Group C - Australia, Sri Lanka, West Indies

[scorpiogal]

The batting wasn't horrendous. The bowling was the problem.

I love cricket! I love my team!

But tbf, Aus' batting did them in. 22/3 in the 4th over and the bowling was the problem? C'mon man! That pitch was a belter, NZ were 64/2 in the 4th over not to mention Scot were 48/1.

It just so happened that The Aussie bowlers ran in ti Gayle in the wrong mood....or should I say right mood.

 

[pasag]

Don't worry Aussies will make it. SL will beat WIndies because recently they had got owned by SL bowlers. But Aus will beat the **** out of SL to et to 2nd round

If Australia thrash SL (aside from a SL collapse batting first) I will leave this forum and never post here again. Australia have struggled against EVERY ordinary limited overs spinner they've come across in the past year or so. Imagine how they'll do against Murali and Mendis. Maybe they won't collapse against them (unlikely), but they certainly won't score anything off them (and then good luck trying to make up the runs against Malinga toe crushers at the death).

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, the NZ/Scot RRs are comparable to the Australia one

 

[gvenkat]

If Australia thrash SL (aside from a SL collapse batting first) I will leave this forum and never post here again. Australia have struggled against EVERY ordinary limited overs spinner they've come across in the past year or so. Imagine how they'll do against Murali and Mendis. Maybe they won't collapse against them (unlikely), but they certainly won't score anything off them (and then good luck trying to make up the runs against Malinga toe crushers at the death).

A close AUS-SL match and if Aus win might not help them... realistically Aus need to thrash the lankans... which i think will happen.. SL as a batting side suck big time

 

[scorpiogal]

Yeah, the NZ/Scot RRs are comparable to the Australia one

Never mind it was 7 overs. It was the same pitch and Windies' ****e bowlers.

 

[scorpiogal]

I mean really, surely the Windies' bowlers couldn't have had a better bowling plan than "the great" Mitch Johnson? The Aus batsmen simply ****ed up.

 

[Naumaan]

i said a week ago, Westindies 'll 've a surprise for Australia & an Aussie here got angry i guess
but well played westindies
it's difficult for the Australians now, but they do know how to get out of the trouble

 

[pasag]

I mean really, surely the Windies' bowlers couldn't have had a better bowling plan than "the great" Mitch Johnson? The Aus batsmen simply ****ed up.

They didn't '**** up', it's more like they're not very good. 170 is a pretty decent score for that lineup.

 

[scorpiogal]

They didn't '**** up', it's more like they're not very good. 170 is a pretty decent score for that lineup.

Agreed

 

[silentstriker]

Well, 170 is a good score regardless. I don't see why you'd blame the batting.

 

[aussie]

The guy: a) has a very very fine ODI record

No doubt, but not againts Australia. Over the years Australia has always kept Gayle under control.

b) Has a ****ing 300 in test cricket.

At the ARG in a dead test though...

Batsman who are 'technically inept' (I wouldn't say Gayle is in this category, but meh)

Gayle is technically inept, thats not debatable really. Good pace attacks & spin attacks generally - in testing conditons - have had him in check in test matches. He just makes up for it - in ODI's - with super hand-eye co-ordination & great power.

are succeeding in all forms of the game because of flat tracks. Not just T20.

Yes this is true fact of this 2000s era. But T20 just takes it to a new level because its all about the batsmen. 10 overs of the likes of Gayle, Sehwag even a Dwayne Smith and the Steyn's, Muralis n Johnson's of this world cant stop it...

This innings Gayle played here wasn't different to the innings he played in the CT final 06 or Malaysia tri-series opener in 06. But at least in that format, the bowlers have a chance to get back into the game after he goes bannans

Hope you were bitching at test cricket when he triple tonned up!

Haa..The username is aussie - so of course im bitch when Australia lose. But my rant here clearly is legitimate.

 

[roseboy64]

The WI bowlers aren't awful. Bad fielding makes bowlers look worse though. Mind you I'm not saying they're brilliant either.

 

[scorpiogal]

Well, 170 is a good score regardless. I don't see why you'd blame the batting.

170 wasn't good enough on that pitch! Watson & Ponting's ducks did it, really.

The bowlers simply had to face Gayle on his day. On a better pitch, Gayle would've been out on 2.

