• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Entertainment
  • Sport
International Cricket 2016
<<
<
59 of 284
>>
>
Darren Lethem
18-03-2016
Originally Posted by mimik1uk:
“how much money would you have put on us winning that between innings ? ”

None but I never said it was over either.
mimik1uk
18-03-2016
thats a good point du plessis just made

they gave up 26 extras and as bad as our bowling was we gave up 4
Serial Lurker
18-03-2016
Originally Posted by mimik1uk:
“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.
Darren Lethem
18-03-2016
Changes for next game ?

I'd bring Plunkett and Dawson in for Topley and Rashid
Bhaveshgor
18-03-2016
Originally Posted by Darren Lethem:
“Changes for next game ?

I'd bring Plunkett and Dawson in for Topley and Rashid”

Rashid was one of england best bowlers today.
howard h
18-03-2016
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?
Darren Lethem
18-03-2016
Originally Posted by Bhaveshgor:
“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.
howard h
18-03-2016
Originally Posted by Darren Lethem:
“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?
Bhaveshgor
18-03-2016
Leg byes should be included as well in the bowler figures.
howard h
18-03-2016
Originally Posted by Bhaveshgor:
“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.
Chris1964
18-03-2016
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.
Bhaveshgor
18-03-2016
Originally Posted by howard h:
“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.
howard h
18-03-2016
Originally Posted by Chris1964:
“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.
mimik1uk
18-03-2016
Originally Posted by howard h:
“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
bradybrady
18-03-2016
How about you should have 5 bowlers bowling a minimum of 3 and the remaining 5 overs split how you want ?
mimik1uk
18-03-2016
Originally Posted by bradybrady:
“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
Darren Lethem
18-03-2016
Originally Posted by mimik1uk:
“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.
howard h
18-03-2016
Originally Posted by Darren Lethem:
“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?)
tealady
18-03-2016
Originally Posted by howard h:
“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.
howard h
18-03-2016
Originally Posted by tealady:
“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.
seansnotmyname@
18-03-2016
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.
Darren Lethem
18-03-2016
Originally Posted by howard h:
“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.
tealady
18-03-2016
Originally Posted by howard h:
“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.
SULLA
18-03-2016
Originally Posted by mimik1uk:
“can we just concede now ?”

No !!!

Originally Posted by mickthehat:
“England seem to have a very good batting line up but a god awful bowling one”

Fair comment

Originally Posted by howard h:
“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

Originally Posted by Darren Lethem:
“Changes for next game ?

I'd bring Plunkett and Dawson in for Topley and Rashid”

Originally Posted by Bhaveshgor:
“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

Originally Posted by Bhaveshgor:
“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.
alfamale
18-03-2016
Originally Posted by howard h:
“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
<<
<
59 of 284
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map