| Cricket World Cup thread. 10:09 - May 21 with 57990 views | Snipper |
Jofra Archer has been named in the squad, and rightly so. He offers genuine pace and he’s still relatively unknown to the other teams. I don’t agree with the omission of David Willey though. I wouldn’t have had Liam Dawson. But hey ho.
This is the first round robin CWC since Australia/New Zealand in 1992. For me, that was the best CWC. Australia were big favourites, but lost their first four games. England are big favourites for this one. Let’s hope we get off to a better start.
Come on England ðŸ´ó §ó ¢ó ¥ó ®ó §ó ¿. |  | | |  |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 10:18 - May 21 with 8212 views | ozexile |
Glad Tom Curran got in. Great bowler at the death. Incredibly strong batting line up. |  | | |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 11:04 - May 21 with 8125 views | CamberleyR |
I've always thought that World Cup had the best format as well. The only thing that slightly soured that tournament was the rain rule that they used (the brainchild of Richie Benaud no less, not one of his finest ideas) which did lead to some slightly unfair results. Remember the semi against SA where they went from needing 22 in 13 balls to 22 in 1 when it started raining at the end? I think it ultimately led to the Duckworth/Lewis method being developed and introduced.
We've surely got to win this one day and we'll never have a better chance than now. |  |
| |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 11:23 - May 21 with 8140 views | Snipper |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 11:04 - May 21 by CamberleyR |
I've always thought that World Cup had the best format as well. The only thing that slightly soured that tournament was the rain rule that they used (the brainchild of Richie Benaud no less, not one of his finest ideas) which did lead to some slightly unfair results. Remember the semi against SA where they went from needing 22 in 13 balls to 22 in 1 when it started raining at the end? I think it ultimately led to the Duckworth/Lewis method being developed and introduced.
We've surely got to win this one day and we'll never have a better chance than now. |
I agree that the rain rule back then was stupid, but karma done for South Africa in that semi final.
They purposely bowled slow for our innings, so only bowled something like 45 overs. It was a ploy that probably would’ve worked if it hadn’t rained. I had no sympathy for them then, and I still have no sympathy now.
We had the best team in that tournament. It’s just a pity we couldn’t finish the job in the final. | | | |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 11:48 - May 21 with 8091 views | CamberleyR |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 11:23 - May 21 by Snipper |
I agree that the rain rule back then was stupid, but karma done for South Africa in that semi final.
They purposely bowled slow for our innings, so only bowled something like 45 overs. It was a ploy that probably would’ve worked if it hadn’t rained. I had no sympathy for them then, and I still have no sympathy now.
We had the best team in that tournament. It’s just a pity we couldn’t finish the job in the final. |
Yeah, agree with that. I'd forgotten that they were involved in what we'd now call shithousery in bowling their overs slowly which bit them on the bum. We had a great one day team then. Lamb, Smith, Hick and Fairbrother in the middle order, Stewart as batsman/keeper and a very handy pace attack with Lewis, Small and De Freitas.
It was also galling that we should have knocked Pakistan out in the qualifying after skittling them for 74 and then the bloody rain came and washed the game out meaning they gained a valuable point they didn't deserve which got them into the semi-finals. | |
| |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 12:47 - May 21 with 8073 views | Esox_Lucius |
I wonder who the first commentator to proclaim "Jofra with a jaffer" will be?  |  |
| The grass is always greener. |
| |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 13:00 - May 21 with 8066 views | Tonto |
It was always going to be tough on whoever was left out. The talk was Curran vs Willey, in which case its the right decision, although personally I would have left out either Woakes or Plunkett as they are quite similar and Willey is a left hander, which offers variety.
Having said that, Willey does rely a lot on swing, and there may not be much of that around...
its a good squad though, I hope the favourites tag doesn't get to them. |  |
| |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 13:11 - May 21 with 8050 views | ElHoop |
We had a good side in 2017 though!
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8037/scorecard/1022371/england-vs-pakistan-1s
The worry is that the pitches wear out after six weeks or so and with the ICC presuambly trying to give the bowlers a chance, we could end up smashing it around early doors and then capitulating in July on a pitch that does a lot with batsmen who aren't necessarily the best in the world at handling such conditions. |  | | |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 13:19 - May 21 with 8040 views | Dorse |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 13:00 - May 21 by Tonto |
It was always going to be tough on whoever was left out. The talk was Curran vs Willey, in which case its the right decision, although personally I would have left out either Woakes or Plunkett as they are quite similar and Willey is a left hander, which offers variety.
