Most Boring World Cup Ever?

[Scaly piscine]

Bond bowled accurately but well below his normal pace, so that supports the boringness argument. He got two wickets through a nothing shot and Flintoff being the only guy on the planet who still can't pick any variation whatsoever after playing cricket for most of his life. Styris just played a standard Test-style innings with a bit more aggression, which was all that was needed chasing a smallish target on a flat pitch and was also dropped by KP.

The time when we've consistently seen some good cricket is with the new ball because there's actually a contest between bat and ball instead of bat and pitch and pitch and ball. The pitches in WI's and England's group have been awkward and not conducive to proper top quality cricket, difficult to take wickets and difficult to score. The thing that worries me is these two grounds are the ones that'll be used for the semi finals.

 

[Swervy]

Bond bowled accurately but well below his normal pace, so that supports the boringness argument. He got two wickets through a nothing shot and Flintoff being the only guy on the planet who still can't pick any variation whatsoever after playing cricket for most of his life. Styris just played a standard Test-style innings with a bit more aggression, which was all that was needed chasing a smallish target on a flat pitch and was also dropped by KP.

The time when we've consistently seen some good cricket is with the new ball because there's actually a contest between bat and ball instead of bat and pitch and pitch and ball. The pitches in WI's and England's group have been awkward and not conducive to proper top quality cricket, difficult to take wickets and difficult to score. The thing that worries me is these two grounds are the ones that'll be used for the semi finals.

I personally dont mind the pitch coming into play, difficult to score and difficult to take wickets is fine by me, neither discipline should be easy. The good batsmen will deal with it, and thats exactly how it should be

 

[_Ed_]

Styris just played a standard Test-style innings with a bit more aggression

Isn't that the definition of all ODI innings?

 

[Swervy]

it confuses me, when all we got were flat +6rpo pitches all the time, people complained. Now we are getting pitches where batsmen have to work for their runs, people are complaining.

This is old school ODI cricket..aint it grand

 

[Goughy]

it confuses me, when all we got were flat +6rpo pitches all the time, people complained. Now we are getting pitches where batsmen have to work for their runs, people are complaining.

This is old school ODI cricket..aint it grand

Im all for bowler friendly tracks. In fact I thoroughly enjoy the contests they produce. However, there are different types of bowler friendly tracks and some are better than others.

Tracks that help the quicks and make a dashing battle between the blade and the fast ball are excellent. Tracks that promote secondary bowlers to matchwinners and emphasise medium pace and wicket to wicket bowling are dull.

It not as simple as bowler friendly tracks but the type of bowling they advantage.

 

[Swervy]

Im all for bowler friendly tracks. In fact I thoroughly enjoy the contests they produce. However, there are different types of bowler friendly tracks and some are better than others.

Tracks that help the quicks and make a dashing battle between the blade and the fast ball are excellent. Tracks that promote secondary bowlers to matchwinners and emphasise medium pace and wicket to wicket bowling are dull.

It not as simple as bowler friendly tracks but the type of bowling they advantage.

I see what you mean.

I think part of the problem is that we actually havent seen any top quality express pace bowling against the 'good' teams. Bond obviously dropped a yard or two of pace, and Tait hasnt really been tested vs good batsmen, and I guess Jerome Taylor can work up a bit of pace, but who else really can get into the 90mph bracket consistantly now Lee and Shoiab arent there..and in fact that might be the problem, express pace hasnt done much simply because the one class fast bowler dropped his pace down and the others might not be good enough to continuously trouble the opposition.

Remember secondary bowlers have always had matchwinning results in ODIs, Greg chappell, Chris harris etc. Ian Bothams most succesful one day series as a bowler was arguably 1992 WC when he was bowling 75mph swinging dibbly dobblies...Amarnath won Man Of The Match award in 1983 WC final largely down to his rather tame looking medium pace bowling.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Bond bowled accurately but well below his normal pace, so that supports the boringness argument. He got two wickets through a nothing shot and Flintoff being the only guy on the planet who still can't pick any variation whatsoever after playing cricket for most of his life. Styris just played a standard Test-style innings with a bit more aggression, which was all that was needed chasing a smallish target on a flat pitch and was also dropped by KP.

Translation: kiwis are crap no matter how compelling the evidence to the contrary

 

[thierry henry]

Bond wasn't below normal pace, it was just a shonky radar. All bowlers were about 8-10kph below normal according to that radar...and Bond bowled a similar pace or slightly quicker than Flintoff, which is about normal.

 

[Richard]

We have seen the Flintoff 'Fredalo' scandal.

And that's a good thing?

