cricket every day for a long stretch and guaranteed nine games for the big teams

by Gooseberry Fri 12 Jul 2019, 7:46 am

Garunteed 9 games for the small ones too VTR. Afghanistan got the opportunity to play everyone, they dont in a multi group format.

2 groups of 5 ..who goes through, top 4 then knock outs? Whats the point...one group just have to turn up against Afghanistan
Top 3 into super sixes results carry? Better but it still skews things for who got Afghanistan, and also carries a big risk of weather having a alrge effect on who goes through. Over all you end up with just as long and arduous a tournament anyway.

by KP_fan Fri 12 Jul 2019, 8:00 am

VTR wrote:I wouldn't worry, the ICC will now be scratching their heads for a solution of how to give India the most chance to get in the final. I'm sure they will come up with something, as they always do

you are talking liken you believe Eng will always stay No. 4 and need a 50M boundary to avoid elimination each time. Whistle

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Fri 12 Jul 2019, 8:04 am

The top 2 get the reward of playing the 3rd and 4th best teams respectively. It doesn't need anymore tweaking than that in terms of qualification, albeit I agree the group stages could do with shortening, but won't be due to ££££

Maybe for the next one they should just put India in the final off the bat, with the opposition forced to bat second and India get to start 100-0. That way you get to avoid Kohli choking in a run chase

by KP_fan Fri 12 Jul 2019, 8:05 am

Gooseberry wrote:
KP_fan wrote:
Looking at his scores I had asked on the forum why he wasn't opening in tests & someone pointed to his FC average.
I think that's a fair point.....in very seaming conditions he will have quite a few cheap dismissals but could play 1 match winning inning every 4th test match.
But would do a lot better on tour of sub-continents.

PS* And Sarfaraz must be having the last laugh at having beaten both finalists

Theres more to it than that.
Firstly Roy is still maturing as a player. If you look at his ODI scores hes only recently become consistent and genuinely nailed down the spot he was competing for with Hales/Bairstow. Hes always had the shots and the talent, just not the nerve and ability to vary his scoring that he has now. I just dont think he wouldve had the patience for test cricket.
Also look at what happened with Hales, who had more pedigree as a first class opener. His test experience knocked him back in limited overs briefly, and rather than have him focus on changing his game whilst he was still young and developing his ODI batting they quickly made the right call to let him get on with what he was best at. Although maybe that spare time didnt work out so well for him but ...
Another thing, England have a lot of naturally attacking batsmen in the test side. Aside form Cook, who was rubbish for a while, they havent had another hang around solid one since Trott. The criticism of the side was that it was too soft, especially at the top of the order, and when conditions were bad too easily blown away. They couldnt bat out a day to save test that kind of thing.

His name has been whispered a bit more recently and theres absolutely a groundswell of opinion that he should be in the test team after this world cup. Cook and Farbrace both said this during the commentary, and Bayliss has said he was in consideration during interviews. So it does seem hes pretty much a done deal.

If hes a success does that mean theyve waited too long? I dont think so. I think hes ready now, and with the world cup gone his focus and skill development can be elsewhere. Chucking him in when he wasnt ready might have stopped him becoming the ODI player he is now, and England might not have the chance to loose the world cup final. Now he has the maturity and confidence and knowledge that his teammamtes believe in him to go out and play with less pressure. What you wouldnt want to see is the tentative James Vince, what we may see is a swaggering KP type figure.

He certainly wont fear Starc. And that means a lot for the Ashes. There are huge questions he has to answer regarding green tops in a home summer and 4 slips of course, but fortunately he wont be facing Anderson Broad and Woakes. If the Aussies come and try and take his head off he will lap that up. Starc was bowling up to 150 yesterday, he handled that. Hes as ready as anyone we have available.

the short summary of your long post seems that you are supporting playing him as a test match opener.
That's good....no harm, and the day he clicks he can change the game in a session.

The way to control him would be to bowl on stumps in-cutters, in-swingers, indippers....with close mid-on, two mid-wkts and a close square leg...tuck him up....for 10 bowls and then either ANGLE one across or dig one in and he will go for a release shot.
If he wins that round......do another round of 11 such deliveries.

by Gooseberry Fri 12 Jul 2019, 8:06 am

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:The top 2 get the reward of playing the 3rd and 4th best teams respectively. It doesn't need anymore tweaking than that in terms of qualification, albeit I agree the group stages could do with shortening, but won't be due to ££££

Maybe for the next one they should just put India in the final off the bat, with the opposition forced to bat second and India get to start 100-0. That way you get to avoid Kohli choking in a run chase

They'd still pick Karthik and have Dhoni bat 12

by Gooseberry Fri 12 Jul 2019, 8:10 am

KP_fan wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:
KP_fan wrote:
Looking at his scores I had asked on the forum why he wasn't opening in tests & someone pointed to his FC average.
I think that's a fair point.....in very seaming conditions he will have quite a few cheap dismissals but could play 1 match winning inning every 4th test match.
But would do a lot better on tour of sub-continents.