Having said that, Willey does rely a lot on swing, and there may not be much of that around...
its a good squad though, I hope the favourites tag doesn't get to them. |
Swing with the white ball is tricky so maybe that was part of the decision. Feel a bit sorry for Willey - he hadn't really done anything wrong but the call went against him.
Looking forward to seeing how Ali and Rashid play. I wasn't especially excited by Rashid's game last season but he seems to have the knack of slowing down the batting side's scoring rate, getting them to rush and make mistakes. His stumping against Pakistan on Sunday was brilliant, as was his caught and bowled. He wasn't significantly more expensive than Moeen Ali either. Mini Dorse adores Moeen Ali, so I am contractually obliged to not mention his recent iffy batting. |  |
| 'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!' |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 13:20 - May 21 with 8036 views | Antti_Heinola |
We have such a great chance. I don't think expectation will get to them, but, assuming things go ok, we'll make the semis and from there it only takes one bad innings and you've lost. Let's hope our one bad innings comes in the group stage.
Feel for Willey, but on balance probably the right decision. He must be absolutely gutted. Woakes had to stay - he's been brilliant in the early overs, while Plunkett gets valuable mid-innngs wickets.
Should be great, if long, tournament. |  |
| |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 13:29 - May 21 with 8020 views | BlackCrowe |
There will be bugger all swing with the white ball. And not much spin on those pitches.
Speed is the need.
Think they got the selection about right. |  |
| |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 13:41 - May 21 with 8005 views | stowmarketrange |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 13:19 - May 21 by Dorse |
Swing with the white ball is tricky so maybe that was part of the decision. Feel a bit sorry for Willey - he hadn't really done anything wrong but the call went against him.
Looking forward to seeing how Ali and Rashid play. I wasn't especially excited by Rashid's game last season but he seems to have the knack of slowing down the batting side's scoring rate, getting them to rush and make mistakes. His stumping against Pakistan on Sunday was brilliant, as was his caught and bowled. He wasn't significantly more expensive than Moeen Ali either. Mini Dorse adores Moeen Ali, so I am contractually obliged to not mention his recent iffy batting. |
Moeen could be the weak link if our batting gets put under pressure in a vital game.We have enough players who can either get out cheaply or get a quick 70 runs.We need a bit more of an anchor man in case we’re struggling with 5 or 6 down for a low score.
His bowling and fielding almost make up for it though. |  | | |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 15:04 - May 21 with 7949 views | HantsR |
Glad that Vince (he's an R !!) and Dawson are selected, for Hampshire's sake, but frustrated that their inclusion will probably mean them missing the One-day final at Lord's this coming Saturday. |  | | |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 15:17 - May 21 with 7933 views | loftus77 |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 11:04 - May 21 by CamberleyR |
I've always thought that World Cup had the best format as well. The only thing that slightly soured that tournament was the rain rule that they used (the brainchild of Richie Benaud no less, not one of his finest ideas) which did lead to some slightly unfair results. Remember the semi against SA where they went from needing 22 in 13 balls to 22 in 1 when it started raining at the end? I think it ultimately led to the Duckworth/Lewis method being developed and introduced.
We've surely got to win this one day and we'll never have a better chance than now. |
Really looking forward to the World Cup — and as hosts, we have a real chance to finally win this tournament. However, I’m not sure I agree with the format at all.
The problem for me is that it is effectively a league system — everyone plays everyone else (10 teams, 9 games). My simple issue: surely the team that finishes top at the end of this ‘Group stage’ should simply be crowned World Champions — and the semi-finals and final canned. What else would this all-conquering team have to prove (the 50-over format for the semi-final/final being exactly the same as group matches)?
Imagine if England storm to victory in all 9 games, blazing 400+ and 500+ scores with Archer and Woakes blowing teams away for under 150. How would we then feel if we then lost a rain-affected reduced-over semi-final to 4th placed Sri Lanka on D/L method? A sense of injustice perhaps?
As a compromise, surely it should be that any team that wins a clean sweep of games (all 9) is crowned World Champions and the teams in 2nd and 3rd place can play off in a ‘final’ for the runners-up spot. If no one wins all their games, have the semi-final/final format as per now. | | | |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 15:39 - May 21 with 7885 views | CamberleyR |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 15:17 - May 21 by loftus77 |
Really looking forward to the World Cup — and as hosts, we have a real chance to finally win this tournament. However, I’m not sure I agree with the format at all.
The problem for me is that it is effectively a league system — everyone plays everyone else (10 teams, 9 games). My simple issue: surely the team that finishes top at the end of this ‘Group stage’ should simply be crowned World Champions — and the semi-finals and final canned. What else would this all-conquering team have to prove (the 50-over format for the semi-final/final being exactly the same as group matches)?
