Group C - New Zealand, England, Kenya, Canada

[Richard]

Hmmm. I'm probably way off as usual, but maybe just maybe we can sneak to 200 here, which wouldn't be a foregone conclusion

Well well... who'd have thought.

Patel paying the price for no-balls - that's 9 runs he's needlessly given away.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Patel paying the price for no-balls - that's 9 runs he's needlessly given away.

He's bowled one no ball...

He's paying the price for being hit for four twice.

 

[Richard]

Yep, off the no-ball and the following ball (which wouldn't have been bowled but for the no-ball).

And Paul Nixon has just substantially surpassed anything he's previously achieved in ODIs.

 

[PY]

He's bowled one no ball...

He's paying the price for being hit for four twice.

Think he's arguing that the no-ball cost one run in itself, the boundary scored off it, and the subsequent 4 the ball after which was a direct result of the no-ball.

I'm sure you know that but it's late over there and it is slightly convoluted.

 

[Richard]

I beat Pete to it this time!

And on that note, I'm off to Curry's before it shuts.

 

[Fiery]

Haha, calling Harris and especially Larsen "dibbly-dobbly" is about as harsh at it comes.

Both were very, very high-class slow seamers (don't know how fast Larsen was - might have been medium, might have been medium-fast - but Harris was slow-medium) and top ODI bowlers.

Larsen was slow medium, definitely not "medium-fast".

 

[Richard]

WTF? He was surely at least 10mph quicker than Harris?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Think he's arguing that the no-ball cost one run in itself, the boundary scored off it, and the subsequent 4 the ball after which was a direct result of the no-ball.

I'm sure you know that but it's late over there and it is slightly convoluted.

Yeah, I get it, it just doesn't make any sense. The no ball didn't cost 9 runs. At the very least the first one would have been hit for 4 anyway if the extra wasn't called, and the repeat delivery could have taken a wicket or anything.

 

[Scaly piscine]

That 8th wicket partnership was huge, 71 off 71 from nowhere. It might well be below par score but it's not below par by much (what the hell were the commentators on - mentioning 270 fairly often). Some indicators of how difficult it was to score: KP, that last over where Franklin kept teeing it up but they kept mis-hitting it. Most other wickets that last over would have cost 15+.

Haven't read any of the posts over the past hours, but whatever anyone says that pitch is complete crap. You can't bowl people out, you can't play various cricket shots without likely getting out, the bounce and pace in the wicket is all over the place. Not World Cup standard.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, I get it, it just doesn't make any sense. The no ball didn't cost 9 runs. At the very least the first one would have been hit for 4 anyway if the extra wasn't called, and the repeat delivery could have taken a wicket or anything.

Did you watch the ball in question?

And what the extra ball could have done isn't relevant - it did go for four, and but for the no-ball it would not have been bowled.

 

[Richard]

Haven't read any of the posts over the past hours, but whatever anyone says that pitch is complete crap. You can't bowl people out, you can't play various cricket shots without likely getting out, the bounce and pace in the wicket is all over the place. Not World Cup standard.

Let's see what you can do when Liam Plunkett is spraying it all over everywhere...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Quite like the pitch myself. Provided a bit of a test for the batsmen, and class (Pietersen) showed through. If England bowl well they could easily make this a difficult chase.

 

[Richard]

Agree, a good ODI pitch for me - rewarded accurate bowling, and perhaps would have rewarded a bit of patience in the batting if there'd been any.

 

[Fiery]

WTF? He was surely at least 10mph quicker than Harris?

Nah, about the same probably, maybe slighter....umm...less slow (was going to say quicker but it didn't sound right as they were both about as slow as you can be and still be called a seamer). The term "dibbly-dobbler" was probably invented for Larsen actually. Harry was bordering on being a spinner as he ran his fingers down the ball and bowled a mixture of leg-cutters and little in-swingers.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Quite like the pitch myself. Provided a bit of a test for the batsmen, and class (Pietersen) showed through. If England bowl well they could easily make this a difficult chase.

KP... and Nixon and Plunkett...

The pitch is not conducive to good cricket. People getting out to short rubbish, bowling slower and slower is an actual asset. Good bowling becomes meaningless in terms of wicket-taking. Batsmen limited to just a few shots.

If you want to negate some of the things that make international players what they are then it might be a good wicket. If they play on a wicket like that again then Kenya and Canada will be pretty competitive again England and NZ - whether they deserve to be or not.

 

[PY]

I think Collingwood will be one of the key aspects of England's efforts as Styris was rewarded earlier and I'd rate Colly as being slightly better in the ODI arena with the ball.

 

[Richard]

Nah, about the same probably, maybe slighter....umm...less slow (was going to say quicker but it didn't sound right as they were both about as slow as you can be and still be called a seamer). The term "dibbly-dobbler" was probably invented for Larsen actually. Harry was bordering on being a spinner as he ran his fingers down the ball and bowled a mixture of leg-cutters and little in-swingers.

I simply can't believe Larsen could be as brilliant a bowler as he was if he was just 65mph or so.

IMO dibbly-dobbly is invented for bowlers like Neil Fairbrother and Mark Greatbatch.

 

[Richard]

The pitch is not conducive to good cricket. People getting out to short rubbish, bowling slower and slower is an actual asset. Good bowling becomes meaningless in terms of wicket-taking. Batsmen limited to just a few shots.

Good one-day wicket, in other words - rewarding accuracy rather than stupid wicket-taking attempts.

 

[Swervy]

I am going with an England win here

 

[Richard]