20/20 world cup

[thebish]

We lost because we got a low score on a pitch that demanded something around the 180 plus mark. Our bowlers did well to make it a game with a low score on the board.

Jordan went for 9 an over and that as an average easily reaches England's total, and iirc had an expensive over of 16 or 18 or something in the latter half of their innings that kept them in touch.

Chasing the Windies were always going to have to have a go at some point. It came to the last over and they needed 6's and got them.

But ultimately on a good pitch we were always way light in terms of runs.

It astounds me that people who watch t20 think conceding 19 an over is out of the ordinary. When teams have someone who can clear the ropes and are just swinging and hitting it happens time to time.

Just like when Buttler was hitting their spinner for maximums. That is the game. We came out the wrong side. But has we even got an average score we'd have won.

or... the windies would have started swinging a couple of overs earlier... no definites to be seen here!

(It astounds me that anyone thinks those last 4 balls were just an inch or two off being genuine yorkers...)

[Worthy4England]

It astounds me that you seem to have forgotten what you're arguing about, but you're going to change it and carry on with it anyhow. Stoke's over didn't go for 19. It went for 24, in 4 balls...That's 36 a fcking over. I know, it might have stopped at 24 an over as the last two could've been dots, what with all them yorkers flying in. WI did have an expensive over of 16 from Benn. That'd have done us quite nicely.

You're contention that this was a batters paradise, when the ball clearly wasn't coming onto the bat is as bizarre as every other know-nowt hypothesis you've made. The highest score on this ground in the finals proper was 201 - Pakistan V Bangladesh - that's against Bangladesh, in case you missed that bit. The next highest was 155 - until WI managed 161 to beat us.

Our score was under-par batting against their poor bowling, yet their score was well contained batting against our world class bowling even though they managed it with just two balls to spare.

You really are talking shoite now, and still digging.

[BWFC_Insane]

It astounds me that you seem to have forgotten what you're arguing about, but you're going to change it and carry on with it anyhow. Stoke's over didn't go for 19. It went for 24, in 4 balls...That's 36 a fcking over. I know, it might have stopped at 24 an over as the last two could've been dots, what with all them yorkers flying in. WI did have an expensive over of 16 from Benn. That'd have done us quite nicely.

You're contention that this was a batters paradise, when the ball clearly wasn't coming onto the bat is as bizarre as every other know-nowt hypothesis you've made. The highest score on this ground in the finals proper was 201 - Pakistan V Bangladesh - that's against Bangladesh, in case you missed that bit. The next highest was 155 - until WI managed 161 to beat us.

Our score was under-par batting against their poor bowling, yet their score was well contained batting against our world class bowling even though they managed it with just two balls to spare.

You really are talking shoite now, and still digging.

Obviously you know more than every cricketing expert.

The strip used for the final was different, was firmer had more grass holding it together and the bounce was more true.

Before the game absolutely no fecker who has played international cricket thought a sub 180 score would cut it. Obviously you know better, though unless you can show me how much international t20 experience you have then I think I might just listen to them rather than you.

Yes England did well to contain them. But when chasing you know what you've got to do. Had England put the requisite score on the board the Windies would have had to start swinging earlier. Yes they may have still done it, but the odds were they might have miscued at some point.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

By that logic we should get on the blower and get Lennon back in. Every 'expert' with experience I've ever heard/read reckons he's an ace manager and was hard done by by the circumstances here...

[thebish]

It astounds me that you seem to have forgotten what you're arguing about, but you're going to change it and carry on with it anyhow. Stoke's over didn't go for 19. It went for 24, in 4 balls...That's 36 a fcking over. I know, it might have stopped at 24 an over as the last two could've been dots, what with all them yorkers flying in. WI did have an expensive over of 16 from Benn. That'd have done us quite nicely.

You're contention that this was a batters paradise, when the ball clearly wasn't coming onto the bat is as bizarre as every other know-nowt hypothesis you've made. The highest score on this ground in the finals proper was 201 - Pakistan V Bangladesh - that's against Bangladesh, in case you missed that bit. The next highest was 155 - until WI managed 161 to beat us.

Our score was under-par batting against their poor bowling, yet their score was well contained batting against our world class bowling even though they managed it with just two balls to spare.

You really are talking shoite now, and still digging.

Obviously you know more than every cricketing expert.

The strip used for the final was different, was firmer had more grass holding it together and the bounce was more true.

Before the game absolutely no fecker who has played international cricket thought a sub 180 score would cut it. Obviously you know better, though unless you can show me how much international t20 experience you have then I think I might just listen to them rather than you.

Yes England did well to contain them. But when chasing you know what you've got to do. Had England put the requisite score on the board the Windies would have had to start swinging earlier. Yes they may have still done it, but the odds were they might have miscued at some point.

aye - and brathwaite could easily have miscued that first six off stokes... alleging with any measure of certainty that we'd have won had summat been slightly different is a mugs game...

