Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2019 14:44:07 GMT
India never seriously tried to chase down England`s total. Always behind the run rate, despite having wickets in hand. Their defeat means that it`s now more difficult for Pakistan to qualify for the knockout stages. Just a thought. The Indian innings was strange. Dhoni at the end of the innings....what was that all about? |
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Jul 3, 2019 19:35:14 GMT
Well done England. A bit of luck, Williamson’s run out but we would have still won without it. We’ve not seen the huge scores of 400 at all and talk was of a team scoring 500 for the first time. That won’t happen. Pretty normal stuff really. Bat first, set a score of 300 and bowl well, it’s still a very good score with the pressure of the World Cup. Looking like India, Aus, England and NZ. All on their day can win but I’d rather play Australia and NZ rather than India.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2019 19:46:56 GMT
Well done England. A bit of luck, Williamson’s run out but we would have still won without it. We’ve not seen the huge scores of 400 at all and talk was of a team scoring 500 for the first time. That won’t happen. Pretty normal stuff really. Bat first, set a score of 300 and bowl well, it’s still a very good score with the pressure of the World Cup. Looking like India, Aus, England and NZ. All on their day can win but I’d rather play Australia and NZ rather than India. I'm sure I read that as it's an ICC competition they take control of pitch preparation and hence the less batting friendly pitches we've been used to in racking up record scores in recent years. We seem to be getting to grips with it now so fingers crossed we at least reach the final and put up a good show. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2019 19:47:36 GMT
Well done England. A bit of luck, Williamson’s run out but we would have still won without it. We’ve not seen the huge scores of 400 at all and talk was of a team scoring 500 for the first time. That won’t happen. Pretty normal stuff really. Bat first, set a score of 300 and bowl well, it’s still a very good score with the pressure of the World Cup. Looking like India, Aus, England and NZ. All on their day can win but I’d rather play Australia and NZ rather than India. Yep, to get to the Final it looks as though we have to beat India again. What are the odds on beating them twice on the trot? Still, it looks as though it will be at Birmingham, which being one of the smaller outfields will, I think, suit England as we appear to have more 'power' hitters than India. One thing that has been noticable about India is their lack of acceleration during their innings. They haven't shown any explosion during the last 10 to 15 overs at all. As I said earlier, I think having Roy back in the team actually helps to free-up Bairstow. Also, Buttler is due an innings. |
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Jul 3, 2019 21:23:08 GMT
Well done England. A bit of luck, Williamson’s run out but we would have still won without it. We’ve not seen the huge scores of 400 at all and talk was of a team scoring 500 for the first time. That won’t happen. Pretty normal stuff really. Bat first, set a score of 300 and bowl well, it’s still a very good score with the pressure of the World Cup. Looking like India, Aus, England and NZ. All on their day can win but I’d rather play Australia and NZ rather than India. Yep, to get to the Final it looks as though we have to beat India again. What are the odds on beating them twice on the trot? Still, it looks as though it will be at Birmingham, which being one of the smaller outfields will, I think, suit England as we appear to have more 'power' hitters than India. One thing that has been noticable about India is their lack of acceleration during their innings. They haven't shown any explosion during the last 10 to 15 overs at all. As I said earlier, I think having Roy back in the team actually helps to free-up Bairstow. Also, Buttler is due an innings. Yes agree, India’s strength is their first three and their two opening and death bowlers, Shami and Bumrah. Apart from that India don’t have the depth we have. But to beat them you have to deal with those players. We’ve done it once, no reason we can’t do it again. |
|
|
|
Post by Qatar Gas on Jul 4, 2019 4:43:20 GMT
Rohit Sharma is the key for India. He gives you a chance to get him early (when Root dropped him) but once he is in, its incredibly hard to get him out. He already has four hundreds (twice as many as anybody else).
If we bat first we will be strong favorites, if India bat first and Sharma gets another big score then India will be favorites.
|
|
|
|
Post by South Stand Ultra on Jul 4, 2019 8:38:48 GMT
Jason Roy, he's injured for 2 matches, we lose both matches.
