1st Semi Final - New Zealand v South Africa (24th March)

[G.I.Joe]

On that subject, Corey Anderson hung around for ages to see if the ball hit the spidercam wire. What would have happened if it did? Dead ball and not out, or what?

I thought that was such a stupid rule if true. Only cricket could over-rule a great catch because the ball happened to scrape past a wire or a bird on it's way back from the stratosphere.

Similarly with all the checking for the foot touching the rope while saving a four. Just focus on whether the ball stayed in the field instead, FFS.

The ICC technical committee needs to be locked up in a room and simplify these convoluted rules. But nah, they'd rather keep reducing the number of men outside the circle and muck around with the powerplay overs.

 

[NickDB]

yo guys this is kind of a pointless question really but had SA won today would AB have played the final? cos IIRC he was fined for slow over rate against India and I'm pretty sure SA were behind the over rate today as well so he may have had to sit out the final had they won today?

lay it in me if this is a stupid question, and sorry to the other SA fans for entertaining this possibility just after the loss.

No he wouldn't of. Was debating this at work during the game. He would of sat out the final.

 

[ankitj]

Let me put it this way:

What is the best that SA could've got in 50 overs at the time of interruption? I say 350
Did SA do the best they could after resumption of the game in 43 overs? I say yes
Did 297 in 43 correspond to 350 in 50 overs? I don't think so.

Hence, I think SA were a bit hard done. Even the best that they could do after the game was reduced could not correspond to the best they could have in 50 overs.

 

[Swingpanzee]

No he wouldn't of. He would of sat out the final.

The ****? Contradiction

 

[Days of Grace]

Just been listning to radiosport for a few hours.
When Ronchi holed out i was down. When Elliot hit the six I let out a primal scream.

I also listened back to Radiosport.

For once the TV commentary for the final overs was so much better. The radio commentary with a British guy and Coney was so understated and failed to capture the moment. Needed Wads on at the end of the game.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Let me put it this way:

What is the best that SA could've got in 50 overs at the time of interruption? I say 350
Did SA do the best they could after resumption of the game in 43 overs? I say yes
Did 297 in 43 correspond to 350 in 50 overs? I don't think so.

Hence, I think SA were a bit hard done. Even the best that they could do after the game was reduced could not correspond to the best they could have in 50 overs.

D/L is a par score based on what's happened, not the best the team batting could have done.

 

[Spark]

Let me put it this way:

What is the best that SA could've got in 50 overs at the time of interruption? I say 350
Did SA do the best they could after resumption of the game in 43 overs? I say yes
Did 297 in 43 correspond to 350 in 50 overs? I don't think so.

Hence, I think SA were a bit hard done. Even the best that they could do after the game was reduced could not correspond to the best they could have in 50 overs.

Why on earth would you want a rain calculation to correspond to the best a team can do? You're baking an enormous advantage to the batting team in that case.

 

[anil1405]

So many people have been saying Proteas fielding let them down in this game and was the reason why they probably lost. I want to know opinion of others in this forum as my POV is different from people who share this view.

Although RSA missed two crucial chances in a) Behardien drop and b) AB run out, they were exceptional throughout the innings. I believe they easily saved 20-30 runs on a small ground and thats one reason why the game went so close in the first place. I also disagree that deKock missed Elliott's run out coz if one sees the replays again Elliott pretty much would've made his ground even if deKock collected the ball and dismantled the bails. Either way I don't believe fielding cost Proteas the game.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I'd think that Aussie or India will be ****ting themselves after watching this. They've just seen what New Zealand can do. This game was about as good as you can get to prep you for a final.

I reckon South Africa in the final, given they'd have won a tight contest in that hypothetical scenario, would have been a more worrying prospect because SA have often had the quality to win the World Cup, they just haven't had the mentality. Beating Sri Lanka was a step in the right direction but only one step because it wasn't a contest. Winning a tight game or coming back from behind would have given them a lot of belief.

India and Australia will feel like they have better players than New Zealand. Also New Zealand don't have home advantage any more in the final and will be less used to the conditions.