[Worthy4England]

It astounds me that you seem to have forgotten what you're arguing about, but you're going to change it and carry on with it anyhow. Stoke's over didn't go for 19. It went for 24, in 4 balls...That's 36 a fcking over. I know, it might have stopped at 24 an over as the last two could've been dots, what with all them yorkers flying in. WI did have an expensive over of 16 from Benn. That'd have done us quite nicely.

You're contention that this was a batters paradise, when the ball clearly wasn't coming onto the bat is as bizarre as every other know-nowt hypothesis you've made. The highest score on this ground in the finals proper was 201 - Pakistan V Bangladesh - that's against Bangladesh, in case you missed that bit. The next highest was 155 - until WI managed 161 to beat us.

Our score was under-par batting against their poor bowling, yet their score was well contained batting against our world class bowling even though they managed it with just two balls to spare.

You really are talking shoite now, and still digging.

Obviously you know more than every cricketing expert.

The strip used for the final was different, was firmer had more grass holding it together and the bounce was more true.

Before the game absolutely no fecker who has played international cricket thought a sub 180 score would cut it. Obviously you know better, though unless you can show me how much international t20 experience you have then I think I might just listen to them rather than you.

Yes England did well to contain them. But when chasing you know what you've got to do. Had England put the requisite score on the board the Windies would have had to start swinging earlier. Yes they may have still done it, but the odds were they might have miscued at some point.

They need to go have a look at the highest T20 scores ever at Kolkata - yes records are there to be broken. The highest is the 201 I mentioned in an earlier post - Pakistan v Bangladesh. The second highest in a completed innings was England's 155. WI at their run rate would have been on for 164. If we took out the 4 consecutive 6's, they'd have been on for 144. Sri Lanka would have hit 167 in a completed innings against Afghanistan.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... ype=ground" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So that's one innings, ever, over 180 at Kolkata - against Bangladesh.

You just carry on digging - you'll reach Australia eventually.

[thebish]

^ no!! you are clearly claiming to know more than EVERY cricketing expert!

[BWFC_Insane]

It astounds me that you seem to have forgotten what you're arguing about, but you're going to change it and carry on with it anyhow. Stoke's over didn't go for 19. It went for 24, in 4 balls...That's 36 a fcking over. I know, it might have stopped at 24 an over as the last two could've been dots, what with all them yorkers flying in. WI did have an expensive over of 16 from Benn. That'd have done us quite nicely.

You're contention that this was a batters paradise, when the ball clearly wasn't coming onto the bat is as bizarre as every other know-nowt hypothesis you've made. The highest score on this ground in the finals proper was 201 - Pakistan V Bangladesh - that's against Bangladesh, in case you missed that bit. The next highest was 155 - until WI managed 161 to beat us.

Our score was under-par batting against their poor bowling, yet their score was well contained batting against our world class bowling even though they managed it with just two balls to spare.

You really are talking shoite now, and still digging.

Obviously you know more than every cricketing expert.

The strip used for the final was different, was firmer had more grass holding it together and the bounce was more true.

Before the game absolutely no fecker who has played international cricket thought a sub 180 score would cut it. Obviously you know better, though unless you can show me how much international t20 experience you have then I think I might just listen to them rather than you.

Yes England did well to contain them. But when chasing you know what you've got to do. Had England put the requisite score on the board the Windies would have had to start swinging earlier. Yes they may have still done it, but the odds were they might have miscued at some point.

They need to go have a look at the highest T20 scores ever at Kolkata - yes records are there to be broken. The highest is the 201 I mentioned in an earlier post - Pakistan v Bangladesh. The second highest in a completed innings was England's 155. WI at their run rate would have been on for 164. If we took out the 4 consecutive 6's, they'd have been on for 144. Sri Lanka would have hit 167 in a completed innings against Afghanistan.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... ype=ground" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So that's one innings, ever, over 180 at Kolkata - against Bangladesh.

You just carry on digging - you'll reach Australia eventually.

The wickets used have an impact. As the commentary explained the wickets either side of the strip used yesterday are very different, and take more spin and were slower. The wicket yesterday's game was played on was far better than 150.

[thebish]

The wickets used have an impact. As the commentary explained the wickets either side of the strip used yesterday are very different, and take more spin and were slower. The wicket yesterday's game was played on was far better than 150.

yet, neither of the two sides who had battled their way to the final - with some pretty phenomenal run-scoring between them - managed to get that many more than 150...

[BWFC_Insane]

The wickets used have an impact. As the commentary explained the wickets either side of the strip used yesterday are very different, and take more spin and were slower. The wicket yesterday's game was played on was far better than 150.

yet, neither of the two sides who had battled their way to the final - with some pretty phenomenal run-scoring between them - managed to get that many more than 150...

Well, the Windies got what they needed. That doesn't mean they'd have made only 155 if they had gone first.

We were short. There was even agreement on here about that at the time.

Everyone on the radio, TV on the web thought we were short.

