Who do you have pegged for your 4 semi finalists?

[Burgey]

Cheers.

The draw certainly favoured them early, didn't it? In hindsight it looks like they got out of gaol with a washout vs India, and to their credit they've been able to accumulate enough points early against some of the nuffy outfits which looks like getting them there.

 

[SteveNZ]

Cheers.

The draw certainly favoured them early, didn't it? In hindsight it looks like they got out of gaol with a washout vs India, and to their credit they've been able to accumulate enough points early against some of the nuffy outfits which looks like getting them there.

This is spot on. We were able to ease our way in, then had enough match practice to just knock over (unconvincingly) both SA and the West Indies. I dare say if we got them earlier, we might not have.

I think as NZ fans we would all be incredibly surprised if we weren't soundly beaten in our next two outings.

 

[mr_mister]

Anyone else think its stupid if say England and Sri Lanka finish on 10 points each, matches won is the first factor so SL having 2 no results gave them less opportunities and England woukd be rated ahead regardless of NRR.

That can't be right surely?

 

[Burgey]

I suppose it's a product of this WC's format and the fact they only come around every four years that there was virtually no discussion of the draw ahead of the tourney, from the POV of who was likely to bank points early etc. I guess that's a product of everyone playing each other, rather than having pools. If the teams had been divided up as happened in a lot of other WCs, there would no doubt have been a lot more talk about the draw - who it favoured, which was the pool of death etc etc.

As it stands, I think we all pretty much forgot about it as a factor until SL beat England, then it suddenly dawned on everyone that they (and NZ to a similar extent) had a very tough run home.

 

[Victor Ian]

Anyone else think its stupid if say England and Sri Lanka finish on 10 points each, matches won is the first factor so SL having 2 no results gave them less opportunities and England woukd be rated ahead regardless of NRR.

I raised this earlier. It's completely unfair in that rain is the factor. I can not see the logic behind not going to NRR first. Perhaps they felt that nrr on a smaller set was unfair based on a smaller set being more prone to being protected.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Dorf is a grade cricketer, not a park cricketer

Give it a spell champ. You are only making yourself look ignorant here

 

[Burgey]

Give it a spell champ. You are only making yourself look ignorant here

Look, he's a slow, left handed, substandard Anderson. If it's hooping fine, otherwise cannon fodder. He's produced a peach and had three catches taken on the fence. Let's be realistic here- just because he's better than NCN over there doesn't make him the new Alan Davidson.

 

[the big bambino]

I hope I remembered this correctly.

SL (6 points) versus SA WI India. Maybe finish with (10 points)

BD (7) versus India Pakistan. Maybe (9).

Eng (8) Versus India NZ. Hmm. Maybe (10).

Pak (7) versus Afg BD. Maybe (9).

Big assumption is picking BD to beat Pak.

So I think Eng and SL look most likely with Eng currently enjoying a better nrr. However Eng could lose both and SL lose to say one of SA or WI and that would put both on 8. In which case Pakistan and BD are favoured with BD the better run rate but the harder run home.

.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Look, he's a slow, left handed, substandard Anderson. If it's hooping fine, otherwise cannon fodder. He's produced a peach and had three catches taken on the fence. Let's be realistic here- just because he's better than NCN over there doesn't make him the new Alan Davidson.

That is pure bollocks, I was never saying he's any superstar, but claiming he isn't FC standard is a truly dreadful call in every respect. A quick glance at the Shield wicket takers list should put that pitiful idea at bed once and for all

Copeland: Gun FC bowler, has been for years, no pace to speak of though
Bird: Similar story, always takes plenty of wickets. Bellreive being a pretty spicy deck helps his cause a bit though.
Bolaand: Solid domestic operator but that is about it, found his level methinks
Tremain: Good on his day, can be a touch hot and cold, but a handful when he bowls well
Steketee: Meh, had his best season to date but I remain unconvinced, can go for a few
Mennie: Consistently a bankable performer for SA, but struggled in his breif international career
Abbott: Bowled pretty well last summer, frankly he needed to after doing SFA the previous couple of seasons.
Neser: Much improved over the last couple of years, been the leading man for QLD, but doesn't scream test player
Bell: Handy young swing bowler, but nothing exceptional, lacks a bit of venom on flat pitches
Feldman: Slooooooooooooooooooooow, looks about as dangerous as your average 3rd grade bowler

Would take Dorff over at least 7-8 of them

 

[mr_mister]

So SL are essentially toast unless they win all 3 - can't see England losing to NZ

 

[the big bambino]

So SL are essentially toast unless they win all 3 - can't see England losing to NZ

With their run home I'd probably favour Pakistan. SL are a show against SA and WI atleast. If Pak lose a game then SL can pass them.