Imagine if England storm to victory in all 9 games, blazing 400+ and 500+ scores with Archer and Woakes blowing teams away for under 150. How would we then feel if we then lost a rain-affected reduced-over semi-final to 4th placed Sri Lanka on D/L method? A sense of injustice perhaps?
As a compromise, surely it should be that any team that wins a clean sweep of games (all 9) is crowned World Champions and the teams in 2nd and 3rd place can play off in a ‘final’ for the runners-up spot. If no one wins all their games, have the semi-final/final format as per now. |
I can see your point, the round robin format does have a weakness there but in a sense it's not a lot different to the football season and the play-offs in football where quite often a team that has finished third just missing automatic promotion misses out in the play-offs to a team that has just scraped in (witness Leeds losing to Derby this season finishing 9 points in front of them).
Your imagined scenario is a bit like what befell New Zealand in 1992 when they used round robin. They won 7 out of their 8 games (most of them convincingly) and topped the table by three points but had run out of steam by the semis and lost to a Pakistan team who had finished five points behind but were coming up on the rails peaking at the right time. [Post edited 21 May 2019 17:33]
| |
| |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 15:45 - May 21 with 7900 views | Tonto |
the teams know (and voted for) the system before it started.
if you were going to moan about something, it would be why have the lesser teams like Ireland and Scotland been excluded? | |
| |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 15:48 - May 21 with 7898 views | qprd |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 15:17 - May 21 by loftus77 |
Really looking forward to the World Cup — and as hosts, we have a real chance to finally win this tournament. However, I’m not sure I agree with the format at all.
The problem for me is that it is effectively a league system — everyone plays everyone else (10 teams, 9 games). My simple issue: surely the team that finishes top at the end of this ‘Group stage’ should simply be crowned World Champions — and the semi-finals and final canned. What else would this all-conquering team have to prove (the 50-over format for the semi-final/final being exactly the same as group matches)?
Imagine if England storm to victory in all 9 games, blazing 400+ and 500+ scores with Archer and Woakes blowing teams away for under 150. How would we then feel if we then lost a rain-affected reduced-over semi-final to 4th placed Sri Lanka on D/L method? A sense of injustice perhaps?
As a compromise, surely it should be that any team that wins a clean sweep of games (all 9) is crowned World Champions and the teams in 2nd and 3rd place can play off in a ‘final’ for the runners-up spot. If no one wins all their games, have the semi-final/final format as per now. |
Interesting approach, but perhaps not practicable with tickets, tv money etc. i like the decisive nature of a cup final, though it is a lottery
if you want to make the group stage matter more, you could give the top seed a bye. so with four teams qualifying, you could have 4 play 3. the winner of that plays 2nd place. and the winner of that match plays 1 in the final | | | |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 15:51 - May 21 with 7894 views | qprd |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 15:45 - May 21 by Tonto |
the teams know (and voted for) the system before it started.
if you were going to moan about something, it would be why have the lesser teams like Ireland and Scotland been excluded? |
im glad theyre not in... they had a chance to qualify in zimbabwe, and didnt make it
theres no point having cannon fodder in the tournament- namibia and canada in 2003 come to mind. most matches are foregone conclusions and ultimately a waste of time, though ireland did sneakily upset pakistan in 2007 and i believe kenya nicked sri lanka in 03 too | | | |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 16:54 - May 21 with 7841 views | thame_hoops |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 15:51 - May 21 by qprd |
im glad theyre not in... they had a chance to qualify in zimbabwe, and didnt make it
theres no point having cannon fodder in the tournament- namibia and canada in 2003 come to mind. most matches are foregone conclusions and ultimately a waste of time, though ireland did sneakily upset pakistan in 2007 and i believe kenya nicked sri lanka in 03 too |
Pretty sure we struggled against Kenya in 99, effected our run rate which ultimately cost us
Edit-no it didn’t lol just checked the score, something rang a bell though [Post edited 21 May 2019 16:56]
|  | | |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 00:22 - May 22 with 7665 views | bob566 |
Anybody know the odds. Might back england | | | |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 05:16 - May 22 with 7619 views | SydneyRs |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 11:48 - May 21 by CamberleyR |
Yeah, agree with that. I'd forgotten that they were involved in what we'd now call shithousery in bowling their overs slowly which bit them on the bum. We had a great one day team then. Lamb, Smith, Hick and Fairbrother in the middle order, Stewart as batsman/keeper and a very handy pace attack with Lewis, Small and De Freitas.
