Twenty20 World Cup - warning contains cricket

[Snake]

Yes, and Scotland did better against the Kiwis, and Engerland looked completely unconvincing in the footy against a team that Oxford United would have beaten most days.

Cheer up Terry - if there is a crumb of comfort to be gained from this sporting day then just look at that magnificent performance from your allies in Azerbaijan.

[Ascension Ox]

Holland? We lose to Holland?

Wales didn't lose,, England did . Leave us in our own delicious desolation please.

What a shambles. Collingwood has no tactical acumen whatsoever.

As it happens Welsh players are represented in international cricket by England.

Some Welsh people don’t like it (for example http://criced.blogspot.com/) but as far as I’m concerned England need as much help as the true British/Celtic race can provide to you Anglo-Saxons. That’s why your cricketing organisation is called the “England and Wales Cricket Board

[Ascension Ox]

Yes, and Scotland did better against the Kiwis, and Engerland looked completely unconvincing in the footy against a team that Oxford United would have beaten most days.

Cheer up Terry - if there is a crumb of comfort to be gained from this sporting day then just look at that magnificent performance from your allies in Azerbaijan.

4-0 will do me.

[Baboo]

[
4-0 will do me.

And me too. What the ***** did anyone expect? Barcelonaesque footie on a crap pitch after a long season that seemed to start years ago.

[Snake]

Wales didn't lose,, England did . Leave us in our own delicious desolation please.

What a shambles. Collingwood has no tactical acumen whatsoever.

As it happens Welsh players are represented in international cricket by England.

Some Welsh people don’t like it (for example http://criced.blogspot.com/) but as far as I’m concerned England need as much help as the true British/Celtic race can provide to you Anglo-Saxons. That’s why your cricketing organisation is called the “England and Wales Cricket Board

[Dr Bob]

The England football team must be winning matches - the grumbles have shifted from not winning, to not winning with enough style.

Surely the only problem with a test match being played at Sophia Gardens (regardless of who the sponsors are) rather than Trent Bridge is that matches played there thus far this season suggest the pitch is very poor. Well, that and the fact I cannot walk to Sophia Gardens to watch the Aussies.

[Snake]

So we’re out of the World Cup because the West Indies scored just 82 runs when the organisers had floodlights available (the word paradox springs to mind) and we could have gone on much later. It’s just not cricket, and the D/L method doesn’t seem to work in twenty twenty as well as it does in the longer versions of the limited over game, and on top of that you’ve got to think about the commercial situation.

Not that the T20 counts for much - and at least we’ve got more match practice and team bonding in the tank than the Aussies have in the run up to The Ashes*.

*I don’t know much about geography, so Leicester could after all be a nice place to spend two weeks in.

[A-Ro]

The one thing I think D/L doesn't handle well in T20 is the number of players available, the scores seem about right but it is much easier to chase a moderate score over a few overs if you have all 11 men available, if they factored in a reduction of batsmen as well then the chasing team would have to be more careful in the way they played. For instance the Windies were 16 for 3 at one stage but nobody felt that was going to be a problem yet if we had been 16 for 3 in the first innings it would be deemed some kind of disaster.

Having said all that we never got enough boundaries, why bump Foster up the list when he cannot reach the boundary yet when Broad finally got a bat he hit a 4 and a 6 with his only 2 shots.

[Ascension Ox]

So we’re out of the World Cup because the West Indies scored just 82 runs when the organisers had floodlights available (the word paradox springs to mind) and we could have gone on much later. It’s just not cricket, and the D/L method doesn’t seem to work in twenty twenty as well as it does in the longer versions of the limited over game, and on top of that you’ve got to think about the commercial situation.

Not that the T20 counts for much - and at least we’ve got more match practice and team bonding in the tank than the Aussies have in the run up to The Ashes*.

*I don’t know much about geography, so Leicester could after all be a nice place to spend two weeks in.

T20 is an excellent product. It attracts the casual supporter and is exciting. Goodbye tedious , stale 50 over cricket as far as I'm concerned.

Went along to the game last night on spec after a meeting in town and got in for face value pretty easily. Great entertainment.

There were plenty of youngsters at the game and there was not much scope for the game to go on much later in all honesty. Collingwood should have put them in! Anyone could have seen that the weather was going to be a factor! West Indies pretty impressive, much cleaner hitters of the ball than us. I reckon they would have won whatever the length of the game last night.

It is more important to have a shrewd leader in T20 than test cricket for the simple reason that subtleties are piled on to your decision making instantly. Colingwood is not bright enough, sorry.

Plus any team with Foster in at number 6 is going to be in trouble.

Oval is , despite the improvements, still extremely shabby. KasStad is wonderful in comparison.