PS* And Sarfaraz must be having the last laugh at having beaten both finalists

Theres more to it than that.
Firstly Roy is still maturing as a player. If you look at his ODI scores hes only recently become consistent and genuinely nailed down the spot he was competing for with Hales/Bairstow. Hes always had the shots and the talent, just not the nerve and ability to vary his scoring that he has now. I just dont think he wouldve had the patience for test cricket.
Also look at what happened with Hales, who had more pedigree as a first class opener. His test experience knocked him back in limited overs briefly, and rather than have him focus on changing his game whilst he was still young and developing his ODI batting they quickly made the right call to let him get on with what he was best at. Although maybe that spare time didnt work out so well for him but ...
Another thing, England have a lot of naturally attacking batsmen in the test side. Aside form Cook, who was rubbish for a while, they havent had another hang around solid one since Trott. The criticism of the side was that it was too soft, especially at the top of the order, and when conditions were bad too easily blown away. They couldnt bat out a day to save test that kind of thing.

His name has been whispered a bit more recently and theres absolutely a groundswell of opinion that he should be in the test team after this world cup. Cook and Farbrace both said this during the commentary, and Bayliss has said he was in consideration during interviews. So it does seem hes pretty much a done deal.

If hes a success does that mean theyve waited too long? I dont think so. I think hes ready now, and with the world cup gone his focus and skill development can be elsewhere. Chucking him in when he wasnt ready might have stopped him becoming the ODI player he is now, and England might not have the chance to loose the world cup final. Now he has the maturity and confidence and knowledge that his teammamtes believe in him to go out and play with less pressure. What you wouldnt want to see is the tentative James Vince, what we may see is a swaggering KP type figure.

He certainly wont fear Starc. And that means a lot for the Ashes. There are huge questions he has to answer regarding green tops in a home summer and 4 slips of course, but fortunately he wont be facing Anderson Broad and Woakes. If the Aussies come and try and take his head off he will lap that up. Starc was bowling up to 150 yesterday, he handled that. Hes as ready as anyone we have available.

the short summary of your long post is that you are supporting playing him as a test match opener.
That's good....no harm, and the day he clicks he can change the game in a session.

The way to control him would be to bowl on stumps in-cutters, in-swingers, indippers....with close mid-on, two mid-wkts and a close square leg...tuck him up....for 10 bowls and then either ANGLE one across or dig one in and he will go for a release shot.
If he wins that round......do another round of 11 such deliveries.

Yep. Not through lack of scepticism but also down to such a dearth of options and the constant failure of decent county players to step up to test level.
Fortunately England wont be facing Philander and Darren Stevens on a green Trent Bridge. But absolutely, make him play and get the ball to move. TEST him.

Whoever gets picked Englands top 3 is going to look a bit limp and hugely unproven. At least Roy has some self confidence and wont play in his shell against the quicks.

by sirfredperry Fri 12 Jul 2019, 8:25 am

Apologies if this has been raised before, but I think the reason England have done so well in the last three games is due to the two defeats they suffered mid-tournament.

It meant that effectively, England had entered the knock-out stage two matches ahead of everyone else. They HAD to win their last two group matches which effectively became last-16 and quarter finals for them.

They were so relieved to make the semis and also so battle-hardened that they were in great shape to face Australia. My heart sank when I saw that Australia were batting first. I need not have worried.

I know some have not liked the formula. But getting rid of the minnow teams has been good and I think future WCs should be similar.

by Gooseberry Fri 12 Jul 2019, 8:30 am

Two demerit points and a 30% match fee fine for Roy.

by Gooseberry Fri 12 Jul 2019, 8:47 am

Fun stats of the day.

Leg spinners who aren't Adil Rashid have taken 6 wickets for England in ODIs.

At the end of the CT Roys average had dropped to 34 at an SR of 101
By the end of 2017 it was up to 36 at 104
By the end of 2018 it was up to 38 at 104
Its now 43 at 107.5

In 2019 hes averaged 75 at 119 (11 innings)

Bearing in mind the world cup has been pretty low scoring and his dismissal yesterday was a truly awful decision. He just keeps getting better, the improvement seems exponential.

(Expect a 12 ball duck in the final)

by VTR Fri 12 Jul 2019, 9:06 am

Well, Roy and Bairstow four century opening partnerships in a row. NZ will probably be thinking that can't keep going. The whole of England (well those interested in cricket, so about 10% of people if that) are praying for one more of those

by KP_fan Fri 12 Jul 2019, 9:08 am

sirfredperry wrote:Apologies if this has been raised before, but I think the reason England have done so well in the last three games is due to the two defeats they suffered mid-tournament.

It meant that effectively, England had entered the knock-out stage two matches ahead of everyone else. They HAD to win their last two group matches which effectively became last-16 and quarter finals for them.

They were so relieved to make the semis and also so battle-hardened that they were in great shape to face Australia. My heart sank when I saw that Australia were batting first. I need not have worried.

I know some have not liked the formula. But getting rid of the minnow teams has been good and I think future WCs should be similar.

That's a fair point...that Eng got their shocks & jolts with still time to recover....Aus & Ind didn't and theirs proved to be death blows

by **LondonTiger** Fri 12 Jul 2019, 9:27 am

Gooseberry wrote:The world cup has been very long.
The format suffers by inclusion, without Afghanistan there would've been 9 less games and a reduced chance of rain genuinely screwing up someones chances by denying then a point everyone else got for free.

