I was actually thinking about this when making my post about how I probably wouldn't like four day Tests between evenly matched teams much more than fifty over cricket, factoring in that a lot of what I don't like about fifty over cricket is actually caused by the selectors and culture around JAMODIs rather than the format itself.
Me too actually. I prefer par scores to be around 270, with the occasional 300 and occasional 240 being good enough.
Was pretty similar to last night's JAMODI tbh.
I don't think NZ are in the same class as any of Eng, Aus or Ind. They played a couple of great knockout games in the World Cup which is a good sign but tbh they were very lucky to be in the top 4 in the first place. Definitely weren't one of the best teams in the group stages.
I think they had the 4th best Group stage. Don't think they were that lucky to make it there. SL, SA, WI, Ban and Afgh were largely junk. NZ were better than Pakistan.
Pretty much what I'm saying. They lost almost every group game against quality opposition, and iirc by quite a bit. 4th best is about right, they definitely didn't look top 2. I remember considering them lucky to make the top 4 on points but I can't remember exactly why . . . there might have been a washout in their favour or something idk
Depends on how you look at it, Pakistan started poorly and kept getting better. It was really one game against wi that cost them, if they'd lost that just badly instead of atrociously, they'd have qualified. And I don't think anyone would said NZ were particularly unlucky, they had a very jammy run.
No arguments here regarding the final. I'm just talking about group stages when I say NZ were lucky.
probably the washout against india helped
