20/20 world cup
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
- Abdoulaye's Twin
- Legend
- Posts: 9282
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:27 pm
- Location: Skye high
Re: 20/20 world cup
The experts sillyBruce Rioja wrote:According to who?BWFC_Insane wrote: The wicket used Sunday is the best batting wicket on the pitch there anyway.
Re: 20/20 world cup
BWFC_Insane wrote:The wicket used Sunday is the best batting wicket on the pitch there anyway.thebish wrote:BWFC_Insane wrote:In the 2015 IPL, for matches played at Kolkata, the following were the scores for the side batting first:
168*, 177*, 165*, 171, 183*, 167, 202 (final)
Those with asteriks were successfully chased down.
I make that a first innings average of 176.
Nobody batting first scored as low as England did and even higher scores were successfully chased.
which wicket did they use?
furthermore - and this is a reckon, not a FACT - I reckon you can knock 20 or so runs off with it being the final and there being nerves and there not being a big mismatch between the teams... - which would make it about right for what both teams actually scored...
As for being a final, see the 202 scored in the IPL final. I get what you're saying, but nerves effect bowling too.
aye - makes sense to compare club cricket with world-cup international cricket...
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36384
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
What difference would it make? Surely if there is quality gap then that will be the same for batting and bowling and scores would be relatively equitable?thebish wrote:BWFC_Insane wrote:The wicket used Sunday is the best batting wicket on the pitch there anyway.thebish wrote:BWFC_Insane wrote:In the 2015 IPL, for matches played at Kolkata, the following were the scores for the side batting first:
168*, 177*, 165*, 171, 183*, 167, 202 (final)
Those with asteriks were successfully chased down.
I make that a first innings average of 176.
Nobody batting first scored as low as England did and even higher scores were successfully chased.
which wicket did they use?
furthermore - and this is a reckon, not a FACT - I reckon you can knock 20 or so runs off with it being the final and there being nerves and there not being a big mismatch between the teams... - which would make it about right for what both teams actually scored...
As for being a final, see the 202 scored in the IPL final. I get what you're saying, but nerves effect bowling too.
aye - makes sense to compare club cricket with world-cup international cricket...
Also IPL is not normal club cricket is it? They draft some of the best t20 players from the world into the various teams.
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: 20/20 world cup
So when the Dog & Gun play the Ring o' Bells and it turns out to be 13 - 7, we can expect a similar score between Arsenal and Chelsea, can we?BWFC_Insane wrote:What difference would it make? Surely if there is quality gap then that will be the same for batting and bowling and scores would be relatively equitable?thebish wrote:BWFC_Insane wrote:The wicket used Sunday is the best batting wicket on the pitch there anyway.thebish wrote:BWFC_Insane wrote:In the 2015 IPL, for matches played at Kolkata, the following were the scores for the side batting first:
168*, 177*, 165*, 171, 183*, 167, 202 (final)
Those with asteriks were successfully chased down.
I make that a first innings average of 176.
Nobody batting first scored as low as England did and even higher scores were successfully chased.
which wicket did they use?
furthermore - and this is a reckon, not a FACT - I reckon you can knock 20 or so runs off with it being the final and there being nerves and there not being a big mismatch between the teams... - which would make it about right for what both teams actually scored...
As for being a final, see the 202 scored in the IPL final. I get what you're saying, but nerves effect bowling too.
aye - makes sense to compare club cricket with world-cup international cricket...
Also IPL is not normal club cricket is it? They draft some of the best t20 players from the world into the various teams.
May the bridges I burn light your way
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36384
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
^^IPL isn't the equivalent of pub football though. Far from it.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32699
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
That would be club cricket from hand-picked, "purchased" teams, involving mainly Indians, some of whose home ground happens to be Kolkata. In total, I don't think there's been 22 players from West Indies and England who have ever played in the IPL since it's inception. Oh and the pitch has been re-laid since 2015 as far as I'm aware (might be wrong on this). Ignoring those things for a minute, what we have here is "let's find a way to try and obfuscate the hole I dug myself into"BWFC_Insane wrote:What difference would it make? Surely if there is quality gap then that will be the same for batting and bowling and scores would be relatively equitable?thebish wrote:BWFC_Insane wrote:The wicket used Sunday is the best batting wicket on the pitch there anyway.thebish wrote:BWFC_Insane wrote:In the 2015 IPL, for matches played at Kolkata, the following were the scores for the side batting first:
168*, 177*, 165*, 171, 183*, 167, 202 (final)
Those with asteriks were successfully chased down.
