• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The FINAL- South Africa vs India (D), Kensington Oval, Barbados-- June 29th

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
England and Australia were strong favourites for this title.

India were around 3rd/4th best side and honestly were not expected to go far in this tournament.

Because the team has clear weaknesses. Plus a couple of poor selections on top of that making matters worse.
 

Red_Ink_Squid

Global Moderator
England and Australia were strong favourites for this title.

India were around 3rd/4th best side and honestly were not expected to go far in this tournament.

Because the team has clear weaknesses. Plus a couple of poor selections on top of that making matters worse.
India were literal favourites, no? Top ranked side in the format coming in.
 

Molehill

Cricketer Of The Year
India were the faves and tbh look an awesome side. Batting and bowling are top draw.
We've definitely ended up with the 2 best bowling attacks in the final. Rabada has been superb with Nortje and Shamzi not far behind. If any attack can put the Indian batsmen under pressure, it's this one.

The concern would be whether the SA batting can hold up against Bumrah and co.....
 

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
According to who?

Bookies odds coming into the tournament had India as clear favourites. Then Aussies 2nd, England 3rd, SA 4th.
Bookies favourite doesn't necessarily mean actual favourite.

If a lot of money is placed on a team, then the bookies have to compensate for that and shorten their odds for that team

England football team were always one of the strong favourites according to odds but in actuality they were far behind. That was solely down to the amount of money placed on them. Same **** happens with India. A lot of money gets put on them thesedays so they'll always be bookies favourites but reality could be different.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Bookies favourite doesn't necessarily mean actual favourite.

If a lot of money is placed on a team, then the bookies have to compensate for that and shorten their odds for that team

England football team were always one of the strong favourites according to odds but in actuality they were far behind. That was solely down to the amount of money placed on them. Same **** happens with India. A lot of money gets put on them thesedays so they'll always be bookies favourites but reality could be different.
You must be very rich.
 

Molehill

Cricketer Of The Year
Bookies favourite doesn't necessarily mean actual favourite.

If a lot of money is placed on a team, then the bookies have to compensate for that and shorten their odds for that team

England football team were always one of the strong favourites according to odds but in actuality they were far behind. That was solely down to the amount of money placed on them. Same **** happens with India. A lot of money gets put on them thesedays so they'll always be bookies favourites but reality could be different.
Yeah, it does!!

So what you're saying is that your opinion holds more sway than those actually willing to put money behind their assertions.

England are the favourites for the Euros in England, and they're not even the biggest liabilities the bookmakers have. They are one of the Top 4 teams in Europe and have the easiest draw through. Yeah, they're playing crap, but only a very brave (and probably soon to be bankrupt if that's how he works) bookie would risk putting them out to where their actual form so far would suggest they should be.
 

Top