 

[Spark]

jdandsfja;jfkafsdl;jga

OMMMMMMMMMMMMMMGishfuhs8ug8ysgy8g

gjnvfjkfv;rmiojgklgvr'lgr'grv',',mcrenmovn

kjnsfuibpsiufbaebufpibfnliusfbhqehb98YW08QWT0T274gb2p4b4hbQ

YEAHDFHDFHDDF

dfGDDHEEWE!!!!!!%^%$%$%$

1!!!!!!!!!!

GRAUNT!

Better than Kane's six OMFG NZ Elliott DANasdfbasijkdmlllllllldaskm

I love cricket I could **** it I wanna jerk off to it what a match :')

**** YES **** YESSSSA WOOIOOOOOoogdXghbbv

adfn asuihri jpcfreo,kwwwsgseh;goi;esh43

posts of the thread right here

 

[Contra]

What a game, seriously well played by NZ, Saffas bowling just not penetrating enough, still can't understand Philander over Abott, feel for AB though.

 

[Niall]

I reckon South Africa in the final, given they'd have won a tight contest in that hypothetical scenario, would have been a more worrying prospect because SA have often had the quality to win the World Cup,

.

If AB would have been suspended for the final which a poster has alluded to then Australia and India would have been cheering on the South Africans hugely today. The possible replacements for Ab, Behardien or Parnell? I'l be kind and say its a slight drop in quality.

 

[ankitj]

Why on earth would you want a rain calculation to correspond to the best a team can do? You're baking an enormous advantage to the batting team in that case.

Becuase arguably the team did do the best after resumption of the game in remaining 5 overs. The extra 16 runs added were arguably not enough given how SA played in remaining 5 overs. Just a way to think about it. Frankly, I'm perfectly happy that the better team over the whole tournament advanced

 

[Niall]

What a game, seriously well played by NZ, Saffas bowling just not penetrating enough, still can't understand Philander over Abott, feel for AB though.

Its an absolute mystery isn't it?

Its why the role of the selector is so crucial, it was a master stroke to get Elliot back in the side, so all the credit in the world to them for that.

However as impressive as a move that was, dropping Abbot for Philander was astonishingly bad.

I really hope everyone involved gets grilled over it, their was no logic whatsoever to it. It was just as big as mistake as any of the drops in the field for me.

 

[weldone]

Let me put it this way:

What is the best that SA could've got in 50 overs at the time of interruption? I say 350
Did SA do the best they could after resumption of the game in 43 overs? I say yes
Did 297 in 43 correspond to 350 in 50 overs? I don't think so.

Hence, I think SA were a bit hard done. Even the best that they could do after the game was reduced could not correspond to the best they could have in 50 overs.

D/L is a par score based on what's happened, not the best the team batting could have done.

I have to disagree with Ankit here.

His logic is wrong simply because doing your best in 39-43 is not the same as doing your best in 39-50. The former is easier than the latter.

 

[weldone]

Becuase arguably the team did do the best after resumption of the game in remaining 5 overs. The extra 16 runs added were arguably not enough given how SA played in remaining 5 overs. Just a way to think about it. Frankly, I'm perfectly happy that the better team over the whole tournament advanced

I can't believe you're using this logic.

 

[OverratedSanity]

SA selectors did a SL today. These random changes to the XI completely baffle me. What happened to keeping a winning combination, especially retaining players WHO ARE DOING WELL?!?? So stupid.

 

[Furball]

Becuase arguably the team did do the best after resumption of the game in remaining 5 overs. The extra 16 runs added were arguably not enough given how SA played in remaining 5 overs. Just a way to think about it. Frankly, I'm perfectly happy that the better team over the whole tournament advanced

But they played that way because they knew they only had 5 overs left.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Man I still feel so ****ing gutted for SA. No one mentioning Tahir either... what a hero. Cops loads of **** from us but bowled so damn well all tournament.

 

[anil1405]

If people still don't see him as a very good ODI spinner then am sure nothing will change their opinion.