Semi Finals

[Dissector]

Neither does flounderously mentioning certain performances without looking at the bigger picture.

Four decent innings proves little. If you remove completely substandard attacks such as Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and the England bowling attack he faced, his record is horrible - he averages 25.13.

And before you have a go at me for taking his performances against England out, it was against an attack consisting of Harmison, Plunkett, Bresnan, Mahmood, Collingwood and Dalrymple. So horribly dire that I'm almost tempted to say the hundred against Zimbabwe he scored had more value.

Quite plainly, he's a very poor player at this stage. His domestic one day record is even worse.

Tharanga also has a hundred against India IIRC. I don't agree that you can simply remove England from the equation; even with that attack they are better than the minnows. Plunkett recently bowled England to a series win against Australia. Anyway, this discussion is about comparing Tharanga with Fulton. How many world-class knocks do you reckon Fulton has played?

As for Australia I could see them getting upset by SA or SL. The key IMO is to bat first and put up a competitive score. The Australian batting hasn't been really tested here but it's not long ago in the second final of CB series that they crumbled under the pressure of a run chase. Overall I still expect them to lift the trophy though.

 

[Prince EWS]

Betting agencies are not stupid to allow random odds based on the last game... they base the odds on performances between the Teams head to head ...and their assessment of the form guide between the 2 teams in the recent past .... say 6 months to 1 year ...because they will get burnt if they gave odds from the last game each team played.

Going by your method if Ireland beats Pakistan and plays England who lost to NZ ...then Ireland should be given favouritism over England ... In reality the odds are not given like that...

And judging by your logic, Ireland would be favourites over Pakistan next time they play because they have a 100% record over them in the past 6 months.

Betting agencies set the opening odds based on what they predict their customers will think is a fair price. To secure a profit, they can't set odds that everyone thinks are too far favoured to one side or all the incoming money will be placed on that side and they (the agency) will be liable to the result of the match. They set the odds based on general public opinion - because the general public bet on cricket games. The general public would be much more inclined to notice the recent form of the teams going into the match than what happened when they played six months ago in totally different situations and conditions - so the odds reflect that.

 

[JASON]

Exactly. I have no reason to be biased either way. JASON, on the other hand...

Anyway, regardless of that, I never blamed the loss on the fact that Bond was sick. I simply put his performance forward as a possible justification for the fact that he didn't play the previous game.

I am biased thats why I find it unacceptable that kiwis on this thread and some of their supporters like you trying to find excuses for their comprehensive loss on 2 successive occasions at this World Cup, and basing their assessment on the games played in the last year where it seems quite tied (in terms of games won by each team) conveniently choosing to ignore the fact that almost all (or most) were played in NZ where NZ had a home advantage..

I am happy to note quite a few neutrals seem to agree with me as well.

 

[pasag]

Betting agencies are not stupid to allow random odds based on the last game... they base the odds on performances between the Teams head to head ...and their assessment of the form guide between the 2 teams in the recent past .... say 6 months to 1 year ...because they will get burnt if they gave odds from the last game each team played.

Going by your method if Ireland beats Pakistan and plays England who lost to NZ ...then Ireland should be given favouritism over England ... In reality the odds are not given like that...

Well you're assuming betting agencies know what they're doing. I'm saying they don't alot of the time and the figures are sometimes relatively arbitrary, I see that in AFL more than anything, furthermore recent form counts for nearly everything. Everyone knew SL-NZ were 50/50 going in. I can't help but feel you saying otherwise is as a result of the extreme national bias and unbias you show in your posts sometimes. (By unbias I mean the OTT SL pessimism and negativity you seem to show at times).

 

[pasag]

I am biased thats why I find it unacceptable that kiwis on this thread and some of their supporters like you trying to find excuses for their comprehensive loss on 2 successive occasions at this World Cup, and basing their assessment on the games played in the last year where it seems quite tied (in terms of games won by each team) conveniently choosing to ignore the fact that almost all (or most) were played in NZ where NZ had a home advantage..

I am happy to note quite a few neutrals seem to agree with me as well.

He's not though.

 

[Matt79]

Jason, its not bias against SL to say that Bond bowling was worse than what was commonly expected, based on his recent form, or to speculate as to why that happened. You can't use injury etc as an excuse - its a contest between the two teams on the park, but discussing why one team didn't perform isn't putting down the winners.

 

[Prince EWS]

Tharanga also has a hundred against India IIRC.

And again, that is completely besides the point, considering the fact that he averages so poorly against decent attacks. If he did score a hundred against India, then it would have been counted in the above analysis.

