33rd Match, Pool A: England v Bangladesh - BANGLADESH WON BY 15 RUNS

[TheParraboy]

Pretty even contest coming up

Bangers to win?

Starts 2.30pm AEDT MONDAY

 

[undertaker]

The washout between Australia and Bangladesh means England have to win their last two matches vs Bangladesh and Afghanistan to make the QFs. A wash-out in either match and they are gorrrrrrrrrrrne!

The weather forecast atm looks to be a threat to the Poms

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/sa/adelaide/adelaide

Adelaide - Possible showers tomorrow (60%)

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/nsw/sydney/sydney

Sydney - Possible showers on Friday (90%)

 

[vvvrulz]

Let's gone Bangers!

 

[Panther Mick]

Chance for Pommie nuffs to fill their boots or choke again.

 

[JJ]

Seeming pretty likely that the Poms and the Windies will sneak through 4th in both pools, and neither deserve to be involved beyond the pool play tbh

 

[vvvrulz]

Seeming pretty likely that the Poms and the Windies will sneak through 4th in both pools, and neither deserve to be involved beyond the pool play tbh

This.

Based on enthusiasm alone, Afghanistan and Ireland trump both of them by a mile

 

[undertaker]

Seeming pretty likely that the Poms and the Windies will sneak through 4th in both pools, and neither deserve to be involved beyond the pool play tbh

...which is why the 2003 14-team format with the Super Sixes was much fairer. You don't have underperforming 4th placed sides scraping through to the Super Six stage. I do believe if the Poms scrape into 4th spot, there's a chance they could pull off some upsets in the finals.

 

[vvvrulz]

...which is why the 2003 14-team format with the Super Sixes was much fairer. You don't have underperforming 4th placed sides scraping through to the Super Six stage. I do believe if the Poms scrape into 4th spot, there's a chance they could pull off some upsets in the finals.

That was a good format messed up by choking Saffas + Kenya and Zimbabwe forfeits.

 

[undertaker]

That was a good format messed up by choking Saffas + Kenya and Zimbabwe forfeits.

To be fair to Kenya (who are the only Associate Member to ever make the semi finals), they did pull off upsets beating Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, but otherwise, I agree that the forfeitures put a dampener on the tournament (like they did with the 1996 World Cup).

 

[vvvrulz]

To be fair to Kenya (who are the only Associate Member to ever make the semi finals), they did pull off upsets beating Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, but otherwise, I agree that the forfeitures put a dampener on the tournament (like they did with the 1996 World Cup).

Full credit to Kenya of course, not their fault. But as soon as you lost all of Pakistan, England, West Indies and the hosts South Africa then the entire super sixes was going to turn into a tired mess.

New Zealand and Sri Lanka never looked the part, so it became a two horse race very early on.

India played some attractive cricket and Australia pulled off a couple of great comeback wins, pretty much the only thing worth remembering after pool play (some great matches there though).

 

[Mr Angry]

Go the bangers!

 

[vvvrulz]

England elected to field, Bangladesh would have batted anyway.
Expecting a good game!

 

[vvvrulz]

3/1 already, Anderson gets Kayes

 

[vvvrulz]

8/2 now, Anderson might have finally woken up

 

[undertaker]

Full credit to Kenya of course, not their fault. But as soon as you lost all of Pakistan, England, West Indies and the hosts South Africa then the entire super sixes was going to turn into a tired mess.New Zealand and Sri Lanka never looked the part, so it became a two horse race very early on.

India played some attractive cricket and Australia pulled off a couple of great comeback wins, pretty much the only thing worth remembering after pool play (some great matches there though).

I agree with what you said in the first paragraph, but if you ask me about boring World Cups (in terms of the teams genuinely capable of winning it), 2007 takes the cake.

