**Official** Group A Discussion

[BeeGee]

I thought we batted well for about two thirds of our innings and generally bowled well bar the odd over here and there. It was a flawed performance which meant NZ were always in the game but I think we were worthy winners and if we tidy a few things up I can see us beating Saffa.

Is it guaranteed that you've qualified top of group A? I'm not sure of all the permutations.

 

[Cabinet96]

Sri Lanka have to win, and by a hefty margin, for us to come second. A small win or Sri Lanka loss and we're top.

Edit: I'll try and work out a couple of scenarios for tomorrow and how it effects net run rate, like Spark did earlier.

 

[GIMH]

Is it guaranteed that you've qualified top of group A? I'm not sure of all the permutations.

No and I'd be less confident against India admittedly, though I still think we will smash them

 

[Lostman]

Sri Lanka have to win, and by a hefty margin, for us to come second. A small win or Sri Lanka loss and we're top.

Edit: I'll try and work out a couple of scenarios for tomorrow and how it effects net run rate, like Spark did earlier.

I did some quick calculations, SL would have to win by ~100 runs to get 1st place.
Its likely Aus would bat second regardless of who wins the toss.

 

[Furball]

What about T20 v D/L, BeeGee?

Someone came up with an interesting suggestion on cricinfo the other day - just a fan who sent in a comment. He essentially proposed that in situations like this, they shouldn't actually reduce the overs like that to create a T20-like contest. Instead, the team batting first would be told to bat out its 24 overs (in this game's example) as if they had the full 50 rather than 24, and then have that score (lets say it's something like 110/2) converted by D/L as if they really had gone out there at the start and then been cut off by rain after 24. The team batting second would then bat out its 24 as if it had 50 overs to chase that converted score. D/L would then, after their 24 overs, decide if they'd chased the score down or not. So they'd have to preserve wickets, just as in a real 50 over chase.

It's something you'd have to have a deep love of D/L to consider, and not many cricket fans even understand it let alone love it, but I found it an interesting take all the same. The commenter was working off your rationale in a way; he said that the format was 50 overs and that it makes no sense to actually change that within the tournament.

I think it's crap because the whole point of limited overs cricket is to score as many runs as you can in the alotted overs.

 

[Cabinet96]

On the matter of promoting people above any of the top three, I think it's a bad idea, regardless of who the potential promote is. If you do promote someone, and they fail, then you've got guys like Trott coming in later in the order, with even less time at the crease. In such games, you would want Root, Morgan and Buttler getting decent time at the crease, so by promoting Bopara to three, you leave yourself with the possibility of Trott coming in as late as 7, assuming Bopara stays with Cook or Bell for a while. You're much better off just sticking a guy like Trott in the place he's most likely to do well IMO, and that's in the top three.

 

[Woodster]

Just read several of the latest pages on this thread and was surprised by some of the negativity, though a lot came from the usual sources. There is no escaping our innings did grind to a halt with unfortunately none of our entertainers able to get a foothold in the middle towards the end of the innings, it is always possible when new batsmen come in and try and smash straight from the off. Prior to that I think there was much to admire, of course Cook rode his luck but even so, 64 from 47 balls is a very decent effort, nice cameo again from Root and with 169 on the board we were always going to be competitive.

Then with the ball, again there are certainly areas and strategies to work on, but thought we were good value for it. Jimmy excellent again, and to get figures of 5-0-26-2 out of Ravi was a bonus, but not a big surprise. Come on the semis!

 

[Kippax]

re Ronchi opening: if we want a pinch hitter we could send any of NcCullum, Mills, (Southee if playing) or Franklin up the order.

Ronchi came highly recommended by PEWS and Benchy and Scaly, and stuff like that, so.... he's obviously far more gun than those players if you take away the lateral, and stuff like that.

Gillespie, Ronchi, surely Siddons hasn't blown so much smoke up Ryder and/or Papps' backsides that we're looking at a Sunset Boulevard-style "comeback" to the world stage there as well, right? Right?

 

[hendrix]

IIRC PEWS didn't see him as a genuine batsman.

Agree about siddons though. Great coach but probably an even better advocate for his players. Should be an agent.

 

[the big bambino]

If the Kiwis are relying on Aus to beat SL they are about to as disappointed in Australia as we Aussies are.

 

[Flem274*]

What do NZ, Aus and SL need?

Ronchi came highly recommended by PEWS and Benchy and Scaly, and stuff like that, so.... he's obviously far more gun than those players if you take away the lateral, and stuff like that.

Gillespie, Ronchi, surely Siddons hasn't blown so much smoke up Ryder and/or Papps' backsides that we're looking at a Sunset Boulevard-style "comeback" to the world stage there as well, right? Right?

Well tbf only one of them is a good and unbiased poster so the **** was never going to live up to the hype.

 

[Days of Grace]

We need it to rain, which would make things really simple.

It won't, though.

 

[Hurricane]

If somehow Aussie does us a favour and we go through or it rains - is the general expectation amongst fans that McHesson will retain Ronchi in the XI?

 

[_Ed_]

Just saw the non-no-ball call on Williamson's dismissal. Wow. I don't think we would have won anyway, but I really disagree with it.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

good to see the 2424 format giving the lesser teams a fair chance

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah, SL are now in a fantastic position to advance. Batting first, they'll know that they only need a modest (250ish) score, and the Aussies will be forced to start slogging from ball 1 against Malinga, Herath et al.

Thinking that Coreh's introduction into the ODI team might well spell the end of Frinks' career soon. We have no need for two middle-order left arm bits n' pieces players, and Corey has youth and potential on his side.

Also just saw the no ball, and have no problems with it. It was behind the line...just.

 

[straw man]

Glad I didn't watch that - could not have handled FOUR dropped catches in 24 overs. Three from NcCullum slightly ironic considering he is meant to be one of those bats-a-bit bowls-a-bit contributes-in-all-facets type players.

Will laugh if we somehow make it through to the semis from here.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah, SL are now in a fantastic position to advance. Batting first, they'll know that they only need a modest (250ish) score, and the Aussies will be forced to start slogging from ball 1 against Malinga, Herath et al.

Thinking that Coreh's introduction into the ODI team might well spell the end of Frinks' career soon. We have no need for two middle-order left arm bits n' pieces players, and Corey has youth and potential on his side.

Also just saw the no ball, and have no problems with it. It was behind the line...just.

Harsh on Anderson. I know Franko is the batting allrounder who can't bat, but Anderson is a genuine allrounder who hasn't shown himself to be a muppet yet.

 

[Daemon]

I like how you say yet

 

[Bahnz]

Harsh on Anderson. I know Franko is the batting allrounder who can't bat, but Anderson is a genuine allrounder who hasn't shown himself to be a muppet yet.

Is he really though? I agree he's got great potential as a batsman, but his bowling has kind of gone to seed over the past 3 years. I didn't see his bowling last night, but on the tour to SA, he looked very part-time (not much better than Munro tbh).