I make that a first innings average of 176.
Nobody batting first scored as low as England did and even higher scores were successfully chased.
which wicket did they use?
furthermore - and this is a reckon, not a FACT - I reckon you can knock 20 or so runs off with it being the final and there being nerves and there not being a big mismatch between the teams... - which would make it about right for what both teams actually scored...
As for being a final, see the 202 scored in the IPL final. I get what you're saying, but nerves effect bowling too.
aye - makes sense to compare club cricket with world-cup international cricket...
Also IPL is not normal club cricket is it? They draft some of the best t20 players from the world into the various teams.
It started with 4 balls described variously as yorkers or millimetres from being so or "good balls" - they were neither. They were yards short of being yorkers and down the leg side as evidenced by TV replays and Hawkeye. Good balls don't go for 4 consecutive 6's regardless of who's at the other end holding the bat. I can see the indignation had that over been in the middle of the innings and Morgan had kept Stokes on, because of the really good balls. Some of which would have gone for 8, with a minor law amendment involving height calculations.
So we widen the argument to "not enough runs on the board" to cover our rather silly statement and confuse the issue. I'm no international T20 player, but I'd generally take 19 needed to win off the last over and I'd generally view going at 6 a ball as a pretty poor show.
"The best batting wicket on the pitch" - had yielded up until the point of the final over around 7 an over. To be really precise 7 and a bit. The very highest it's averaged in an innings is a shade over 10 an over. Sure, the occasional over goes for 36 (and I think someone managed 38 once, and 77 is the highest recorded in a contrived over with lots of no-balls to try and get a result)
Leaving aside all the rest of the huff and bluster, we're still supposed to believe that the problem was not enough runs and there were 4 really good balls. Do give it a rest. You're still talking shoite, man.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36384
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
Well yes, it is rather inconvenient that some very meaningful data suggests the score was low. I mean even look at the women's final on the same day. A typically significantly lower scoring game than the men's version, and the women managed only 6 runs less than England's men. Yet you want to suggest that England's score was par or enough on what everyone felt was a decent pitch?Worthy4England wrote:
That would be club cricket from hand-picked, "purchased" teams, involving mainly Indians, some of whose home ground happens to be Kolkata. In total, I don't think there's been 22 players from West Indies and England who have ever played in the IPL since it's inception. Oh and the pitch has been re-laid since 2015 as far as I'm aware (might be wrong on this). Ignoring those things for a minute, what we have here is "let's find a way to try and obfuscate the hole I dug myself into"
It started with 4 balls described variously as yorkers or millimetres from being so or "good balls" - they were neither. They were yards short of being yorkers and down the leg side as evidenced by TV replays and Hawkeye. Good balls don't go for 4 consecutive 6's regardless of who's at the other end holding the bat. I can see the indignation had that over been in the middle of the innings and Morgan had kept Stokes on, because of the really good balls. Some of which would have gone for 8, with a minor law amendment involving height calculations.
So we widen the argument to "not enough runs on the board" to cover our rather silly statement and confuse the issue. I'm no international T20 player, but I'd generally take 19 needed to win off the last over and I'd generally view going at 6 a ball as a pretty poor show.
"The best batting wicket on the pitch" - had yielded up until the point of the final over around 7 an over. To be really precise 7 and a bit. The very highest it's averaged in an innings is a shade over 10 an over. Sure, the occasional over goes for 36 (and I think someone managed 38 once, and 77 is the highest recorded in a contrived over with lots of no-balls to try and get a result)
Leaving aside all the rest of the huff and bluster, we're still supposed to believe that the problem was not enough runs and there were 4 really good balls. Do give it a rest. You're still talking shoite, man.