Australia was so far ahead of every team in that tournament it wasn't even funny. Even with the debacle that happened in the final with the weather, Sri Lanka wasn't going to win. Australia won every game in 2003, but there were many hurdles to overcome, including their disrupted preparation before the opening game with what happened with Shane Warne, injury to Bevan, Lehmann still suspended and we were in real trouble at 5/147 before Symonds - like with what Maxwell did yesterday - finally stood up to the plate and scored a century that kick-started his career. Had we lost that opening game given our off-field circumstances, I wouldn't be so sure as to whether we could've gone all the way to win that tournament. ANd then, as you said, the come from behind wins against England and NZ (after Shane Bond absolutely rissoled them, but sadly didn't get support from his other bowlers and batsmen in that tournament), and a gritty win in the semi vs Sri Lanka....all three matches on a difficult Port Elizabeth pitch where the first innings scores were sub-220. Wish we had more pitches like that in this World Cup.

Also, in 2007, the poor planning of the tournament was a killer which is why the World Cup won't be back there in the West Indies anytime soon. Ridiculously high ticket prices relative to what those living in the Caribbean could afford, problems with travel VISAs for the touring fans, lack of atmosphere at matches due to low crowds and fans not being allowed to bring their traditional musical instruments in (compared to yesterday, with the Sri Lankans bringing all their instruments into the Bill O'Reilly stand at the SCG), the death of Bob Woolmer after Pakistan lost to Ireland, a long drawn out tournament that went for 7 weeks which could've been truncated had they played double headers during the Super Eight phase...and then culminating in the final, with the match reduced to 38 overs (when a reserve day was available), and then the Aussies having their moment of glory wrecked by Bowden and Bucknor forcing them to come back out on the field in near darkness to a ground with no floodlights and having to use the lights from the rooms in the grandstand behind the sidescreens was a complete embarrassment. These photos show just how dark it was (when the Aussies came back out on the field to finish the last 3 overs) compared to the tv cameras, which made it look brighter than it was:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news_images/highres/2007-6-23-74142388.jpg
http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/img/2009/glance/cricket/2007/2007_darkfinish.jpg

Wasn't there a test match in NZ in the early 2000's that was extended past sunset and played under lights due to bad weather? We all know how much of a genius idea that turned out to be when a batsman hit the red ball up in the air:lol:

 

[JJ]

...which is why the 2003 14-team format with the Super Sixes was much fairer. You don't have underperforming 4th placed sides scraping through to the Super Six stage. I do believe if the Poms scrape into 4th spot, there's a chance they could pull off some upsets in the finals.

At this stage I'd suggest a straight final

Yep, top 4, or top 6 good, or carryover points - straight knockout does very little for those who show consistency in the round robin

Good fight back from the Bangers...

These wickets are too flat though - all around - everyone moaned about the shape of Eden Park, but the two low scoring games there have been very exciting

 

[undertaker]

At this stage I'd suggest a straight final

Yep, top 4, or top 6 good, or carryover points - straight knockout does very little for those who show consistency in the round robin

I'm not quite sure about a straight final, BUT I'm not a fan of any tournament structure in any sport where either MORE than 50% of teams go through to the next phase or a team progresses through to the next phase having won LESS than 50% of their matches (e.g. Dragons in the NRL in 2002 made the top 8 finals winning only 9 out of 24 matches in a 15 team comp. 6th-8th all won less than 12 out of 24 matches that season). That's just not right. It devalues the purpose of having the finals look and furthermore, my biggest beef is it gives a team who scrapes in a big chance of pulling off a Steven Bradbury when they absolutely don't deserve to be there in the first place (this is especially true if the next phase is a knock-out format and either an underperforming team get a lot of luck on the day or the better team has an off-day after consistently putting in strong performances throughout the earlier stage of the tournament which justify their spot in that phase of the tourmanet).

50% of all teams is the maximum I'd allow. So, in a 14 team structure with 2 groups of 7 teams, only the top 3 (maximum) from each group should go through to the Super Sixes and in the Super Sixes, only the top 3 teams (maximum) should progress to the next stage.

