15th Match - South Africa v West Indies

[Heboric]

Do sa need to win every game from here on out to qualify now assuming this does get washed out?

Yep

Im to frustrated to try figure out if there can be a Pakistan 1992 scenario

 

[StephenZA]

Do sa need to win every game from here on out to qualify now assuming this does get washed out?

We needed to win this game and every other game to maintain control of our chances ... now we relying on others to **** up.

 

[StephenZA]

So what SA got from this game is a couple more dents into Amla's and Markram's confidence....fantastic.

 

[Heboric]

We needed to win this game and every other game to maintain control of our chances ... now we relying on others to **** up.

I think it should be more to 'rely on others not to **** up'. Especially New Zealands games against Aus, England and India

 

[CricAddict]

As of now, while nz leads with 3 wins, rain is at 2nd position with 2 wins so far. Let us see if it tops the league.

 

[Niall]

Why make it a country vs country thing? I've actually made a ton of posts already saying that Kohli's wc record is low key meh.

Doesn't change what I said about Amla though.

Kohli gets a pass as he has done it in world cup t20 events. People may sneer, but winning a t20 world cup for many would be one of their highlights of their career.

 

[smash84]

Kohli gets a pass as he has done it in world cup t20 events. People may sneer, but winning a t20 world cup for many would be one of their highlights of their career.

yes, but we're talking ODIs here. T20 is a separate format.

You might as well bring in test cricket too if you go down that route.

 

[Burgey]

It is just that people only really care about WC, so performances outside become irrelevant in many minds. If you are unfortunate to play well between WC's then you are considered less good and if you did well during WC's you are better. Regardless of your skills or ability as a cricketer or brilliant other innings you've played in your life.

As a South African I always think of Klusener, who was a great player, but his aura is beyond what he is in my mind because watching his 150+ games he played, I am aware that the WC performance in 9 odd games was by far the best he ever played for SA. But that is what most people remember about him more than anything.

This is right and it’s exactly as it should be.

 

[MrPrez]

Why make it a country vs country thing? I've actually made a ton of posts already saying that Kohli's wc record is low key meh.

Doesn't change what I said about Amla though.

It's not a country vs country thing.

My point is Kohli is a true ODI ATG, and imo probably the best ODI batsman of all time, in spite of the fact that he doesn't have a great WC record. It's silly to apply different methods of judgement to different batsmen.

 

[ankitj]

It is just that people only really care about WC, so performances outside become irrelevant in many minds. If you are unfortunate to play well between WC's then you are considered less good and if you did well during WC's you are better. Regardless of your skills or ability as a cricketer or brilliant other innings you've played in your life.

As a South African I always think of Klusener, who was a great player, but his aura is beyond what he is in my mind because watching his 150+ games he played, I am aware that the WC performance in 9 odd games was by far the best he ever played for SA. But that is what most people remember about him more than anything.

Agree with you. There is too much dick waving on this forum about world cup records. As if other ODIs are a different sport altogether.

 

[stephen]

Agree with you. There is too much dick waving on this forum about world cup records. As if other ODIs are a different sport altogether.

Well in the last few years they might as well have been. Few sides field full strength teams between world cups outside the champions trophy any more - particularly fast bowlers.

 

[stephen]

And the difference between the top bowlers and the next tier down is immense. Look at the drop off in quality between Pat Cummins and Nathan Coulter-Nile for example. Or the entire West Indies team, who basically haven't played together before this tournament.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah I do think the fact that the bowling attacks in particular are much better in the World Cups of modern cricket make it a more interesting idea, but I'm still on the "people put too much emphasis on a few games" side of the debate.

Cricket is far too prone to what is effectively output variance for me to ever really want to exclude some games entirely. Sure, give some of them more weight than others, but with cricket performances being so inherently inconsistent and the World Cup being such a rare event, I think you really set yourself up to ignore a bunch of useful information by basically taking the Burgey meme position on them. We all know that good players have bad games and that bad players have good games; it's even true that good players have bad players have good months. Unlucky players have their bad months when everyone is watching, and lucky players have their good months then. It's also true that players who succumb to pressure (and in modern times, batsmen who are only good against second string bowling attacks) have bad months when everyone is watching, but it's hard to differentiate between unlucky players and **** ****s without the broader context the hundreds of JAMODIs played give us. The World Cup is just too short for me to see it as such a be all and end all - certainly the games count more, but not infinitely so.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah I do think the fact that the bowling attacks in particular are much better in the World Cups of modern cricket make it a more interesting idea, but I'm still on the "people put too much emphasis on a few games" side of the debate.