Were Afghanistan not the 9th qualifiers, having beaten WI in the qualifying competition?

by GSC Fri 12 Jul 2019, 9:30 am

I dont have issues with minnows being included, more the group stage where you play every team in the competition

2 groups of 5 with top 2 advancing and winners of each group playing 2nd place in the other would've been fine tbh.

by **LondonTiger** Fri 12 Jul 2019, 9:34 am

Gooseberry wrote:Two demerit points and a 30% match fee fine for Roy.

As posted on here last night Wink

by alfie Fri 12 Jul 2019, 9:38 am

Gooseberry wrote:Two demerit points and a 30% match fee fine for Roy.

About right. I get he was shocked ...and a bit taken aback to realize the review was no longer an option...but he should have swallowed his disappointment and walked off once he got the news.
I have sympathy for his situation but I think I'd probably have fined him a bit more than 30% - but I am very set on no tolerance for disrespecting umpires . Even bad ones...

A ban would have been too much.

by **LondonTiger** Fri 12 Jul 2019, 9:41 am

GSC wrote:I dont have issues with minnows being included, more the group stage where you play every team in the competition

2 groups of 5 with top 2 advancing and winners of each group playing 2nd place in the other would've been fine tbh.

The current setup is one that generally favours the stronger teams. There is always a chance of a shock result in limited overs cricket, with Afghanistan almost pulling off the biggest shock, but such results have less of an impact. It is no real surprise that the four sides who made the final entered the tournament among the top five sides in the rankings. The impact of rain is also reduced. That the 3 ICC "Power Countries" made the semis is exactly what ICC wanted - though the loss of India will hinder the TV audience for Sunday.

The other advantage of this format, to ICC at least, was they could bend over backwards for the BCCI and let them delay their start as the players were too tired after IPL.

by **LondonTiger** Fri 12 Jul 2019, 9:42 am

alfie wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:Two demerit points and a 30% match fee fine for Roy.

About right. I get he was shocked ...and a bit taken aback to realize the review was no longer an option...but he should have swallowed his disappointment and walked off once he got the news.
I have sympathy for his situation but I think I'd probably have fined him a bit more than 30% - but I am very set on no tolerance for disrespecting umpires . Even bad ones...

A ban would have been too much.

That he pleaded guilty and avoided the need for a hearing may have helped. As soon as he swore at the umpire he was at risk of missing the final. Thoughts of James Vince playing were welling up inside me at the time.

by alfie Fri 12 Jul 2019, 9:56 am

I think this is probably the best format for a WC . Have had two like this now and they've both been generally entertaining , with lots of twists and turns and surprisingly few really "dead" matches. Only drawback is the length of the contest , limiting potential numbers and preventing any chance of reserve days. ( I do disagree on one thing with Goose : I think Afghanistan - despite not winning anything - did bring something to the show - couple of gallant efforts in defeat and a bit of colour : would have been the poorer without them I think)
Qualifying rounds indeed should give aspiring "minnows" a chance and
a platform - not sure how the TV rights will play though. Because I do think 10 teams is the limit.

The Kohli idea of second chance for top sides is something for which I have little time ( and I suspect he floated it out of disappointment). Sure it is a blow to a team to "win" the league and then get dumped out on a single day : but the same could happen in any group staged event and why not ? Not as if India by winning one more game than Australia proved categorically they were the best - just the most consistent. And the very nature of the qualifying conditions meant some games were not as important as the knock out finals - which we all knew from the beginning. As Olly said , finishing top two gives a theoretical advantage in playing the supposed lesser opponents ...quite enough of an edge I think without gifting a double chance .

India are perhaps unfortunate to be out after losing just two games ( the other three semi finalists each have lost three) But they have lost to the two finalists so can't really claim they've been dudded. Whoever wins will have earned it I reckon.

by alfie Fri 12 Jul 2019, 10:00 am

LondonTiger wrote:
alfie wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:Two demerit points and a 30% match fee fine for Roy.

About right. I get he was shocked ...and a bit taken aback to realize the review was no longer an option...but he should have swallowed his disappointment and walked off once he got the news.
I have sympathy for his situation but I think I'd probably have fined him a bit more than 30% - but I am very set on no tolerance for disrespecting umpires . Even bad ones...

A ban would have been too much.

That he pleaded guilty and avoided the need for a hearing may have helped. As soon as he swore at the umpire he was at risk of missing the final. Thoughts of James Vince playing were welling up inside me at the time.

Ah . I missed that bit...wasn't lip reading Smile

Guess it depends on the whole conversation and the attitude of the umpires too. Anyway I think most will be glad it has been settled as it was.

by Gooseberry Fri 12 Jul 2019, 10:01 am

LondonTiger wrote:
alfie wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:Two demerit points and a 30% match fee fine for Roy.

About right. I get he was shocked ...and a bit taken aback to realize the review was no longer an option...but he should have swallowed his disappointment and walked off once he got the news.
I have sympathy for his situation but I think I'd probably have fined him a bit more than 30% - but I am very set on no tolerance for disrespecting umpires . Even bad ones...

A ban would have been too much.

That he pleaded guilty and avoided the need for a hearing may have helped. As soon as he swore at the umpire he was at risk of missing the final. Thoughts of James Vince playing were welling up inside me at the time.