With the post-Super Six phase, the change I'd make it scrap the semi-finals, team 1 goes straight through to the final and 2 vs 3 play off in a Qualifying Final for a spot in the Final against team 1 (this was the format in the old Mercantile Mutual Cup domestic ODI state comp in Australia pre 1995/96). I don't feel that team 1 needs to prove itself again in a semi-final against team 4 which they could potentially lose if they slipped up on a bad day despite potentially being the most dominant team of the tournament and team most deserving of a spot in the final. If you are talking about giving the highest finished teams the best chance of qualifying for the final, the team that finishes first in the Super Sixes (after having played the best teams throughout the tournament) has more than proved itself of qualifying for the final.

Sadly, my idea will never happen as the ICC want that extra finals match. More matches = more tv ratings = more revenue.

 

[undertaker]

These wickets are too flat though - all around - everyone moaned about the shape of Eden Park, but the two low scoring games there have been very exciting

On the topic of flat wickets, 100% agree with you JJ. I agree that the biggest contributor to the explosion of 300+ scores in this tournament is the fielding restrictions only allowing 4 outside the circle in the death overs. However, this could be balanced out to some extent if the pitches had more juice and life in them, hence the bowlers have more to work with.

Watch highlights on YouTube of the 1992 World Cup and you will see an immediate difference in the pitches both in Australia and New Zealand compared to today. There was much more sideway movement off the seam (and as the expression goes, when it seams, there is also spin in the pitch and the Kiwis utilised that well having Dipak Patel opening the bowling back in '92), such as classic deliveries like Ambrose's beauty to Tendulkar and Javed's slower ball in the semi-final at Eden Park. Btw, when did NZ pitches start to change? Growing up watching cricket in the '90s, I always associated NZ pitches as ones that seamed a lot and were a bit slower (suiting bowlers like Chris Harris and Gavin Larsen).

There's no doubt, especially from being at the SCG match yesterday, there's way too many gaps in the field that batsmen can exploit with consummate ease. Quality spinners are being phased out of ODIs because they've got nothing to work with. A ball that is slightly overpitched and short can easily be punished. After this World Cup, I'd love to see the 5-over batting powerplay removed, and go back to nearly what the field placing used to be pre-2005: 2 fielders outside the circle for the mandatory powerplay (overs 1-10), and 5 fielders outside the circle for the remainder of the game (overs 11-50). Immediately, the average 1st innings team score will drop at least 50 runs (more runs the more flat the pitch is). Compared to pre-2005 when it used to be 2 fielders outside the circle for the first 15 overs, batsmen today have the advantage of more powerful bats and shortened boundaries which have become even shorter since ropes in front of the whole fence became mandatory in 2001, so that's enough of an advantage for the batsmen. Even on the larger Australian grounds like the MCG, the rope could be pushed back even further if you got rid of those stupid LED advertising boards between the outer fence and rope (just so the lazyarse photographers can get a better view for their camera photos perched behind the LED boards). Back in 1992 when most grounds didn't use ropes, there were still photographers at the game taking photos for their work organisation (albeit not on the playing surface). Why should venues be shortened now just to accommodate them? That's why it was a breath of fresh air to watch the Pakistan vs Zimbabwe game in Brisbane where the rope was pushed back to the maximum dimensions allowed by the ICC.

 

[vvvrulz]

T20 had a lot to do with the sudden obsession of massive scores and dead tracks being "good wickets". There is nothing good about a wicket which promotes clouting 400 scores and double centuries.

 

[JJ]

Our wickets were usually seamers, that 92 world cup and the few years after that weren't representative of our wickets imo - quicks like Hadlee (both) Collinge, Taylor, etc etc relied on swing and seam - the problem was that it was too easy to get sideways movement and people settled for medium to medium fast bowling...

We made a deliberate effort to get more pace back in the wickets, but our climate means that usually requires grass - in a way the drop ins your bemoaning have been good for us...

Yeah, vv I missed when "good" became flat and true :lol:

England asserting themselves - this game is made for Bell, England's answer to Shane Watson!