[GodalmingYellow]

So we’re out of the World Cup because the West Indies scored just 82 runs when the organisers had floodlights available (the word paradox springs to mind) and we could have gone on much later. It’s just not cricket, and the D/L method doesn’t seem to work in twenty twenty as well as it does in the longer versions of the limited over game, and on top of that you’ve got to think about the commercial situation.

Not that the T20 counts for much - and at least we’ve got more match practice and team bonding in the tank than the Aussies have in the run up to The Ashes*.

*I don’t know much about geography, so Leicester could after all be a nice place to spend two weeks in.

T20 is an excellent product. It attracts the casual supporter and is exciting. Goodbye tedious , stale 50 over cricket as far as I'm concerned.

Went along to the game last night on spec after a meeting in town and got in for face value pretty easily. Great entertainment.

There were plenty of youngsters at the game and there was not much scope for the game to go on much later in all honesty. Collingwood should have put them in! Anyone could have seen that the weather was going to be a factor! West Indies pretty impressive, much cleaner hitters of the ball than us. I reckon they would have won whatever the length of the game last night.

It is more important to have a shrewd leader in T20 than test cricket for the simple reason that subtleties are piled on to your decision making instantly. Colingwood is not bright enough, sorry.

Plus any team with Foster in at number 6 is going to be in trouble.

Oval is , despite the improvements, still extremely shabby. KasStad is wonderful in comparison.

Again it had little to do with Collingwood.

Broad should have been bowling yorkers in his last over, but he kept pitching short, making boundaries easy.

On selection, England didn't pick a big hitter. They dropped Mascherenas and didn't even bother with Napier. We only scored 3 boundaries in the second half of the innings. England rely too heavily on Pietersen to get the runs.

Had the team selection been right and the bowling up to scratch, we would have won easily.

[Andrewmaha]

My summation (which supports some of the above)......

a)England are most definitely reliant on Pietersen.
b)England generally react badly to the loss of an early wicket.
c)England struggle to hit sixes. Having watched the majority of matches in this competition I liken them to Ireland / Netherlands in terms of the ability to hit the boundary.
d)England bowlers cannot consistently bowl the line and length required for the given situation. I remember watching Glamorgan when they won the Sunday one day competition in the nineties. They had a bowling line up who could consistently bowl the optimum ball depending on the batsman, opposition, pitch, weather etc. They absolutely trounced everyone that year!
e)Whilst Foster is an excellent keeper, he is not a 6-hitter. He should bat at 8 or 9 depending on availability of players.
f)If Broad is playing then his should bat higher than Foster.
g)Duckworth - Lewis remains the most effective means of determining the most feasible solution for rain effected matches as it takes into account overs lost, wickets lost and runs scored. See Wikipedia for a very good briefing on D/L.

For the record my ideal ODI / T20 line up is:-
1.Bopara
2.Wright
3.Pietersen (captain)
4.Napier
5.Morgan
6.Flintoff
7.Collingwood
8.Broad
9.Foster
10.Swann
11.Anderson

[Ascension Ox]

So we’re out of the World Cup because the West Indies scored just 82 runs when the organisers had floodlights available (the word paradox springs to mind) and we could have gone on much later. It’s just not cricket, and the D/L method doesn’t seem to work in twenty twenty as well as it does in the longer versions of the limited over game, and on top of that you’ve got to think about the commercial situation.

Not that the T20 counts for much - and at least we’ve got more match practice and team bonding in the tank than the Aussies have in the run up to The Ashes*.

*I don’t know much about geography, so Leicester could after all be a nice place to spend two weeks in.

T20 is an excellent product. It attracts the casual supporter and is exciting. Goodbye tedious , stale 50 over cricket as far as I'm concerned.

Went along to the game last night on spec after a meeting in town and got in for face value pretty easily. Great entertainment.

There were plenty of youngsters at the game and there was not much scope for the game to go on much later in all honesty. Collingwood should have put them in! Anyone could have seen that the weather was going to be a factor! West Indies pretty impressive, much cleaner hitters of the ball than us. I reckon they would have won whatever the length of the game last night.

It is more important to have a shrewd leader in T20 than test cricket for the simple reason that subtleties are piled on to your decision making instantly. Colingwood is not bright enough, sorry.

Plus any team with Foster in at number 6 is going to be in trouble.

Oval is , despite the improvements, still extremely shabby. KasStad is wonderful in comparison.

Again it had little to do with Collingwood.

Broad should have been bowling yorkers in his last over, but he kept pitching short, making boundaries easy.

On selection, England didn't pick a big hitter. They dropped Mascherenas and didn't even bother with Napier. We only scored 3 boundaries in the second half of the innings. England rely too heavily on Pietersen to get the runs.

