• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

**Official** Group A Discussion

Spark

Global Moderator
Well it wasn't necessary but there wasn't anything to lose either so as I said at the time, I liked the move. If he got out, he got out - then Mathews could come in anyway. He wasn't just going to soak up dot balls; he's surprisingly hard to actually bowl dot balls to in general. Given he had nothing to lose it took a lot of pressure out of what was going to be a tense chase in a big game.
Yeah precisely. Main reason I think pinch-hitters are a bit under-utilised in limited overs, because you often don't lose anything by using them.
 

Days of Grace

International Captain
If it's gonna rain, it better ****ing piss down.

I can just see us getting ****ed over by Duckworth-Lewis, chasing 182, being 32/2 in the 11th over, coming back out and needing 385 off 15.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
This is an example of what can happen when a team has a great player as opposed to "just" very good ones like England

Sanga is a truly great player and made it look easy - man vs boys stuff really
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
Yeah precisely. Main reason I think pinch-hitters are a bit under-utilised in limited overs, because you often don't lose anything by using them.
Pinch hitting is a legitimate tactic for the middle overs once the ball has lost its shine and the lesser bowlers are usually on like in this game. Almost never works earlier in the innings though as the bowling too good.
 

Cabinet96

Global Moderator
If it's gonna rain, it better ****ing piss down.

I can just see us getting ****ed over by Duckworth-Lewis, chasing 182, being 32/2 in the 11th over, coming back out and needing 385 off 15.
An abandonment means you guys are through. On the other hand, an abandonment means England would be relying on Australia beating Sri Lanka, but not by a large enough margin for their net run rate to surpass ours.

Pissing it down is probably perfect for you and terrible for us.
 

Maximas

Cricketer Of The Year
Hmm, OK, so as a SL fan, looks like I'm hoping for either two completed games and an SL win (that would obviously be ideal) or a NZ win and a washout between SL and AUS. Have I got that right?
 

Maximas

Cricketer Of The Year
Why? We would be the only unbeaten team in the group.
They caught Sri Lanka on a really poor batting day and only just snuck in by one wicket, then they weren't looking too flash in the chase vs Aus, but it was way to early to call, they deserve to go through, but they've yet to put in an all-round solid performance.
 

GGG

State Captain
They caught Sri Lanka on a really poor batting day and only just snuck in by one wicket, then they weren't looking too flash in the chase vs Aus, but it was way to early to call, they deserve to go through, but they've yet to put in an all-round solid performance.
Likewise SL caught us on a very poor batting day and we still won.
 

Cabinet96

Global Moderator
Why? We would be the only unbeaten team in the group.
Would have played less games than anyone else as well, tbf. :p

Although I do agree with you. I certainly wouldn't feel bad if I was a NZ fan and they went through with the help of rain. Especially as you beat England two times out of three before the tournament.
 

Salamuddin

International Debutant
Don't get why England are playing Bresnan in a four man attack.

His ODI stats are pretty mediocre and unless the ball is moving around, he really doesn't have the tools needed to stop good batsmen.
Only way I'd consider playing him is an all allrounder in a five man attack.

In a four man attack, your best bowlers have to play and IMO they've got to get Finn in there.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
There is a perception, probably because he's been a late starter and his FC record isn't a Hayden-like one of dominance, that he doesn't deserve to be on the team. He cops a slagging in the press and among the wider cricket watching community here, but he's been really good for us since he came into the side. IMO we could do a lot worse than have him in the test side ATM. Bit of an old head, stable character from a very down to earth background and a genuine middle order player who isn't yet another opener they're trying to bat out of position.

Feel a middle order of Clarke, Bailey, Warner, Haddin/Wade/Paine has potential for Australia in tests.
 

Woodster

International Captain
Don't get why England are playing Bresnan in a four man attack.

His ODI stats are pretty mediocre and unless the ball is moving around, he really doesn't have the tools needed to stop good batsmen.
Only way I'd consider playing him is an all allrounder in a five man attack.

In a four man attack, your best bowlers have to play and IMO they've got to get Finn in there.
Bresnan is picked I would imagine not only to add some depth and power hitting to the lower order, but more importantly to utilise any reverse swing that may be around. England got it going in the first fixture but couldn't, maybe in part due to a ball change, get it swinging against SL. I do think Finn has to come in to give us a bit of penetration, but he gets the nod over Broad for me.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Bresnan is picked I would imagine not only to add some depth and power hitting to the lower order, but more importantly to utilise any reverse swing that may be around. England got it going in the first fixture but couldn't, maybe in part due to a ball change, get it swinging against SL. I do think Finn has to come in to give us a bit of penetration, but he gets the nod over Broad for me.
You've brought up the ball change twice; there's two balls out there, obviously the one that wasn't changed couldn't get going either, ball change is irrelevant.
 

Top