World T20

First topic message reminder :

The ICC have run some poor events in yesteryear but this is already taking the biscuit


No tickets on sale still, reports Delhi are pulling out as a host and Pakistan might not even be allowed to play. Oh and Australia have already announced their squad

But everything is "progressing smoothly" according to the latest ICC press release...

That was comprehensively brushed aside by Eng...and that's why I was hoping we don't meet them in the final
( off-course they are there and we still need to get there;)

the turnaround came when Jordan and Stokes.....fast medium , hit the deck hard, pulled NZ down from a 180+ to barely crossing 150

they are favorites to win now regardless of who they play in the final.

I will hold my hand up to my rank outsiders comment, and I think it was fair before a ball had been bowled, and after one and a half games England looked as good as out

It's all pretty much clicked since then, the improvement in players like Roy, Jordan and Willey has been immense

Strings Philander wrote:

Olly wrote:

Strings Philander wrote:On Switch Hit a few weeks back, George Dobell suggested England's production of quality T20 players rubbishes from the current set-up rubbishes any argument that City Franchise cricket would be a positive step for the English game. (Not a quote - but that's the gist)

This was pre this World T20 even starting. Does this World T20 performance so far go some way to adding credence to his argument?

I think there's a happy medium between the current status and franchise.

It's pretty ridiculous that in this day and age that every t20 blast game isn't at least on a live feed online somewhere.

Agree - that's a pretty easy fix though isn't it?
Get one of the betting companies on board - give them rights to stream non-Sky games.
The in-play betting profits would probably pay the sum Sky would charge for rights wouldn't it?

Whilst I don't doubt the numbers would add up, I am not sure the way of inspiring and invigorating the next generation of young cricket fans is streaming the games on Paddy Power! Not sure too many parents would want their 10 year old sons on Betfair.

I think franchising is inevitable really, and probably is on balance good for the T20 tournament. Me not having a county to follow probably lends to this particular view I accept, but I think it is the way we will have to go - certainly for T20.

Not sure NZ were particularly bad, but they just got roundly outplayed. After the initial burst from them in the power play it was largely all England.

England have been more hot than cold this tournament. If they can avoid a let down they can beat whoever wins tomorrow.

VTR wrote:I will hold my hand up to my rank outsiders comment, and I think it was fair before a ball had been bowled, and after one and a half games England looked as good as out

It's all pretty much clicked since then, the improvement in players like Roy, Jordan and Willey has been immense

tbf some idiot said the Windies were a mess.

Windies are a mess, whatever happens!

I've followed the T20 World Cup loosely. It's great that England have reached the final but looking at the enthusism for the Rugby World Cup... Cricket as a sport is being left behind. It is far too closed shop, has absolutely no outreach to the wider public and is practically a dying sport. That is such a same because I used to know the first IX of every county and I know cricket fans now who are raving about this World Cup. Being on Sky though, I and the next generation just don' t get to see it .

sportform wrote:I've followed the T20 World Cup loosely. It's great that England have reached the final but looking at the enthusism for the Rugby World Cup... Cricket as a sport is being left behind. It is far too closed shop, has absolutely no outreach to the wider public and is practically a dying sport. That is such a same because I used to know the first IX of every county and I know cricket fans now who are raving about this World Cup. Being on Sky though, I and the next generation just don' t get to see it .

Who'd have thought enthusiasm for a world cup being held in England would be greater than one being held in India

Shocking scenes

sportform wrote:I've followed the T20 World Cup loosely. It's great that England have reached the final but looking at the enthusism for the Rugby World Cup... Cricket as a sport is being left behind. It is far too closed shop, has absolutely no outreach to the wider public and is practically a dying sport. That is such a same because I used to know the first IX of every county and I know cricket fans now who are raving about this World Cup. Being on Sky though, I and the next generation just don' t get to see it .

Bit late now as there are only 2 games to go - but the whole thing has been streamed live through Paddy Power and Bet365 (maybe others too - I just use those two). Hopefully this is something the ICC have signed off for all their tournaments.