Had the team selection been right and the bowling up to scratch, we would have won easily.

Course it did! Collingwood boo booed big time! His decision making was poor.

Do not underestimate the Windies, they love 20-20, why's that?, their batsmen can't be arsed in concentratting for the 5 days of a test match

[GodalmingYellow]

T20 is an excellent product. It attracts the casual supporter and is exciting. Goodbye tedious , stale 50 over cricket as far as I'm concerned.

Went along to the game last night on spec after a meeting in town and got in for face value pretty easily. Great entertainment.

There were plenty of youngsters at the game and there was not much scope for the game to go on much later in all honesty. Collingwood should have put them in! Anyone could have seen that the weather was going to be a factor! West Indies pretty impressive, much cleaner hitters of the ball than us. I reckon they would have won whatever the length of the game last night.

It is more important to have a shrewd leader in T20 than test cricket for the simple reason that subtleties are piled on to your decision making instantly. Colingwood is not bright enough, sorry.

Plus any team with Foster in at number 6 is going to be in trouble.

Oval is , despite the improvements, still extremely shabby. KasStad is wonderful in comparison.

Again it had little to do with Collingwood.

Broad should have been bowling yorkers in his last over, but he kept pitching short, making boundaries easy.

On selection, England didn't pick a big hitter. They dropped Mascherenas and didn't even bother with Napier. We only scored 3 boundaries in the second half of the innings. England rely too heavily on Pietersen to get the runs.

Had the team selection been right and the bowling up to scratch, we would have won easily.

Course it did! Collingwood boo booed big time! His decision making was poor.

Do not underestimate the Windies, they love 20-20, why's that?, their batsmen can't be arsed in concentratting for the 5 days of a test match

Oh behave Tim. What decision that Collingwood made was so wrong then that we lost the match?

[GodalmingYellow]

My summation (which supports some of the above)......

a)England are most definitely reliant on Pietersen.
b)England generally react badly to the loss of an early wicket.
c)England struggle to hit sixes. Having watched the majority of matches in this competition I liken them to Ireland / Netherlands in terms of the ability to hit the boundary.
d)England bowlers cannot consistently bowl the line and length required for the given situation. I remember watching Glamorgan when they won the Sunday one day competition in the nineties. They had a bowling line up who could consistently bowl the optimum ball depending on the batsman, opposition, pitch, weather etc. They absolutely trounced everyone that year!
e)Whilst Foster is an excellent keeper, he is not a 6-hitter. He should bat at 8 or 9 depending on availability of players.
f)If Broad is playing then his should bat higher than Foster.
g)Duckworth - Lewis remains the most effective means of determining the most feasible solution for rain effected matches as it takes into account overs lost, wickets lost and runs scored. See Wikipedia for a very good briefing on D/L.

For the record my ideal ODI / T20 line up is:-
1.Bopara
2.Wright
3.Pietersen (captain)
4.Napier
5.Morgan
6.Flintoff
7.Collingwood
8.Broad
9.Foster
10.Swann
11.Anderson

That would be pretty much my first choice as well.

[YF Dan]

Do not underestimate the Windies, they love 20-20, why's that?, their batsmen can't be arsed in concentratting for the 5 days of a test match[/quote]

Ahem, did the Windies not recently beat England in a test series largely dominated by the bat? This &quotcan't be arsed concentrating&quot line is based less on truth than it is nasty stereotyping.

Gayle has a top test score of 317, Sarwan of 291, and Chanderpaul 203, (with a test average of 50). Three of the top 4 scores in test cricket were made by West Indians.

This isn't a great Windies team by any stretch but spare us the racial stereotypes. Yep, some of the team prefer 2020, but if you were offered huge sums for 6 weeks work. This would be especially true if you were paid fuck all by your own impoverished cricket board despite being put through the most grueling schedule of any test nation.

Fr the record, if I was creating a West Indies/England XI for a test match, I'd certainly have at least 3 of their batsmen (Gayle, Chanderpaul and Sarwan), I'd find room for Bravo, would have Ramdin over Prior, and definitely Edwards and probably Taylor.

England lost because Collingwood didn't think it would rain, and because they have only two batsmen with the skill to hit sixes off decent bowling. Those who think Napier is the answer should ask themselves why he didn't get a game in the IPL, and why England haven't given him a chance. It's one thing slogging county trundlers, it's a different kettle of fish slogging 90|| mph quicks and mystery spinners. If he was smacking the England attack to all parts in the nets, I'd guarantee he'd be given a chance. My bet is he isn't.

Average sloggers (Wright, Andre Fletcher) have been exposed as the tournament has gone on.