Seriously, everyone but everyone would have been better off if he'd put his brain into gear that evening.

 

[Richard]

Im all for bowler friendly tracks. In fact I thoroughly enjoy the contests they produce. However, there are different types of bowler friendly tracks and some are better than others.

Tracks that help the quicks and make a dashing battle between the blade and the fast ball are excellent. Tracks that promote secondary bowlers to matchwinners and emphasise medium pace and wicket to wicket bowling are dull.

It not as simple as bowler friendly tracks but the type of bowling they advantage.

So you prefer a 60-over contest to a 100-over contest?

 

[Richard]

I see what you mean.

I think part of the problem is that we actually havent seen any top quality express pace bowling against the 'good' teams. Bond obviously dropped a yard or two of pace, and Tait hasnt really been tested vs good batsmen, and I guess Jerome Taylor can work up a bit of pace, but who else really can get into the 90mph bracket consistantly now Lee and Shoiab arent there..and in fact that might be the problem, express pace hasnt done much simply because the one class fast bowler dropped his pace down and the others might not be good enough to continuously trouble the opposition.

Remember secondary bowlers have always had matchwinning results in ODIs, Greg chappell, Chris harris etc. Ian Bothams most succesful one day series as a bowler was arguably 1992 WC when he was bowling 75mph swinging dibbly dobblies...Amarnath won Man Of The Match award in 1983 WC final largely down to his rather tame looking medium pace bowling.

Chris Harris was categorically not a secondary bowler, nor was Botham in 1992.

You need to differentiate between "below top pace" (you don't actually know how fast Botham was bowling in 1992, BTW, there were no speedguns) and "second string".

 

[Dick Rockett]

I would categorise Chris Harris as a "secondary bowler" at the time of 1992 World Cup. He was considered primarily a batsman in those days.

 

[Richard]

Well, he was many times since, too.

He was still a darn good limited-overs bowler - and unless I'm much mistaken Swervy was referring to Harris in general, the WC92 reference was merely connected to the Botham case.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Yeah, definitely a bits and pieces all-rounder for most of his career.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Pick the Pakistani fan...

 

[LA ICE-E]

i have to say from so far the most exciting one...but the only downside is no crowds... i expect 2011 to be thes best one ever though ( beif indian and pakistani fans dont have riots) because the minnows are going to get stronger and thy're are going to be a lot of full packed crowds...it would have been the same here but the visa problem killed it for WI.

 

[Jono]

Pick the Pakistani fan...

Gunner?

 

[Zinzan]

it confuses me, when all we got were flat +6rpo pitches all the time, people complained. Now we are getting pitches where batsmen have to work for their runs, people are complaining.

This is old school ODI cricket..aint it grand

On the money there Swervy! In the last two Chappell/Hadlee games the pitches and grounds were criticised for being too batter-friendly. Then in the first 2 "big" games of this WC, scores of 210-240 are recieving criticism. Just shows people will never be happy

 

[Zinzan]

Bond bowled accurately but well below his normal pace, so that supports the boringness argument. He got two wickets through a nothing shot and Flintoff being the only guy on the planet who still can't pick any variation whatsoever after playing cricket for most of his life. Styris just played a standard Test-style innings with a bit more aggression, which was all that was needed chasing a smallish target on a flat pitch and was also dropped by KP.

The time when we've consistently seen some good cricket is with the new ball because there's actually a contest between bat and ball instead of bat and pitch and pitch and ball. The pitches in WI's and England's group have been awkward and not conducive to proper top quality cricket, difficult to take wickets and difficult to score. The thing that worries me is these two grounds are the ones that'll be used for the semi finals.

You really do make me laugh Scaly You have no balance to your arguments whatsoever. You gave New Zealand absolutely no credit for winning the Chappell/Hadlee series 3-0, stating at the time the series was meaningless and played against a 2nd XI. Going on to say that when the important competition (the CB series) was on, NZ were nowhere to be seen.

Then NZ go on to win a crucial game against England (more crucial than the CB series) and all you can talk about is the toss and the pitch and you still can't give an ounce of credit to NZ.

England were 133/3 after 31 overs or so, and looking at 240 minimum, so it wasn't as if the pitch was impossible to score or survive on early on, it was overs 32-40 that really cost England.

Be honest ...its a personal thing with you isn't it ? I mean, it must be. Your disdain for New Zealand is painfully obvious to all and due to this your arguments lose any creditibility. Did a New Zealand girl cause you heartbreak or something ?

 

[Richard]

i have to say from so far the most exciting one...

Nonsense. The chances of matching 1992 or 1999 are already slim-to-zero.