If you look at the post someone made earlier its almost impossible to get 4 demerits and a ban for a single incident of dissent. This was not the most serious case to get less than 4 points.

by guildfordbat Fri 12 Jul 2019, 10:07 am

alfie wrote:I think this is probably the best format for a WC . Have had two like this now and they've both been generally entertaining , with lots of twists and turns and surprisingly few really "dead" matches. Only drawback is the length of the contest , limiting potential numbers and preventing any chance of reserve days. ( I do disagree on one thing with Goose : I think Afghanistan - despite not winning anything - did bring something to the show - couple of gallant efforts in defeat and a bit of colour : would have been the poorer without them I think)
Qualifying rounds indeed should give aspiring "minnows" a chance and
a platform - not sure how the TV rights will play though. Because I do think 10 teams is the limit.

The Kohli idea of second chance for top sides is something for which I have little time ( and I suspect he floated it out of disappointment). Sure it is a blow to a team to "win" the league and then get dumped out on a single day : but the same could happen in any group staged event and why not ? Not as if India by winning one more game than Australia proved categorically they were the best - just the most consistent. And the very nature of the qualifying conditions meant some games were not as important as the knock out finals - which we all knew from the beginning. As Olly said , finishing top two gives a theoretical advantage in playing the supposed lesser opponents ...quite enough of an edge I think without gifting a double chance .

India are perhaps unfortunate to be out after losing just two games ( the other three semi finalists each have lost three) But they have lost to the two finalists so can't really claim they've been dudded. Whoever wins will have earned it I reckon.

Yep, go along with you, Alfie. Part of being world champions is winning when it matters most. India didn't.

by Duty281 Fri 12 Jul 2019, 10:50 am

KP_fan wrote:Now Eng would be favorite to lift the cup

Christ, KP_fan making England favourites for something. The end times are nigh.

by robbo277 Fri 12 Jul 2019, 10:56 am

Someone made the point that Roy didn't walk earlier in the tournament - which I'm completely fine with. But if you edge it behind and go with the umpires decision you get no sympathy if you get a bum call go against you, because you've set your stall out to go with the umpire.

Also doesn't help if you were part of the committee that burnt off your only review a few overs previously. As obvious as Roy's dismissal wasn't out, Bairstow obviously was and they shouldn't have chanced it.

It was a shocking call though it has to be said, and the signalling made it look all the worse. If he'd stuck his finger straight up then at least he would have been wrong with conviction.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Fri 12 Jul 2019, 11:03 am

I'm sure Roy will be delighted to hear Mr Dharmasena has been given the final. Yes you read that correctly!

by Duty281 Fri 12 Jul 2019, 11:10 am

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I'm sure Roy will be delighted to hear Mr Dharmasena has been given the final. Yes you read that correctly!

Oh great. And Marais-guess-and-let-DRS-do-the-work-Erasmus as the other umpire.

by alfie Fri 12 Jul 2019, 11:24 am

Well I guess they wouldn't use English or NZ umpires...ruling out a couple of quite good ones.

Have a feeling DRS may have contributed to a slight lowering of umpiring standards recently. May just be some good ones retired - or just my imagination Smile

But those appointments don't fill me with confidence.

by GSC Fri 12 Jul 2019, 11:38 am

I think in general in all sports introducing replay review of decisions leads to the officials taking more of a "we'll sort it out on replay" approach

by Gooseberry Fri 12 Jul 2019, 11:50 am

It was also an awful flap at the ball by Roy which he never should have gone near.

I think his main ire was at it not being called a wide, added to bu the confusion regarding the review. I think he felt that the square leg umpire should be able to overrule the call even without a review.

The mistake on him hitting it wasnt that bad, but absolutely should have been a wide down leg side. Roy may also have felt it was too high ( wrongly)

I think his bemusement and frustration is understandable. Sticking around to make sure that he absolutely had to be out is ok, but he did let the anger boil over too much and the level of aggression in his words and manner as he walked off warrants the punishment.

Quite how that guy keeps his job for the final though, wow. Its almost as if the lICC is rife with corruption and nepotism.

I do agree that officials have tended toward not making marginal calls. But in this case that should have been " I'll give it not out and let them review it" not " I'll ignore my own initial instinct that it was wide and the benefit of the doubt principle and give him out". It was just odd.

DRS has led to more laws given in certain situations. I remember in its early days Dickie Bird and others denying that certain types of delivery could ever be lbw despite the evidence of the ball tracking. Over time umpires have developed a better and more reliable set of tools to judge what is possible and what's not.

Overall I do think with cricket we just draw a lot more attention to bad decisions now because of the technology. DRS has led to more good calls and less guesswork.

The one area where umpires have absolutely moved to default use of it is run outs. But again that's led to more correct calls, so although it can delay the game a bit its still a benefit overall.

Theres also calls for more use on front foot no balls. The umpires themselves say they cant watch for these on the field. Not a case of them wanting to fudge a call but just not having the bandwidth to judge it.

The Roy call was an absolute howler on two counts. That's a stand out aberration in the tournament and in the end no harm no foul aside to Roy's tax account. It was also caused by an umpire overreaching, not one being scared to make a call.

by KP_fan Fri 12 Jul 2019, 12:05 pm

Duty281 wrote:
KP_fan wrote:Now Eng would be favorite to lift the cup

Christ, KP_fan making England favourites for something. The end times are nigh.

