2nd ODI: Australia v India at Brisbane on Jan 15, 2016

[Pete Cash]

Lords. Wankhede.

Your "capacity is everything" argument is not accepted.

Population, importance to the cricketing world, wealth of cricketing board. The 2011 world cup was held in Asia....why was the final in India and not Bangladesh.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Population, importance to the cricketing world, wealth of cricketing board. The 2011 world cup was held in Asia....why was the final in India and not Bangladesh.

Huh? The 1996 final was in Lahore. What part of India do think that Lahore is in?

 

[Meth]

In your opinion. Not in mine.

And I was proven right, and you were proven wrong.

It is pretty simple.

no. at best, the result gives you a leg to stand on. But to say India weren't on top at 2-20 having posted 300+...well, it's not ridiculous for you, but it is ridiculous from anyone else. The only thing that is 'pretty simple' here is you

 

[ANTiLAG]

no. at best, the result gives you a leg to stand on. But to say India weren't on top at 2-20 having posted 300+...well, it's not ridiculous for you, but it is ridiculous from anyone else.

Yes.

Meth, I understand you want to argue with me at any opportunity, but you're onto an absolute loser here.

My opinion was proven right. Your opinion was proven wrong.

 

[JJ]

Lmao but but we didn't want the world cup anyway :lol:

I don't follow rugby so its not a huge deal if we didn't win but I know for a fact you follow cricket so don't give me that nonsense.

Yes, fair point... but I also follow league

 

[Meth]

Yes.

Meth, I understand you want to argue with me at any opportunity

quite the opposite really

 

[Pete Cash]

Huh? The 1996 final was in Lahore. What part of India do think that Lahore is in?

A lot has changed since 96. India will host the next one by itself. There is literally no reason for the world cup final to be in nz over Australia.

I mean honestly its a laughable suggestion. Australia could host the cricket world cup without NZ. NZ ain't hosting a cricket world cup without Australia. So you guys need us more

From every POV it makes vastly more sense to host it in Australia.

 

[Meth]

Basically, what you're claiming is that the team that wins the match was invariably 'on top' throughout the match.

That'll do me

 

[JJ]

I think at 2/20 odd it was relatively even with Aust slightly behind and under pressure - at the end of the day Finch and Warner have been pretty much mud in ODIs, so 1 or 2 for 20 isn't unexpected - very flat deck, once two bats got established that was very chase-able

300 isn't really the old 220, but the Indian bowling and fielding is very attackable

 

[ANTiLAG]

A lot has changed since 96. India will host the next one by itself. There is literally no reason for the world cup final to be in nz over Australia.

I mean honestly its a laughable suggestion. Australia could host the cricket world cup without NZ. NZ ain't hosting a cricket world cup without Australia. So you guys need us more

From every POV it makes vastly more sense to host it in Australia.

We could host a world cup without Australia. The West Indies managed to host a World Cup just fine, all the way to 7/8 through the final.

You think the 2011 Rugby World Cup needed Australian help?

Your arguments are nonsensical.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Basically, what you're claiming is that the team that wins the match was invariable 'on top' throughout the match.

That'll do me

Never said that straw man at all.

Meth, you're onto an absolute loser of an argument.

 

[Pete Cash]

The icc isn't going to give NZ a world cup you plonker when they could give it to Australia.

 

[Meth]

Never said that straw man at all.

Meth, you're onto an absolute loser of an argument.

For sure.

I am arguing with an absolute loser, after all

 

[ANTiLAG]

The icc isn't going to give NZ a world cup you plonker when they could give it to Australia.

And everyone would have thought the same of the IRB doing it in rugby.

But i cannot believe the attitude towards the final, Aussie has had 2, but you expect them all?

Very selfish.

 

[ANTiLAG]

For sure.

I am arguing with an absolute loser, after all

Ad hominem.

And an immature ad hominem at that.

 

[Pete Cash]

And everyone thought the same of the IRB doing it in rugby.

I don't know anything about rugby but I do know how the icc operates. What possible reason outside of massive bribes would they give it to NZ lol

 

[Meth]

Claiming that you were 'proven right' by the result- that Australia were on top at 2-20 because they eventually won the match...you are essentially claiming that the team that wins the match was invariably 'on top' throughout the match.

 

[ANTiLAG]

I don't know anything about rugby but I do know how the icc operates. What possible reason outside of massive bribes would they give it to NZ lol

The same reason as giving it to Pakistan in 1996.

Sharing it around its full member states.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Claiming that you were 'proven right' by the result- that Australia were on top at 2-20 because they eventually won the match...you are essentially claiming that the team that wins the match was invariably 'on top' throughout the match.

No - I'm not.

Your fallacy here is that you are generalizing a wide all encompassing rule applied to all games from the specific set of facts in the context of one match at a moment in time thereof.

 

[Meth]

I don't know anything about rugby but I do know how the icc operates. What possible reason outside of massive bribes would they give it to NZ lol

To promote the game.

But in saying that, $$ rule and Melbourne makes much more sense to that end