DS Forums

 
 

International Cricket 2016


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 18-03-2016, 17:45
Darren Lethem
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hull - UK City of Culture
Posts: 27,237
how much money would you have put on us winning that between innings ?
None but I never said it was over either.
Darren Lethem is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 18-03-2016, 17:48
mimik1uk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 21,762
thats a good point du plessis just made

they gave up 26 extras and as bad as our bowling was we gave up 4
mimik1uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 17:50
Serial Lurker
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 9,907
thats a good point du plessis just made

they gave up 26 extras and as bad as our bowling was we gave up 4
Yup, I said against the Windies that they'd pretty much given away 2 extra overs with the wides and other extras, they learned from that and South Africa fell foul of it.
Serial Lurker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 18:04
Darren Lethem
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hull - UK City of Culture
Posts: 27,237
Changes for next game ?

I'd bring Plunkett and Dawson in for Topley and Rashid
Darren Lethem is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 18:10
Bhaveshgor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,776
Changes for next game ?

I'd bring Plunkett and Dawson in for Topley and Rashid
Rashid was one of england best bowlers today.
Bhaveshgor is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 18:11
howard h
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gtr Manchester UK
Posts: 7,934
I was screaming for them to get it finished in the 18th for net-run-rate calculations!! Great stuff; should never have got into the situation where they were chasing 200+ BUT there's an argument that with 20 overs, it's better to chase a large target than a medium one as your mind-set is to take off from the start, as our openers did. Great to see us for once using the power-play to the full, and it gave us the space to push the spinners around and still keep up with the rate.

Q is Root currently the best batsman in the world, in any form of the game?

Now, odds on losing to Afghanistan?
howard h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 18:16
Darren Lethem
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hull - UK City of Culture
Posts: 27,237
Rashid was one of england best bowlers today.
Doesn't mean a great deal. Jordan was England's best bowler against West Indies yet today he was poor. Nobody has coveted themselves in glory with the ball and it's against Afghanistan so worth trying.
Darren Lethem is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 18:21
howard h
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gtr Manchester UK
Posts: 7,934
Doesn't mean a great deal. Jordan was England's best bowler against West Indies yet today he was poor. Nobody has coveted themselves in glory with the ball and it's against Afghanistan so worth trying.
Joe Root only went for 13 in his one over......
NB Ali 2 for 34 off 4 is respectable amongst the carnage. Don't think he bowled a wide either (??), it's a pity that the figures for the bowlers don't include wides which should really be tagged on to their numbers?
howard h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 18:26
Bhaveshgor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,776
Leg byes should be included as well in the bowler figures.
Bhaveshgor is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 18:39
howard h
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gtr Manchester UK
Posts: 7,934
Leg byes should be included as well in the bowler figures.
Not sure. You can genuinely beat the bat, the ball hit the pads or thighpads and run off for byes (although you could argue that the ball, therefore, wasn't hitting the stumps!!) and I reckon that's unfair....as is adding overthrows - I think if a batsman scores 1 and the fielder misses the keeper/stumps by miles and it goes for 4, those runs are added on to the bowler's record?).

But deffo wides and noballs should be added to the bowler's figures.
howard h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 18:56
Chris1964
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,022
This is just completely mental Cricket. Iv seen a fair number of 60 over games with finishing totals less than both sides managed in just 20 today. The scoring rate simply staggers me.
Chris1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 19:00
Bhaveshgor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,776
Not sure. You can genuinely beat the bat, the ball hit the pads or thighpads and run off for byes (although you could argue that the ball, therefore, wasn't hitting the stumps!!) and I reckon that's unfair....as is adding overthrows - I think if a batsman scores 1 and the fielder misses the keeper/stumps by miles and it goes for 4, those runs are added on to the bowler's record?).

