T20 World Cup: Live Matches Discussion

First topic message reminder :

Hi all,

I've set up our very own 606v2 T20 World Cup SuperBru tipping competition for anyone who is interested.

http://www.superbru.com/worldt20/player_home.asp

First game is Sri Lanka v Zimbabwe on Tuesday, September 18 at 19:30 (local time) in Hambantota.

The full list of fixtures is here:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/world-twenty20-2012/content/series/531597.html?template=fixtures

The pool code for 606v2: playsacs

Everyone is welcome.
Enjoy the matches and best of luck to your team.

Who do you think will win?

we arnt going home!

Superb last over there from Samuels, just 7 of it, and West Indies won by 15!!.
Charles got 84, but Chris Gayle the man of the match for me, a fine knock at the top that set it all up, and then a very good 4 over spell with the ball and Bairstow's wicket.

Well , we are not getting any further in this roakey,

Picking that bowling and we won't win again.

Trebbs the way hales and mogs went when they got in- id say we still have a shot at this

Hopefully pick Briggs instead of Dernbach next game, he's been poor all tournament.

If they send dernbache home to sa maybe.

So England fall just short. In reality they'd been playing catch-up since the first over. It was only a very special innings from Morgan that got them back in with a shout.

Hopefully Morgan and Hales have gone someway to silencing their critics.

West Indies, well their bowling remains a concern. Narine looked ineffective, Rampaul has very rarely done it at the death (in fact I would suggest he's worse than Dernbach at that exercise). Gayle is a good option. Sammy looks average at best, and Russel is expensive.

Their batting is reliant hugely on Chris Gayle. The other players are really hit and miss. In this format they're a big threat.

For England, you have to start wondering what's wrong. This goes beyond something which would be fixed by picking one player. This is a team which a year ago were on top of every format, and which even 6 months ago were walloping Australia and this West Indian team in limited over cricket.

Wright remains a question mark. bairstow's struggles against spin are a real issue. I'm not sure Morgan at 4 would necessarily have been better TBH - he'd rather come in when he did, although ideally with 10 an over required rather than 12.5. Hales looked good once more, realistically he's not going to score at a bigger SR than that, and if the rest of the team had played around him it would have been fine.

Dernbach at the death is a real issue, at least 2 overs because it gives batsmen the chance to sight his slower ball. You have to question whether Broad should bowl 2, and even start thinking about Bresnan or even Briggs for Dernbach.

I also question quite so much negativity from you (supposed) England fans. the comments stopped coming during the fightback, and started again immediately as defeat became clear and then happened.

Interestingly, Andre Russell didn't bowl even 1 over and same was the case with Bravo and Pollard. Captain Sammy bowled just the 1 over. Badree, true to his reputation, just went at 5 an over in his 4 over spell. England again not letting Sunil Narine to dominate them, West Indies' power batting game, inconsistent English bowling, inept batting in the first half of their innings, all combined to ensure England lost today.

Patel's selection justified. 0-38 and didnt even bat.



If Briggs doesnt play next game, what is the point?

England scored 50 of the 5 overs the seamers bowled.
Badree went at 5, Gayle at 6.75, Narine at 8.15. Only Samuels went for a few, but he held his own in that last over.

I thought Patel recovered after he was smashed around by Gayle in that first over. Don't forget Swann didn't even bowl all his 4 overs!.

To be fair though msp, England were largely consolidating for much of the Badree, and some of Narine (and Gayle for one over) spells after being 0/2, and had obviously decided to target Sammy.

Whilst the comparison looks striking, I thought Hales and Morgan played the spin pretty well today. Bairstow still struggled.

Charles the Man of the Match. Thought Gayle should have got for his all-round show. But then good for the youngster, I have been a bit critical of him, and I am not convinced about him as yet, but a good day nevertheless for him.

I would have given it to Gayle too, it was his innings which set it up.

Well played big man, from one of your fiercest (ex?) critics.

msp83 wrote:England scored 50 of the 5 overs the seamers bowled.
Badree went at 5, Gayle at 6.75, Narine at 8.15. Only Samuels went for a few, but he held his own in that last over.

dont think we can take that much from holding your own with 23 needed. - the fact is if england needed 14 they would have probally got it

Mike the track didn't have as much help for the spinners as the case was during England's previous game(not that it was turning and jumping like a 5th day sub-continent test track), but the 2 wickets in the first over add more pressure and Hales and Bairstow failed to keep the rate up. In the end it was a bit too much for Morgan. Hales recovered well during the course of his innings, but he needs to find more ways to keep the score moving when the big hits aren't coming off.