[TANGODANCER]

I'd love to know exactly what you are saying BWFCI. The wicket is the same for both sides and we have no idea what would have happened if they had batted first except we gave them an advantage by losing the toss and they didn't. Would Gayle have been out for tuppence, or Samuals have got such a big total, or even been out cheaply if the ball had carried an inch further for that catch? Despite all that happend, none of it matters a jot except in hypothetica. All that does matter (repeat ad infinitum) is that with six balls left we had the game almost sewn up and Stokes (a man I greatly admire as a cricketer) bowled four balls that allowed Braithwaite (a man not known as a big scorer) to slog four sixes and win the game. What would the odds be on that happening? The rest is totally immaterial and all the "wise after the event" stuff won't change a thing. Move on.

[thebish]

The wickets used have an impact. As the commentary explained the wickets either side of the strip used yesterday are very different, and take more spin and were slower. The wicket yesterday's game was played on was far better than 150.

yet, neither of the two sides who had battled their way to the final - with some pretty phenomenal run-scoring between them - managed to get that many more than 150...

Well, the Windies got what they needed. That doesn't mean they'd have made only 155 if they had gone first.

We were short. There was even agreement on here about that at the time.

Everyone on the radio, TV on the web thought we were short.

aye - they did - but even if they had scored a further 12 from the remaining 2 balls - they wouldn't have been offering an innings "far better than 150" would they? (or perhaps they weren't trying?)

[Worthy4England]

The wickets used have an impact. As the commentary explained the wickets either side of the strip used yesterday are very different, and take more spin and were slower. The wicket yesterday's game was played on was far better than 150.

yet, neither of the two sides who had battled their way to the final - with some pretty phenomenal run-scoring between them - managed to get that many more than 150...

Well, the Windies got what they needed. That doesn't mean they'd have made only 155 if they had gone first.

We were short. There was even agreement on here about that at the time.

Everyone on the radio, TV on the web thought we were short.

aye - they did - but even if they had scored a further 12 from the remaining 2 balls - they wouldn't have been offering an innings "far better than 150" would they? (or perhaps they weren't trying?)

See, I reckon 200 whereas Nasa (who obviously knows more about it than I do) said 180. Either way, we're not about to be anywhere near those numbers.

Brucie was the man to follow, he even mentioned that NASA would have a say - probably spotting all those yorkers from Stokes, fly past the fcking Hubble telescope. (Mind, Brucie also punted at 100, 135 and various other numbers). For the record Brucie has as many T20 International Caps as me, Nasser, Atherton and most of the Sky Sports commentary team.

This is a completely bollocks dialogue. I reckon we'd have been completely safe with 210. 155 was clearly a total from which we could've won on a wicket with the ball not really coming onto the bat, with some better bowling in the final over. Before the game had progressed, they punted 180, at half time, they punted "not enough runs". How many of them wouldn't have taken West Indies to require 19 off the final over. I reckon (and this is a punt from me) - none of them.

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

I love this site!!
My tuppence
England were favourites after taking those first three wickets (as high as 83% favourites iirc on that statistical thingy they put up) right until the last over.
The bowlers had their plans for each WI batsmen and (almost) all were spot on. Stokes could have pitched it up a bit but Brathwate could have got his bat under it and smacked it straight back over his head. Stokes could have bowled slow short pitched stuff and he could have been hooked out the park. The plan for Brathwate as it was for most of the WI batsmen was to hit the pitch hard.
The boy Brathwate is obviously a talent

[Nicko58]

I love this site!!
My tuppence
England were favourites after taking those first three wickets (as high as 83% favourites iirc on that statistical thingy they put up) right until the last over.
The bowlers had their plans for each WI batsmen and (almost) all were spot on. Stokes could have pitched it up a bit but Brathwate could have got his bat under it and smacked it straight back over his head. Stokes could have bowled slow short pitched stuff and he could have been hooked out the park. The plan for Brathwate as it was for most of the WI batsmen was to hit the pitch hard.
The boy Brathwate is obviously a talent

That statistical thingy is complete bollocks; it has me convinced that it's just some bloke sat in the back taking a guess at it. Having said that, I agree with the rest of your post.

[Worthy4England]

I love this site!!
My tuppence
England were favourites after taking those first three wickets (as high as 83% favourites iirc on that statistical thingy they put up) right until the last over.
The bowlers had their plans for each WI batsmen and (almost) all were spot on. Stokes could have pitched it up a bit but Brathwate could have got his bat under it and smacked it straight back over his head. Stokes could have bowled slow short pitched stuff and he could have been hooked out the park. The plan for Brathwate as it was for most of the WI batsmen was to hit the pitch hard.
The boy Brathwate is obviously a talent

He certainly has a fairly hefty swing! He's not that young (27?) pushing 28.

[BWFC_Insane]

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.

[thebish]

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...

[BWFC_Insane]

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...

The wicket used Sunday is the best batting wicket on the pitch there anyway.

As for being a final, see the 202 scored in the IPL final. I get what you're saying, but nerves effect bowling too.

[Bruce Rioja]

The wicket used Sunday is the best batting wicket on the pitch there anyway.

According to who?