It was also galling that we should have knocked Pakistan out in the qualifying after skittling them for 74 and then the bloody rain came and washed the game out meaning they gained a valuable point they didn't deserve which got them into the semi-finals. |
I remember being gutted watching the final, coming quite soon after the devastation of the 1990 world cup penalties and losing the rugby world cup final in 91.
I'd forgotten about the fact Pakistan should have been long gone after being bowled out for 74 in the earlier game, and now I'm annoyed by it all over again! | | | |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 08:30 - May 22 with 7571 views | TheChef |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 05:16 - May 22 by SydneyRs |
I remember being gutted watching the final, coming quite soon after the devastation of the 1990 world cup penalties and losing the rugby world cup final in 91.
I'd forgotten about the fact Pakistan should have been long gone after being bowled out for 74 in the earlier game, and now I'm annoyed by it all over again! |
Of course not to mention the 87 final where we were going along quite nicely, till Gatting got out with his attempted reverse sweep and it all went swiftly downhill after that!
We've really got to win this thing this year. |  |
| |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 08:41 - May 22 with 7564 views | LythamR |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 15:48 - May 21 by qprd |
Interesting approach, but perhaps not practicable with tickets, tv money etc. i like the decisive nature of a cup final, though it is a lottery
if you want to make the group stage matter more, you could give the top seed a bye. so with four teams qualifying, you could have 4 play 3. the winner of that plays 2nd place. and the winner of that match plays 1 in the final |
I think the way the IPL handles the play offs is good and fair
the top 2 play and the winner goes straight to the final, the loser goes to the play off
the 3rd and 4th teams play an eliminator with the winner going forward to the play off
that way the teams finishing 1st or second get a second bite of the cherry which rewards the top 2 finish and means ther final rounds of games are still exciting as even those that might be comfortably in the top for are pushing for the top 2 and that extra security |  | | |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 08:48 - May 22 with 7561 views | ElHoop |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 00:22 - May 22 by bob566 |
Anybody know the odds. Might back england |
You won't get much more than 2/1 England.
https://www.oddschecker.com/cricket/world-cup/world-cup-2019/winner
Can't see that as value - if they make the semi finals they probably won't be much shorter than that, so you might as well wait and see how the inevitable injuries go.
South Africa 10/1 is a shocking price. They've never even made the final before although admittedly they were banned from the early tournaments. They just don't look likely sorts to me on current form.
I think that Pakistan are a bet at 16/1 to win and also at 2/1 to reach the semi-finals. I don't think that Afghanistan will finish bottom - I'll try to watch their games as they should be fun. They can certainly bowl and will bowl out better sides if the pitches offer anything to bowlers, but can they bat for 50 overs on pitches like that? They'll give it a shot anyway.
I think that the Bangles are value at 3/1 to finish bottom, and I'll probably back the Windies to win the thing AND finish bottom as they're a big price for both and anything at all can happen with them really. | | | |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 09:24 - May 22 with 7538 views | plasmahoop |
I think England have got the selection right, and I hope they can win it. I've got my doubts though. We badly need wood and archer to stay fit, as without them our bowling looks like fodder. We may have beaten Pakistan 4 nil, but you can't always rely on scoring 350 plus. The ease with which they scored runs was alarming, and surely we've got a collapse or two in us. Personally I think the tournament format is great and am looking forward to it. Come on England | | | |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 09:26 - May 22 with 7534 views | LythamR |
| Cricket World Cup thread. on 08:48 - May 22 by ElHoop |
You won't get much more than 2/1 England.
https://www.oddschecker.com/cricket/world-cup/world-cup-2019/winner
Can't see that as value - if they make the semi finals they probably won't be much shorter than that, so you might as well wait and see how the inevitable injuries go.
South Africa 10/1 is a shocking price. They've never even made the final before although admittedly they were banned from the early tournaments. They just don't look likely sorts to me on current form.
I think that Pakistan are a bet at 16/1 to win and also at 2/1 to reach the semi-finals. I don't think that Afghanistan will finish bottom - I'll try to watch their games as they should be fun. They can certainly bowl and will bowl out better sides if the pitches offer anything to bowlers, but can they bat for 50 overs on pitches like that? They'll give it a shot anyway.
I think that the Bangles are value at 3/1 to finish bottom, and I'll probably back the Windies to win the thing AND finish bottom as they're a big price for both and anything at all can happen with them really. |
i would be wary of SA . there are a bunch of players in their squad that have been in good recent form although 20/20
10/1 might be a bit tight but it wouldnt surprise me at all if they ended in the top 4 | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