He comes's back for the last 2 games, we win both, convincingly.
In those 2 games the first wicket falls at over 100. Bairstow scores 2 100's.
Another player who doesn't get the praise he deserves is Plunkett. He bowls the middle over's really well, doesn't go for many, and more vitally he takes wickets.
We can sit back and relax now, waiting for another England semi-final, 3rd time lucky next week maybe..?
|
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Jul 4, 2019 8:40:08 GMT
Yes Qatar you put it in a nutshell. SA have been poor but I can see them beating Australia in the final match and making sure it’s us v Aus in the semi final which I’d be confident about. The India v NZ is the only Indian match rained off so they haven’t met yet. I’ll be watching to see how de Kock winds Warner up. First time the teams have met since sandpapergate affair I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qatar Gas on Jul 4, 2019 16:30:31 GMT
Yes Qatar you put it in a nutshell. SA have been poor but I can see them beating Australia in the final match and making sure it’s us v Aus in the semi final which I’d be confident about. The India v NZ is the only Indian match rained off so they haven’t met yet. I’ll be watching to see how de Kock winds Warner up. First time the teams have met since sandpapergate affair I think. I still don’t see anything other than Australia beating South Africa who have had a terrible tournament. I spoke to about five Indian colleagues today and none of them have much confidence and all think England will beat them. They are worried about their batting with only Sharma and Kohli. I am not quite so confident. If we bat second I worry that the previous results will be playing on the minds of the players. We need to learn how to adapt if we end up 20 for 2 whilst chasing 300. |
|
|
|
Post by South Stand Ultra on Jul 6, 2019 16:57:26 GMT
Feck me, Rohit Sharma just hit his 5th Century at the World cup, 5 centuries in 9 games!!!
The bloke is a machine, he's only the 4th player to score 600 runs at a World cup, and he still has a game to go, might even be 2.
The record at a World cup is 673 runs by Sachin Tendulkar, the way he's playing you would think he'd beat the record.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2019 17:34:55 GMT
Feck me, Rohit Sharma just hit his 5th Century at the World cup, 5 centuries in 9 games!!! The bloke is a machine, he's only the 4th player to score 600 runs at a World cup, and he still has a game to go, might even be 2. The record at a World cup is 673 runs by Sachin Tendulkar, the way he's playing you would think he'd beat the record. He's been brilliant throughout. I find the clips sky show from previous WC's fascinating - the low scoring and batting strike rates was so low in the 70's, 80's and 90's. The game has changed so much. |
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Jul 7, 2019 18:52:13 GMT
I wonder if the ECB has learnt anything from this Summers World Cup when they compare it to the Women’s Football World Cup. Cricket sold out long ago to Sky and have used that money well to grow the game. Unfortunately a whole generation of cricket followers have had no cricket to watch on terrestrial and it is slowly getting less and less important as part of the sporting Summer. Whereas being on BBC has given Women’s football a great window to show what it can do and the TV audiences have gradually grown during the competition. It’s had far more publicity than the cricket which for me, a cricket fan, is a great shame.
The Woman’s World Cup has been such a success that the FA, who controlled it, are talking to the PL about them taking it over. Blimey if the PL take it over say goodbye to it being on terrestrial or the BBC, it will be sold to Sky for the most money. It will probably grow but another generation of youngsters will be denied watching it on public channels. Esp after such a great publicity window this summer.
