Semi Finals

[Prince EWS]

Here are the career averages of the two sides:
http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/wc2007/engine/current/match/247505.html?view=averages

As you can see Tharanga and Arnold average around 35 which is more than most Kiwi batsmen. Fernando's record is similar to Franklin but I would pick him for his pace and bounce. By no stretch of the imagination are these players dire compared to their Kiwi counterparts.

I'd like to Tharanga's record against decent attacks. Without actually doing any filtering, I'd take a guess at it being far, far lower - in the low 20s range. Arnold's career record is actually fairly irrelevant because he played most of it several years ago when he was without doubt a much better player. There's also the fact that several of the New Zealand had improved remarkably fairly recently and hence had records which didn't justify their ability. If I had a choice between Styris and Arnold, I know who I'd be choosing. The same goes for Fernando and Tharanga - I simply don't think they are ODI standard for a variety of reasons..

 

[Prince EWS]

Does Sri Lanka prefer to use Fernando and Maharoof?

Edit: Fernando OR Maharoof?

Fernando quite evidently, considering they just did.

 

[Athlai]

Fernando quite evidently, considering they just did.

They do seem to switch them around quite often. Maharoof bowled 44 overs in this world cup. Economy of 4.5 and a strike rate of 22. When I actually watch him bowl he never looks great but he seems to compliment Malinga and Vaas, if they bowl well then he bowls tighter.

Looks to be more handy than Fernando IMO

 

[Flem274*]

I would pick Maharoof every time TBH.

Anyone remember that Prera bloke who bowled against us in NZ and ran from like square leg to the bowlers crease?

He certainly made things fun. McCullum took a lking to him. Wonder where that bloke is now.

 

[pasag]

I'm pretty ****ing nervous about tonight itbt. Also excitied, but more nervous. I'm a mess.

 

[Dissector]

Tharanga does have an uneven record but he is relatively new. He did have a great series against England and has performed relatively decently against New Zealand. He certainly looks a class player. Overall he is in the same class as someone like Fulton and is certainly isn't far worse than the average Kiwi batsman.

As for Arnold he had a good VB series in Australia a couple of years ago and a decent series against India just before the World Cup. He is certainly no worse than McMillan.

The bottom line is that the bottom five SL players are at least as good as their Kiwi counterparts and their top 6 are certainly better than the Kiwi top 6.

 

[Athlai]

I'm pretty ****ing nervous about tonight itbt. Also excitied, but more nervous. I'm a mess.

Thats the great thing about having your team eliminated. You just want to see a great game! Doesn't matter who wins or loses.

Go South Africa!

Gotta love the under dog.

 

[Prince EWS]

The bottom line is that the bottom five SL players are at least as good as their Kiwi counterparts

Well, no - that's where I flatly disgaree. The likes of Patel, Fulton, McMillan et at are far better in their roles than Tharanga (at this stage anyway - people can argue him being one for the future all they like, but the fact remains, he's poor at this stage) and Fernando (who is dire).

 

[Athlai]

The bottom line is that the bottom five SL players are at least as good as their Kiwi counterparts and their top 6 are certainly better than the Kiwi top 6.

Sanath Jayasuriya = Scott Styris
Mahela Jayawardene (C) = Stephen Fleming (C)
Kumar Sangakarra (W) Brendon McCullum (W) (But for how much longer!)

Geez three New Zealand bowlers?

Chaminda Vaas Shane Bond
M Muralitharan Daniel Vettori + Jeetan Patel
Lasith Malinga Shane Bond

 

[Athlai]

Highest 2007 World Cup Averages

JH Kallis (SA) 96.00
JEC Franklin (NZ) 95
SB Styris (NZ) 83.16
ML Hayden (Aus) 82.85


Gotta love cricket.

 

[Dissector]

Though he hasn't had a great WC Sangakarra is a far better batsman than McCullum. In general Jaysuriya is better than Styris too when you factor in his strike rate and 25 hundreds.

 

[Athlai]

Though he hasn't had a great WC Sangakarra is a far better batsman than McCullum. In general Jaysuriya is better than Styris too when you factor in his strike rate and 25 hundreds.