This was my point earlier - hopefully the ECB have the power to do the same with their competitions.

I understand the point made earlier about it not being socially desirable to have matches streamed by betting sites, but the reality is that the domestic competitions are not commercially viable enough for a free-to-air channel to be interested in. And BBC are not interested in sport anymore. It's the route sports are going down - look at tennis - you can watch matches all year round streamed through betting sites.

Not saying it is right - but for me it is preferable than a Sky Sports closed shop.

I think the idea that "the next generation" needs a sky sports subscription to watch sky sports is rather misguided, but shall say no more

Also, weren't the Ashes in 2013 streamed live on youtube? always felt that was a rather nice touch.

Re streaming on betting sites, I don't think it's a bad idea. I remember my mum being rather alarmed at receiving post addressed to me by a betting company (bet365 I think) a few years ago though that was before online betting was basically banned in France (I used to watch the tennis on it mostly). The problem is unless you pay a premium you're reduced to watching on a tiny screen, which is annoying, and of course the moral/ethical dilemna.

I don't think the relative unpopularity of this WC compared to the rugby one can be laid solely at Sky's door, much as I would like to blame Mr Murdoch. As Olly rightly points out, the rugby was at home, which invariably will attract more interest, while rugby is in general a more popular sport than cricket. There's also the fact that T20 is still probably the least popular form of the game in England, though that's rapidly changing I think.

Anyway, looking ahead to the final, I am slightly concerned that conditions in Kolkata will be very different to those encountered by England so far. There's a massive disparity between scores from both groups: for instance, the top wicket-takers come from the NZ-India group, whereas Afghanistan - who hit the fewest sixes from their group - still hit ten more than India.

Obviously be less of a concern if WI win tomorrow, but if India do, England will have to adapt quickly to the new conditions.

sportform wrote:I've followed the T20 World Cup loosely. It's great that England have reached the final but looking at the enthusism for the Rugby World Cup... Cricket as a sport is being left behind. It is far too closed shop, has absolutely no outreach to the wider public and is practically a dying sport. That is such a same because I used to know the first IX of every county and I know cricket fans now who are raving about this World Cup. Being on Sky though, I and the next generation just don' t get to see it .

Whilst I would like more cricket on free-to-air TV, Sky is quite open and affordable these days.

It's as low as £8 a week for all Sky Sports channels on Now TV, I believe, with the only other requirement being an internet connection.

guildfordbat wrote:''If he bats 12 overs, we win the game'' - Alec Stewart at the Oval last year in response to a member's moan about Roy's approach to domestic t20s.

12 gone here and Roy's still there on 78. Just 44 more needed. Get ready to open the bar, Corporal!

 Great to see Jason delivering match winning performance on the big international stage.

Only just catching up with the match, Guildford.  My excuse was driving chess players to match.  Got there about two hours late due to getting caught up in motorway blockage and closure. Had to default the match as too late to play it.

Duty281 wrote:

sportform wrote:I've followed the T20 World Cup loosely. It's great that England have reached the final but looking at the enthusism for the Rugby World Cup... Cricket as a sport is being left behind. It is far too closed shop, has absolutely no outreach to the wider public and is practically a dying sport. That is such a same because I used to know the first IX of every county and I know cricket fans now who are raving about this World Cup. Being on Sky though, I and the next generation just don' t get to see it .

Whilst I would like more cricket on free-to-air TV, Sky is quite open and affordable these days.

It's as low as £8 a week for all Sky Sports channels on Now TV, I believe, with the only other requirement being an internet connection.

£8 a week is over £400 a year.

Thats more than a weeks "living" wage. If your only hobby is sat watching sports all day or if youre from a "comfortable" backgorund sure fair enough. But for the avergae person like me its much more cost effective to use dodgy streams, other peoples sky roaming, pubs and free tv.