But deffo wides and noballs should be added to the bowler's figures.
I have seen bowler bowl loads of crap that hit the leg and gone for 4 and it never gets recorded for the bowler.
In T20 it looks like the bowler economical even though he could have conceded runs from leg byes.
Bhaveshgor is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 19:24
howard h
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gtr Manchester UK
Posts: 7,934
This is just completely mental Cricket. Iv seen a fair number of 60 over games with finishing totals less than both sides managed in just 20 today. The scoring rate simply staggers me.
Yes, in the Gillette Cup (60 overs) setting anything above 230 was considered a stiff target! (Certainly for Lancashire....)
It's all well and good seeing the ball fly over the car park, but as some of the pundits alluded to, where are the good bowlers gonna come from in future, if everyone wants to become a batsman?
It's strange that in this competition alone, a target of 230 is achieved, but some under 150 haven't though. Generally I'd like to see a bit more balance between bat and ball - maybe ditch the "powerplays" and allow each bowler a maximum of 5, so if one or two are getting a bit of control they can stay on that extra over.
On saying that; both today's games have been thoroughly entertaining - the AUZ/NZ relatively low scoring but great bowling by NZ and tonight's run-fest.
howard h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 19:30
mimik1uk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 21,762
Yes, in the Gillette Cup (60 overs) setting anything above 230 was considered a stiff target! (Certainly for Lancashire....)
It's all well and good seeing the ball fly over the car park, but as some of the pundits alluded to, where are the good bowlers gonna come from in future, if everyone wants to become a batsman?
It's strange that in this competition alone, a target of 230 is achieved, but some under 150 haven't though. Generally I'd like to see a bit more balance between bat and ball - maybe ditch the "powerplays" and allow each bowler a maximum of 5, so if one or two are getting a bit of control they can stay on that extra over.
On saying that; both today's games have been thoroughly entertaining - the AUZ/NZ relatively low scoring but great bowling by NZ and tonight's run-fest.
i think the problem is if you allowed bowlers to bowl 5 overs teams would just play an extra batsman and one less bowler
mimik1uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 19:33
bradybrady
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: In The Shed
Posts: 1,371
How about you should have 5 bowlers bowling a minimum of 3 and the remaining 5 overs split how you want ?
bradybrady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 19:44
mimik1uk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 21,762
How about you should have 5 bowlers bowling a minimum of 3 and the remaining 5 overs split how you want ?
something like that could work

i still think a far simpler solution would be to do something about bat sizes

making bats bigger and increasing the size of sweetspots because of the peripheral weighting means too many poorly timed shots still end up going for boundaries and imo rewards brute force rather than skill
mimik1uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 20:07
Darren Lethem
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hull - UK City of Culture
Posts: 27,237
something like that could work

i still think a far simpler solution would be to do something about bat sizes

making bats bigger and increasing the size of sweetspots because of the peripheral weighting means too many poorly timed shots still end up going for boundaries and imo rewards brute force rather than skill
But isn't that what the T20 brigade want to see ? They would sooner see a smash go for 4 than a beautifully timed cover drive. I am a bit of a snob when it comes to T20, it is without doubt my 3rd favourite format of the game.
Darren Lethem is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 20:23
howard h
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gtr Manchester UK
Posts: 7,934
But isn't that what the T20 brigade want to see ? They would sooner see a smash go for 4 than a beautifully timed cover drive. I am a bit of a snob when it comes to T20, it is without doubt my 3rd favourite format of the game.
You are right, but eventually when almost every shot goes for 6 even they will get bored of it, of course fans of the team bowling want to see the stumps flying!
Suggestions about the size of bats being reduced for 20/20 (weight and depth) get my approval, and as for having 4 bowlers (5 overs) and teams over-loading with batsmen, how's about when you are 7 down you are "all-out" (therefore No's 9, 10, and 11 can't bat - so they might as well be specialist bowlers?)
howard h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 20:33
tealady
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: colchester
Posts: 15,352
Suggestions about the size of bats being reduced for 20/20 (weight and depth) get my approval, and as for having 4 bowlers (5 overs) and teams over-loading with batsmen, how's about when you are 7 down you are "all-out" (therefore No's 9, 10, and 11 can't bat - so they might as well be specialist bowlers?)
So England would have lost?
Not sure that would be a crowd pleaser to be deprived of that ending.
tealady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 21:16
howard h
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gtr Manchester UK
Posts: 7,934
So England would have lost?
Not sure that would be a crowd pleaser to be deprived of that ending.
Both teams would have maximum sized bats.... and, yes, 7 wickets they would have lost*, same for all teams!!
*Of course, SA might not have gone hell-for-leather if they knew losing 2 - 3 early wickets would put them in trouble.

