Semi Finals/Final - Australia, Sri Lanka, England and Pakistan

[GIMH]

We'll bloody kill them, I'm sticking £800 on us

 

[Burgey]

We'll bloody kill them, I'm sticking £800 on us

Should have used it on a train fare to London, ****!

This is my dream come true. Us vs the Poms in a major final (welcome to major finals, Engald supporters btw) and I'm over here.

Shall be in a pub full of Pommie blow-ins who started watching cricket on Thursday, and I shall be cheering very loudly for us.

Can't ****ing wait!

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'd have really fancied your chances against Pakistan. But against Australia on the Barbados pitch I'd be steering well clear of 11/8.

Strong chance we'll get blown away, yeah. Kies & Lumb (latter especially) prefer pace on the ball tho, so in theory Tait, Nannes & Johnson should be their kind of attack.

Sid & Bresnan v Watson and Warner could be sheer muder tho.

 

[Uppercut]

Strong chance we'll get blown away, yeah. Kies & Lumb (latter especially) prefer pace on the ball tho, so in theory Tait, Nannes & Johnson should be their kind of attack.

Mmm. If the pitch at Barbados is as fast as it has been then I don't think they'll fancy THAT much pace on the ball, especially with Nannes and Tait both favouring putting the ball back of a length. I think a big factor in Pakistan's conquering of the new ball pairing was taking an over against each to set themselves. But a big factor in the success of England's opening pair (and England in general) has been going hard from the off, so it'll be interesting to see what method they take.

 

[marc71178]

This appeared on cricinfo yesterday morning - spooky.

Numbers Game: Is a specialist batsman worth his place at No.7 in Twenty20s? | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

 

[grecian]

This appeared on cricinfo yesterday morning - spooky.

Numbers Game: Is a specialist batsman worth his place at No.7 in Twenty20s? | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

Nah, I don't think they are, oz should drop mussey imho, pointless him being there, I reckon.

Btw, do you reckon we should fine any bowler who gets Clarke out?

 

[GIMH]

Yes, we defo should.

 

[Sir Alex]

Surely with Clarke in the team, Hussey is effectively a no.6? I reckon he's got to face more deliveries than average no.7 anyways. I think Haddin should be dropped down the order, and Hussey brought up, with Clarke batting at no.7 or lower, because that enhances their batting considerably, even better than it is now.

Warner
Watson
Hussey
White
Dussey
Haddin
Clarke

This should be the batting lineup imho.

 

[andyc]

But then if there's a top order collapse, as has happened twice this tournament, who's going to be there to first stabilise the innings, and then hit out towards the end? Hussey at 7 is working atm, no need to tinker with it drastically. Moving him one or two places up is fine, but definitely don't want to see him coming in at 3.

 

[Sir Alex]

But then if there's a top order collapse, as has happened twice this tournament, who's going to be there to first stabilise the innings, and then hit out towards the end? Hussey at 7 is working atm, no need to tinker with it drastically. Moving him one or two places up is fine, but definitely don't want to see him coming in at 3.

Top order collapses can be prevented if Hussey is around. Further the guys in form should play the maximum number of deliveries in any t20 game. Hussey can take his time to settle down and rout the opposition towards the end. Haddin and Clarke have looked largely jaded and no point in wasting them at the top, and thereby accentuate pressure on Hussey. He is human after all and can't rescue Aus out of dire straits every time. Also the frequent top order collapses are a worrying factor for Aus.

Anyway you look at it, Hussey must bat above Haddin and Clarke. Being more skilled at handling new ball in case of an opener going early, he is best suited at no.3.

 

[Nate]

Anyway you look at it, Hussey must bat above Haddin and Clarke.

Haha, or not.

Hussey is a fantastic finisher. And he is very capable for hitting out from the go. But guys like Haddin, White and to some extent Dussey like to play themselves in first, and it normally pays dividends.

And no-one is arguing that Clarke should even be in the team, but unfortunately for the moment, that's not going to change.

EDIT: Wouldn't mind -

Warner
Watson
Haddin
Dussey
White
Mussey
Clarke

 

[andyc]

Haha, or not.

Hussey is a fantastic finisher. And he is very capable for hitting out from the go. But guys like Haddin, White and to some extent Dussey like to play themselves in first, and it normally pays dividends.

And no-one is arguing that Clarke should even be in the team, but unfortunately for the moment, that's not going to change.

EDIT: Wouldn't mind -

Warner
Watson
Haddin
Dussey
White
Mussey
Clarke

Smith above Clarke, tbh. But yeah, that's probably the best for my money. Haddin much more suited to 3 than Clarke in that he can and will play the big shots, so at least he's not going to hang around and waste 20 balls.

 

[Nate]

Smith above Clarke, tbh. But yeah, that's probably the best for my money. Haddin much more suited to 3 than Clarke in that he can and will play the big shots, so at least he's not going to hang around and waste 20 balls.

Would've done that, but can't see Clarke batting himself any lower than seven in the Final.

 

[Uppercut]

This appeared on cricinfo yesterday morning - spooky.

Numbers Game: Is a specialist batsman worth his place at No.7 in Twenty20s? | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

PEWS did all of this analysis a year ago. Cricinfo are way behind.

The moral of the story is that you need six real batsmen in a T20. And if Michael Clarke bats at four, one of them will inevitably have to bat at seven.

EDIT: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/1927861-post5.html

 

[Jayzamann]

I'm quite partial to the notion of Clarke coming in just before Tait. That was suggested a few pages back.

 

[tooextracool]

Abdul Razzaq would have been a better bowling option for the last over.

Its easy to say that in hindsight. Anyhow, Pakistan made 2 blunders- one in picking just one specialist pace bowler and the other in bowling him in the penultimate over instead of the final over. I commented on here saying that barring a miracle Pakistan had won this game, and a miracle is what we got. That has to be one of the finest performances in any form of cricket ever.

Needless to say, both teams bowled fairly poorly and Ajmal bowling balls in the slot in the final over was as poor as it got. In Barbados, Australia will always have the advantage because it brings their pace attack into play so we might just have seen the perfect opportunity to knock them out of the tournament not seized.

 

[mohammad16]

I dont think bowling Ajmal was a bad choice, its just that his first ball to Hussey in that last over was a half tracker that Hussey pulled very easily for six, that set the tone for the next six which was just a magnificent un hussey like pick up straight down the ground, one of the best strokes I have ever seen under pressure. Kinda feel for Ajmal here, hope he recovers but this has been an amazing world cup for mine not due to close games but just the headlines its generated.

 

[Uppercut]

Mmm, I'd definitely have given the ball to Razzaq. Midge Johnson was facing the first ball of the over and you'd definitely rather be bowling pace to him than spin in this situation.

 

[mohammad16]

Mmm, I'd definitely have given the ball to Razzaq. Midge Johnson was facing the first ball of the over and you'd definitely rather be bowling pace to him than spin in this situation.

Last yorker Razzaq has bowled was in 1999. he bowls at 122 k and length deliveries, he would have got smashed, Johnson would have loved his pace.

 

[WindieWeathers]

FFS, trust Windie to turn this into a thread about West Indies.

I know you can't say "Semi Finals/Final - Australia, Sri Lanka, England and Pakistan" without "West Indies" but..... oh wait.......

Calm down!!.. , if you paid attention to my original post it was mostly about England and the Australia/Pak game, i merely mentioned England's ONLY DEFEAT which happened to come against Windies, i never asked anyone to respond to that minor comment ,

And like i said i wish England the best of luck, imo they've been the best side so far.