Jayasuriya may just edge out Styris in class, though the gap has closed greatly. I also think Styris is probably one of the best part time bowlers around. He knows just how to bowl in most situations.

Sangakarra did have a very average WC with the bat, but it was more of a compliment to McCullums improving skill with the bat than anything else, he is also very good behind the stumps. Sangakarra is better but McCullum may one day challenge that.

 

[Athlai]

According to Cricket Webs Stats Spider

This years averages:

Jayasuriya
Bat: 43.8
Ball. 49

Styris
Bat: 50.8
Ball: 41.1

Sangakarra:
Bat: 35.4

McCullum
Bat: 31.8

 

[Pratters]

Not bad till now... I am hoping your last prediction re SL coming up short in the Final...will be wrong.

I hope that too (provided South Africa do not reach the final). I think it will be a steep task for Lanka and they might just fall short a bit given the final is in Barbados.

 

[Pratters]

Haha, I love the way you say that after about 50 posts from Filocricket were deleted. Was probably the worst rubbish I've seen in all my time here.

More than 90 posts atleast posted by him were deleted I think..

 

[Dissector]

Well obviously Styris and McCullum have been playing well recently. But then so has someone like Silva who averages more than Styris in 2007. You have to look at long-turn performance to judge the overall class of players.

As for Tharanga he has just hit a classy 50 in a huge pressure game when his team was in trouble. He hit two classy hundreds in England. You could argue about whether he is better or worse than Fulton but there is no reason to believe that Fulton is far better than him.

 

[JASON]

Tharanga, Arnold and Fernando are infinitely less useful than anyone in the New Zealand side. If you look up "dire" in the dicitionary, there is a picture of Dilhara Fernando. The likes of Dilshan wouldn't make the NZ side either but I wouldn't call him "dire" or anything.

Agree about Dilhara .

But I certainly would pick Dilshan ahead of most NZ players apart from Bond,Vettori, Styris and Oram.

 

[SJS]

I think the fact that Bond was off his game supports the excuse for him not playing, actually. He didn't look well out there - I reckon he was still sick which really justifies him missing the previous game for that reason...

Something was definitely wrong with him. He was not a shadow of the bowler he has been (and not just in the WC-2007).

His lack of form is what changed the fine balance between the two sides before the match started. Its easy to say now that NZL were never expected to win this. If Bond had bowled as he is capable of we may have seen different match - at least a much tighter one.

I suspect Bonds bowling had a bit of a role in Tharanga's return to form and that was vital after the loss of Jayasuriya.

 

[Prince EWS]

there is no reason to believe that Fulton is far better than him.

Well, yes there is. Tharanga has a really poor record against attacks that are anywhere near decent. One innings consisting of edges through a vacant slip area and poorly timed square drives doesn't change that, regardless of the importance of the match. Fulton is infinitely better than Tharanga.

 

[JASON]

I always thought NZ's chances were overrated in this tournament; probably because of their performance in Chappell-Hadlee. They did well to get to the semis which was further than I thought they would go but really they are pretty short of individual talent compared to teams like Sri Lanka or Australia. SL have about half a dozen players who could be called greats or near greats compared to perhaps a couple for NZ.

I think there is some Truth in what you say. The Chappell Hadlee series over inflated NZ a little bit(against a depleted Aussie side) despite their failing to get to the Final of CB series over England of all Teams. Everyone forgot the CB series and NZ got highly over rated and particularly as they played thru several minnows in this World Cup they continually got rated way too high ...the only meaningful win in this World Cup was against SA. And except for Styris most of their top order did not got too many big scores .

And the NZ players also started talking up their chances...Fleming and lately Bond...I was laughing reading Bond claiming Jayasuriya to be his Bunny....well we know who is whose Bunny.... I think its also partly the fault of some sections of the media who kept talking up NZ's chances.

While NZ were depleted today ie Kyle Mills and Vincent....they would be kidding themselves if they continued to overstate the absent players as excuse for losses...SL did draw the series in NZ ...something even the South Africans struggled to do when they were last in NZ being cleanly whitewashed by NZ....

Bond continued taking wickets against England , Kenya and the likes, but despite this failed to get any against SL or any useful opposition (bar the one that Rudi gifted today..) and you can see how every one over hyped these things...