 

[Prince EWS]

This is the bad thing about T20s.

Always hate it when technically inept players like Gayle (although brilliant to watch when on the go), get runs so freely. Its soooo batsmen oriented.

Looking forward to Johnson & co roughing him up down under later this year...

Most people would probably expect me to agree with this given my reputation and my outright dislike of Chris Gayle as a cricketer, but I don't really.

I had the same problem with Twenty20 cricket early on, too - I was comparing it to two-innings multi-day cricket (which will be referred to as "cricket" for the rest of the post) too much. It's unfair to expect Twenty20 to be something that it isn't - it doesn't encourage grace of stroke, mental endurance, conservative shot selection, attacking bowling, sound defensive technique or many of the other things I love about cricket, but neither does rugby league and I still watch that. Twenty20 is a different animal and it should be looked upon as such.

I don't watch Twenty20 to admire the players for their skill, analyse their games or drool over their defensive techniques - I have cricket for that. What Twenty20 provides is the contest - a high tempo, high pressure arena where the only thing that matters is the entertainment of factor of the game as a contest between two teams. Be damned if the players involved aren't any good at real cricket - we can criticise them for being over-rated hacks when they pull on the whites.

As such, while there's little I dislike more than watching Chris Gayle score runs in Tests (and even ODIs, tbf), I can appreciate his style in Twenty20 cricket. Twenty20 batting is not meant to be built around a solid defence or be textbook orthodox - it's all about finding ways to score runs off balls that your opposition couldn't, even at high risk of your wicket. Unorthodoxy rules in Twenty20 cricket and, as such, Gayle's perfectly acceptable to me in the format, as long as people don't hype him as a world class cricketer based on his performances in this.

I think you're simply yet to put a barrier up in your own mind between cricket and Twenty20.

 

[scorpiogal]

Most people would probably expect me to agree with this given my reputation and my outright dislike of Chris Gayle as a cricket, but I don't really.

I had the same problem with Twenty20 cricket early on, too - I was comparing it to two-innings multi-day cricket (which will be referred to as "cricket" for the rest of the post) too much. It's unfair to expect Twenty20 to be something that it isn't - it doesn't encourage grace of stroke, mental endurance, shot selection, attacking bowling, sound defensive techniques or many of the other things I love about cricket, but neither does rugby league and I still watch that. Twenty20 is a different animal and it should be looked upon as such.

I don't watch Twenty20 to admire the players for their skill, analyse their games or drool over their defensive techniques - I have cricket for that. What Twenty20 provides is the contest - a high tempo, high pressure arena where the only thing that matters is the entertainment of factor of the game as a contest between two teams. Be damned if the players involved aren't any good at real cricket - we can criticise them for being over-rated hacks when they pull on the whites.

As such, while there's little I dislike more than watching Chris Gayle score runs in Tests (and even ODIs, tbf), I can appreciate his style in Twenty20 cricket. Twenty20 batting is not meant to be built around a solid defence or be textbook orthodox - it's all about finding ways to score runs off balls that your opposition couldn't, even at high risk of your wicket. Unorthodoxy rules in Twenty20 cricket and, as such, Gayle's perfectly acceptable to me in the format, as long as people don't hype him as a world class cricketer based on his performances in this.

I think you're simply yet to put a barrier up in your own mind between cricket and Twenty20.

Hear hear!

 

[roseboy64]

His ability to bowl disqualifie shim from being a cricketer? Interesting.

 

[Prince EWS]

His ability to bowl disqualifie shim from being a cricketer? Interesting.

I don't see how you got that from my post at all - I never mentioned his bowling at all.

Gayle's definitely a cricketer. I was merely suggesting that what he did in Twenty20 had absolutely no baring on how highly I rated him as a cricketer because I view it as such a separate entity.

 

[roseboy64]

Ah ok. Style matters not TBH. If it did, Marlon Samuels, Daren Ganga and xavier Marshall would be world beaters. Runs do. Give me a Gayle over a Hooper anyday.

 

[GIMH]

I would disagree that Twenty20 doesn't encourage attacking bowling. If it comes up, you're in, it's just a huge risk. I'd say Jerome Taylor got his rewards earlier on.

 

[shivfan]

Australia should win this group with Sri Lanka close behind and West Indies losing by lots.

Not the best prediction I've ever seen on this MB....