I also dislike Skys general approach to broadcasting, the generla overhyping of thinsg and focus on controversy (often invented) over genuine content. That said the BBC have moved in that direction too, and ITV are just awful at everything. ESPN tried valiantly to do some good things with the rugby a few years back. In general though although Sky can be credited for driving some technology and production value improvements they are the driving force behind the dumbing down of TV coverage. And they employ professional t1ts like Shane Warne

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:''If he bats 12 overs, we win the game'' - Alec Stewart at the Oval last year in response to a member's moan about Roy's approach to domestic t20s.

12 gone here and Roy's still there on 78. Just 44 more needed. Get ready to open the bar, Corporal!

 Great to see Jason delivering match winning performance on the big international stage.

Only just catching up with the match, Guildford.  My excuse was driving chess players to match.  Got there about two hours late due to getting caught up in motorway blockage and closure. Had to default the match as too late to play it.

That's near tragic, Corporal! Something similar happened to Surrey's Tom Jewell when we were playing a one dayer at Essex and look what happened to him - he became an estate agent, poor chap!

I am going to play Devil's advocate on the whole Sky thing. I think in terms of facilities cricket is still mainly an upper middle class sport, even if the whole country could watch the matches I am not too sure where they are going to play it.

So Sky's money has allowed the England team to grow by helping to fund central contracts and development programs, effectively taking the best talent out of the county system into the international setup. In short I think the extra money from Sky allows England to make the most of what is always going to be a fairly limited talent pool

I think sky do a really good job with their coverage actually

If you want you can see pretty much every major international that takes place, they have studio analysis for all (with some very good pundits, some not so good)

Much better than channel 4 cutting out to watch horse racing so you miss half the afternoon session

And VTR makes a good point 're: the extra investment it allows the ECB to give. Now I'd like to see the ECB use it a lot better, but it's there.

And with BT now getting involved there should only be more investment in cricket around the country

Good points. The era of C4 showing the 2005 Ashes is often romanticised, but as you say there was quite a bit of horse racing shown, and no time for analysis after the game. I'd also stick my neck out and say there should be a whole crop of working class cricketers at the peak of their career now if free to air was the only factor in wider participation, but I don't see any evidence of that

I should add that I don't have Sky so have no vested interest in defending the current model. I think a lot of people believe Sky is always a bad thing because of the money in football, but for smaller sports such as cricket a few million pounds can make a massive difference. I mean we even have a professional women's team these days!

Selling of playing fields, lack of qualified people in schools to teach cricket and overall lack of cricket in schools has a much bigger impact than TV coverage I reckon.

LondonTiger wrote:Selling of playing fields, lack of qualified people in schools to teach cricket and overall lack of cricket in schools has a much bigger impact than TV coverage I reckon.

Selling of playing fields is the biggest threat to sport in this country. Especially school ones. It's why I find the sugar tax funny - because it's merely a policy to make it look like they're doing something to tackle obesity when in fact theyre barely scratching the surface

meanwhile there's another semi-final being played here. WI have won the toss and are bowling, unsurprisingly. Lendl Simmonds comes in for Fletcher, and is set to bat at number 4, so we'll get a direct-ish comparison of his chasing abilities vs Buttler's at least

India have dropped Dhawan, and brought in Rahane. Pandey comes in for the injured Yuvraj.

Bravo has just missed the easiest run out you'll ever see. Free-hit, Kohli misses and there's confusion over whether to run a bye. Ramdin throws at the stumps, misses, Bravo collects. He has loads of time with Kohli stranded, all three stumps to aim at, and is less than five yards away, but somehow misses what a let-off for Kohli, who promptly collects a couple of well-run twos and a four off the rest of the over.

It's like when England refused to catch Amla all winter

MfC - yep, you can't but think the Windies are going to bitterly regret that miss. India looking very well set from here on 98/1 off 12.

crikey this pair are fast between the wickets. I know WI aren't the most athletic fielding team with the odd exception, but some of the twos Rahane and Kohli are managing here are ridiculous!

