why did Canada giveup the chase against England?

[dass]

one thing i dont understand about the minnow sides is that why do they give up without even trying? like the other day when Canada needed some 120 runs of a 100 delevries with 4 wickets remaining why did they just give up chasing the target and ended up with 228/7 in 50 overs? i mean 120 of 100 delevries is very acheivable even for a minow side, but at the end the two canadian batsmen that were batting were just blocking most bowls even short pitched ones which they could have atleast tried to hit boundries, this kind of attititude makes the game so boring.

 

[LA ICE-E]

i thought canada played ok...from my point of view the only outcast of the wc is bermuda...scotland and netherlands have a good excuse to get bashed...they are playing #1 and #2 teams in the world...even the other top teams get bashed by them...

 

[corza_nz]

scotland and especially netherlands would get bashed by all the top 8 teams tbh.

 

[LA ICE-E]

hhmm i dont think so...canada are worse then them and still put up a good effort against england...plus they are like the top 2 odi sides under the main rakings...

 

[andyc]

one thing i dont understand about the minnow sides is that why do they give up without even trying?

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/wc2007/engine/current/match/247465.html
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/wc2007/engine/current/match/247461.html

 

[Fiery]

hhmm i dont think so...canada are worse then them and still put up a good effort against england...plus they are like the top 2 odi sides under the main rakings...

It surprised me to learn that Canada have played both those countries 3 times each and lost every game. They look a far better outfit than both of them in this tournament

 

[slugger]

one thing i dont understand about the minnow sides is that why do they give up without even trying? like the other day when Canada needed some 120 runs of a 100 delevries with 4 wickets remaining why did they just give up chasing the target and ended up with 228/7 in 50 overs? i mean 120 of 100 delevries is very acheivable even for a minow side, but at the end the two canadian batsmen that were batting were just blocking most bowls even short pitched ones which they could have atleast tried to hit boundries, this kind of attititude makes the game so boring.

its all about belief.

 

[silentstriker]

It surprised me to learn that Canada have played both those countries 3 times each and lost every game. They look a far better outfit than both of them in this tournament

It could be because of who they play. If Canada had played Australia and SA, I wouldn't really expect them to look good at all.

 

[Richard]

It surprised me to learn that Canada have played both those countries 3 times each and lost every game. They look a far better outfit than both of them in this tournament

Canada is not a constant team.

 

[Richard]

one thing i dont understand about the minnow sides is that why do they give up without even trying? like the other day when Canada needed some 120 runs of a 100 delevries with 4 wickets remaining why did they just give up chasing the target and ended up with 228/7 in 50 overs? i mean 120 of 100 delevries is very acheivable even for a minow side, but at the end the two canadian batsmen that were batting were just blocking most bowls even short pitched ones which they could have atleast tried to hit boundries, this kind of attititude makes the game so boring.

It doesn't. It's called realism. Personally, TBH, I'm actually glad it happened the way it did, because it meant the England bowlers didn't get 3 more cheap wickets.

120 off 100 with 4 wickets left is near enough impossible for any side. If you get that, it's a minor miracle - if you get it when you're a substandard side playing a ODI-standard side, it's a moon-cheese instance.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

More surprising than Canada's effort against England was Pakistan's against the West Indies. After it seemed the West Indies would comfortably win, the Pakistani batsmen didn't even seem to care to try to win. I can understand preserving wickets for a last hurrah, but it didn't even happen that way.

The lower order just blocked and left alone deliveries, rather than at least looking for singles to address the net run rate. Was a horrible approach to the situation at hand IMO.

 

[Richard]

Good job, after that, that NRR won't matter to the Pakistanis as there's the chance our scoring-rates in our 3 easy victories in 1999 did us.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

Canada is not a constant team.

Well said, inconsistency is the biggest problem Canada face

 

[Steulen]

Well said, inconsistency is the biggest problem Canada face

True. Over the last few years, The Netherlands, Scotland and Ireland have been quite evenly matched, often playing out very close games. Canada is definitely below that level, but has the ability to produce shock results once every while.

The Dutch have actually played two very poor games so far, they're a better team than what they've shown.

 

[Richard]

I was actually principally referring to the fact that a team played in the 1979 World Cup under the auspicies of "Canada" but that team bore roughly zero resemblence to the one of the 2003 Cup (unlike, for example, the teams reprisenting New Zealand and Sri Lanka).

Even 2003 to 2007, there's been more than a bit of change. A few of the players remain the same, yes, but just because the faces are the same doesn't mean as much as might first appear likely - a hell of a lot happens in 4 years to non-professional cricketers (though, of course, Davison was such a thing for some of that time).

 

[Swervy]

I was actually principally referring to the fact that a team played in the 1975 World Cup under the auspicies of "Canada" but that team bore roughly zero resemblence to the one of the 2003 Cup (unlike, for example, the teams reprisenting New Zealand and Sri Lanka).

Dont know what you mean here..first off canada didnt play in 1975 I dont think, they played in 1979, but even then , I wouldnt expect any team from 79 to vaguely resemble the corresponding team in 2003 (unless Sri lanka and NZ have discovered the benefits of some sort of non-aging drug)

 

[Richard]

You know what I mean.

The personnel may be the same but cricket in New Zealand and Sri Lanka is roughly the same sort of thing it was in 1979 - in Canada cricket isn't really anything, it's such a minority sport.

No-one outside the major players in the cricket regime are likely to know much about it for much of the time.

 

[Swervy]

You know what I mean.

The personnel may be the same but cricket in New Zealand and Sri Lanka is roughly the same sort of thing it was in 1979 - in Canada cricket isn't really anything, it's such a minority sport.

No-one outside the major players in the cricket regime are likely to know much about it for much of the time.

you mean that in canada its made up of ex-pats and in SL and NZ it isnt???

Well the Canada team in 1979 was also mad eup of ex-pats in exactly the same way the 2003 team was, so in fact the make up of the team is similar

 

[Richard]

That was partly what I was referring to, yes, but not exclusively.

I mean, there's a good chance a whole generation of Canadians both expat and indiginous have gone by since 1979 not knowing what the meaning of an international cricket match was.

 

[Swervy]

That was partly what I was referring to, yes, but not exclusively.

I mean, there's a good chance a whole generation of Canadians both expat and indiginous have gone by since 1979 not knowing what the meaning of an international cricket match was.

quite probable