2015 World Cup - Finals

First topic message reminder :

March

Semi-finals

24 Semi-final 1, South Africa v New Zealand, Auckland (01:00 GMT)

26 Semi-final 2, India v Australia, Sydney (03:30 GMT)

Final

29 Final, New Zealand v Australia, Melbourne (05:30 BST)


* * * * * * * *

Having no clear favourites for the semi's makes for an intriguing couple of games.

I watched from around 6 overs into the NZ innings and must admit that Clarke deployed perfect tactics to counter their attacking style. That said, at 150/3, I thought that NZ were still in a very good position. Total collapse from them and its really sad as I feel they have been the best team in the tournament.

Aus really cruising here and looking every bit the most clinical team.

Well done LD. Not enough runs on the board to put any pressure and the Australian innings has been well paced.

Still proud of the Black Caps and hope they don't feel dejected as they've done the country proud. Australia deserved champions though.

Let's see if that jinxes them.

Clarke leading his team home in style

As a contest : a bit of a fizzer. But as an appropriate (ODI) send off for a great cricketer - just right. After his fight back from injury and not much in the rounds , this was a good way to finish.

Out now - but the job is done.

Official now : seven wicket win...well deserved.

NZ will be disappointed with a rather limp effort here. But they were the best team in the group stage , won a tough semi , and have much to be proud of. They lost to a very good team today.

All praise to Australia.

and that seals it. New Zealand had a couple of moments in that chase, but Warner's knock (and Smith's early solidity) were key in getting Aus off to a good start (10-2 would have made things a lot more interesting) and Clarke once he got through a few early jitters showed his class. Smith's astonishing run of form continued, and nobody really seems to know how to get him out at the moment.

I always felt Australia had the strongest team in the tournament. New Zealand had plenty of match-winners, but apart from Elliott none of them fired today. It is interesting that Aus came into the tournament with a couple of question marks over their best XI, but figured it out pretty quickly.

5th world cup for Australia now.

ebop wrote: 1 from 2 so far LD, let's just leave it there eh

2 form 2 if you include the Asian Cup.... but yeah, 2 out of 3 wouldn't be bad!  

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Well done LD. Not enough runs on the board to put any pressure and the Australian innings has been well paced.

Still proud of the Black Caps and hope they don't feel dejected as they've done the country proud. Australia deserved champions though.

Let's see if that jinxes them.

Thanks kia.
A pity it began so cruelly for NZ with that 3rd ball wicket and they never really got off the ground after that. It just wasn't their day today.
Australia saved their best for last. It was a nice surprise to see them pull it off so effectively in such an important match.

5 x

KP_fan wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

I wouldn't say they are a far superior side KP fan otherwise they wouldn't be in the final. But I do concede NZ are going into the final with the odds stacked against them. Can't wait for it and hope we have more shades of the first semi final than the second in terms of a contest.

Far superior or marginally so could be anything from Semantical to Subjective.
Yes you put it right.....odds are against NZ....but then there is motivation on their side too...to snatch a piece from history and freeze it for time immemorial. The class of 2015 that did it.

And this sense of history that this NZ team in playing with...is their biggest strength over material odds

well marginally superior or far superior.....was settled today.
and mind didn't overcome the material odds today.

Well played Australia......a comprehensive, all round team full of match winners with bat and ball...steamrolled their way through semis and finals

Mike Selig wrote:and that seals it. New Zealand had a couple of moments in that chase, but Warner's knock (and Smith's early solidity) were key in getting Aus off to a good start (10-2 would have made things a lot more interesting) and Clarke once he got through a few early jitters showed his class. Smith's astonishing run of form continued, and nobody really seems to know how to get him out at the moment.

I always felt Australia had the strongest team in the tournament. New Zealand had plenty of match-winners, but apart from Elliott none of them fired today. It is interesting that Aus came into the tournament with a couple of question marks over their best XI, but figured it out pretty quickly.

