Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/433563.html?CMP=OTC-GCN

I'm just going to make this a thread about the World Cup generally.

Haven't seen it yet, but my guess would be that England finished with the bat. Once you get past the opponent's total the game stops.

Right, right. But it was still pretty tense right up to that six.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My larger point is I would have thought England would have had no difficulty against the Netherlands.

Do they eat the crickets after they play?

It would be rather unsanitary if they did do that.

Manchu wrote:By a slim margin!

Paging whatwhat -- give us the run down: why was this such a close game?

This tournament is Fifty-Fifty format. One team bats for 50 overs (300 balls), then the other team bats for 50 overs. The team scoring the highest number of runs is the winner.

Holland batted first, so they faced the full 50 overs.

England batted second. England scored a four on the final delivery to win by four runs. They might have hit one, two, three or six runs, to win by that margin. Five runs is almost impossible. If they hadn't scored enough runs off that ball, there were eight balls left in the match.

Yep. I was referring to them having a high RR from over to over and that RR kept going up and up until Bopara's six. Maybe I was the only one who thought it was an exciting game?

Manchu wrote:Yep. I was referring to them having a high RR from over to over and that RR kept going up and up until Bopara's six. Maybe I was the only one who thought it was an exciting game?

The run rate was high because england bowled poorly and fielded like a village cricket side.

Pieterson and Anderson watched a ball drop between them when either one of them would have caught it. 'After you, oh no after you, no no no no after you...oops'.

An illegal field setting denied Broad a wicket.

Swann dropped a catch but kept up his hoodo by taking a wicket in his first over.

Anderson decided to bowl off-cutters and slower balls very, unsuccessfully . (Jimmy A 10 overs 0 maidens 72 runs 0 wickets).

There was general negativity and a lack of aggression in the England side.

Really, though, the Dutch played exceptionally well! They were confident in their approach, taking the attack to England in the early stages but played intelligently and had their mid order able to take advantage of the poor bowling on offer. The Dutch bowling attack is nothing to write home about, but at the end of the day England didn't win The Netherlands lost.

I think that the REAL story here is that Manchu likes Cricket!

As our colonial cousins put it, 'what gives?'

Albatross wrote:I think that the REAL story here is that Manchu likes Cricket!

As our colonial cousins put it, 'what gives?'

Have you not seen the Californian gang bangers doing a cricket world tour?

I cant tell if you actually know anything about cricket so forgive me the explanation (I am not an expert or even fan tbh): there are several different types of cricket including the 50:50 type favoured by india and pakistan, the one day serieses favoured by Australia and the 'test' type cricket favoured by England. England simply aren't that good or indeed specialised at the shorter formats of cricket match, they are better at the prolonged test matches which can last several days. Perfect example England won the ashes this year (the ashes consists of 5 long 'tests' that can last up to three days) but got subsequently hammered 6:1 by the aussies in the one day series. Realised while writing this how little i really know bout cricket lol!

So no surprise today. But a chance for us to talk about reducing the number of world cup teams from fifteen to ten. What do you guys think? Had enough with games like today's or is there always a chance for an upset?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The ICC’s ongoing insistence that the 2015 World Cup will be contested by ten teams is an affront to justice in the game. Last week we asked why the ICC don’t simply give the trophy to India every four years, since everyone would make a fortune, and this is the same logic pursued as far as Dubai dares.

Haroon Lorgat has defended the decision: ‘The 50-over format is more skill-based and suitable for the top teams.’

The popular and correct response from players, administrators and commentators alike has been to reiterate that a World Cup does not exist for the development of the top teams.

An interesting related issue is: how do we identify the top ten teams? Qualifying details have yet to be confirmed, but the only fair way is some kind of global tournament in which teams face off in group and/or knockout games to determine who is the best.

source

I wish we could all just face up to the fact that cricket is not, and never will be a global sport. The only people who really want it to be a global sport are folk like Ashish Bagai - and fair play to the bloke - and empire-builders in the ICC. Me, I'd rather watch a few really good sides playing intense, closely fought games. If that means the people of Quebec or Cork or Mombasa are denied the chance to see their boys at the World Cup then that's price I'm willing to pay. If there is a genuine groundswell of desire among a large number of Canadian or Irish or whoever people to become a cricketing nation, then investment, and success, will eventually follow.

source

Mr. Burning wrote:Pieterson and Anderson watched a ball drop between them when either one of them would have caught it. 'After you, oh no after you, no no no no after you...oops'.

In baseball, we're taught very early to call out either "Mine, Mine!" or 'Take it, take it" when 2 players are running for the ball. There are still mishaps, but that's something that always stuck with me. Do fielder's shout something similar in Cricket?

kronk wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:Pieterson and Anderson watched a ball drop between them when either one of them would have caught it. 'After you, oh no after you, no no no no after you...oops'.

In baseball, we're taught very early to call out either "Mine, Mine!" or 'Take it, take it" when 2 players are running for the ball. There are still mishaps, but that's something that always stuck with me. Do fielder's shout something similar in Cricket?

Something similar. I guess our Players are a tad burnt out after plaing the Ashes and 6 match ODI series with very little time for proper R &R and time back home with families etc.

Body language has a lot to do with it and alert players would have judges when to go for the catch and when to back off and back up.

I have had this situation occur a few times when I have played. I would run up to the players concerned and question their parentage when it happened off my bowling.

With rain threatening, South Africa overtook the West Indies in a tidy game that was played well on either side but left little enough to the imagination.

A sad day for the Irish. A stunning home game for Bangladesh.

I watched a bit of the SA v West Indies match. Thought it was a good game, really.

India Vs England

IT'S A DRAW!

Good God Almighty!

What a draining match.

Manchu wrote:So no surprise today. But a chance for us to talk about reducing the number of world cup teams from fifteen to ten. What do you guys think? Had enough with games like today's or is there always a chance for an upset?

I think a shorter tournament with more interesting matches would be much more exciting. As it is, the games played right now are really just for fun, no major team is unlikely at all to miss out on reaching the quarter finals.

The England v India game sounds like it was a wonderfully close match, but it doesn't mean anything because both teams are still almost certain to reach the quarter finals.

The recent 20/20 world cup had a much better format, all the minnow nations were still there (including Afghanistan?!) but they were included in small groups of three, with each nation playing the others once and then the poorest team being cut. Still a chance for the minnows, but not this drawn out snoozefest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:In baseball, we're taught very early to call out either "Mine, Mine!" or 'Take it, take it" when 2 players are running for the ball. There are still mishaps, but that's something that always stuck with me. Do fielder's shout something similar in Cricket?

The calls to be made in cricket are either 'mine', 'yours' or if there's more than two people involved you call '(player's name)'s catch'. This can still go wrong because in crowds of 100,000 players might not hear each other.

Mostly though it's just about confidence. This England team thumped the hell out of Australia in the recent test series (long form of cricket with each game played over 5 days) and throughout that series they caught excellently and we caught terribly. We then started to play one day cricket, and Australia got the upper hand, all of a sudden England's confidence dropped and ours grew, suddenly the English were making mistakes in the field and not the Australians. Even at the top level players make basic mistakes when their confidence is down.

I guess England is hoping by splitting the points in such a big run chase they'll grow in confidence and start catching a little better.