Despite the win today, the concerns remain for the West Indies. As Mike said above, Rampaul isn't doing his job at the death, in fact he wasn't that good at the start against Australia and Fidel is considered a good bet at T-20s. Perhaps Rampaul's first over showing might give him 1 more game, but I would like to see Fidel back in. Badree has this reputation of a very good containing bowler and he did no harm to that today, and I believe the West Indies should certainly play him against New Zealand, and even Sri Lanka for that matter.

Truly fantastic hitting from Morgan. Sometimes he does better when he doesn't have chance to get himself in because he seems to me as likely to get out getting in as he is to get out hitting out. Comprenez vous?

Undecided about Hales' innings. Yeah 68 off 51 is a decent effort but it's slower than the required rate and he got all of the power play overs. His problem to my uneducated eye is that he really loses his shape trying to hit it too hard especially when compared to the ease of Morgan or Gayle's hitting. Probably not fair comparing him to those and maybe I'm being over critical but England did finish 15 runs shy which is a fair margin in T20.

Overall a brilliant game of T20 (which generally I'm not a huge fan of) and wonderful to see Chris Gayle having a ball.

mogs and hales have kept england in this big time- If england win the next two we will probally need to go through on NRR anyway,, I am looking positive

That 90 run loss wouldn't have done any favors with regarding that NRR.

But then they do have a 116 run win against the Afghans. But the other 3 sides have been more consistent even in losses, so that's another challenge for England.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Dernbach rarely puts in a consistent run of good performances. He is capable of bowling well in this form but my general sense is that his bowling performances will typically come out at around: good 25%, OK 25%, fairly poor 25%, very poor 25%. Not sure that is good enough....

Following the concerns posted today about Dernbach's bowling, I thought it was worth flagging the Corporal's wise comments of the other day. His being poor (whether it's fairly poor or very poor) on average every other other game does seem to be the case and not good enough.

It's a shame as Dernbach can be a match winner but he's currently too unreliable and therefore too big a risk (in my view).

msp83 wrote:That 90 run loss wouldn't have done any favors with regarding that NRR.

ifs and buts that pal. NRR didnt carry forward.

Hibbz wrote:
Undecided about Hales' innings. Yeah 68 off 51 is a decent effort but it's slower than the required rate and he got all of the power play overs. His problem to my uneducated eye is that he really loses his shape trying to hit it too hard especially when compared to the ease of Morgan or Gayle's hitting. Probably not fair comparing him to those and maybe I'm being over critical but England did finish 15 runs shy which is a fair margin in T20.

I think you're a bit harsh. The maths is fairly easy in that 68/51 = 4/3 which is precisely 8 an over, which would have got England to 160, which is more runs off the bat than England actually managed (158). The point is Hales's job isn't really to blast off, it's to bat through the innings at about the rate he did, and let the other players play around him, as they are all more natural ball strikers (you are right that Hales tries to "overhit" at times). He batted at a fairly constant rate throughout the innings (from what I remember he was 17 off 12 early on, then 32 off 21) so it's not a case of him suddenly slowing down, or getting stuck at the start. Playing at a constant rate (he did this against Afghanistan as well) allows the other batsmen to settle because they know what's coming.

I thought it was a good knock today. Looked a lot more comfortable against the spinners than he did against Afghanistan.

mystiroakey wrote:

msp83 wrote:That 90 run loss wouldn't have done any favors with regarding that NRR.

ifs and buts that pal. NRR didnt carry forward.

So they look at NRR round based? Interesting indeed. But a bit of relief for England nevertheless.

Given that points aren't carried on it would be a bit unreasonable for NRR to carry over. Sri Lanka will also be relieved after their (NRR wise) heay loss to South Africa (DL scores are ajusted to 20 overs for NRR purposes I think).

One thing England salvaged well today was the NRR situation. It will all be redundant if they don't improve (more) before their next match tho...

Er yeah, thanks for the arithmetic lesson Mike but I managed that for myself.

As I said I was being maybe overcritical but is it not the case that once a batsman is set they are supposed to increase their rate?

I think the problem is that if that's the best he's going to produce then the average is likely to fall some way short.

That said I think my point is fatally flawed in that there's nobody they'll pick that would do any better.

cook or bell.. as i said before the selections. add Kp and you have a team that could beat anyone

Thread continues here...

https://www.606v2.com/t35392-t20-world-cup-live-matches-discussion#1575309