5th world cup for Australia now.

Mike - yes, Australia were the strongest team in the tournament and I felt that since before the start. Good point about Australia figuring out their best XI - that's something South Africa never did and which continues to hold them back. For Australia, whilst Watson is not a great player, he is a useful one and, more importantly, a very handy fit.

My sympathies to New Zealand. They lit up this competition although, in harsh reality, were a bit of a damp squib today.

I think the big question coming out of this world cup has to be this: -

Will England actually win a game all summer?

Forget the summer, Olly. Gonna be a long year if your house isn't in order

NZ
Aus
SAF

Cricket may stop making the news after this year

In this modern era....since IPL/ BBL has blossomed ......and teams have learnt the new way of playing the limited over game.....where 400+ team totals and 200+ personal totals are not miracles anymore.....

another trend  has emerged in the world cup.....THAT OF HOME ADVANTAGE.
2011....the two home teams were in the finals playing all their games including the semis in their home venues.

and then the team with the final at home won easily.

2015...same story as 2011

2019....the World cup is in England.....can they learn the modern game by then is the question

Home advantage is a big advantage.....the seemingly mighty Australians have been walloped 4-0 and 3-0 in their last 7 test matches vs Ind and Pak.....in conditions that are hugely contrasting to their natural home conditions

and now the glitterati stars of world cup all move to IPL...starting in over a weeks time....except Pak.
even without KP there are still a couple of English palyers.

3 Aussies and 1 South African are captaining half of the IPL sides and none of them are their national captains in any formats
especially ironic is Smith playing under Watson for Rajasthan

Well played Australia! Shame it wasn't a close final but it had its moments of intrigue. Aus have won four out of the last five world cups, what a record that is!

Reading Clarke's comments, it was always going to be about skill rather than emotions. Guess that's where we lost our way a little. AB has spoken about trying to be the team that unites South Africa. About making us proud. Wonder if we wanted it too much.

Nonetheless, congratulations to LD and the Aussies. It was the consummate performance. Fantastic for Clarke to play one final shepherd knock in his last match. Before the game hit the stratosphere of what was expected in the last twenty overs, Clarke was as good as any batter at managing a chase. Little easier today, chasing 183, but still, semblance of poetic justice.

I agree with Mike that the story shouldn't be rewritten to explain away NZ's discombobulation as nerves. Australia were on them like a cheap suit, from start to finish. Clarke captained especially well, because NZ would have felt like they have a sparkle of hope for a defendable target when Taylor and Elliot were going. Got a bit an opening, and like so many Aussie sides before them, absolutely rammed the door down.

The Loaded Dog wrote:

ebop wrote: 1 from 2 so far LD, let's just leave it there eh

2 form 2 if you include the Asian Cup.... but yeah, 2 out of 3 wouldn't be bad!  

If we're being honest, 3 from 3 when you add the league!

Well done mate for the well deserved win

Starc is a weapon and Smith looks the goods going forward. There was a gulf in big match temperament between the two sides. You guys just have the history and pedigree and know when and how to perform when it counts and what it takes. They say you need to lose one to win one but that was our chance being co-hosts. Can't see us doing as well in future cups. Just glad to have had the ride we did this time and it'll live long in our memories and inspire kiwi kids.

VTR wrote:Well played Australia! Shame it wasn't a close final but it had its moments of intrigue. Aus have won four out of the last five world cups, what a record that is!

I watched some of the final (plus the highlights) and thought it was a good atmosphere. Shame the game itself wasn't as good. I would have liked New Zealand to win as they have strolled through the tournament unbeaten. They just seemed to be overwhelmed by their neighbours.

Overall I found the tournament boring to follow. There were some good games but overall too many games and the tournament lasted too long. After the first two or three group game rounds the tournament ran out of steam a little until the semi finals. The ICC is a total joke. Fifa may be corrupt but the ICC should look at the growth of the football world cup and take note. The ICC and cricket in general is pretty backwards thing.