The IPL data shows the sort of scores that are chased down in Kolkata. None of which as low as Englands.
The Windies might have not won if Jordan hadn't conceded 18 (ish?) one over in the latter half of the innings. My point is that at the halfway point most felt the Windies were favourites. England's bowlers made a game of it. But that doesn't re-write history and make England's score enough on a pitch that historically has been on of the better batting pitches in India. And one that stats show is certainly more than 155 batting first.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32699
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
The previous winning totals in a T20 final have been - 157, 139, 148, 137, 134 - and this one at 161. The highest score for a team batting 1st in a final has been 157.
I agree - let's not re-write history. History shows West Indies needed 19 off the final over. You'd normally back yourself in that situation as the team bowling. The final 4 balls that weren't yorkers or anything near Yorkers all went for 6 - that'd be 36 an over...that looks a bit high to me
I agree - let's not re-write history. History shows West Indies needed 19 off the final over. You'd normally back yourself in that situation as the team bowling. The final 4 balls that weren't yorkers or anything near Yorkers all went for 6 - that'd be 36 an over...that looks a bit high to me
Re: 20/20 world cup
I think that in the the fog of argument - perhaps deliberate? - the original point (unresolved) has been lost...
Insano - as your posts have moved off to argue other things - are you still maintaining that the first four balls of that last over were yorkers or "millimetres off" yorkers - or have you quietly conceded that? dismissing the very clear photographic evidence that worthy provided as "grainy" was a bit weak IMO...
if so - how do you actually explain the apparent fact, as evidenced in said photos, that the ball is several FEET (not millimetres) away from the batsman's toes as it pitches on each of the deliveries?
Insano - as your posts have moved off to argue other things - are you still maintaining that the first four balls of that last over were yorkers or "millimetres off" yorkers - or have you quietly conceded that? dismissing the very clear photographic evidence that worthy provided as "grainy" was a bit weak IMO...
if so - how do you actually explain the apparent fact, as evidenced in said photos, that the ball is several FEET (not millimetres) away from the batsman's toes as it pitches on each of the deliveries?
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32699
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
I can only assume. Given the huge IPL scores at Kolkata they bowl nowt but yorkers.
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: 20/20 world cup
I'm simply applying your equity principle.BWFC_Insane wrote:^^IPL isn't the equivalent of pub football though. Far from it.
May the bridges I burn light your way
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36384
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
But they were on different pitches in different countries, and T20 has evolved significantly over the past few years with batsmen generally ruling over the bowlers.Worthy4England wrote:The previous winning totals in a T20 final have been - 157, 139, 148, 137, 134 - and this one at 161. The highest score for a team batting 1st in a final has been 157.
I agree - let's not re-write history. History shows West Indies needed 19 off the final over. You'd normally back yourself in that situation as the team bowling. The final 4 balls that weren't yorkers or anything near Yorkers all went for 6 - that'd be 36 an over...that looks a bit high to me
Of course if Stokes had bowled 4 deliveries that the batsman couldn't put away England would have won. But you could use the same argument for every bowler who conceded runs. The Windies kept themselves just about in it and had a swing with a bloke capable of hitting sixes. It worked. They easily could have done the same 2 or 3 overs earlier and won more conventionally. They waited till the last over. But that is the risk in T20 with a low score on the board. They basically had two really big overs in the innings.
My original point about Stokes was that they weren't particularly bad balls. I've rematches them and concede the first was poor. For me after that they weren't perfect but far from rank full tosses or wide dollies etc...
- Abdoulaye's Twin
- Legend
- Posts: 9282
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:27 pm
- Location: Skye high
Re: 20/20 world cup
This is fast becoming a contender for tedious thread of the year. Anyway, what does Geoffrey think? not that I give a shit.
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 3735
- Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 8:14 pm
- Location: Bury
Re: 20/20 world cup
It's making the takeover thread look engrossing!Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:This is fast becoming a contender for tedious thread of the year. Anyway, what does Geoffrey think? not that I give a shit.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32699
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
I put one foot in front of the other for 10 kilometres isn't every bugger's cup of tea. But as long as some posters want to contribute to it, leave 'em be?Burnden Paddock wrote:It's making the takeover thread look engrossing!Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:This is fast becoming a contender for tedious thread of the year. Anyway, what does Geoffrey think? not that I give a shit.