 

[Burgey]

That is pure bollocks, I was never saying he's any superstar, but claiming he isn't FC standard is a truly dreadful call in every respect. A quick glance at the Shield wicket takers list should put that pitiful idea at bed once and for all

Copeland: Gun FC bowler, has been for years, no pace to speak of though
Bird: Similar story, always takes plenty of wickets. Bellreive being a pretty spicy deck helps his cause a bit though.
Bolaand: Solid domestic operator but that is about it, found his level methinks
Tremain: Good on his day, can be a touch hot and cold, but a handful when he bowls well
Steketee: Meh, had his best season to date but I remain unconvinced, can go for a few
Mennie: Consistently a bankable performer for SA, but struggled in his breif international career
Abbott: Bowled pretty well last summer, frankly he needed to after doing SFA the previous couple of seasons.
Neser: Much improved over the last couple of years, been the leading man for QLD, but doesn't scream test player
Bell: Handy young swing bowler, but nothing exceptional, lacks a bit of venom on flat pitches
Feldman: Slooooooooooooooooooooow, looks about as dangerous as your average 3rd grade bowler

Would take Dorff over at least 7-8 of them

Naturally one of those you would never take him over is Sean Dermo Sabba Abbott.

 

[Bahnz]

Also, can NZ theoretically miss the semi finals now, depending on results?

Pakistan could also theoretically sneak ahead of us, but they'd have to absolutely belt Afghanistan (e.g. bowl them out for 100 and chase it in 10 overs) and hope NZ get utterly pasted by both Australia and England. Not impossible, but NZ have the advantage that if they fall behind in those games, the can coast to moderate defeats in order to keep their NRR up.

 

[Victor Ian]

Early on I thought Pakistan were in with a chance to rectify their NRR with one blinder to counter their blunder. Bummer

Great adjustment to the game conditions by New Zealand, even if they lost. Played it smart like Australia did with India.

 

[NUFAN]

That can't be right surely?

Youd think it isnt correct.. But it is.

 

[Prince EWS]

Anyone else think its stupid if say England and Sri Lanka finish on 10 points each, matches won is the first factor so SL having 2 no results gave them less opportunities and England woukd be rated ahead regardless of NRR.

I would have thought that was really stupid in theory, but having actually seen it play out now I'm actually more or less fine with it tbh.

 

[vandem]

Pakistan could also theoretically sneak ahead of us, but they'd have to absolutely belt Afghanistan (e.g. bowl them out for 100 and chase it in 10 overs) and hope NZ get utterly pasted by both Australia and England. Not impossible, but NZ have the advantage that if they fall behind in those games, the can coast to moderate defeats in order to keep their NRR up.

Did some analysis on what size wins Pak or Ban need to overtake NZ NRR.

NZ on 11 points with 2 to play, both Pak or Ban on 7 points and 2 to play (including each other in final game, so only one of them can get ahead of NZ).

Pak would get ahead on NRR if NZ have 2 large losses similar to 180 batting first and Aus and Eng chasing 180 in 20 overs, AND Pak have 2 large wins similar to bowling out Afg and Ban for 180 and chasing 180 in 20 overs. Very unlikely.

Ban would get ahead on NRR if NZ have 2 large-ish losses similar to 240 batting first and Aus and Eng chasing 240 in 34 overs, AND Ban have 2 large-ish wins similar to bowling out Ind and Pak for 240 and chasing 240 in 34 overs. Unlikely.

More likely path for Pak or Ban to semis is for Eng to stumble again.

 

[Jezroy]

More likely path for Pak or Ban to semis is for Eng to stumble again.

C’mon England! Stumble again!!!

 

[aussie tragic]

Anyone else think its stupid if say England and Sri Lanka finish on 10 points each, matches won is the first factor so SL having 2 no results gave them less opportunities and England woukd be rated ahead regardless of NRR.

Well it wouldn't make a difference anyway as Eng would still be rated ahead due to a significantly higher NRR

 

[Victor Ian]

But Pakistan or Bangladesh would both finish 1 point above England so NRR wouldn't come into play