Sorry if some think this is more about the Women’s World Cup (football) than the Cricket World Cup. It’s not but some may think it is. My point is despite cricket being a great game and good to watch, denying people the chance to see it on a public channel has been hugely damaging to the game. The new hundred competition will be on a public station, no Sky this time. I hope the ECB will realise that all need to be able to see top quality cricket not just those who have Sky because they are cricket enthusiasts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2019 20:45:03 GMT
I wonder if the ECB has learnt anything from this Summers World Cup when they compare it to the Women’s Football World Cup. Cricket sold out long ago to Sky and have used that money well to grow the game. Unfortunately a whole generation of cricket followers have had no cricket to watch on terrestrial and it is slowly getting less and less important as part of the sporting Summer. Whereas being on BBC has given Women’s football a great window to show what it can do and the TV audiences have gradually grown during the competition. It’s had far more publicity than the cricket which for me, a cricket fan, is a great shame. The Woman’s World Cup has been such a success that the FA, who controlled it, are talking to the PL about them taking it over. Blimey if the PL take it over say goodbye to it being on terrestrial or the BBC, it will be sold to Sky for the most money. It will probably grow but another generation of youngsters will be denied watching it on public channels. Esp after such a great publicity window this summer. Sorry if some think this is more about the Women’s World Cup (football) than the Cricket World Cup. It’s not but some may think it is. My point is despite cricket being a great game and good to watch, denying people the chance to see it on a public channel has been hugely damaging to the game. The new hundred competition will be on a public station, no Sky this time. I hope the ECB will realise that all need to be able to see top quality cricket not just those who have Sky because they are cricket enthusiasts. Here's the thing. When the BBC and ITV had the monopoly for everything on tv, did we ever see England playing cricket abroad, live? Until Sky came along, we never had that chance except for a 25 minute highlight show around 11:45 at night! Sky have paid the money, and one-day cricket has become more and more popular. Sky took the financial hits early on, and now it is popular everyone expects the good ole BBC to show it, when in the past the BBC has totally ignored it ! The public channels don't pay any money for sport, especially the BBC. If you put it on the BBC then the sport loses out on money that Sky would pay to help develop it. Fact, the only sport on the BBC is stuff they don't have to pay for. Therefore, if they pay nothing then there is no money going into that sport. It's a fact of life. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2019 21:22:04 GMT
I wonder if the ECB has learnt anything from this Summers World Cup when they compare it to the Women’s Football World Cup. Cricket sold out long ago to Sky and have used that money well to grow the game. Unfortunately a whole generation of cricket followers have had no cricket to watch on terrestrial and it is slowly getting less and less important as part of the sporting Summer. Whereas being on BBC has given Women’s football a great window to show what it can do and the TV audiences have gradually grown during the competition. It’s had far more publicity than the cricket which for me, a cricket fan, is a great shame. The Woman’s World Cup has been such a success that the FA, who controlled it, are talking to the PL about them taking it over. Blimey if the PL take it over say goodbye to it being on terrestrial or the BBC, it will be sold to Sky for the most money. It will probably grow but another generation of youngsters will be denied watching it on public channels. Esp after such a great publicity window this summer. Sorry if some think this is more about the Women’s World Cup (football) than the Cricket World Cup. It’s not but some may think it is. My point is despite cricket being a great game and good to watch, denying people the chance to see it on a public channel has been hugely damaging to the game. The new hundred competition will be on a public station, no Sky this time. I hope the ECB will realise that all need to be able to see top quality cricket not just those who have Sky because they are cricket enthusiasts. Here's the thing. When the BBC and ITV had the monopoly for everything on tv, did we ever see England playing cricket abroad, live? Until Sky came along, we never had that chance except for a 25 minute highlight show around 11:45 at night! Sky have paid the money, and one-day cricket has become more and more popular. Sky took the financial hits early on, and now it is popular everyone expects the good ole BBC to show it, when in the past the BBC has totally ignored it ! The public channels don't pay any money for sport, especially the BBC. If you put it on the BBC then the sport loses out on money that Sky would pay to help develop it. Fact, the only sport on the BBC is stuff they don't have to pay