Mind, the dogs are quite fun!
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32699
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
They were on different pitches in different countries. but then again the IPL is a different competition completely - so let's acknowledge that the stats could support any point of view.BWFC_Insane wrote:But they were on different pitches in different countries, and T20 has evolved significantly over the past few years with batsmen generally ruling over the bowlers.Worthy4England wrote:The previous winning totals in a T20 final have been - 157, 139, 148, 137, 134 - and this one at 161. The highest score for a team batting 1st in a final has been 157.
I agree - let's not re-write history. History shows West Indies needed 19 off the final over. You'd normally back yourself in that situation as the team bowling. The final 4 balls that weren't yorkers or anything near Yorkers all went for 6 - that'd be 36 an over...that looks a bit high to me
Of course if Stokes had bowled 4 deliveries that the batsman couldn't put away England would have won. But you could use the same argument for every bowler who conceded runs. The Windies kept themselves just about in it and had a swing with a bloke capable of hitting sixes. It worked. They easily could have done the same 2 or 3 overs earlier and won more conventionally. They waited till the last over. But that is the risk in T20 with a low score on the board. They basically had two really big overs in the innings.
My original point about Stokes was that they weren't particularly bad balls. I've rematches them and concede the first was poor. For me after that they weren't perfect but far from rank full tosses or wide dollies etc...
Easy sat here and I'm not looking to blame anyone, certainly not Stokes - great cricketer and shit happens. But sometimes you have to think. Apart from shot 1, where the ball was that short, the batsman had time to adjust, the next three he pretty much sets himself to play the same shot before the ball's left the bowlers hand - his back-foot's anchored - the big heave-ho towards cow - and Stokes serves up a very similar ball to the one before right in his arc. No thought, no change, same result.
Re: 20/20 world cup
not really - your original point was that the four balls were all yorker length - or (and I quote) "perhaps an inch out from perfect"...BWFC_Insane wrote:
My original point about Stokes was that they weren't particularly bad balls. I've rematches them and concede the first was poor. For me after that they weren't perfect but far from rank full tosses or wide dollies etc...
worthy provided photos of all four deliveries that showed them a LOOOOOOONG way from being just an inch out from yorker-length! NONE of them were yorkers.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32699
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
You can frame advance 'em in here from youtube... http://rowvid.com/?v=MQSb1J9sodk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;thebish wrote:not really - your original point was that the four balls were all yorker length - or (and I quote) "perhaps an inch out from perfect"...BWFC_Insane wrote:
My original point about Stokes was that they weren't particularly bad balls. I've rematches them and concede the first was poor. For me after that they weren't perfect but far from rank full tosses or wide dollies etc...
worthy provided photos of all four deliveries that showed them a LOOOOOOONG way from being just an inch out from yorker-length! NONE of them were yorkers.
You can, from this, see the Brathwaite's made his mind up pretty much which shot he's playing before the ball has been released - as I say, apart from the first one where he has time to adjust marginally for the pull behind square. So whaddya do? Serve a very similar ball up that didn't work first go, again - and again - and again.
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 3735
- Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 8:14 pm
- Location: Bury
Re: 20/20 world cup
I'm on your side mate. Maybe I should have made it clearer by saying don't encourage the back tracking, wumming idiot?Worthy4England wrote:I put one foot in front of the other for 10 kilometres isn't every bugger's cup of tea. But as long as some posters want to contribute to it, leave 'em be?Burnden Paddock wrote:It's making the takeover thread look engrossing!Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:This is fast becoming a contender for tedious thread of the year. Anyway, what does Geoffrey think? not that I give a shit.
Mind, the dogs are quite fun!
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32699
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: 20/20 world cup
I clearly might have interpreted the original post incorrectly - so merging this with dogs infiltrating the "running thread" - it was clearly wasn't meant to be a Yorker, but instead...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 74 guests