Semifinalists for WC '07!!

[Richard]

and is that why england? somehow thumped australia in the odis? odi bowlers? wtf nowadays the pitches dont even consider the bowlers its all batsman. i have stay england have the best pace attack. whether they are odi bowlers or not is irrelevant.

Err, sorry, how are the fact that they are ODI bowlers irrelevant? When the World Cup happens to be played in... oh... ODIs?
For your information - pitches don't "consider" anything, they're inanimate objects.
Good bowlers bowl well - regardless of how the pitch plays.

 

[marc71178]

Jones has a very poor domestic record.

Jones also has a terrible FC record, but how many people wouldn't pick him in Tests?

Giles' ER is 4.45 against ODI-standard sides. Which is hardly that impressive given the stage of innings at which he almost invariably bowls, and how much ODI cricket he's missed.

No, 4.45 is a very good ER in modern ODI cricket.

 

[Richard]

Jones also has a terrible FC record, but how many people wouldn't pick him in Tests?

So? Just because he managed to do well in Tests (1 series so far) without doing anything at the domestic-First-Class level why on Earth does that make him (or anyone) likely to do the same in the one-day game?

No, 4.45 is a very good ER in modern ODI cricket.

It's not. 4.45 is pretty average for someone bowling exclusively in the middle-overs. You'd expect it to be close to 4. 4.45 would be OK for someone who bowled at the death often.

 

[marc71178]

No, 4.45 in the death overs would be superb.

4.45 in the middle overs is at worst about par for the course because the game is so much more batsman-orientated.

 

[Richard]

It's no more batsman-orientated than it was 13 years ago.
4.45 regularly bowling 3 or 4 in the death overs would be pretty good - bowling near exclusively in the middle it's pretty average.

 

[marc71178]

It's no more batsman-orientated than it was 13 years ago.

So 13 years ago they had 20 overs of fielding restrictions then?

Didn't think so.

 

[Richard]

They had 15 - of which all 15 were far more stringent than 10 of the current time's.
In any case - are you seriously claiming that the game is much different now than a year ago? If anything, the fact that the field-restrictions are now more under the fielding-captain's control has made the game less bat-friendly, as well as less predictable. Good, imaginative captaincy (on the rare occasion we've seen it) has actually demonstrated how the PowerPlays can be used (and not used) to contain.

 

[marc71178]

That is just small part of the game which is clearly now more batsman friendly.

When you add small things like the flatter pitches and smaller boundaries, it's clearly far more swewed towards the batsman then it used to be.

 

[Richard]

Small boundaries don't make accurate bowling any easier to get away. They just make wayward bowling more likely to end-up being 5.5-an-over rather than 4.7-an-over.
Flat pitches don't make accurate bowling any easier to get away - they just make wicket-taking harder.
Funny how you changed tack when you were proven wrong on the field-restrictions...

 

[marc71178]

I have not been proven wrong on the fielding restrictions as there are more now than there were a year ago. Or are you going to deny that 20 is bigger than 15?

 

[Richard]

You were wrong that they made the game more batsman-friendly.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I didn't think it was a secret that the game has become more batsman-friendly.

The boundaries are shorter boundaries certainly contribute to faster scoring Richard, and I don't see how you can argue otherwise. A top-edge pull shot or cut shot that may have been caught in the deep may now fly for six. A miscued slog which could have been caught has a better chance of being six runs.

Accurate bowling on a flat pitch just makes it easier for the batsman to premeditate. The ball isn't going to zip around or bounce awkwardly, so the batsman can trust his shots more readily and make room or charge down the track. He knows basically where the ball is going to be due to the accuracy. That's why even the best bowlers go for runs sometimes. Wow...

Look at the results! See how often teams chase 280+ and with what kind of ease.
Really, this is one of your more bizarre arguments. You genuinely believe that the game is not more batsman-friendly now than ever before?

 

[Richard]

I didn't think it was a secret that the game has become more batsman-friendly.

The boundaries are shorter boundaries certainly contribute to faster scoring Richard, and I don't see how you can argue otherwise. A top-edge pull shot or cut shot that may have been caught in the deep may now fly for six. A miscued slog which could have been caught has a better chance of being six runs.

Yes, maybe occasionally, but no more than that.
Really - it's not like boundaries have been brought in Twenty20 style. You don't all that often see balls falling inside the ground over the rope. Yes, you do see it sometimes but it's far more common for it to go flying into the crowd. Not to mention that most of the occasions where it falls inside the perimiter over the rope it's away from a deep-fielder, so had the rope been back it'd have been for, rather than out.

Accurate bowling on a flat pitch just makes it easier for the batsman to premeditate. The ball isn't going to zip around or bounce awkwardly, so the batsman can trust his shots more readily and make room or charge down the track. He knows basically where the ball is going to be due to the accuracy. That's why even the best bowlers go for runs sometimes. Wow...

So accuracy is bad now?
No, even on the flattest of pitches, by-and-large accurate bowling will be economical. If the wicketkeeper stands up to the stumps, of course, even the option of going down the pitch is eliminated.

Look at the results! See how often teams chase 280+ and with what kind of ease.
Really, this is one of your more bizarre arguments. You genuinely believe that the game is not more batsman-friendly now than ever before?

Err, that's down to the general deterioration in the standard of the bowling.

 

[Great Birtannia]

Australia and South Africa are the two most consistant one day teams so they should have no problem reaching the semi final stage. The other two can come from any of the test nations minus Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, and anyone can win from there.

 

[sideshowtim]

Australia, India, South Africa and Pakistan.

 

[Cloete]

Australia, New Zealand, England and Pakistan.

 

[sideshowtim]

I don't know why people rate England so much as an ODI side. They aren't very good at all.

 

[Richard]

Good observation, Einstein...

 

[honestbharani]

Aus/RSA/Ind/Pak.


But the romantic in me takes over...


Ind Vs Pak final, Ind wins a thriller. And then the troll(s) flood the CW back.

 

[luckyeddie]

I don't know why people rate England so much as an ODI side. They aren't very good at all.

That's probably why, of the 40 people who have voted, just 3 think they'll make the semi-final.

3 too many for you?