I say it as I see it Smile

by **Pal Joey** Fri 12 Jul 2019, 12:09 pm

Duty281 wrote:
Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I'm sure Roy will be delighted to hear Mr Dharmasena has been given the final. Yes you read that correctly!

Oh great. And Marais-guess-and-let-DRS-do-the-work-Erasmus as the other umpire.

Imagine if you accidentally trespassed on his property. He'd probably fire off the shotgun first.... then you'd get the "Sorry" later. If you're lucky. Wink

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Fri 12 Jul 2019, 12:33 pm

It really does have to be noted that England have beaten the three other sides near their level on the way to the World Cup final.

As we've been told all through this World Cup, only performances in the big games matter. India bottled their chance to knock England out then failed to chase a low score against New Zealand. Australia got absolutely outplayed by England there, the home side performing to a standard that means I won't question Australia's mentality.

by msp83 Fri 12 Jul 2019, 12:39 pm

On the format discussion, even India skipper Virat Kohli talked about the consistency factor not being rewarded.
But I disagree. 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 such, not only should there be a semi final, but a quarter final too. Go back to 1996... Get the top 8 or 9 automatically qualify, the remaining full members to play a qualifier with top associates for the remaining slots. Would also give bilateral serieses a sense of context as they would play a role in determining the rankings and automatic qualification. 2 groups of 6 would mean there wouldn't be too many minnow contests, and that if a lower ranked side is to cause an upset, that would have enough impact...

by Gooseberry Fri 12 Jul 2019, 12:44 pm

KP_fan wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
KP_fan wrote:Now Eng would be favorite to lift the cup

Christ, KP_fan making England favourites for something. The end times are nigh.

I say it as I see it

Well I'm glad you found a better optician. Hug

Im gonna chuck this out there, I dont think NZ are in the top 4 sides at the world cup when teams are playing at their best. What they have done is make their better performances count. They also arent facing the same levels of pressure and uncertainty that the likes of India and England are. Thats been a theme since before the tournament started, but I think its been born out by the way games and results have panned out.
And yes KPF I am agreeing with one of your early points. Pressure and expectation does count for a fair bit. Kholi directly blamed it for their exit ( I mean it couldn't be that any team has more skill right?).

Is that enough to carry the final for NZ? I doubt it. England are really on a high now and must be confident of their places and ability. theres no second guessing how they should go about it and what tactics to use and who the new ball bowlers should be. Archers secure, Moeens gone, Rashids redeemed himself. None of the batsmen have anything to prove. Even with Ferguson back England know they are the better side, and the way they took Starc apart means he should hold no fear for them. The left arm hoodoo is broken. I do like the variety in NZs attack with two other quality quicks and a host of dibbly dobblers but I cant seem them managing the containment job Sri Lanka did, nor will the more confident aggressive England allow themselves to be backed into that corner (plus...no Vince to set that tone).

All they need to do is remember to put their shoes on and not get into fights with the umpires.

Sir Peter Jackson, Dame Kiri Taekanawa, Flight of the Concords ..your boys are going to take one hell of a beating.

NZ by 3 wickets.

Pitch wise...will it be the standard Lords road and the sort of shoot out power batting game that England have built for off the back of seeing how NZ played four years ago? It would be quite nice to end with a high scorer after some of the blow outs and low tight scorers in recent games.

by Gooseberry Fri 12 Jul 2019, 12:54 pm

msp83 wrote:On the format discussion, even India skipper Virat Kohli talked about the consistency factor not being rewarded.
But I disagree. 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 such, not only should there be a semi final, but a quarter final too. Go back to 1996... Get the top 8 or 9 automatically qualify, the remaining full members to play a qualifier with top associates for the remaining slots. Would also give bilateral serieses a sense of context as they would play a role in determining the rankings and automatic qualification. 2 groups of 6 would mean there wouldn't be too many minnow contests, and that if a lower ranked side is to cause an upset, that would have enough impact...

Exactly. This format is set up to reward consistency with places in the top 4, more so than other group formats would. Before it folk were moaning that there was too much emphasis on the long drawn out group stage to ensure the best teams got through.

Its only two knock out games at the end, this isnt a case of one bad day costing India. It really smacks of sour grapes from him. Had they dominated the group stages then I could understand his views a bit more, but they didnt. if they had made the final and lost out last ball would he be claiming they were moral victors?

I can understand Kholis deflection, but he needs to own the loss and the flak he will cop. Gavaskars comments hit the mark much better. Khlois reasoning for holding Dhoni back makes some sense but it was a bad decision. The selections have been wrong too, it took them long enough to admit Jadeja should play but still DK wasting a spot. Too much faith placed on a part time batter Pandya. And mostly him and his senior bats cracking and failing when it mattered.

India have been full of excuses this world cup. I hope the public can see through that. They just werent good enough. Dominant sides will see through the blips and misfortune. They are still the number two side in my eyes, and it would have been nice to see them face England in the final, but they screwed it up. They lost to both finalists.