Rahane playing a bit of a #MLK here

Needs to either really kick on or get out so the bigger hitters can come in

India need a Dhoni/Kohli masterclass to get up above 180 - think it's a good track and with Lendl Simmons playing nothing is safe

WI have been poor in the field today. A few misses, not being sharp enough to stop the twos, and for some weird reason Samuels (who doesn't have a good arm, and isn't fast to the ball) patrolling the cover boundary

Just now Benn completely failing to attack the ball resulting in an easy two.

Oh and the missed run out of Kohli, which has already cost them spectacularly, of course.

Having Sammy playing as a specialist fielder probably doesn't help either...

India should make 190-200 here, which even in decent chasing conditions will take some getting. WI need Gayle to fire you feel, or they have no chance.

This is magnificent from Kohli though what a player he is!

another run gifted from some shambolic fielding, and Kohli duly dispatches the next ball for four. Finishes on a superb 89 not out from 47 deliveries . When Bravo missed him he had 1 from 3...

Kohli seems to be almost feeding off the weight of expectation from the Indian nation, special player .

As MfC says, WI have been poor in the field today. A lot of diving around but too much for show rather than to good effect.

Feel that 192 will be enough for India. Not only does Gayle need to fire but he'll need some decent support as well.

Masterful from Kohli.

But I think the Windies will do it. Just.

It's just a little over par. West indies should go very very hard in the first 6 overs.

60 runs in the power play for the lost of 1 wicket should see west indies home.

It's a small field ..west indies have 6 hitters .

It's 60/40 India at the moment .


That's Russel over in the 19th could come back to haunt windies .

If India make the final virat is due for a failure .

Kohli is not human....but sperhuman....he score fast...and then superfast...and then he starts toying with the bowling with the bowling...and then he goes N.O...

a good start...great acceleration...a super finish with a super score to the Indian super-star.....

and Dhoni-Kohli are the fastest runners in the history of mankind.

192 in invincible...if India get Gayle early.......so a super start needed in bowling

djkbrown2001 wrote: .

If India make the final virat is due for a failure .

he's defying logic
but he averages nearly 60 overall and 90+ when chasing...so his par performances are illogical

Duty I think it's 60 40 in favour of India. West indies need to get 60 in the power play to have a chance .

Johnson Charles is a liability . If gayle fail west indies will fail . Simply as that .

Dhoni will open with ashwin to gayle . Ashwin has a good record against gayle

what's your feeling on the WI selection djk? I think the spinners aside the bowling attack feels a bit "bits-and-pieces". Admittedly I've only watched the England and India matches where the opposition has scored a few, but what exactly is Sammy's role in the team? He bats 7 or lower, and has he bowled all tournament?

The bowling is indeed bits and pieces. The specialist bowlers :Rampual ,santokie and Taylor haven't been firing . Plus marine is out for illegal Action.

I am not convinced by the batting either. Only 3 proper batsman in the side . Gayle ;Samuels and now Simmons.

any reason Charles was being picked ahead of Simmons and/or Fletcher (before the latter's injury). They're nothing special, but at least can bat a bit, Charles is a slogger, and not a very good one at that. It might come off occasionally, but...

Don't see Gayle surviving ashwin

Can't see the Windies doing this. I'd rather England played India in the final anyway, as if we were to win, it would be a lot more memorable to beat India on their own patch

I reckon rashid and Willey can take out kholi

West indies lose. Gayle gone. I am off to the bar.

Gayle gone to Bumrah's first ball! Bumrah slips in a yorker, though it's more of a low full-toss I think, and Gayle just misses it. Game over?

What a terrible shot, why does any good young bowler get Gayle so easily ...

Wanted West indies to win... Won't happen now

KO-KING wrote:I reckon rashid and Willey can take out kholi

I was thinking Plunkett myself with his extra pace. Gayle out already so almost certain to be India in the final, though the the Windies do have Jos Buttler+ to come in yet!

Poor from Gayle.

Lendl Simmons, now is your time...

Got to think that's West Indies chances out the window now.

On a more juvenile note, I can't read the name Bumrah, without thinking of the ThunderCats.

West Indies have battered 53/0 off the last five overs.

97/2, nine to go.