Group A - India, England, Australia, West Indies

[dontcloseyoureyes]

****. Got an exam at 9am on Monday. Guess that's out the window.

 

[aussie]

Windies have the wood over India this year, but even though the windies are playing a lot more as a team ATM, i still reckon they are making a mistake in selection in that Edwards/Collymore should play instead of one of Smith/Samuels since picking one of those bowlers would give the bowling strenght since i'm sure they are picking Smith/Samuels for their batting and they aren't really contributing in that department, they are doing more as bowlers. Also i'd have Ramdin ahead of Baugh pretty soon.

For India Pathan should be dropped, he is a shadow of the Pathan that debuted in Australia & had such a superb 2004, which is unfortunate since the bloke had the potential to be a top-all rounder, i blame the packed International schedule for his decline since it surely is a hard job for a 19 year old to suddenly come into a side and become a strike bowler.

 

[Fratboy]

Because it's a stupid and counterproductive tactic? Especially when he's opening the batting or coming in late, as he always does unless the team is in crisis.

You don't tell a player he's not allowed to hit a boundary. You tell a player to only look to hit bad balls to the boundary, unless it's the slog overs.

Because theres a golden rule that Afridi can't bat in the middle overs ? He could be a pretty decent batsman if only he applied his mind to the task.

 

[Fratboy]

Did anyone else feel like punching Manjrekar in the face when he went on and on about how close this game was shaping up to be when the WI were 200 odd for 3 ?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Fair play to The Windies, got a little chokey at the end, but they've turned in two quality bowling performances so far.

Bet their odds for the WC have started to come in already.

 

[Sanz]

Did anyone else feel like punching Manjrekar in the face when he went on and on about how close this game was shaping up to be when the WI were 200 odd for 3 ?

Wasn't he right though ?

 

[The Baconator]

CW Report: West Indies stumble to target

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Had mixed feelings at the end there. It's always amusing in a morbid sort of way to watch India lose at home, but it would have been better from an Australian perspective to have them win.

Still, it means that Sunday is officially a knockout game, which should make for a great contest.

 

[fishyguy]

Well I couldnt be happier with WI.

First beating Australia in India helped ease some of the pain from WC semi final when they had the match and threw it away

And finally today beating India in India took away some of the pain of losing the Hero Cup way beakc in the day.

Hopefully they'll beat England and that'll be good enough for me.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Because theres a golden rule that Afridi can't bat in the middle overs ?

Yes. Because he doesn't bat in the middle order... because there are guys like Shoaib Malik, Mohammad Yousuf, Younis Khan, oh, and some guy named Inzamam, who do so...

EDIT: Even if he did bat in the middle overs, it's stupid to tell someone he's not allowed to hit boundaries.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Wasn't he right though ?

No. Because he didn't have hindsight.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Westindies must be the most pathetic team in history when it comes to the crunch. They seem to always do lose impossibly.

Yes, like earlier this year against India, right?

Or wait a minute... what about last week against Australia? That was a pathetic bit of choking by the pathetic West Indies in the crunch.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Windies have the wood over India this year, but even though the windies are playing a lot more as a team ATM, i still reckon they are making a mistake in selection in that Edwards/Collymore should play instead of one of Smith/Samuels since picking one of those bowlers would give the bowling strenght since i'm sure they are picking Smith/Samuels for their batting and they aren't really contributing in that department, they are doing more as bowlers.

Umm.. no... neither Smith nor Samuels is presently being picked for batting. They're picked because they're both bowling really well.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

We still have Tendulkar. He did once when he used to be good

At bowling at the death?

 

[Sanz]

At bowling at the death?

Hero Cup, 1993. He was good man, real good.

 

[Sanz]

No. Because he didn't have hindsight.

Hindsight or not, he was right. And I dont think he was just saying for the heck of it. He probably has played in those condiditions before and knows how hard it is to score run-a-ball.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, like earlier this year against India, right?

Or wait a minute... what about last week against Australia? That was a pathetic bit of choking by the pathetic West Indies in the crunch.

Oh my !! you win two close games in a row and you start gloating like you have won the world Championship ?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Hindsight or not, he was right. And I dont think he was just saying for the heck of it. He probably has played in those condiditions before and knows how hard it is to score run-a-ball.

No, he was only right in hindsight. 7 wickets in hand and scoring at a run-a-ball should not be that difficult in any conditions, bar a snow storm.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Oh my !! you win two close games in a row and you start gloating like you have won the world Championship ?

When did I imply anything about the quality of the West Indies team other than it's not pathetic?

Again, .

 

[Jono]

No, he was only right in hindsight. 7 wickets in hand and scoring at a run-a-ball should not be that difficult in any conditions, bar a snow storm.

When did he make the comment that it was a close game at 200/3?

Did he say it when it was 200/3, or after the match. If he said it when it was 200/3 he was right, even if at the time it sounded stupid. Fact is, it turned out to be a nail-biter.

If he said after the game that the game was close from 200/3 onwards, then he's using hindsight.