England have beaten all the top sides in the world to reach the final, and NZ will have had to beat them all (except Aus) to win the trophy. Whoever it is deserves it.

by msp83 Fri 12 Jul 2019, 12:59 pm

As for the finals, England clearly go in as favorits. They, along with India and Australia were the strongest favorits for he cup from the outset. There were a few bumps on the way, but they eventually overcame those, and are now in the final with the most convincing thumping of the old foe. Their strengths are well documented. On a flattish track, their outstanding batting depth becomes a massive weapon. It gives a great sense of freedom to an already by nature aggressive top order to go all guns blazing. Their bowling has enough variety and skill to contain sides on a flat track, particularly when bowling 2nd. The addition of Archer has added to the wickettaking potential of the attack at the top and at the death. And now their spinner, that too a leggie, is rediscovering some of the form that made him a solid middle order threat in the last few years.

by msp83 Fri 12 Jul 2019, 1:22 pm

Gooseberry wrote:
msp83 wrote:On the format discussion, even India skipper Virat Kohli talked about the consistency factor not being rewarded.
But I disagree. 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 such, not only should there be a semi final, but a quarter final too. Go back to 1996... Get the top 8 or 9 automatically qualify, the remaining full members to play a qualifier with top associates for the remaining slots. Would also give bilateral serieses a sense of context as they would play a role in determining the rankings and automatic qualification. 2 groups of 6 would mean there wouldn't be too many minnow contests, and that if a lower ranked side is to cause an upset, that would have enough impact...

Exactly. This format is set up to reward consistency with paces in the top 4, more so than other group formats would.

Its only two knock out games at the end, this isnta case of one bad day costing India. It really smacks of sour grapes from him. Had they dominated the group stages then I could understand his views a bit more, but they didnt. if they had made the final and lost out last ball would he be claiming they were moral victors?

I can understand Kholis deflection, but he needs to own the loss and the flak he will cop. Gavaskars comments hit the mark much better. Khlois reasoning for holding Dhoni back makes some sense but it was a bad decision. The selections have been wrong too, it took them long enough to admit Jadeja should play but still DK wasting a spot. Too much faith placed on a part time batter Pandya. And mostly him and his senior bats cracking and failing when it mattered.

India have been full of excuses this world cup. I hope the public can see through that. They just werent good enough. Dominant sides will see through the blips and misfortune. They are still the number two side in my eyes, and it would have been nice to see them face England in the final, but they screwed it up. They lost to both finalists.

England have beaten all the top sides in the world to reach the final, and NZ will have had to beat them all (except Aus) to win the trophy. Whoever it is deserves it.

While I agree that Kohli's arguments sound more like excuses and that a top team should be beyond excuses and instead quickly learn from mistakes, and for that you first need to own up to mistakes. And I agree the Dhoni batting place was a wrong one, and not playing Jadeja till the last league game was pretty poor. And DK? Let me not start it!!!
However, I don't agree England is the clear number one side in the tournament that seem to be implied in your post. I could understand the Pakistan loss that they suffered as any top side can have a bad and in any case it was not a bad loss. But losing to current Sri Lanka after that bad against Pakistan? That too chasing a modest score? Then being utterly outplayed by Australia? No, that doesn't come across as performances from a top side. Not by a country mile.

by msp83 Fri 12 Jul 2019, 1:33 pm

It is a knockout game. New Zealand have over the years, shown a remakarble ability to punch above their weight in global tournament. This time, they were expected semi finalists. They may have huffed and puffed their way in there, but that wasn't surprising. They beat table topers India in the semis to then reach the final. Is that the extend of punching above their weight? Or can they go one step further?
It is certainly not beyond them. Martin Guptill's most significant contribution in the entire tournament so far that has been that sensational run-out of MS Dhoni. But he's a good ODI player and it is possible, that throw might ignite a fire in him and he might come up with the goods with that impeccable sense of timing. Kane Williamson is been in good form, and Ross Taylor played a very crucial hand in the semi final to stretch New Zealand's total into a winning one. With Mitchell Santner coming in at 8, New Zealand too have batting depth. Trent Boult among the best bowlers in the world. Ferguson is a bowler good enough to ensure Tim Southee would be benched. Matthew Henry was the man of the match who cracked opened the Indian top order that no other attack quite managed in this entire World Cup. James Neesham is an improved bowler and has had a few nerveless spells at the death. Mitchell Santner is made in the Daniel Vetori mold, and has showed signs of getting back to his peack as the tournament progressed.
They have a lot goin for themselves in the finals. They would want to go one step beyond what they managed in 2015. They are the underdogs goint into the finals, but that is nothing new for them... Unlike England, the pressure of expectation would be less on them. England haven't always managed that pressure well, not too many sides have, as Kohli suggested the other day.
So England would do well to stay grounded and focused...

by Gooseberry Fri 12 Jul 2019, 1:41 pm

msp83 wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:
msp83 wrote:On the format discussion, even India skipper Virat Kohli talked about the consistency factor not being rewarded.
But I disagree. 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 such, not only should there be a semi final, but a quarter final too. Go back to 1996... Get the top 8 or 9 automatically qualify, the remaining full members to play a qualifier with top associates for the remaining slots. Would also give bilateral serieses a sense of context as they would play a role in determining the rankings and automatic qualification. 2 groups of 6 would mean there wouldn't be too many minnow contests, and that if a lower ranked side is to cause an upset, that would have enough impact...