To be honest I find this narrative of NZ being the best team throughout the tournament a little bit strange. They were probably one "Starc spot-on yorker to Boult" away from losing to Aus in an incredibly close match, and they had a couple of narrow scrapes along the way as well.

Aus by contrast were only really troubled by SL and Pak and even then ran out eventually comfortable winners.

Not saying Aus were better than NZ throughout, but think it was pretty much level-pegging until the final.

As for the WC as a whole I've got to agree with sportform. Large groups makes for an uninteresting tournament. It became clear very early on who the form teams were, and the rest of things was just meandering along until they either hit a speed-bump (Aus vs Pak) and got over it, or faced each other off. If you have smaller groups then the matches become more meaningful because an upset makes so much more difference. And even if no upsets happen, then at least it is short.

Frankly the only thing which kept the group stage interesting was England getting knocked out, and the Ireland story-arc.

The proposed format for 2019 is one group of 10 in a round-robin format, with the top 4 to the semi-finals. Frankly we will almost certainly see at least 2 or 3 teams way ahead (and who can therefore afford to lose the odd match anyway, making their "speed-bumps" far less interesting because the result doesn't actually matter), at least 3 or 4 teams way below everyone (so that even if they cause an upset and win the odd match again it doesn't matter), with the remaining maybe 4 sides battling it out for 1 or 2 places. So out of 45 group stage matches (!!!!!!!) you may get 6 which actually mean something. Of those 6, some will be close, some won't. Great.

The system may work better if the IPL knock-out system was used (top 2 play-off directly for the final, 3rd and 4th play-off and the winner of that plays the loser of the 1-2 match for the 2nd place in the final), because at least then you'd have an incentive to get into the top 2.

The system would work of course a lot better with 4 groups of 4, top 2 to the quarter-finals. Then if you screw up you're out, if you play well you're through. But that's a radical concept for a tournament I acknowledge...

Completely agree with the comments on format. However the ICC dress it up, its designed to maximise the number of games featuring India, and the new format can also guarantee an India vs Pakistan match.

Great for them, it will make them millions of dollars, but us fans of the game will be seriously bored by the whole thing

--The difference in the 2019..... 10 team round robin format vs. the current one in 2015...that there are no guaranteed qualifications to the K.O stages in 2019.

--for eg. Ind-Pak-SA the top3 sides knew that the games vs. each other were relatively less consequential ( read almost inconsequential)...because regardless of  results of the game between them....they still have a high chance of going through to the K.O  if they didn't lose to the minnows.

--actually if WI-Ind-SA-Pak all ensured they did not lose their games vs the minnows...they would all qualify.

because in the current format 4 qualify from a group of 7 containing 3 minnows

--in the new format the games between top sides would not be so pressure-free as they were now and hence not so inconsequential

because in the 2019  format 4 qualify from a group of 10 containing 2 minnows

the two statement in bold are quite explanatory of the significant contrasts

First of all please can we avoid using the term Minnows as it is unnecessarily offensive?

Had this WC been in the proposed format then it would have become quickly obvious that Aus, NZ were ahead of the pack. After Ind beat SA it would have been clear that they would too make the semis. Conversely it would have been obvious very soon that England, Bang, West Indies and co were not going to get there. So after at most half the group stage matches the only interest would have been about SA vs SL possibly vs Pak.

Something similar will transpire in 2019. The only slight interest in the matches between the top teams will be to place higher, but even then given they will likely be playing another "top" team anyway once you get to the semis, it will make little difference.

The only way for this not to happen is for teams to be more closely matched. In which case any format would work TBH.

