World Cup T20 (Data at a glance)

[chris.hinton]

Batsman

Rahmanullah Gurbaz (Afghanistan) 280 @35.12 Strike Rate: 124.33
Rohit Sharma (India) 257 @36.71 Strike Rate: 156.70
Travis Head (Australia) 255 @42.50 Strike Rate: 158.38
Quinton de Kock (South Africa) 243@27 Strike Rate: 140.46
Ibrahim Zadran (Afghanistan) 231@28.87 Strike Rate: 107.44


Bowling

Fazal Haque (Afghanistan) 17@9.41
Arusdeep Singh (India) 17 @12.64
Jasprit Bumrah (India) 15 @8.26
Anrich Nortje (South Africa) 15 @13.40
Rashid Khan (Afghanistan) 14 @12.78

Fielding

Rishabh Pant (India) (13 Catches, 1 Stumping)
Quinton de Kock (South Africa) (6 Catches, 2 Stumpings)
Liton Das (Bangladesh) (4 Catches, 4 Stumpings)
Aiden Markram (South Africa) (8 Catches)
Nicholas Pooran (West Indies) (7 Catches)


Others

3 Hatricks

2 - Pat Cummins (Australia) vs Bangladesh & Afghanistan
1 - Chris Jordan (England) vs United States of America

Highest Score

218-5: West Indies vs Afghanistan

Lowest Score

39: Uganda vs West Indies

Biggest Victory

134 Runs: West Indies vs Uganda

Lowest Victory

1 Run: South Africa vs Nepal

Best Partnership

Opening Partnership stand of 154 from Afghanistan's duo Ibrahim Zadran & Rahmanullah Gurbaz vs Uganda

 

[Sunil1z]

Team of the tournament

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

I'd go:

Rohit
Gurbaz+
Head
SKY
Chase
Pandya
Woakes*
Russell
Rashid Khan
Nortje
Bumrah

 

[Molehill]

Team of the tournament View attachment 40711

6 Indians and 0 S Africans is kind of funny!!

Klaasen for SKY for starters, whilst Axar is only useful on certain pitches (eg semi final).

 

[Sunil1z]

6 Indians and 0 S Africans is kind of funny!!

Klaasen for SKY for starters, whilst Axar is only useful on certain pitches (eg semi final).

You didn’t watch his performance vs Aus on flat pitch,did you ?

 

[Molehill]

You didn’t watch his performance vs Aus on flat pitch,did you ?

Took me 10 seconds to find a player with both more wickets and runs at a better average and SR (Russell).

Rohit probably only sneaks in ahead of Head (played one less game) so he can be skipper.

 

[Sunil1z]

Took me 10 seconds to find a player with both more wickets and runs at a better average and SR (Russell).

Rohit probably only sneaks in ahead of Head (played one less game) so he can be skipper.

While Russel is certainly a better T20 player than Axar , I believe most of these ICC Teams of the tournament consists mainly of player who also performed in knockouts. I have noticed these things many times

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Team of the tournament View attachment 40711

I hope they don't assign the wicketkeeping role to Pooran in this team.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

6 Indians and 0 S Africans is kind of funny!!

Klaasen for SKY for starters, whilst Axar is only useful on certain pitches (eg semi final).

Klaasen sucked for most of the tournament except the final. SKy placed crucial knocks vs USA, Afg, Aus, England. Plus took the most important catch in the history of the tournament

 

[Molehill]

Klaasen sucked for most of the tournament except the final. SKy placed crucial knocks vs USA, Afg, Aus, England. Plus took the most important catch in the history of the tournament

He took the best catch in the final over of a tournament, let's not go overboard here. Pant catching Klaasen was more important in the context of this game.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

He took the best catch in the final over of a tournament, let's not go overboard here. Pant catching Klaasen was more important in the context of this game.

That’s not my primary point. SKY played many important knocks throughout the tourney(Afg, USA, Eng, Aus). Klaasen comparatively did lesser.

