When Will England Ever Win A World Cup?

[yorker]

Pakistan are probably the luckiest winners of a World Cup yet. If it wasn't for rain in their group game, they'd have been out before the knock out stages - then who knows what would have happened (but they certainly wouldn't have won!)


As pointed out by Anilvarma, It was England that were indeed lucky enough to have enetered the final.Talking about being lucky


:rolleyes:

 

[marc71178]

And another thing about that England South Africa game.

There was a bit of rain pre-game, but not enough to reduce the overs.

It should have been a 50 over game, but South Africa bowled so slowly that by the cut-off point they'd only bowled 45 overs, and England were racing along with Reeve 25* off 14 balls and Lewis 18* off 16, both seeing it like a football.

SA were not penalised in that game for the cynical ploy that denied England up to 50 more runs, all they got was a fine.

Faced with those facts, I don't think they can complain too much really can they?

 

[onemangang]

[quote

"1. It wasn't Duckworth-Lewis.
2. Before the rain break SA needed 22 off 13 balls, so it's hardly a guarantee they were going to win, more like a 5% chance.



22 runs of 13 balls are gettable it means 11 runs of 2 overs.U are giving them 5% chance, thats rediculous, SA were in a better position to make it to the final and indeed were better team than Brits

 

[marc71178]

Pakistan are probably the luckiest winners of a World Cup yet. If it wasn't for rain in their group game, they'd have been out before the knock out stages - then who knows what would have happened (but they certainly wouldn't have won!)


As pointed out by Anilvarma, It was England that were indeed lucky enough to have enetered the final.Talking about being lucky


:rolleyes:

And if you read what I've just posted,I think you'll have to agree that the South Africans cannot claim to be that hard off after what they'd done earlier in the day.

Besides, as I also just said 22 off 13 balls is no guarantee that SA would've won.

 

[marc71178]

[quote

"1. It wasn't Duckworth-Lewis.
2. Before the rain break SA needed 22 off 13 balls, so it's hardly a guarantee they were going to win, more like a 5% chance.



22 runs of 13 balls are gettable it means 11 runs of 2 overs.U are giving them 5% chance, thats rediculous, SA were in a better position to make it to the final and indeed were better team than Brits

Sorry, when I posted the 5% I was going on memeory which told me for some reason it was 29 off 13 balls - I checked and saw it was 23 off 13 (and forgot to change the 5%).
That is still very difficult though, and there is no way you can say SA were favourites to win from there.

 

[Anil]

1. It wasn't Duckworth-Lewis.
2. Before the rain break SA needed 22 off 13 balls, so it's hardly a guarantee they were going to win, more like a 5% chance.
3. Pakistan were 74 all out (in 40 overs) then it rained with England 24-1 off 8 overs. There is no doubt they were saved by the rain there, and that one point got them into the semi-finals - I feel in that case luck is the way to describe it.

That was a match which would have gone down to the wire. I saw that match, the SA side still had 4 wickets in hand, were accelerating at the right time, McMillan(or Dave Richardson or both) was still there, 22 runs in 13 balls is not exactly a 5% chance unless you are a hard-core English supporter who doesn't want to think otherwise. I wouldn't put a percentage on the chances, but I was watching that match as a neutral, interested observer and I was fairly confident that SA would have won had it not been that the rain came down and the Duckworth/Lewis system made the rest of the match(and the result) a farce.

As far as Pakistan was concerned, I never said they were not lucky. They were indeed very lucky, but having got through to the semis, they really raised the level of their play and were worthy champions.

 

[marc71178]

1. It wasn't Duckworth-Lewis.
2. Before the rain break SA needed 22 off 13 balls, so it's hardly a guarantee they were going to win, more like a 5% chance.
3. Pakistan were 74 all out (in 40 overs) then it rained with England 24-1 off 8 overs. There is no doubt they were saved by the rain there, and that one point got them into the semi-finals - I feel in that case luck is the way to describe it.

That was a match which would have gone down to the wire. I saw that match, the SA side still had 4 wickets in hand, were accelerating at the right time, McMillan(or Dave Richardson or both) was still there, 22 runs in 13 balls is not exactly a 5% chance unless you are a hard-core English supporter who doesn't want to think otherwise. I wouldn't put a percentage on the chances, but I was watching that match as a neutral, interested observer and I was fairly confident that SA would have won had it not been that the rain came down and the Duckworth/Lewis system made the rest of the match(and the result) a farce.

I've explained the 5% it was a typo.

It wasn't the Duckworth-Lewis system, but had the match been played under current rules, England would have romped away with it because of the cheating employed which robbed them of the 5 big overs at the end of their innings.

In fact, you could say that had SA won that match it would've been a farce.

 

[Anil]

What are the current rules if a side fails to bowl the full 50 overs? I thought the penalty was still just fines.

 

[marc71178]

The batting team bat out their overs,and the other team get the number of overs they had bowled.

So England would've had 5 more overs to set SA a 45 over target.

 

[marc71178]

And if they're bowling second, the opposing team get 6 bonus runs per over not bowled - and the overs to face I believe.

 

[aussie_beater]

The 1992 final was not played under the Duckworth Lewis rule but under some stupid Australian rain rule that messed up that whole world cup.In the India-Australia match at Gabba only two runs were deducted from the Australian total when three overs were removed.So many other matches were messed up as well because of that rule.