Arguments over the format don't change the fact that a "World" cup will involve fewer than 1 in 10 of the countries who play the sport. Or that the "qualification" process is inherently unfair.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/cricket-world-cup-ireland-can-prove-icc-strategy-is-bonkers-10089166.html

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/66892597/Reason-Minnows-make-their-mark-in-Cricket-World-Cup-team-full-of-stars

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/66892597/Reason-Minnows-make-their-mark-in-Cricket-World-Cup-team-full-of-stars

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/cricket-world-cup-must-continue-to-embrace-minnows-20150221-13l0uq.html

1) Minnows is offensive...in which world  see links above the Aussie, NZ and British news-papers routinely use this term in the same context as used here.

When in the public domain and media a term is neither derogatory nor offensive.....then personal sensitivities to it are referred to as "touchiness" or " Chip on the shoulder"

2) On to cricketing matters.....

maybe you didn't pay enough attention to the two statements in bold so you wrote as in quotes below

when 4 teams have to qualify from a group of 7 containing 3 minnows.....the games between strong sides are pressure-less and largely inconsequential

When 4 teams have to qualify from a group of 10 with only 2 minnows those games between strong sides have a different context and pressure balance  because the implication of a win / loss is far more i.e consequential

the nonchalance with which the NZ guy smacked the Aussie bowler for a SIX to win by one wicket may not be possible......conversely Aus may not have casually been bowled out for 150....nor possibly Ind put up 300  against SA or Pak nor lanka chased down nearly 360 vs Aus....if those were real pressure / more consequential games

the following would not have happened

Had this WC been in the proposed format then it would have become quickly obvious that Aus, NZ were ahead of the pack. After Ind beat SA it would have been clear that they would too make the semis. Conversely it would have been obvious very soon that England, Bang, West Indies and co were not going to get there. So after at most half the group stage matches the only interest would have been about SA vs SL possibly vs Pak.

Minnows is offensive to me and all the people I know of who are actively involved in associate cricket - it is very emotionally charged and viewed as symptomatic of the way we are constantly portrayed in the media and indeed by the ICC. Ed Joyce for example is quoted as saying he doesn't like its use. The fact that it is widely used in the media of the non-associate sides does nothing to change this. There are any number of terms which at various times throughout history have been in widespread use which are now universally (or almost) considered offensive (such as "n**ger", "p**f" to give but 2 examples).

I would kindly and politely ask that you refrain from using it. If you choose not to then you are being deliberately antagonistic. That is of course par for the course for you, but in this instance I thought I would civilly ask you not to be.

I read and perfectly understood your post. I simply disagree with its premise which is that there are about 8 top teams in world cricket at the moment; in ODIs there are about 4 or 5 (depending on where you class SL) - the rest are what I refer to as "speed-bumps" (you may lose but rarely). Under the proposed format Aus vs NZ would carry no more weight because after a dozen group matches it would have been obvious that both teams would comfortably get through as part of the top 4.

By the half-way stage the vast majority of the remaining group matches would be meaningless, because by that stage it would be clear who would be certainly progressing, who would certainly not be. What would remain would be at best 4 sides chasing for 1 or 2 places.

The potential speed bumps take on even less meaning because there are more matches to catch up any potential defeat, and your place in the top 4 is not all that important because you are likely playing a top side anyway.

I am not sure about cutting down the level of participation to 10 sides, not sure about 14 either, would like the number to be 12 with a 6 each group stage, QF and then on....... Not ideal, but think that would be better than other options.
Now there is something else. After the final, Michael Clarke made his views on the new ODI rules, and he was pretty much on the lines of Mahendra Singh Dhoni. The 4 fielder rule is stupid. Particularly when they don't play on proper grounds....... It does not help the spinners, while mediocre batsmen are able to keep on tonking, spinners are expected to be extraordinary among the extraordinary.......
Hope the next WC would be played under more sensible rules, and hopefully they'll bring about some kind of standardization of boundaries as well. That for me, is more important than the format....... Had given up watching ODIs closely after Rohit Sharma's 264, followed the WC, but with all those stupid 400+ totals and double hundreds, overall I was disappointed.......

