Sunbury Fox Posted 24 March 2015 Posted 24 March 2015 Anyone who thinks cricket is boring would be converted by that. Unbelievable tension and excitement. Elliott so cool at the end. Looking forward to seeing him play for Leicestershire in T20 this summer.
Finnegan Posted 24 March 2015 Posted 24 March 2015 Someone save me hitting up Wikipedia and explain in layman's terms why new Zealand needed more runs off less overs? Surely they either have to get more runs OR face less overs to balance out the rain?
Darkon84 Posted 24 March 2015 Posted 24 March 2015 Fantastic finish to the match there. I backed New Zealand and India at the start of the tournament, so just need India to get to do the Aussies and I'm quids in!
Guest Posted 24 March 2015 Posted 24 March 2015 Great game, great finish. What a mix up for the catch! Still seems wrong to me that a South African born player can score the winning runs to knock South Africa out of the World Cup! We need to look at international player status in all sports.
cambridgefox Posted 24 March 2015 Posted 24 March 2015 Someone save me hitting up Wikipedia and explain in layman's terms why new Zealand needed more runs off less overs? Surely they either have to get more runs OR face less overs to balance out the rain? Because if you have 10 wickets in hand and reduce the overs you can bat more aggressively knowing you have these wickets in hand off less overs.well that is my thinking it might not be the reason.
Guest Posted 24 March 2015 Posted 24 March 2015 Because if you have 10 wickets in hand and reduce the overs you can bat more aggressively knowing you have these wickets in hand off less overs. That's it. Is it easier to get 200 off 40 overs or 5 off 1 over Finnegan?
ealingfox Posted 24 March 2015 Posted 24 March 2015 Still a disgrace that a team can knock off 300 batting second off 7 fewer overs. Game's gone. I can admit being in the 'Bowler's Union' but the game is more tense and exciting when the bowlers are on top. Need to level the playing field going forward.
leicsmac Posted 24 March 2015 Posted 24 March 2015 What a tremendous game, played in the right spirit and with a thrilling finish. No sledging or agro - something both sides playing tomorrow would do well to remember. Really want NZ to win it from here now.
Corky Posted 24 March 2015 Posted 24 March 2015 Having two new balls is helping the batsmen hugely, two balls only 25 overs old at most throughout the innings.
Alexikokopops Posted 24 March 2015 Posted 24 March 2015 Someone save me hitting up Wikipedia and explain in layman's terms why new Zealand needed more runs off less overs? Surely they either have to get more runs OR face less overs to balance out the rain? For the first 38 overs of SA's batting they were doing it expecting to bat for 50 overs. Therefore they had to be a bit more measured in those 38 overs than they would have been if they were only expecting to bat for 43 overs (which is what they did in the end). It would be unfair for NZ to have a chase of 281 in 43 overs because they'd be able to go aggressively earlier in the innings. Hence the mysterious black box that is Duckworth-Lewis comes into play and works out that 298 is a fairer target. If you want to know more about Duckworth-Lewis then go WILD. It's been around since about 1999. Saves situations like in the 1992 World Cup semi (again involving South Africa) where they had to get 22 runs off 1 ball to win after a rain break. No one understands how it works though. NO ONE. You think I'd be in a prime position given my job but it just makes my brain hurt a bit.
Finnegan Posted 24 March 2015 Posted 24 March 2015 I actually thought if anyone would be able to explain it it'd be you tbh Marsh.
Guest Posted 24 March 2015 Posted 24 March 2015 Still a disgrace that a team can knock off 300 batting second off 7 fewer overs. Game's gone. I can admit being in the 'Bowler's Union' but the game is more tense and exciting when the bowlers are on top. Need to level the playing field going forward. Agreed. Same for test matches. Pitches need to be modified to help the bowlers more. Great batsman will score in any conditions - as in most sports great attack beats great defense, allowing a team to be able to score 300-400 runs in limited overs cricket is understandable from a promotional point of view but it's not my cup of tea. In Test matches I don't want a pitch that ends the match in 3 days but neither do I want a pitch that means a draw is easily the most likely result. Many of the skills of Geoff Boycott or Chris Tavare are lost in modern cricket.
Guest MattP Posted 24 March 2015 Posted 24 March 2015 I think there was enough in that pitch for the bowlers today - it was a big target chased but if the Saffers had taken the two easy drops and two fairly easy run out chances they would have won comfortably. The boundaries are too small though and power plays need looking at. Not fair needing 9 men inside the circle.
surrifox Posted 24 March 2015 Posted 24 March 2015 rain stitched up SA really - they would have been probably around 345-350 in the full over allocation which I suspect would have won the game . Hope that NZ win the thing now - as I said at the start any one but Australia and they have been a revelation and would be worthy winners
Voll Blau Posted 24 March 2015 Posted 24 March 2015 Read that Phil Simmons has left Ireland to take over the West Indies. Would love him to succeed there, needs a strong leader to bring all the islands together.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 24 March 2015 Posted 24 March 2015 Read that Phil Simmons has left Ireland to take over the West Indies. Would love him to succeed there, needs a strong leader to bring all the islands together. As far as top-level sport coaching jobs go, that must be bloody brilliant. Based in the Caribbean, get to swan round the world watching cricket. Beats managing Luton doesn't it.
Corky Posted 24 March 2015 Posted 24 March 2015 Read that Phil Simmons has left Ireland to take over the West Indies. Would love him to succeed there, needs a strong leader to bring all the islands together. Leicestershire's best ever overseas player?
Guest MattP Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Aus have built a solid base here - could really put India to the sword last ten overs.
StanSP Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Been a solid start from India, if a little bit slow. Massive task on here. No wickets lost (yet) which is a big positive.
Hirsty The Blue 94 Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Really fancy India here. Pitch is perfect and no movement at all in the wicket. Saying that India were very lucky as Sharma should have been given out and Dhawan dropped.
Guest MattP Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Yeah Indias to lose now. Spinner needed on this pitch.
ealingfox Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Game's gone if they chase this down but I hope they do. Good to see 'Extras' Johnson has gone doggo again at this World Cup. ^Never bloody learn.
leicsmac Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Really don't care who makes it through here as long as NZ tonk either of them in the final. That being said the ridiculous on field stuff that seems to happen far too often with these two seems to be less prevalent today, which is good.
Guest MattP Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 It really is hard to know who to support here. We'll either end up with gloating Australians or celebrations of the biggest glory hunters on the planet and the BCCI. Whoever it is let's hope the Kiwis smash them Sunday.
Hirsty The Blue 94 Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 One thing is certain that there is nothing more enjoyable than seeing Kohli trudge off after not scoring any.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.