• 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.

1st Quarter Final - South Africa v Sri Lanka (18th March)

Who will win this match?


  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think the fact the last 2 pages of this much anticipated clash is riddled with "choking" discussion speaks volumes.

But anyway, back to the clash itself...the weather outlook looks good.

Are we all thinking the skipper winning the toss will bat?
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
You're looking at the 96 game through a modern lense. Back in the mid-90's chasing anything over a run a ball was difficult. You could equally look at WI's first innings were they only got 50 off their last 10 overs.

And as for 2007, again SA just weren't that good and they got smashed by a considereably superior side. The same thing happened to every other team that played Australia in that World Cup, (including South Africa in the 1st round) so I don't see why South Africa were the only team to have choked.
Perhaps i'm being a bit harsh on 96. But you're never going to convince me that the batting side are not favourited with 78 runs needed at a run a ball with 7 ****ing wickets left.

On 2007, it was all about the manner of the dismissals of Kallis, Prince and Smith. Watch those and tell me that SA had their heads screwed on right.
 

viriya

International Captain
What I meant was, Steyn~=Malinga, Morkel~=Kulasekara, Philander>Chameera (but net effect on match is lesser). So the crucial overs that opposition targets are the other 20 overs. Here,
Tahir>Prasanna instead of Tahir=Herath. But Matthews+Thissara>>>De Villiers+Duminy. So net net it balances out on paper.
Except Morkel > Kula, Philander >>>>>>>>> Chameera, Tahir >>>>>>>>> Prasanna
 

smash84

The Tiger King
You're looking at the 96 game through a modern lense. Back in the mid-90's chasing anything over a run a ball was difficult. You could equally look at WI's first innings were they only got 50 off their last 10 overs.

And as for 2007, again SA just weren't that good and they got smashed by a considereably superior side. The same thing happened to every other team that played Australia in that World Cup, (including South Africa in the 1st round) so I don't see why South Africa were the only team to have choked.
This is crazy. In the mid 1990s nobody in their right mind would want to be chasing a run a ball for more than 6 to 7 overs. That too against the likes of Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Athurton, Adams and Harper. That is no mean attack and most teams would have folded.
 

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
I don't even know if 2011 was a choke - I think it was just a poorly selected side with a really long tail. Prior to the game I thought NZ could win simply bcos South Africa picked too many bowlers and not enough batsmen. Look at the batting lineup 7-11 from the semi.

J Botha
RJ Peterson
DW Steyn
M Morkel
Imran Tahir

When you have Kallis in your top order and good for 10 overs and AB keeping there is no reason to have such poor batting at 7 and 8 esp when you've got two bunnies at 10/11

Incidentally, NZ's 7-11 was very good with the bat (better than the 2015 edition)
N McCullum
Oram
Vettori
Luke Woodcock
Southee
 
Last edited:

Flem274*

123/5
So today I've learnt CW chokes on finalising SA chokes because we're busy differentiaying chokes from other words and wondering if the opposition playing well or being straight out better counts as an SA choke.

Who even cares though because we all know Sangakkara will srnd SA home by himself tonight. Bet the game goes down the ****ter for SA as soon as I turn on the telly (730 pm approx ftr)
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
This is crazy. In the mid 1990s nobody in their right mind would want to be chasing a run a ball for more than 6 to 7 overs. That too against the likes of Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Athurton, Adams and Harper. That is no mean attack and most teams would have folded.
Most teams would have folded with 7 wickets left? Ok.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
Most teams would have folded with 7 wickets left? Ok.
Pakistan would have.

The pitch wasn't so easy to bat on IIRC, I was at the match (left in the first innings though :p). Pakistan would have folded for sure. Perhaps India may have too in the 90s. With the exception of SL (and perhaps Aus) in those days and against such a potent attack I would fancy the WI.
 

viriya

International Captain
The chances of SA batting first for the quarterfinal, semi and final are a combined 12.5% (50% x 50% x 50%).. so SA should go in the with the mentality that they can/will win regardless and not hope for a luck in the toss every time.
 

Top