Mike Selig wrote: There are any number of terms which at various times throughout history have been in widespread use which are now universally (or almost) considered offensive (such as "n**ger", "p**f" to give but 2 examples).

--you put Nig*r and minnow in the same boat ??? and by implication the entire media today is severely racist

my friend much as I like your passion for the game and your occasional analysis with an insightful perspective....I cannot endorse or encourage your "touchiness"

--on your "speed bump" analogy...

what was a "speed bump" in "pressure-less" ; "incosequential" match situation.....may well be "toppling hurdle" in a real-pressure situation....and then the remaining games turn even more tense and meaningful.

--think about it give Eng 7 games against the non minnow sides in this format...and even they are bound to win 2 or 4 games

I didn't put them in the same boat. I was merely using the (loose I grant you) analogy to refute your claim that the term minnow is fine because loads of people use it. It isn't. It is offensive to me and others because of the stigma it carries. Yet you persist in using it, in spite of my explaining this to you.

Can I flip the question? Why continue to use the word if you know it causes offence?

Frankly I am not going to bother with this board anymore at this rate. You are being deliberately antagonistic, for the n-th time, and nobody seems to care. Well I care deeply about this issue, and have no wish to continue my presence here if that is the way the wind is going.

We saw how many matches England won at this WC against the better sides. Played I guess 4 (if you include Bangladesh) won precisely none. How this extrapolates to 2-4 games from 7 I have no idea. But then really compared to the other issue, I don't care and have no wish to pursue this conversation.

I am completely and hopelessly incapable of dealing with *tantrums*

Just answer this: why continue to use the term when you know it causes offence? Even if you think I (and others, including Ed Joyce) are being completely unreasonable, what does it matter? What difference does it make to you to not use the word?

Mike Selig wrote:Just answer this: why continue to use the term when you know it causes offence? Even if you think I (and others, including Ed Joyce) are being completely unreasonable, what does it matter? What difference does it make to you to not use the word?

answered two times earlier.....C&P-ing again

KP_f wrote:
When in the public domain and media a term is neither derogatory nor offensive.....then personal sensitivities to it are referred to as "touchiness" or " Chip on the shoulder"

KP_f wrote:my friend much as I like your passion for the game and your occasional analysis with an insightful perspective....I cannot endorse or encourage your "touchiness

That is merely stating that you don't believe the term is offensive. It is irrelevant frankly what you think - I and others (including Ed Joyce) have stated that for us it is offensive.

The question is given that you know that some people find it offensive, why continue using the term? Even if you think they (which is to say we) are being unreasonable, what does it cost you not to use it?

I would also ask why the mods feel it fine for a poster to continue to act in such a deliberately antagonistic fashion, but given previous issues with this same poster I can't see anybody stepping in anytime soon.

Fine, I shall draw my own conclusions.

KP Fan: Look, I don't think it should be a sin, just for saying "Minnow".

[Everyone gasps]

Mike Selig: You're only making it worse for yourself!

KP Fan: Making it worse? How can it be worse? Minnow! Minnow! Minnow!

Mike Selig: I'm warning you! If you say "Minnow" one more time (gets hit with rock) RIGHT! Who did that? Come on, who did it?

Stoners: She did! She did! (suddenly speaking as men) He! He did! He!

Mike Selig: Was it you?

Stoner: Yes.

Mike Selig: Right...

Stoner: Well you did say "Minnow "

[Crowd throws rocks at the stoner]

Mike Selig: STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT RIGHT NOW! STOP IT! All right, no one is to stone _anyone_ until I blow this whistle. Even... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, "Minnow."

It is ridiculous to take offence over a solitary word. Ludicrous.

Duty281 wrote:It is ridiculous to take offence over a solitary word. Ludicrous.

(Speaks in thick Caribbean patois) "Minnow!!!!!!!!!!!"

Duty281 wrote:It is ridiculous to take offence over a solitary word. Ludicrous.

I can think of a few that the forum wont even let me post.