SA had genuine reasons to believe that they were robbed of a final berth in their match agaist England.The match started late and with a slow over rate from SA, only 45 overs could be bowled.This rule was prevalent in those days and every ODI till then was played under these rules.Every team knew that they had to bat the same number of overs as the opposition had bowled with the team bowling less initially facing a fine.To call it cheating is absoultely incredulous. If anything was new it was the farcical rain
rule which the teams were not used to and had never played under before.That is why the SA defeat rankles even today.

 

[Anil]

I agree that under the new rules, England would have won easily, but I don't know that SA "cheated" with a slow over rate. They very rarely employ spinners and mostly have an all-pace attack(they did have an all-pace attack that day), that's probably a major reason for the slow over rate.

Also, I apologise if I am wrong about the Duckworth/Lewis method being employed in that WC. I thought that stupid rain rule came under that system.

 

[marc71178]

SA had genuine reasons to believe that they were robbed of a final berth in their match agaist England.The match started late and with a slow over rate from SA, only 45 overs could be bowled.This rule was prevalent in those days and every ODI till then was played under these rules.Every team knew that they had to bat the same number of overs as the opposition had bowled with the team bowling less initially facing a fine.To call it cheating is absoultely incredulous.

Why is it incredulous? England were getting well on top of the bowling, so SA slowed it down knowing that England would lose out on some really big overs at the end of the innings, and SA would have a far easier target and a fine. PLease tell me how you think that the South Africans can feel hard done by - it's not as if they were only a couple of overs short of the rate, it was 5 whole overs!

 

[marc71178]

I agree that under the new rules, England would have won easily, but I don't know that SA "cheated" with a slow over rate. They very rarely employ spinners and mostly have an all-pace attack(they did have an all-pace attack that day), that's probably a major reason for the slow over rate.

Also, I apologise if I am wrong about the Duckworth/Lewis method being employed in that WC. I thought that stupid rain rule came under that system.

Agreed that it is a stupid rule, but 50 overs in 3 and a half hours is not a hard ask, working out at just over 14 overs an hour (less than in Tests). If South Africa bowling on average at less than 13 overs an hour when they were being hit all over the park isn't cheating, then what exactly is it?

 

[aussie_beater]

Why is it incredulous? England were getting well on top of the bowling, so SA slowed it down knowing that England would lose out on some really big overs at the end of the innings, and SA would have a far easier target and a fine. PLease tell me how you think that the South Africans can feel hard done by - it's not as if they were only a couple of overs short of the rate, it was 5 whole overs!

It is incredulous to call a slow over rate to be "cheating" under the rules that were in place for that particular game, because of the reason that those same rules were prevalent in one day games ever since they started in the seventies.It was nothing new and every team played under the same rules and conditions.It maynot be the same as today, but that was the rule that everybody knew and played under at that time.

SA can feel that they were hard done by, because they ended up on the wrong side of that god-damn Aussie rain rule which was completely new to that particular tournament and no one had played under that rule before WC'92.Many other teams faced the same fate and because it was a semi final which had larger consequences in terms of the whole tournament, SA had more reasons to feel that it was unfair.And any ODI watcher would say that there's a fair enough chance of scoring 22 runs in 13 balls specially if you saw that match where Dave Richardson and McMillan were pretty much in control.

It was a rain versus SA match.Period.Unless you are an English fan, there is no reason to see it otherwise.

 

[marc71178]

So deliberately slowing the over rate to prevent 2 batsmen who were hitting it all over the place from facing their full complement of overs is not cheating then?

Like I say, had they bowled 48 or 49 overs in the time, it would have been poor, but just about acceptable.

To only bowl 45 is terrible, and the fact they ended up losing (admittedly to a stupid rule) meant that they got their just desserts.

 

[marc71178]

WSA can feel that they were hard done by, because they ended up on the wrong side of that god-damn Aussie rain rule which was completely new to that particular tournament and no one had played under that rule before WC'92.

So if England had lost they should have just accepted that they were cheated out of 5 of their allotted overs that the innings was built around facing?

 

[marc71178]

And any ODI watcher would say that there's a fair enough chance of scoring 22 runs in 13 balls specially if you saw that match where Dave Richardson and McMillan were pretty much in control.

Reeve and Lewis were in control to such an extent that the 5 overs could easily have led to 50 runs, and SA needing an almost impossible target by 1992 standards.

 

[marc71178]

It was a rain versus SA match.Period.Unless you are an English fan, there is no reason to see it otherwise.

Actually it was England versus South Africa under a set of rules which thankfully don't exist nowadays as both the slow over rate penalty and the rain-affected match penalty were ridiculous.

Incidentally, in that match SA won the toss, and despite the forecast decided to put England in - some might say that that was a stupid thing to do, knowing how badly hit they would be if it rained during their innings.

 

[full_length]

I would agree about the SA-Eng '92 WC match. My reaction then was pretty much that SA has been cheated out of a finals berth/WC win - something that would have been absolutely fantastic for cricket, and very much deserved if only for their spectacular fielding, and great cricket.
They were accelerating well then, and looked very much in control doing so.
Ofcourse, it was no fault of England's! The rain and stupid rules just worked badly for SA..
India was another team that was possibly robbed due to the rain (against Australia, where they lost by 1 run, getting two overs less than Australia got, while reducing the total by 1 or so). If I remember right, India also lost a match against SL in Mackaw (sp?!).

There was a time when I thought England will never win a world cup because of their attitude and lack of players that can turn a match around. Now I guess they are in the hunt with chaps like Trescothick around. I am a fan of Tres, and figure that he will be the player to dismiss in each ODI match that England plays.

[Edited on 9/16/02 by full_length]