Group C - New Zealand, England, Kenya, Canada

[Fiery]

Fair play to NZ, pretty intelligent cricket towards the end, and they deserved to win quite easily.

TBH, this WC needs the SA-Aus game as soon as possible as (apart from Zim/Ire) the games have been pretty dull as a spectacle.

Pool play was always going to be a bit tedious. The action will only heat up come the Super 8

 

[Smudge]

That'll do. Just saw the end of the match at the TAB this morning while placing my racing bets for the day.

 

[Tim]

Well done boys, we're on our way to the super eights!

 

[Scaly piscine]

EDIT: Are you ever gonna give credit to the opposition?

The bowling, batting and fielding were practically the same until England got ragged when the game was virtually over. Both teams dropped a hard hit catch and were otherwise good, both teams had tidy but unthreatening spin options, both teams had one tight bowler (Bond, Flintoff), both had one who wasn't really suited to the pitch and were a bit wayward (Franklin, Plunkett) and then they was Oram and Anderson, Anderson was probably better. Styris was better than Collingwood because he adapted to the spin in the pitch and bowled a lot of cutters, but a lot of it was still the two-pacedness earlier in the game.

I don't see where else I can give credit for where NZ were clearly better than England, other than to give credit for winning the toss and deciding to bowl - which was where the rest of the difference appeared to come from. I'm not sure saying NZ were probably about the same as England would count as credit.

Give a team a significant headstart on a pitch you can't bowl players out on and you're generally stuffed. That's just OD cricket for you.

 

[Bahnz]

The bowling, batting and fielding were practically the same until England got ragged when the game was virtually over. Both teams dropped a hard hit catch and were otherwise good, both teams had tidy but unthreatening spin options, both teams had one tight bowler (Bond, Flintoff), both had one who wasn't really suited to the pitch and were a bit wayward (Franklin, Plunkett) and then they was Oram and Anderson, Anderson was probably better. Styris was better than Collingwood because he adapted to the spin in the pitch and bowled a lot of cutters, but a lot of it was still the two-pacedness earlier in the game.

I don't see where else I can give credit for where NZ were clearly better than England, other than to give credit for winning the toss and deciding to bowl - which was where the rest of the difference appeared to come from. I'm not sure saying NZ were probably about the same as England would count as credit.

Give a team a significant headstart on a pitch you can't bowl players out on and you're generally stuffed. That's just OD cricket for you.

Whatever makes you feel better, mate.

 

[Tim]

dear oh dear. Scaly hasn't liked NZ for awhile now.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Whatever makes you feel better, mate.

Not really. Both teams will struggle to make the semis playing like that - which is the important thing. England can play a lot better and will hopefully not play much more against super 8 sides on such a crap wicket.

 

[Tim]

Did you ever take into account that the pressure of the match might have gotten to the players a little. First up match for both teams in the Cup and it's the most important pool match.

Most other top sides are belting the minnows right now. You wait till Australia play South Africa.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Did you ever take into account that the pressure of the match might have gotten to the players a little. First up match for both teams in the Cup and it's the most important pool match.

Most other top sides are belting the minnows right now. You wait till Australia play South Africa.

England's mini-collapse didn't cost them that many runs in the end. Most of the guys that got in would score quickly, just they were limited by the pitch. KP scored at a SR of 65 and was playing well - he's one of the quickest scores in the game. Vaughan since he's come back has been a fluent scorer, most of his horizontal bat shots were dragged horribly - when he's not hitting them straight up in the air he's one of the best players of those shots on the planet. Collingwood's first few runs were under-edges cuts down to fine leg. Styris comes out, crashes several pull shots for 4 easy as you like. Seriously if it all went as well as you could expect how many could England have scored? 250? That would have still been well below par on the conditions NZ were faced with.

Bowling first was a big edge over two reasonably matched sides.

 

[_Ed_]

both teams had one tight bowler (Bond, Flintoff), both had one who wasn't really suited to the pitch and were a bit wayward (Franklin, Plunkett)

Bond 2-19 from 10, Flintoff 0-17 from 8...they don't look that similar to me.

Franklin 2-43 from 9, Plunkett 1-43 from 7...again, not that similar.

 

[Zinzan]

Of course if England had bowled first and won, Scaly would have been making the same excuses for New Zealand yeah right

 

[_Ed_]

Styris got a few boundaries (nice one Jimmy)

Believe it or not, our guys are actually capable of batting quite well and *gasp* scoring boundaries through their own batting ability.

 

[Swervy]

England's mini-collapse didn't cost them that many runs in the end.

Cannot agree with that, Collingwood and KP were going along very nicely. Those two players werent out because of the pitch, Collingwood was out to a bit of outstanding keeping IMO, and KP was out to a stupid shot. Flintoff was 'slow balled' out and his slightly dodgy technique was exposed.
I think those quick wickets cost England cost England 40 to 60 runs, the late innings acceleration would have happened much earlier than it did.

 

[Richard]

dear oh dear. Scaly hasn't liked NZ for awhile now.

Amazes me how these Kiwis think they're alone in their team being disliked.

 

[Richard]

Believe it or not, our guys are actually capable of batting quite well and *gasp* scoring boundaries through their own batting ability.

Nope. Completely impossible. Don't be so utterly ridiculous. How could you possibly suggest such a thing?

 

[JASON]

Great win by NZ, inspired by the England Middle order collapse and NZ middle showing great guts , in particular Styris/Oram.

Bond brilliant as usual.

Dalrymple's continued selection in this England team is very very questionable .

 

[nibbs]

Kenya scent blood, english blood, that is

 

[The Big Cheese]

Amazes me how these Kiwis think they're alone in their team being disliked.

Amazes me how these poms think Kiwis think they're alone in their team being disliked.

 

[Evermind]

- Is it me or does Anderson have a weird action? He whips his head down so low at the point of delivery that he's not even looking where he's bowling. It's kinda strange to watch. Maybe that's the reason for his lack of accuracy?

- Plunkett looks like he could be developed into a genuine all-rounder. They should take that chance and go with it - train his batting. His bowling needs some accuracy, but he could end up as a very useful all-rounder for England in the future.

As for K Pietersen, I just keep imagining him in the SA batting line-up. Man that one could give Australia a thumping.

 

[Fiery]

- Is it me or does Anderson have a weird action? He whips his head down so low at the point of delivery that he's not even looking where he's bowling. It's kinda strange to watch. Maybe that's the reason for his lack of accuracy?

- Plunkett looks like he could be developed into a genuine all-rounder. They should take that chance and go with it - train his batting. His bowling needs some accuracy, but he could end up as a very useful all-rounder for England in the future.

As for K Pietersen, I just keep imagining him in the SA batting line-up. Man that one could give Australia a thumping.

meh...Anderson and Plunkett are both very ordinary