Cricket is far too prone to what is effectively output variance for me to ever really want to exclude some games entirely. Sure, give some of them more weight than others, but with cricket performances being so inherently inconsistent and the World Cup being such a rare event, I think you really set yourself up to ignore a bunch of useful information by basically taking the Burgey meme position on them. We all know that good players have bad games and that bad players have good games; it's even true that good players have bad players have good months. Unlucky players have their bad months when everyone is watching, and lucky players have their good months then. It's also true that players who succumb to pressure (and in modern times, batsmen who are only good against second string bowling attacks) have bad months when everyone is watching, but it's hard to differentiate between unlucky players and **** ****s without the broader context the hundreds of JAMODIs played give us. The World Cup is just too short for me to see it as such a be all and end all - certainly the games count more, but not infinitely so.

World cup matches aren't a small sample. Burgey's posts are moronic because a) he's burgey and b) he only considers performances in world cup finals worth anything. Most players play 2-3 world cups atleast and they get a decent number of matches to put up some decent numbers. World cup finals/knockouts is where it gets to memeable sample size territory because most can only play a handful their entire careers.


Your entire point is also invalid because the majority of the best players actually do raise their game and put up better numbers in the world cup than in jamodis. The very best seem to avoid having these bad months during the world cup when it counts.

 

[Prince EWS]

World cup matches aren't a small sample.

I think even JAMODIs are a small sample when it comes to actually differentiating the best players so I humbly disagree, tbh.

 

[vcs]

Yeah, the "only knockouts count" thing is truly absurd (and even there, certain matches are conveniently ignored as weak opposition/not a real pressure situation etc.)

 

[cnerd123]

The very best seem to avoid having these bad months during the world cup when it counts.

Yea this I agree with. While I see PEW's POV, the WC doesn't randomly spring up on people. Everyone knows when it's coming and where it is. The best cricketers use the time leading up to it to prepare, and to ensure they peak mentally and physically during it. The best cricketer's understand the ins and outs of their game, both technically and psychologically, and that's why they can dominate and rise up to the occasion. Every now and then you get a mediocre player hit a purple patch during the WC, sure, but the greats tend to stick around for multiple WCs and will churn out good performances across them.

I would just expand WCs to include other major ODI tournaments - Champions Trophy, Asia Cup, etc. Bilateral and random Tri-Series don't mean much anymore, but if you go back to the 90s and earlier then I would place quite a bit emphasis on some of them too. Writing off all non-WC games is wrong for me.

 

[ankitj]

I see OS and PEWS are disagreeing with each other but I somewhat agree with both. World cups are important mainly because that's when teams field full strength sides these days, and not because #pressure in my books. But at the same time I wouldn't write off other ODIs completely. Teams not fielding full strength sides for non world cup, non ICC CT ODIs started roughly around start of IPL (I could have said advent of t20s but blaming IPL for all bad things is something I like). Prior to that teams took ODIs seriously. As I have said previously, in India-Pakistan tours of mid 2000s I considered it an even result if we lost the test series and won the ODI series which happened in 2006. In retrospect I can't justify treating them at same level even if ODIs were played with intensity but that was outlook of most fans up until that time.

 

[vcs]

Would be interesting to see if there are any examples of players who vastly outperformed their career averages/reputations in World Cups. Shaun Tait?

 

[Howe_zat]

Would be interesting to see if there are any examples of players who vastly outperformed their career averages/reputations in World Cups. Shaun Tait?

Andy Bichel, only played at the 2003 world cup:

117 runs for once out, strike rate 84; 16 wickets at 12, economy 3.45

Rest of career:

300 runs at 16, 62 wickets at 36.25