 

[Molehill]

That’s not my primary point. SKY played many important knocks throughout the tourney(Afg, USA, Eng, Aus). Klaasen comparatively did lesser.

I think you can argue it either way, but for the ICC to pick 6 players from one team and completely ignore the other finalist (who were unbeaten up to that point) is bizarre. If SA had gone on to win, what would the make up of the team have been? There wasn't a whole lot between QdK, Klaasen, Rabada, Nortje, Shamzi and their Indian counterparts.

 

[sledger]

Chokers

South Africa

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

I think you can argue it either way, but for the ICC to pick 6 players from one team and completely ignore the other finalist (who were unbeaten up to that point) is bizarre. If SA had gone on to win, what would the make up of the team have been? There wasn't a whole lot between QdK, Klaasen, Rabada, Nortje, Shamzi and their Indian counterparts.

Nope. For starters Bumrah was much better than his SA counterparts. Same for Hardik and Rohit. And even SKY played many crucial knocks vs tough oppositions. I don’t think any of the SA batters were close to Rohit. QDK is unlucky but Rohit and Gurbaz were just better, and you can’t make him replace SKY due to the batting positions. Probably Nortje would replace Arshdeep in my XI but that’s it. Klaasen overall wasn’t that good before the final, and SKY had scored against strong opponents(Klaasen’s knocks prior weren’t that comparable and they came against weak oppositions). If Klaasen won SA that final I’d happily take him in the 11. Axar and Shamsi’s bowling is comparable but Axar’s batting gives him an advantage

 

[Molehill]

Nope. And the other finalist struggled against minnows. For starts Bumrah and Arshdeep were much better than their SA counterparts. Same for Hardik and Rohit. And even SKY played many crucial knocks vs tough oppositions.

Have you even looked at the tournament stats?

Nortje took the same amount of wickets as Bumrah, Rabada was 4 less than Arshdeep but produced one of the key overs of the tournament in beating England (and thus avoiding a semi with India on THAT pitch).

QdK 14 runs less than Rohit, Klaasen 9 runs less than Sky. There's really very little between them.

No issue on Hardik by the way, absolutely should be in there.

The 'other finalist' beat England, WI, Afghanistan, SL, Bang........they didn't exactly play many minnows.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Have you even looked at the tournament stats?

Nortje took the same amount of wickets as Bumrah, Rabada was 4 less than Arshdeep but produced one of the key overs of the tournament in beating England (and thus avoiding a semi with India on THAT pitch).

QdK 14 runs less than Rohit, Klaasen 9 runs less than Sky. There's really very little between them.

No issue on Hardik by the way, absolutely should be in there.

The 'other finalist' beat England, WI, Afghanistan, SL, Bang........they didn't exactly play many minnows.

I edited my post. And I said I would include Nortje instead of Arshdeep. Bumrah was far ahead tho. His economy was by a mile the best and rate of wicket taking near the best, while having performed in all clutch situations for India.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

And I said QDK was unlucky but Rohit was somewhat better due to his knock in the SF, vs Australia etc

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

And I also said if Klaasen won them the final I would take him over SKY

 

[Molehill]

I edited my post. And I said I would include Nortje instead of Arshdeep. Bumrah was far ahead tho. His economy was by a mile the best and rate of wicket taking near the best, while having performed in all clutch situations for India.

Yeah, obviously not questioning Bumrah, he's the first name on the sheet.

I think my main point is that the ICC could've tried a little bit harder to produce a more rounded team from all those who played at the tournament. Harry Brook is another with a claim to a middle order spot for example. He only had 4 innings, but an average of 73 and SR 158 is the best of any middle order batter (well ahead of Sky and Klaasen). You can argue that they look a bit harder at knockout matches, but to then have 3 Afghans in there who were useless in the semi final kind of knocks that theory.

Just lazy ICC crap as usual.

 

[StephenZA]

Chokers

South Africa

Getting to the final I hoped it would break the nonsense.... unfortunately its just made it worse.