Ireland's chances

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Both were crazy predictions. One of those crazy things just happened to happen.

Wasn't a crazy prediction really. Ireland showed before the game that they could bowl, and Pakistan have shown for years that they can implode. Then with people like Hafeez, Nazir and Younis making up the top order, Pakistan was just asking to be upset. Factor in a relatively lively pitch and you've got a game on your hands.

I'd say it would be a crazy prediction that Ireland would beat Australia or Sri Lanka (oddly enough) but any other team and I think it's fair game.

 

[Richard]

I can bowl, too. Doesn't mean I'm in-line to upset Pakistan.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I can bowl, too. Doesn't mean I'm in-line to upset Pakistan.

Stupidest post.

 

[Richard]

I know, it was kinda meant to be. I like the "stupidest", too.

You clearly know what I mean, though - Ireland's bowlers are not first-rate, they're less than many bowlers in English domestic cricket (of which, of course, they are of times a part). Just because Pakistan are volatile doesn't mean anyone could really expect them to sink that low.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I know, it was kinda meant to be. I like the "stupidest", too.

You clearly know what I mean, though - Ireland's bowlers are not first-rate, they're less than many bowlers in English domestic cricket (of which, of course, they are of times a part). Just because Pakistan are volatile doesn't mean anyone could really expect them to sink that low.

I'm never confident when West Indies plays any minnow side, or Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. And the West Indies is about as volatile as Pakistan. ODI cricket embraces the upset.

Added to that, I'd take one or two of the Irish bowlers long before I'd pick Saj Mahmood or Plunkett.

 

[Richard]

In which case, you wonder why Durham and Lancs haven't signed said bowlers?

I too would, incidentally - I don't think either are county-standard bowlers, and the likes of Boyd Rankin are possibles to break into county sides in the next couple of years.

You may never be confident, and understandibly so, but perhaps you should be. It really does take something to lose to teams of such ilk. And it's always going to be a very, very rare thing. Mostly, obviously, it doesn't matter, because such games are tour-games, practice games, etc. But in a tournament, it does - sadly.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You may never be confident, and understandibly so, but perhaps you should be. It really does take something to lose to teams of such ilk. And it's always going to be a very, very rare thing. Mostly, obviously, it doesn't matter, because such games are tour-games, practice games, etc. But in a tournament, it does - sadly.

But there have been a sufficient number of upsets over the years to justify consideration for the possibility of such by the better minnow sides. This is in ODI cricket, of course. In Test cricket there's very little room for an upset involving teams so vastly apart in ability and experience.

 

[Richard]

Is that true, though? Or is it just that there are far more ODIs played than Tests?

In any case, substandard sides in Test cricket are exceptionally rare - since New Zealand got themselves up to standard in the late 50s \ early 60s there was nothing for ages - then we had Bangladesh (who still haven't beaten a Test-class team, even while coming close twice) and since the end of 2002 Zimbabwe, who went the opposite way to most and became substandard having been pretty good for a time.

I think if you pitted Ireland, Scotland, Yorkshire, Sussex, WA, etc. against Test-class teams as often as Kenya, Ireland, etc. play the ODI-standard teams in ODIs, there'd probably be a few more upsets. Not as many, obviously, because the longer game makes it easier for the better side to win, but more than there are currently the chance to be.

 

[Prince EWS]

Seriously, I would have expected Richard to hammer my prediction before the match.

But now that Ireland have already won, I really thought he'd lay off it. I can't believe he's still making it to be a poor one.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Seriously, I would have expected Richard to hammer my prediction before the match.

But now that Ireland have already won, I really thought he'd lay off it. I can't believe he's still making it to be a poor one.

He's like a dog with a bone, in all honesty. He's being fairly mean-spirited about the Micks' win tho. I'd have thought most fans would be pleased for them.

Hope you had a few quid (or dollars) on it.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well I had $20 on Pakistan missing the 8 - which has happened.
I also had $25 on Ireland making the 8, which will happen unless Zimbabwe continue Pakistan's misery.

Both options were actually paying more than the "Ireland to beat Pakistan" option for whatever strange reasons.

 

[Richard]

As I say - I don't like to bias my views with hindsight.

Delighted you won the dosh, of course - good on you - but from a purely cricketing POV I said to back Ireland against Pakistan was pretty far-fetched and I still think such a thing. If you were to replay the match tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after, and the day after, etc. I'd still back Pakistan on every single occasion.

 

[Pup Clarke]

If you were to replay the match tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after, and the day after, etc. I'd still back Pakistan on every single occasion.

Talk about a pointless statement.Are matches ever replayed?....That's the beauty of sport's tournaments.They allow for upset's to happen on one particular day.Who cares whether Pakistan would win all the gamesif they played 364 more games in that year?.Why focus on the negative of an upset?

 

[Richard]

Equally, you could say: why focus on the positive of one?

I'm not really sure I'm doing either, anyway, TBH. I'm pointing-out that to predict an Ireland win against Pakistan is not neccessarily the correct prediction just because, on the occasion it happened to be done here, it was Nostradamusesque.

 

[Kweek]

Well I had $20 on Pakistan missing the 8 - which has happened.
I also had $25 on Ireland making the 8, which will happen unless Zimbabwe continue Pakistan's misery.

Both options were actually paying more than the "Ireland to beat Pakistan" option for whatever strange reasons.

which gave you how much profit ?

 

[Pup Clarke]

It could be a correct prediction if you realised that Pakistan confidence was low,players were not in form and Ireland were pumped after there tie with Zimbabwe with the majority of the crowd right behind him.This is what influences people IMO to make a prediction not based on rankings,stats or by past results but on form,morale and form.This is the main reason IMO that Ireland won that match.

 

[Richard]

which gave you how much profit ?

Well he won $675.

 

[Richard]

It could be a correct prediction if you realised that Pakistan confidence was low,players were not in form and Ireland were pumped after there tie with Zimbabwe with the majority of the crowd right behind him.This is what influences people IMO to make a prediction not based on rankings,stats or by past results but on form,morale and form.This is the main reason IMO that Ireland won that match.

Infinately more often than not such things will be of irrelevance when such a large class difference comes to play.

Just so happened that Pakistan didn't exhibit their class on this occasion.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Just so happened that Pakistan didn't exhibit their class on this occasion.

Class is the likes of Hafeez,Sami and Kaneria is it?.TBH I'd rather have the likes of Bray,Langford-Smith and Rankin compared to these three players.

 

[Richard]

That's nonsense. The Pakistan players you name may be bad (and in case you noticed they're also around guys like Shoaib Malik, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Mohammad Yousuf and Umar Gul, who are all class) but to suggest said Ireland players are better is little short of pure madness. Check the comparison of their records (all bar Hafeez have played) in English domestic cricket.