Exactly. This format is set up to reward consistency with paces in the top 4, more so than other group formats would.

Its only two knock out games at the end, this isnta case of one bad day costing India. It really smacks of sour grapes from him. Had they dominated the group stages then I could understand his views a bit more, but they didnt. if they had made the final and lost out last ball would he be claiming they were moral victors?

I can understand Kholis deflection, but he needs to own the loss and the flak he will cop. Gavaskars comments hit the mark much better. Khlois reasoning for holding Dhoni back makes some sense but it was a bad decision. The selections have been wrong too, it took them long enough to admit Jadeja should play but still DK wasting a spot. Too much faith placed on a part time batter Pandya. And mostly him and his senior bats cracking and failing when it mattered.

India have been full of excuses this world cup. I hope the public can see through that. They just werent good enough. Dominant sides will see through the blips and misfortune. They are still the number two side in my eyes, and it would have been nice to see them face England in the final, but they screwed it up. They lost to both finalists.

England have beaten all the top sides in the world to reach the final, and NZ will have had to beat them all (except Aus) to win the trophy. Whoever it is deserves it.
While I agree that Kohli's arguments sound more like excuses and that a top team should be beyond excuses and instead quickly learn from mistakes, and for that you first need to own up to mistakes. And I agree the Dhoni batting place was a wrong one, and not playing Jadeja till the last league game was pretty poor. And DK? Let me not start it!!!
However, I don't agree England is the clear number one side in the tournament that seem to be implied in your post. I could understand the Pakistan loss that they suffered as any top side can have a bad and in any case it was not a bad loss. But losing to current Sri Lanka after that bad against Pakistan? That too chasing a modest score? Then being utterly outplayed by Australia? No, that doesn't come across as performances from a top side. Not by a country mile.

I wasn't trying to imply that England were the stand out invincible gods of cricket, far from it.
Much as with India they are so much better than other teams that they automatically deserved a spot in the final. And thats been born out by their ability to lose games. I do think they proved that they are better than Australia, and really noone thinks NZ are as strong as the other top 4. But its what you do on the day that counts, its not a phone vote as to who should win.

An did they make excuses about the small ground for the loss to Pakistan? Did they blame the tournament structure for losing to Australia? Nope. They did blame Vince and Moeen for losing to Sri Lanka though...ie themselves.

What I was saying is that they have earned their spot in the final by beating all of the best sides in what for them were must win games. If they win the cup they will have done it the hard way without ducking anyone, and no-one can deny they dont deserve it. Perhaps theres a case for questioning NZ if they do win it, but they still would have pulled off back to back wins against the bets two teams in the world.

To start moaning about the format after the fact when you have run out of other excuses to cover for your own failure shows a level of defensiveness from Kholi that just makes things worse. Be a man, admit you failed. You are not perfect and you cant do it every day, You might be the highest paid cricketer in history and idolised by a nation of 1 billion but that doesnt mean you need to project an aura that you can do no wrong and be no better.

Maybe its a difference in national character, but the British tend to like their losers more than their winners. Partly because we like to give them a good kicking and it makes them more human and reminds us of ourselves (losers). Clutching to limp excuses and blaming outside factors or conspiracies just isn't what a cricketer should do. Even after sandpaper gate, despite them having suspected something had gone on in the ashes and England having taken such brutal personal maulings over their failure (I still give Moeen stick) Root refused to use that as an excuse for losing.

If theres one thing England are good at and used to dealing well with its losing. Most of the fans are fully prepared and ready to deal with it again despite everything falling into place for them.

by KP_fan Fri 12 Jul 2019, 1:46 pm

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

by Gooseberry Fri 12 Jul 2019, 1:49 pm

msp83 wrote:It is a knockout game. New Zealand have over the years, shown a remakarble ability to punch above their weight in global tournament. This time, they were expected semi finalists. They may have huffed and puffed their way in there, but that wasn't surprising. They beat table topers India in the semis to then reach the final. Is that the extend of punching above their weight? Or can they go one step further?
It is certainly not beyond them. Martin Guptill's most significant contribution in the entire tournament so far that has been that sensational run-out of MS Dhoni. But he's a good ODI player and it is possible, that throw might ignite a fire in him and he might come up with the goods with that impeccable sense of timing. Kane Williamson is been in good form, and Ross Taylor played a very crucial hand in the semi final to stretch New Zealand's total into a winning one. With Mitchell Santner coming in at 8, New Zealand too have batting depth. Trent Boult among the best bowlers in the world. Ferguson is a bowler good enough to ensure Tim Southee would be benched. Matthew Henry was the man of the match who cracked opened the Indian top order that no other attack quite managed in this entire World Cup. James Neesham is an improved bowler and has had a few nerveless spells at the death. Mitchell Santner is made in the Daniel Vetori mold, and has showed signs of getting back to his peack as the tournament progressed.
They have a lot goin for themselves in the finals. They would want to go one step beyond what they managed in 2015. They are the underdogs goint into the finals, but that is nothing new for them... Unlike England, the pressure of expectation would be less on them. England haven't always managed that pressure well, not too many sides have, as Kohli suggested the other day.
So England would do well to stay grounded and focused...

