27th Match - England v Sri Lanka

[Spark]

England 2019 remind me of South Africa 1999. Clearly the dominant side in world ODI cricket but can they turn that into a trophy?

Honestly I'd rather England or New Zealand win this cup if Australia don't (if England win it means that teams from 4 continents will have won the world cup - as opposed to the soccer world cup which has only ever seen winners from two continents).

What an odd metric

 

[GIMH]

What an odd metric

Serious insecurity about the game of football leads to silly posts

 

[TheJediBrah]

What an odd metric

Actually I think it's the first interesting thing I've seen stephen say in a while.

edit: and lol @ England's batsmen doing exactly what we've been waiting for them to do the minute they get some tricky conditions. Hopefully it's not just one game.

 

[Burgey]

I don't think you have to win a WC to be a great ODI side to be clear, but I do think you have to do more than just bash 400+ scores when no one is really watching.

Yeah you do. What else matters?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah you do. What else matters?

Agreed. These days it's basically the only time the main teams pick a full-strength side. Pretty much every JAMODI series you see has multiple first-choice players rested. Don't really care how many meaningless bilateral series a team wins against weakened opposition that dgaf. You've got to win when it counts.

 

[quincywagstaff]

While obviously not as significant, if a side wins the Champions Trophy I would give that some credence as it is a global tournament that the best of the best are playing at.

 

[stephen]

What an odd metric

Serious insecurity about the game of football leads to silly posts

No I'm not insecure about soccer at all. But it's not really the world game that it thinks it is. It's a European/South American sport. Cricket and rugby are played at a high level in more places.

 

[GIMH]

No I'm not insecure about soccer at all. But it's not really the world game that it thinks it is. It's a European/South American sport. Cricket and rugby are played at a high level in more places.

This isn’t true, but okay

 

[morgieb]

No I'm not insecure about soccer at all. But it's not really the world game that it thinks it is. It's a European/South American sport. Cricket and rugby are played at a high level in more places.

Africa much? Biggest sport in the Middle East too. Cricket and rugby are only taken seriously in like 10 countries. Soccer has at least 100.

 

[MW1304]

No I'm not insecure about soccer at all. But it's not really the world game that it thinks it is. It's a European/South American sport. Cricket and rugby are played at a high level in more places.

This is comically wrong.

 

[stephen]

Soccer is played in many places but competitive nations are geographically confined. Cricket and rugby have both had to level nations from a wider variety of places around the world which produce competitive teams.

I mean it's entirely possible that cricket world cups could have been won by Europeans, Africans, Asians, Oceanans and Americans. When has an Asian side been anywhere near winning a soccer world cup?

Soccer is a very popular support to play since it is cheap to play and has a lie risk of injury. It will likely always be the most popular sport in the world. But that doesn't mean it's competitive everywhere in the world. Most of the best non- European sporting nations throws their money at other sports.

 

[stephen]

8/32 Soccer world cup sides come from outside Europe/South America.

 

[Borges]

People are seriously underestimating the England ODI team, based on one game.
And seriously underestimating football, based on nothing.

 

[stephen]

Japan and Mexico both made the round of 16 at the last swc. Every other side was European/South American.

 

[GIMH]

Mate, cricket is played in a pocket of places that were once part of the British Empire. The fact world cups have been won by countries from more continents is such a cherry picked stat. Fewer countries, but more continents, so that makes it wider? Utter drivel.

 

[GIMH]

Imagine the quality of side that would be able to make their way into a 32 team cricket WC lol

 

[stephen]

Mate, cricket is played in a pocket of places that were once part of the British Empire. The fact world cups have been won by countries from more continents is such a cherry picked stat. Fewer countries, but more continents, so that makes it wider? Utter drivel.

At a competitive level cricket is played by a geographically more diverse group of countries. Soccer will likely never see a winner from a non- Euro/ Latin America side for several reasons but the biggest is that all of the soccer nations that don't have money lose their best players to Euro/South American leagues for most of the year.

How competitive would cricket be if the IPL ran for most of the year? India would be the only side of note in world cricket.

Imagine the quality of side that would be able to make their way into a 32 team cricket WC lol

***** might get his beloved Hong Kong in a 32 team cwc. But it's not like the bottom 16 teams have a realistic shot of winning the swc, even though soccer is by its nature a more luck- based sport than cricket.

It's not the popularity of soccer I question, only the competitiveness of nations outside Europe and South America.

 

[GIMH]

At a competitive level cricket is played by a geographically more diverse group of countries. Soccer will likely never see a winner from a non- Euro/ Latin America side for several reasons but the biggest is that all of the soccer nations that don't have money lose their best players to Euro/South American leagues for most of the year.

How competitive would cricket be if the IPL ran for most of the year? India would be the only side of note in world cricket.



***** might get his beloved Hong Kong in a 32 team cwc. But it's not like the bottom 16 teams have a realistic shot of winning the swc, even though soccer is by its nature a more luck- based sport than cricket.

It's not the popularity of soccer I question, only the competitiveness of nations outside Europe and South America.

You do know playing in a certain football league doesn’t mean you play football for that country don’t you?

 

[cnerd123]

You do know playing in a certain football league doesn’t mean you play football for that country don’t you?

I think he means that most countries lose their best players to foreign leagues, which means the standard of their own local leagues are low, which means they struggle to develop a strong side, and thus rock up to a WC with a few stars and majority scrubs. Meanwhile, South American and European sides are packed because they have strong local leagues to pull talent from

How true this IDK

 

[stephen]

You do know playing in a certain football league doesn’t mean you play football for that country don’t you?

Of course. But it does mean that the competition for the guys at home is weaker and so the second tier guys aren't as well developed as the second tier guys from the rich soccer nations. This gives those nations easily exploitable weaknesses.