I don't think the word Minnow is really offensive. It will be used a lot in the Rugby Union World Cup, and is certainly widely used in Football, for example we have Minnows undertaking Giant Killings in the FA Cup.

I think the ignore function could be the answer here. We also have to be wary of sanitising the message board, it sounds nice but would in fact be very dull if everyone nodded their head and agreed all the time.

VTR wrote:I don't think the word Minnow is really offensive. It will be used a lot in the Rugby Union World Cup, and is certainly widely used in Football, for example we have Minnows undertaking Giant Killings in the FA Cup.

I think the ignorefunction could be the answer here. We also have to be wary of sanitising the message board, it sounds nice but would in fact be very dull if everyone nodded their head and agreed all the time.

Whereas I think people should stop being so f*cking sensitive.

DAVE667 wrote:

VTR wrote:I don't think the word Minnow is really offensive. It will be used a lot in the Rugby Union World Cup, and is certainly widely used in Football, for example we have Minnows undertaking Giant Killings in the FA Cup.

I think the ignorefunction could be the answer here.  We also have to be wary of sanitising the message board, it sounds nice but would in fact be very dull if everyone nodded their head and agreed all the time.

Whereas I think people should stop being so f*cking sensitive.

I find this language offensive, David, please kindly moderate it.

Signed, some queer.

Does the cricket forum even have moderators? I nominate myself. I'll only get power drunk when I've gained all your trust, like all good African dictators

Duty281 wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

VTR wrote:I don't think the word Minnow is really offensive. It will be used a lot in the Rugby Union World Cup, and is certainly widely used in Football, for example we have Minnows undertaking Giant Killings in the FA Cup.

I think the ignorefunction could be the answer here.  We also have to be wary of sanitising the message board, it sounds nice but would in fact be very dull if everyone nodded their head and agreed all the time.

Whereas I think people should stop being so f*cking sensitive.

I find this language offensive, David, please kindly moderate it.

Signed, some queer.

No worries, bumder....I'll refrain from such activities in future x x x

VTR wrote:[the word minnow] will be used a lot in the Rugby Union World Cup, and is certainly widely used in Football, for example we have Minnows undertaking Giant Killings in the FA Cup.

The difference is that neither of those sports have the same (recent) history of stigmatising the so-called minnows that cricket has. That is why the word is emotionally charged in cricket but not quite so much in other sports. As far as I know no top rugby/football player has said openly in the media that they dislike the term either.

I am glad the topic is a joke to some. To those of us who spend a significant part of our lives battling the current inequalities within the ICC it isn't. Perhaps cricket fans have the administration they deserve then.

Upon re-reading this exchange it strikes me as faintly ridiculous.

I do stand by my original point: I don't like the word minnow as I feel in cricket it carries baggage due to the at times institutional stigmatising of the associate/affiliate nations by all, from the administrators to some of the fans which makes a mockery of the significant efforts people in these countries put in to develop the sport and ultimately make it a better global product. This explains why at times we get emotional and defensive over issues which may seem trivial to others. I still do not see why people having had that point made feel the need to act antagonistically. It is one thing debating and disagreeing, sometimes in strong terms, but...

Nevertheless it is clear that I over-reacted, and having made my point once should have dropped it. That would have stopped me from appearing quite so silly.

I would ask that we return to debating the cricket.

Team of the tournament anyone?
Guptil
McCullum (C)
Sangakara (wkt)
Smith
De Villiers
Maxwell
Anderson
Ashwin
Starc
Morkel
Boult

I guess you could make a good case for Faulkner, Vettori. Any other glaring omissions?

Mike Selig wrote:

I would ask that we return to debating the cricket.

Team of the tournament anyone?
Guptil
McCullum (C)
Sangakara (wkt)
Smith
De Villiers
Maxwell
Anderson
Ashwin
Starc
Morkel
Boult

I guess you could make a good case for Faulkner, Vettori. Any other glaring omissions?

Certainly, Mike.

