20/20 World Cup

jimbo · Post by **jimbo** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:27 pm

Well, out of another one day tournament without reaching the business end. Only horrific team selection can be blamed for today. Picking 5 batsmen, including an out of form Collingwood and Wright with Foster and Swann at 6 and 7 is a joke. West Indies had Sarwan and Chanderpaul down the order to keep things going late on with Ramdin still to come. Why take players like Morgan and Napier to a tournament and not use them? You need batting all the way down to succeed and England fecked it up.

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:29 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:Being a great fan of playing cricket but not an avid follower of this 20/20stuff, what;s the point of having twenty overs each when one side can win in nine overs?

Blame the weather, someone called Duckworth who developed an incomprehensible system to deal with the weather, or Megson. I know Bobo's choice.

Tombwfc · Post by **Tombwfc** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:51 pm

I thought it was a decent enough effort in the end. Not playing Dimi was a bit shite, but overall I don't think we're very good and think we've done alright to get this far.

At the end of the day, the Windies have three world class batsmen, we've got one. That's the difference between the two sides in a game like 20/20.

Whinging about the D/L is just sour grapes. Those are the rules, sometimes they work for you, sometimes they don't. It's a set formula and it's the same for everyone. Very typical of us to look for someone to blame though, be it a Swiss ref, David Beckham, or a system which has been part of cricket for nigh on a decade. We weren't good enough

jimbo · Post by **jimbo** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:55 pm

The team just seemed to lack the dynamic nature needed in a T20 - that's in a way why Australia went out. We lacked the ability to change our games to adapt to the situations - things that Morgan and Napier may have been able to offer.

As for Collingwood's captaincy, he can feck off now.

hisroyalgingerness · Post by **hisroyalgingerness** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:52 am

Well give me a pack of them sourest of grapes then, because I think the fact that the Windies can have 9 overs of a 20 over game with a full compliment of wickets to hit a pitiful total is not fair. The D-L system does not translate to 20-20 at all, and if they want a future with this game with any kind of credibility they need to review urgently.

BWFC_Insane · Post by **BWFC_Insane** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:03 am

I agree in part with Tom and in part with HRG.

The D/L over reductions favoured the Windies. They won mainly because of that. With 3 overs left England were favourites. But the 5 down meant nowt because they only had a few overs left and went for it. If that had been a 20 over game the early wickets would have made us massive favourites.

But equally we dicked around with batting for what 7 overs without a boundary! FFS. 20/20 demands big physical hitters not nurdlers like Collingwood. Broad showed what a big lad with physical strength can do.

James Foster, Collingwood just looked incapable of getting the big shots, which make the difference.

So all in all our batting isn't strong enough for 20-20 and our bowling at times is not straight/fast/aggresive enough, especially during the last few overs last night where it should have been yorker, yorker, yorker, yorker, yorker, yorker and we were bowling it short!

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:27 am

BWFC_Insane wrote:
So all in all our batting isn't strong enough for 20-20 and our bowling at times is not straight/fast/aggresive enough, especially during the last few overs last night where it should have been yorker, yorker, yorker, yorker, yorker, yorker and we were bowling it short!

Or a full toss on the pads. To Sarwan and Chanderpaul.

F.

F.

S.

thebish · Post by **thebish** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:19 pm

hisroyalgingerness wrote:Well give me a pack of them sourest of grapes then, because I think the fact that the Windies can have 9 overs of a 20 over game with a full compliment of wickets to hit a pitiful total is not fair. The D-L system does not translate to 20-20 at all, and if they want a future with this game with any kind of credibility they need to review urgently.

indeed... whilst we were distinctly ordinary... any sensible system of overs reduction would also have seen a reduction in wickets available too to properly match the situation...

jimbo · Post by **jimbo** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:03 pm

thebish wrote:
hisroyalgingerness wrote:Well give me a pack of them sourest of grapes then, because I think the fact that the Windies can have 9 overs of a 20 over game with a full compliment of wickets to hit a pitiful total is not fair. The D-L system does not translate to 20-20 at all, and if they want a future with this game with any kind of credibility they need to review urgently.
indeed... whilst we were distinctly ordinary... any sensible system of overs reduction would also have seen a reduction in wickets available too to properly match the situation...

I certainly know what I'd rather chase between 80 off 9 or 160 off 20. Can't complain though - them's the rules and everyone knows about them. We knew there was rain around at the toss, and hence knew that any weather would lead to a similar situation. We should have batted second so we were more in control of things.

Worthy4England · Post by **Worthy4England** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:24 pm

jimbo wrote:
thebish wrote:
hisroyalgingerness wrote:Well give me a pack of them sourest of grapes then, because I think the fact that the Windies can have 9 overs of a 20 over game with a full compliment of wickets to hit a pitiful total is not fair. The D-L system does not translate to 20-20 at all, and if they want a future with this game with any kind of credibility they need to review urgently.
indeed... whilst we were distinctly ordinary... any sensible system of overs reduction would also have seen a reduction in wickets available too to properly match the situation...
I certainly know what I'd rather chase between 80 off 9 or 160 off 20. Can't complain though - them's the rules and everyone knows about them. We knew there was rain around at the toss, and hence knew that any weather would lead to a similar situation. We should have batted second so we were more in control of things.

Maybe yes, unless the rationale was that Gayle knocking 80 in the first five overs would have worked against us in the opposite D/L situation of us having to chase...

jimbo · Post by **jimbo** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:33 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
jimbo wrote:
thebish wrote:
hisroyalgingerness wrote:Well give me a pack of them sourest of grapes then, because I think the fact that the Windies can have 9 overs of a 20 over game with a full compliment of wickets to hit a pitiful total is not fair. The D-L system does not translate to 20-20 at all, and if they want a future with this game with any kind of credibility they need to review urgently.
indeed... whilst we were distinctly ordinary... any sensible system of overs reduction would also have seen a reduction in wickets available too to properly match the situation...
I certainly know what I'd rather chase between 80 off 9 or 160 off 20. Can't complain though - them's the rules and everyone knows about them. We knew there was rain around at the toss, and hence knew that any weather would lead to a similar situation. We should have batted second so we were more in control of things.
Maybe yes, unless the rationale was that Gayle knocking 80 in the first five overs would have worked against us in the opposite D/L situation of us having to chase...

Then that is changing your game plan because of what one opposition player MIGHT do, something that may be seen as negative.

Connect with your social network account

20/20 World Cup

Who is online