In return you would have thrilling endings where a team needs 6 - 10 to win off the last over with 5 or 6 wickets down, whereas right now it's usually a stroll, it would bring another dimension to the 20/20 game and make it a touch more like the first-class game, and encourage specialist bowlers.
howard h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 21:55
seansnotmyname@
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: exeter
Posts: 14,623
Wouldn't mind if we played all three spinners next match, SLA, Leg-break and off-spin, all different, and let's face it all the seamers (including Stokes) have been horrible.

We'd still have 3 pace bowlers. Other teams have no problem with this bowling balance. Should be said in this match, the 4 bowlers that had the best ER were spinners. One of them was Duminy and he's appalling.
seansnotmyname@ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 22:05
Darren Lethem
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hull - UK City of Culture
Posts: 27,237
Both teams would have maximum sized bats.... and, yes, 7 wickets they would have lost*, same for all teams!!
*Of course, SA might not have gone hell-for-leather if they knew losing 2 - 3 early wickets would put them in trouble.

In return you would have thrilling endings where a team needs 6 - 10 to win off the last over with 5 or 6 wickets down, whereas right now it's usually a stroll, it would bring another dimension to the 20/20 game and make it a touch more like the first-class game, and encourage specialist bowlers.
No you wouldn't. Teams wouldn't go for it if they know they only have 7 wickets to play with. You would kill it. Scores would be lower and the game would be ruined. Leave it as it is. Its an 11 a side game.
Darren Lethem is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 22:13
tealady
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: colchester
Posts: 15,352
Both teams would have maximum sized bats.... and, yes, 7 wickets they would have lost*, same for all teams!!
*Of course, SA might not have gone hell-for-leather if they knew losing 2 - 3 early wickets would put them in trouble.

In return you would have thrilling endings where a team needs 6 - 10 to win off the last over with 5 or 6 wickets down, whereas right now it's usually a stroll, it would bring another dimension to the 20/20 game and make it a touch more like the first-class game, and encourage specialist bowlers.
Well there was a thriling ending.
I'm not sure why you think a priori if you make these changes it will result in thriling endings significantly different to what happens currently.
tealady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 23:13
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,058
can we just concede now ?
No !!!

England seem to have a very good batting line up but a god awful bowling one
Fair comment

Where's Parry who bowled Lancs to the 20/20 title last year? He bowls bullets to the base of leg stump, they very rarely end up clearing the car-park?
The problem is with the quicks now the spinners

Changes for next game ?

I'd bring Plunkett and Dawson in for Topley and Rashid
Rashid was one of england best bowlers today.
He went for just over 9 and over and got the star man out. England went for 11.5 an over

Leg byes should be included as well in the bowler figures.
When I started playing bowlers got away with no balls and wides....just extras in those days.

Anyway great game. Well done Root. A man for all series.
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 23:20
alfamale
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 2,854
But deffo wides and noballs should be added to the bowler's figures.

As in the summary of bowling figures should show an extra 2 columns (which it did occasionally in the past)? Because all wides and no-balls in all forms of cricket are included in the runs conceded column of bowling figures and have been for as long as ive ever watched cricket
alfamale is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:49.