I don't agree that you can simply remove England from the equation; even with that attack they are better than the minnows. Plunkett recently bowled England to a series win against Australia.

The attack England fielded in that series was not any better than what Bangladesh have put out in recent times, IMO. Collingwood and Dalrymple basically led the attack as England's best bowlers - other options to turned to included Tim Bresnan!!

As for Plunkett, you really do like to take one good performance and blow it out of proportion, ignoring all the other rubbish performances a player has put in, don't you? Plunkett bowled well against Australia. It's probably one of the only times he has ever bowled well in his international career though - and he certainly bowled absolutely pies against Sri Lanka, so it was no great achievement to score runs against him. I reckon Plunkett himself would have fancied his own bowling in that series.

Anyway, this discussion is about comparing Tharanga with Fulton. How many world-class knocks do you reckon Fulton has played?

Fulton averages 35.48 against ODI-standard bowling attacks, for the record. He averages 52 against Sri Lanka, too, just for a matter of interest...

 

[JASON]

And judging by your logic, Ireland would be favourites over Pakistan next time they play because they have a 100% record over them in the past 6 months.

Betting agencies set the opening odds based on what they predict their customers will think is a fair price. To secure a profit, they can't set odds that everyone thinks are too far favoured to one side or all the incoming money will be placed on that side and they (the agency) will be liable to the result of the match. They set the odds based on general public opinion - because the general public bet on cricket games. The general public would be much more inclined to notice the recent form of the teams going into the match than what happened when they played six months ago in totally different situations and conditions - so the odds reflect that.

http://nz.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/BY_OPPONENT/NZ-SL/ODI/NZ-SL_ODI_SERIES_SUMMARY.html

So the betting agencies ignore this then ...


2006/07 West Indies (World Cup) SL 2 NZ 0 (prior to this morning 1 - 0)
2006/07 In New Zealand SL 2 NZ 2 No result 1
2006/07 In India (neutral Venue) SL 1 NZ 0
2005/06 In NZ SL 1 NZ 3

 

[social]

I am biased thats why I find it unacceptable that kiwis on this thread and some of their supporters like you trying to find excuses for their comprehensive loss on 2 successive occasions at this World Cup, and basing their assessment on the games played in the last year where it seems quite tied (in terms of games won by each team) conveniently choosing to ignore the fact that almost all (or most) were played in NZ where NZ had a home advantage..

I am happy to note quite a few neutrals seem to agree with me as well.

IMO, SL were BIG favourites going into last night's game - wicket suited them, NZ dont play Murali too well, Bond and Taylor have looked off colour for most of the tournament, etc

Once NZ had lost the toss and were going to bat second on a wicket favouring turn, their odds blew out a lot more for mine

Realistically, odis from even a couple of months ago and especially in a different country in different conditions bear little relevance

 

[Prince EWS]

I am biased thats why I find it unacceptable that kiwis on this thread and some of their supporters like you trying to find excuses for their comprehensive loss on 2 successive occasions at this World Cup, and basing their assessment on the games played in the last year where it seems quite tied (in terms of games won by each team) conveniently choosing to ignore the fact that almost all (or most) were played in NZ where NZ had a home advantage..

I am happy to note quite a few neutrals seem to agree with me as well.

1. I'm not a New Zealander. It's been said a few times now. I hope you read it this time. I don't support the Black Caps.
2. I wasn't looking for excuses with my Bond post. In fact, I didn't even say it effected the result of the match in any way - I wasn't even talking about that match, really. I was simply saying that the fact that Bond didn't look himself supports the idea that he was sick for the previous match against Australia - many people had questioned the validity of that claim by NZ. I wasn't even discussing the Sri Lanka game with that post, so I don't see how you can say I was looking for excuses (especially for a team I don't support!).

 

[Prince EWS]

http://nz.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/BY_OPPONENT/NZ-SL/ODI/NZ-SL_ODI_SERIES_SUMMARY.html

So the betting agencies ignore this then ...


2006/07 West Indies (World Cup) SL 2 NZ 0 (prior to this morning 1 - 0)
2006/07 In New Zealand SL 2 NZ 2 No result 1
2006/07 In India (neutral Venue) SL 1 NZ 0
2005/06 In NZ SL 1 NZ 3

Did you even read my post? They set the odds based on what they think people will bet on, so they can make money - not head-to-head stats from six months ago.

 

[JASON]

Jason, its not bias against SL to say that Bond bowling was worse than what was commonly expected, based on his recent form, or to speculate as to why that happened. You can't use injury etc as an excuse - its a contest between the two teams on the park, but discussing why one team didn't perform isn't putting down the winners.