for. Therefore, if they pay nothing then there is no money going into that sport. It's a fact of life. Totally agree. Also, I'm not convinced youngsters are missing out - how many actually sit and watch sport for long periods anyway? Most nowadays will stream or watch highlights on YouTube. I think it's more middle aged men who don't want to pay for Sky that make the most noise about this issue. When I was a sports mad kid in the 80's when free to air had a complete free reign sport was very neglected. Hardly any live football, even away England games could only be followed on radio, no overseas cricket, foreign leagues were never seen and even the Ryder cup wasn't shown for the whole event - when in the US we only had highlights. All a bit of a myth about the great days of free to air sport. Just my opinion of course!! |
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Jul 8, 2019 6:15:17 GMT
Here's the thing. When the BBC and ITV had the monopoly for everything on tv, did we ever see England playing cricket abroad, live? Until Sky came along, we never had that chance except for a 25 minute highlight show around 11:45 at night! Sky have paid the money, and one-day cricket has become more and more popular. Sky took the financial hits early on, and now it is popular everyone expects the good ole BBC to show it, when in the past the BBC has totally ignored it ! The public channels don't pay any money for sport, especially the BBC. If you put it on the BBC then the sport loses out on money that Sky would pay to help develop it. Fact, the only sport on the BBC is stuff they don't have to pay for. Therefore, if they pay nothing then there is no money going into that sport. It's a fact of life. Totally agree. Also, I'm not convinced youngsters are missing out - how many actually sit and watch sport for long periods anyway? Most nowadays will stream or watch highlights on YouTube. I think it's more middle aged men who don't want to pay for Sky that make the most noise about this issue. When I was a sports mad kid in the 80's when free to air had a complete free reign sport was very neglected. Hardly any live football, even away England games could only be followed on radio, no overseas cricket, foreign leagues were never seen and even the Ryder cup wasn't shown for the whole event - when in the US we only had highlights. All a bit of a myth about the great days of free to air sport. Just my opinion of course!! My father in law is a F1 nut. For Christmas, I bought him a book about the history of the sport. There was a great story in there, about the British Grand Prix being shown live on BBC1 in the early 60s. With about five laps to go, they stopped showing the race and an episode of "Gunsmoke" took it`s place. Happy days.
|
|
|
|
Post by South Stand Ultra on Jul 8, 2019 10:09:56 GMT
Totally agree. Also, I'm not convinced youngsters are missing out - how many actually sit and watch sport for long periods anyway? Most nowadays will stream or watch highlights on YouTube. I think it's more middle aged men who don't want to pay for Sky that make the most noise about this issue. When I was a sports mad kid in the 80's when free to air had a complete free reign sport was very neglected. Hardly any live football, even away England games could only be followed on radio, no overseas cricket, foreign leagues were never seen and even the Ryder cup wasn't shown for the whole event - when in the US we only had highlights. All a bit of a myth about the great days of free to air sport. Just my opinion of course!! My father in law is a F1 nut. For Christmas, I bought him a book about the history of the sport. There was a great story in there, about the British Grand Prix being shown live on BBC1 in the early 60s. With about five laps to go, they stopped showing the race and an episode of "Gunsmoke" took it`s place. Happy days.
Reminds me of when ITV had the rights. Can't remember what race it was, but it was a close, enthralling race with about 4 laps to go they decided to go for a break, they came back just as the winner was crossing finishing line. Needless to say they got a load of stick for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2019 9:36:48 GMT
New Zealand win the toss and will bat. My Indian friends in work all seem to agree with the dropping of Sharmi.
....and, Indian lose their review first ball !
|
|
|
|
Post by South Stand Ultra on Jul 9, 2019 10:44:25 GMT
New Zealand win the toss and will bat. My Indian friends in work all seem to agree with the dropping of Sharmi. ....and, Indian lose their review first ball !
Slow going by New Zealand at the minute.
The longer Williamson stays in, the more it looks like he's in for a big score.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2019 10:47:38 GMT
New Zealand win the toss and will bat. My Indian friends in work all seem to agree with the dropping of Sharmi. ....and, Indian lose their review first ball !
Slow going by New Zealand at the minute.
The longer Williamson stays in, the more it looks like he's in for a big score.
He's the key isn't he. However, they are building things up nicely at the moment 57-1. |
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Jul 9, 2019 20:08:33 GMT
Rained off. And the forecast for tomorrow is worse.
|
|