Your team looks very strong and highly appropriate.

Much as Ashwin impressed me - and I said the same to msp - he would narrowly be edged out of my XI by Vettori. Both bowled really well. However, I recall some good running and hitting by Vettori in some closing overs together with a wondrous boundary catch which gets him my vote by a whisker.

Also and admittedly I may be getting carried away by one spell which thrilled me and others so much but I would like to find a spot for Wahab Riaz. Maybe at Morkel's expense. I fully acknowledge I haven't looked at the stats so I may well be shot down there but to me the excitement factor comes into it.

I'm gonna go,

Mccullum
Guptill
Faf DuP
Sangakarra
De Villiers
Miller
Maxwell
Faulkner
Starc
Boult
Tahir

Smith misses out due to a reshuffling to accommodate Miller, a slightly left field choice, but an average of 65 at a strike rate of 138 masks the bias supporting this decision
who would be followed by Maxwell who has the same average at a scarcely believable strike rate of 183.
Might be a little light on fifth bowler duties, but my captaincy style has always been that of a maverick devoid of back up plans.
Guys who just missed out
Smith - Little unlucky, but I genuinely believe Faf had a better tournament, and probably would also have ticked off a World cup semi final century in Eden Park had rain not meant he had to launch earlier than planned.
Morkel
Johnson
Ashwin (although I probably wasn't as impressed as some here)
Anderson - was a little close, but he got absolutely battered as a bowler in the KO games and his performances with the bat aren't quite at the Maxwell-Miller range.
Grant Elliot - Without looking at the stats, I don't think he had a particularly stand out tournament (certainly not to the level of the XI playing), but theres an undeniable level of respect for a person who pulls out the knock of his career in back to back world cup knockout matches

Having looked up Smith and Faf's respective world cups (the only decision I was genuinely 50-50 on), Smith scored 455 runs at 56.7 with a SR of 92 in fourteen games and ten innings. Faf went 380 runs in seven knocks at an average of 63 and SR of 84. Think cases can be made for both, but I'll stick with Faf

Miller didn't have a great world cup. Got to have Smith in, thanks to delivering in the big games.

Miller delivered in the knockout to the tune of a fifteen ball 49. In hindsight, it would have been better in terms of DL had he scored a run a ball fifteen not out, but that was a huge performance in a semi final, against a team which had bowled teams to shreds. Only had one knockout knock, and he shone big time. Smith was excellent, of course, but like I said, I reckon Faf DuP was a little better, and Smith doesn't do the 6/7 gig as well as Davey.

kingraf wrote:Miller delivered in the knockout to the tune of a fifteen ball 49. In hindsight, it would have been better in terms of DL had he scored a run a ball fifteen not out, but that was a huge performance in a semi final, against a team which had bowled teams to shreds. Only had one knockout knock, and he shone big time. Smith was excellent, of course, but like I said, I reckon Faf DuP was a little better, and Smith doesn't do the 6/7 gig as well as Davey.

Seemed to score runs against the so called weaker teams (not to cause offence) in the groups. Smith is a shoe-in, imo, but Du-Plessis did bat well.

Anyone fancy a go at the most disappointing XI? Not a worst XI, rather a team of players with reputations that failed to deliver. I didn't really follow enough of the games to have a good go at this.

Or is this a task of just cutting and pasting the England line up into a comments box?

Amla
De-Kock
Kohli
Williamson
Taylor
Morgan
Matthews
Jadeja
Steyn
Broad
Roach

Certainly worse players with worse stats in this tournament than Shahid Afridi. However, the ''Boom Boom'' days seem gone. Never reached 30 with the bat and, whilst he bowled a containing line, only took 2 wickets from his 57 overs.

Little harsh, I'd say, Stella. Faf scored a fifty against the Indians and the Windies, got a start against the Pakistanis, scored a 20-odd not out vs the Lankans, and played a very well composed 80-odd against the Kiwis.