Mate I know where you are coming from... and its not you... its just the tone of posts from one or two individuals on this thread who have consciously and repetedly been putting down SL and SL players which infuriates me given some of the teams they support are eternal chokers time in time out and possibly will choke out again tonight..

 

[Flem274*]

How many world class knocks has Fulton played?

how about every time he's ressurected NZ this world cup in partnership with Styris for a start?

He's a non regular in the side, gets moved up and down the order constantly, has 6 50's (i think) and one hundy which was off Sri Lanka i believe.

I highly rate Tharanga and I think he's gonna be better than Jayasuria because of his consistency and conversion rate. atm however I would say Fulton is slightly ahead, call me biased if you will. I can say the same for you. It's really a matter of opinion. I wold have both in my side in a flash if I was either the SL caoch or NZ coach.

 

[pasag]

IMO, SL were BIG favourites going into last night's game - wicket suited them, NZ dont play Murali too well, Bond and Taylor have looked off colour for most of the tournament, etc

He's been awesome for most of the tournament though, before last nights game from memory he had taken 12 wickets at 19 with an awesome economy rate of 2.8 (again from memory). He's looked a class act all WC and I'd say he was the best bowler of the tournament before last night, imo of course.

 

[JASON]

Did you even read my post? They set the odds based on what they think people will bet on, so they can make money - not head-to-head stats from six months ago.

You have not heard of Betting agencies employing ex-cricketers then .. Have you no idea about how betting agencies set odds.... Have you heard of Ken Rutherford ... who do you think he works for and why do you think they employ him.... Not for his looks I can assure you.

 

[dinu23]

Neither does flounderously mentioning certain performances without looking at the bigger picture.

Four decent innings proves little. If you remove completely substandard attacks such as Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and the England bowling attack he faced, his record is horrible - he averages 25.13.

And before you have a go at me for taking his performances against England out, it was against an attack consisting of Harmison, Plunkett, Bresnan, Mahmood, Collingwood and Dalrymple. So horribly dire that I'm almost tempted to say the hundred against Zimbabwe he scored had more value.

Quite plainly, he's a very poor player at this stage. His domestic one day record is even worse.

average isnt everything. u can see he's got talent by just looking at him.

 

[Prince EWS]

atm however I would say Fulton is slightly ahead, call me biased if you will. I can say the same for you.

You can't say it for me though - as much as JASON wants to believe that I'm a New Zealander. Ironically, Fiery once thought I was an Englishman as well. Perhaps I should make my Australian-ness more obvious.

 

[Prince EWS]

average isnt everything. u can see he's got talent by just looking at him.

What a convincing argument.

Regardless of which though - talent is often irrelevant. He can have as much talent as he wants, but he averages in the mid 20s against ODI-standard attacks, he's a poor player. He could well get better, especially given his age and his apparent talent, but at this stage there's no way he's anything other than a passenger 90% of the time.

 

[pasag]

Mate I know where you are coming from... and its not you... its just the tone of posts from one or two individuals on this thread who have consciously and repetedly been putting down SL and SL players which infuriates me given some of the teams they support are eternal chokers time in time out and possibly will choke out again tonight..

Haha Jason, you're too much sometimes. To make it simple for you, whilst SL deserved their win and played brilliantly, on the other hand New Zealand played poorly on the night as well. If by saying that, you infer that we're either biased against SL or trying to detract for them, then that's your issues, again neither me nor Prince from what I've seen are biased towards or against SL (if anything SL are one of my fav teams). But only someone who wasn't watching would say Bond bowled at capacity last night and if in your eyes that takes away from the gloss of SL's win, then so be it, but again that's your issue.

 

[JASON]

1. I'm not a New Zealander. It's been said a few times now. I hope you read it this time. I don't support the Black Caps.
2. I wasn't looking for excuses with my Bond post. In fact, I didn't even say it effected the result of the match in any way - I wasn't even talking about that match, really. I was simply saying that the fact that Bond didn't look himself supports the idea that he was sick for the previous match against Australia - many people had questioned the validity of that claim by NZ. I wasn't even discussing the Sri Lanka game with that post, so I don't see how you can say I was looking for excuses (especially for a team I don't support!).

You are a South African living in the outer western bushes of Sydney - Its quite clear .

Malinga didn't look too well either ...but the guy bowled amazingly at 60% fitness that I am expecting him to do even better come Sunday .

The tone of your posts in the last 5-10 pages reveals itself.... I hope for your sake SA don't choke again tonight...