Agree with every word of that.

Although I would caveat "good enough to ensure Tim Southee would be benched" with noting Southees record over the past year and half in limited overs is pretty abysmal. England absolutely took him apart over there last year and I fancy would be very happy to be facing him again.

by **Afro** Fri 12 Jul 2019, 2:13 pm

Across the whole tournament, India have been the best team.

But needing to win one off games is part of tournaments though and you always going to need to do that, whatever the format.

The best teams are those that can cope with that pressure and find a way through those sticky patches. Australia are traditionally the masters of that and find a way to win when they might not deserve it, and its no fluke that they have won so many knockout games and with it World Cups.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Fri 12 Jul 2019, 2:31 pm

Afro wrote:Across the whole tournament, India have been the best team.

I can't say I completely agree with that. They've lost two big games and can only go down as having won as many as England and Australia. Do it when it matters, and India didn't.

by robbo277 Fri 12 Jul 2019, 2:52 pm

England have batted first 5 times and have made over 300 - the only team with a 100% record at this. The tightest win in these games was against India by 31 runs, the other 4 wins were all by 100+.

England have chased 5 times and won 2/5. Against the West Indies we were 213/2 from 33.1 and against Australia we were 226/2 from 32.1 - both 8 wicket wins with 100 balls to spare.

The 3 losses we hit 334/9 chasing 349 against Pakistan, 212ao chasing 233 against Sri Lanka and 221ao against Australia chasing 286.

6 of England's games they haven't just beaten the opposition, they've thrashed them. One narrow win, two narrow losses and one heavy loss.

England have been very good over this tournament. There was a blip in the middle when Roy was injured, but we've rallied well since then. You could put any team in the final against us Sunday and I'd make us favourites, including Pakistan or Sri Lanka.

I'd also say Roy is my shout for player of the tournament if I had to pick now. He doesnt have the most runs or the best average, but the combination of his average and his strike rate are phenomenal. He averages 71 and strikes at 117, and the only people with averages higher than 50 and a strike rate within 10 runs per 100 balls are Jadeja (1 innings) and Wasim (scored about 40% of Roy's runs).

He missed 3 batting innings with his hamstring injury and we lost two of those games. In terms of importance and seeing a team over the line there has been no one this tournament more important than Roy. If we end up winning I think he should be a shoo-in. If not I'd say Williamson, especially if he is the reason NZ beat us.

by Gooseberry Fri 12 Jul 2019, 2:52 pm

I'm not sure they can claim 100% to be clear the best team. Best results yes, but just as England lost to Sri Lanka ( and arguably Pakistans) best perfomance they very nearly got undone by Aghanistan and Bangladesh. They also lost to NZ despite that team batting pretty poorly after having ducked them in the group stages.
And of course lost to England.
It's pretty flawed of course but if you use NRR as a measure of the real level of performance in the group stages India were 3rd best discounting the NZ loss.
Englands performance against Aus was in most folks eyes the stand put team performance of the tournament. Does that alone mean they deserve to be handed the cup, or that they are a clear best team the WC? Nope.
I dont really think any one team can claim to have been absolutely the best. Are India a better side than NZ though? Yes. But they didnt beat them.
England have dominated ODIs over the past 4 years but lost one crunch game in the CT. No final. They came here as number one and smashed numbers 2 4 and 3 in succession. If they lose the final it counts for nothing. If they win in the fashion they did against Aus youd be hard pressed to claim they hadnt been the best overall.

by **Afro** Fri 12 Jul 2019, 3:12 pm

It's just me offering my opinion on which team I think has played the better cricket in the tournament and, yes I agree it is close; but I would plump for India.

by KP_fan Fri 12 Jul 2019, 3:22 pm

I think when all their engines started firing and if you remove legacy of bilateral games' stats...Pak was the best side in the tournament by the time they were eliminated.
-they beat both finalists
-they won last 4 on a row
-and won 2 out of their last 4 games chasing......& on square turning sticky wickets.
Their weak link batting was firing.....top, middle & lower down to Wahab at no.9
They had arguably the most skill full pace attack....and best utilization of reverse by Wahab
and a decent leggie and SLA and and a competent 6th bowler.

by Gooseberry Fri 12 Jul 2019, 3:25 pm

I agree with some of that KPF it mirrors an earlier post of mine but it's a bit of an exaggeration.

I do say that theres a fair chance rain robbed Pakistan of the final 4. But England played the best cricket of the tournament so far yesterday.

And the debate is centred on kholis claim that its unfair they as the most consistent team are out. Pakistan were not the most consistent.

by robbo277 Fri 12 Jul 2019, 3:35 pm

If we're talking consistency then you can argue for Kohli. If this was still a group stage India would sit top of the tree still.

India - Pld 10 pts 15
Eng - Pld 10 pts 14
Aus - Pld 10 pts 14
NZ - Pld 10 pts 13

But if you ask me who's played the best cricket it's England. Had the highest NRR in the pool stages by some distance and have won 3 elimination games against the others in the top 4 on the spin - the last two quite handsomely - with a mixture of batting first and chasing.

by lostinwales Fri 12 Jul 2019, 3:55 pm

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.

by Sponsored content