Group B - India, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka

[cnerd123]

To blame India's bowling is to take credit away from how well SL batted IMO

The only real bad move was excessive use of part-timers and not hunting for wickets enough early on. Jadeja having an off-day doesn't help. He just had a daughter IIRC. Putting down his bad spell due to being in awe of the miracle of life.

Granted I've watched next to nothing of the innings in question, but i followed a bit of cricbuzz and the match thread so I think I know what I'm talking about

 

[Black_Warrior]

Pakistan and Sri Lanka game is hard to call. There is no way that Pakistan could have chased anything over 300 like Sri Lanka did today. On the flip side I can't imagine Sri Lanka putting on the brakes of a batting powerhouse like SA. Tough call but if Sri Lanka can win the toss and bat first then they should be favorites given that Pak can't chase anything over 250

Sri Lanka is probably the only team Pak can chase 250 tbh

Results | Sri Lanka v Pakistan | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Bahseph]

As an SA fan, a few things have to fall into place for us to win. Our top order needs to fire and bat deep, and if he plays, which is likely, Parnell shouldn't be bowling in power play.

Either way India are still big favourites. Something inexplicable happens to SA in knock out games.

 

[honestbharani]

To blame India's bowling is to take credit away from how well SL batted IMO

The only real bad move was excessive use of part-timers and not hunting for wickets enough early on. Jadeja having an off-day doesn't help. He just had a daughter IIRC. Putting down his bad spell due to being in awe of the miracle of life.

Granted I've watched next to nothing of the innings in question, but i followed a bit of cricbuzz and the match thread so I think I know what I'm talking about

TBH, the part timers were bowling much better than Jaddu and Pandya and if anything, keeping them on might have caused more bad shots, which looked like the only way we were going to get them out. And I dont think anyone is necessarily denying SL credit, just that it was obvious India did not bowl well. You can SL did not let them and that would be fair, but its never a zero sum game.

 

[Kirkut]

This group has been amazing, and Miller played one of the finest CT knocks ever!

 

[harsh.ag]

Ind and SL to go through imo.

Almost prefer to see SA beat India, mostly because Amla and ABdV have had enough heartbreaks in LOs. Although this probably doesn't qualify as a heartbreak, so it's okay.

 

[91Jmay]

SL should beat Pakistan. Pakistan have a good bowling attack but any score above 280 batting first will give them nightmares unless that Fakhar bloke is the real deal.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It'll be Pak and SA

 

[Black_Warrior]

^ Reverse jinxing has started. There's no way you think SA will win in a KO game.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Could India be playing Bangladesh in the Semis?

Only just realised this, but India have had some crazy luck with finals opponents in World tournaments in recent history. Not wanting to **** on Bangladesh because I know they've improved and are an ok team now, but 2015 World Cup, India had Banglas as QF opponents, which was pretty much a free ticket to the Semis.

Similar story in 2003 WC India had Kenya in the semi-finals (lol at that happening) which is a free ticket to the final. Now India could have Bangles again in a semi here.

I don't really have a point, just realised it and thought it was interesting.

 

[Daemon]

Well they won 6 out 6 of their group stage games in the 2015 WC, so I think that very fairly entitled them to an easier QF, wouldn't really call it luck.

 

[91Jmay]

If you win your group then getting a weaker team in knockouts isn't luck it is how the tournaments are supposed to work. Kenya is obviously an extreme example but principle stands.

 

[Daemon]

I can see where he's coming from in that India had no hand in Bangladesh/Kenya upsetting the bigger nations in the other group and squeezing into the next rounds, so in a sense it was a bit lucky that we got them instaed of say England in 2015, who would've probably had a better shot at beating us.

 

[91Jmay]

I can see where he's coming from in that India had no hand in Bangladesh/Kenya upsetting the bigger nations in the other group and squeezing into the next rounds, so in a sense it was a bit lucky that we got them instaed of say England in 2015, who would've probably had a better shot at beating us.

If you'd have got England in 2015 then you would have got lucky

 

[TheJediBrah]

If you win your group then getting a weaker team in knockouts isn't luck it is how the tournaments are supposed to work. Kenya is obviously an extreme example but principle stands.

lol you think I don't know tournaments work?

No, read my post again. In 2015 they got Bangladesh, the "easy-beat" of the top 8 teams. In 2003 they weren't even the top team yet they got Kenya. Similar thing could happen in Semi-Finals here against Bangladesh (who are simply not a top 4 team) when they could have been facing Australia or England if not for rain. That's luck.

Serious question, have any other countries had finals in world tournaments (in particular World Cups) against non Top-8 sides?

edit: And again I'm not trying to imply anything, it's not like India won any of those tournaments and the one they did win (2011) they didn't face easy finals opposition. Just thought it as interesting.

 

[morgieb]

lol you think I don't know tournaments work?

No, read my post again. In 2015 they got Bangladesh, the "easy-beat" of the top 8 teams. In 2003 they weren't even the top team yet they got Kenya. Similar thing could happen in Semi-Finals here against Bangladesh (who are simply not a top 4 team) when they could have been facing Australia or England if not for rain. That's luck.

Serious question, have any other countries had finals in world tournaments (in particular World Cups) against non Top-8 sides?

Well his point was that in 2015 they earned their right to play the weakest qualifier of Group A, and Bangladesh earned their right to make the quarters. I don't think England (who Bangladesh beat fair and square) would've done any better.

2003 though was different. The second half of that tournament was too affected by ICC being stubborn ****s.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Well his point was that in 2015 they earned their right to play the weakest qualifier of Group A, and Bangladesh earned their right to make the quarters. I don't think England (who Bangladesh beat fair and square) would've done any better.

2003 though was different. The second half of that tournament was too affected by ICC being stubborn ****s.

That's a fair point, but still BD were an easier task than the team that finished the top of the other group got. (Assuming it was WI? Who were tough in that tournament with near full-strength strong side).

Basically in 2003 they were effectively guaranteed a spot in the final just by making the top 4, and in 2015 they were effectively guaranteed a spot in the semi-final just by making the Quarters

 

[Black_Warrior]

lol you think I don't know tournaments work?

ummm

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Morgan is in good touch

 

[Black_Warrior]

but not in this group though