Twenty20 World Cup Thread

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Why Kirtley?[..]I think I'd keep Broad. He is the future, he is different, Kirtley is... not.

Well if Broad is a future England star - then England don't want him to learn to get carted in this game that's not really cricket.

Better kirtley who is supposed to be an expert at this game, as is Maddy.

keep the best players for the longer formats, and let the specialist 20/20 plaers into the side.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by greg

Well that was a gubbing good and proper.Well played Australia,we batted badly and never had a hope after that.

I'd agree that the bowlers were faced with an almost impossible task... and that a bit of luck was needed that never quite came despite quite a few false shots from the Aussie openers... but Boycott rightly argued that the batting - whilst nothing special - was as good as the Aussies allowed it to be rather than being genuinely poor.

The daft move was chosing to bat: sensible in Test cricket... sometimes OK in ODIs... and downright stupid in Twenty20: batting first always carries the risk of collasping in a heap trying to post an unrealistically large total... whereas batting second allows a side to pace an innings appropritately.

ps. Who was the studio presenter on Sky? Nick Knight was good value... Ian Harvey was a complete waste of space... but I didn't even recognise the main bod.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Rachael

ps. Who was the studio presenter on Sky?

Were you actually watching that nefarious plot to subvert all that's good about Norfolk, aka Sky TV?!

Hmmm. Its not April 1. So you are obviously serious. I can only assume you wrote "the presenter on TMS" and 'TMS' was replaced for 'Sky' by some Machiavellian (Murdochian?) cyber-gremlin.

Or maybe RdT has been replaced by a less high-brow clone; that would certainly explain the spelling.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Maranello

Were you actually watching that nefarious plot to subvert all that's good about Norfolk, aka Sky TV?! [...] maybe RdT has been replaced by a less high-brow clone [...]

LOL - but no. A friend's computer was blue-screening every time he went online... and instead of bringing it here (where I can keep an eye on the re-build whilst doing other things) he wanted me to sort the thing in situ: meant lots of sitting around twiddling thumbs whilst the XP setup staggered ever onwards.

Of course... the England-Australia game was already dead by the time we arrived... and we left long before the India-Pakistan game had started getting into the competitive final overs!

Shame the tie couldn't stand.... though how top bowlers miss a set of stumps with no batsman in the way never ceases to amaze me

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Rachael

we left long before the India-Pakistan game had started getting into the competitive final overs!

Which means you were probably there to see Asif's four overs; easily the best thing about the contest from a cricketing viewpoint, and proof, as if one was needed, that a special bowler can make a difference whatever the length of the competition or the inclination of the batsmen.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Shame the tie couldn't stand.... though how top bowlers miss a set of stumps with no batsman in the way never ceases to amaze me

But the three guys who hit the stumps for India are all part-timers / slow bowlers; Pakistan replied with a so-called specialist like Arafat, who is simply not good enough, at Twenty20, ODI or Tests.

[darksideofthemoon]

What I would like to know if 20/20s in England are the same overseas two spinners taking the pace of the ball and the fast bowlers getting bashed. When I look at the games so far it seems the standard of the fast bowlers is so good they don't worry about bits and pieces players. Australia go in with 4 fast bowlers Lee, Bracken, Clark and Johnson. They didn't even need a specialist spinner. The leading wicket takers are the fast bowlers in this 20/20 WC not the spinners.

Compare the Aussie fast 4 to Broad, Flintoff and Collingwood. Are they going to run through a strong batting side. Broad is economical but doesn't seem to get early wickets. Flintoff in 4 20/20s has taken 1 wicket. Mascarenhas had a very good game against Zim but did not trouble the Aussies.

India - Singh, Sreesanth, Pathan, Agarkar and Harbijhan
Pakistan - Asif, Gul, Arafat, Tanvir and Afridi
NZ - Bond, Gillespie, Martin, Oram, Vettori
SA - Pollock, Ntini, Morkel, van der Wath, Smith
Eng- Broad, Flintoff, Collingwood, Mascarenhas, Schofield, Kirtley - two fast bowlers, three slow bowlers and one that has to wait until the death so won't be worrying opening batsmen. I suppose it is early days but I would like England to have 4 fast bowlers and a spinner like the other sides.

[Jackson]

Great game between India and Pakistan.

[Moss]

I enjoyed the bowl out.
A shame it didn't matter, otherwise it would have been more tense. Some shocking attempts by Pakistan at hitting the stumps!

I'm enjoying this WC so much more than the ODI one, simply because it's a short tournament, and not one that seems to last forever. All I know is that I was pregnant when the World Cup statrted, my waters broke immediately England lost to Sri Lanka, and I had a young baby by the time Australia won in the dark, so perhaps that elongated it even further.

[Kasamse]

The Indians have completely lost the plot in the second half of their bowling.

I do not see the Indians even being competitive from here, in this match. NZ should comfortably win from here.

[Speedboy Salesman]

I'm upset Zimbabwe got knocked out, they played a blinder against Australia, and then England laid down for Australia, so they go through (and probably win the tournament, very predictable and boring), I think Maddy and Prior should just go home now, I don't think they are working. Brendan Taylor should be snapped up by a county.