|
Post by WullieFort on Jun 16, 2019 11:58:13 GMT
Pakistan is getting well and truly humped.
India 215-1 after 36. With Rohit on 125 and recently arrived Kohli on 27 they could get over 350 Pakistan decision to field first was a strange one
Some of the fans' costumes are magnificent
|
|
|
Post by weststigersbob on Jun 16, 2019 12:32:19 GMT
Pak win toss and bowl - gives them a chance?... I think that’s a rubbish decision. To beat India you should bat first and then make them chase. If it’s a high score, they aren’t so confident and get the wobbles. See WC final 2003 and 2015 semi 😂 I don’t know how much cricket you have watched recently, but I’ll give you a tip. There are 3 all time “finishers” in ODI cricket. Micheal Bevan was the first. Dhoni was the second and Kohli is the king. India are confident chasing anything given they have 2 of the best finishers of all time. The only reason to bat first is that it is the done thing, runs on the board etc. Tactically, making India chase does nothing to enhance your chances. And the 2003 final has nothing to do with the current side. It was 16 years ago and none of those players are around anymore - not even Shoaib Malik and Mohammad Hafeez....
|
|
|
Post by weststigersbob on Jun 16, 2019 12:37:26 GMT
Pakistan is getting well and truly humped. India 215-1 after 36. With Rohit on 125 and recently arrived Kohli on 27 they could get over 350 Pakistan decision to field first was a strange one Some of the fans' costumes are magnificent They thought it would be green and do a bit. it did literally nothing and they bowled like shyte. 298/3 with 5 overs to go. Kohli really upping the ante.
|
|
|
Post by WullieFort on Jun 16, 2019 13:08:13 GMT
Rain stops play. Predictable in Manchester. Hopefully not for too long although it looks pretty heavy.
I'm not much of a cricket fan. Rarely bother to watch it. In the past, I always tuned in to watch Botham, Richards, Lara and a few others. Gotta say watching Kohli play, could convert me. He makes singles into twos because he is so fast between the wickets and gets his bat on almost anything. Smith of Australia is another who can improvise a shot no matter what kind of ball is bowled to him. Half-centuries are a given for these two. Hope their teams make it to the latter stages.
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Jun 16, 2019 13:23:34 GMT
I think that’s a rubbish decision. To beat India you should bat first and then make them chase. If it’s a high score, they aren’t so confident and get the wobbles. See WC final 2003 and 2015 semi 😂 I don’t know how much cricket you have watched recently, but I’ll give you a tip. There are 3 all time “finishers” in ODI cricket. Micheal Bevan was the first. Dhoni was the second and Kohli is the king. India are confident chasing anything given they have 2 of the best finishers of all time. The only reason to bat first is that it is the done thing, runs on the board etc. Tactically, making India chase does nothing to enhance your chances. And the 2003 final has nothing to do with the current side. It was 16 years ago and none of those players are around anymore - not even Shoaib Malik and Mohammad Hafeez.... Australia sure beat India the last time India were chasing 300 plus. www.espncricinfo.com/series/19059/scorecard/1168244/india-vs-australia-3rd-odi-aus-in-ind-2018-19I’m saying that if India are chasing a large score they are in trouble. I still believe that if Australia batted first in their recent WC match against India and scored 350+, India would have had difficulty.
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Jun 16, 2019 13:56:44 GMT
I think that’s a rubbish decision. To beat India you should bat first and then make them chase. If it’s a high score, they aren’t so confident and get the wobbles. See WC final 2003 and 2015 semi 😂 I don’t know how much cricket you have watched recently, but I’ll give you a tip. There are 3 all time “finishers” in ODI cricket. Micheal Bevan was the first. Dhoni was the second and Kohli is the king. India are confident chasing anything given they have 2 of the best finishers of all time. The only reason to bat first is that it is the done thing, runs on the board etc. Tactically, making India chase does nothing to enhance your chances. And the 2003 final has nothing to do with the current side. It was 16 years ago and none of those players are around anymore - not even Shoaib Malik and Mohammad Hafeez.... Yep, that's astutely in a nutshell. No brainer for Pak to bowl first, they even had favourable conditions to do so and had they bowled better may have exerted some pressure. They chase a big total now, but go for it, no point for them to die wondering.
|
|
|
Post by weststigersbob on Jun 16, 2019 15:48:01 GMT
Pakistan are obviously going for the ‘wickets in hand and we will get anything in the last 10 overs’ tactics. I don’t know about that one. They are making Pandya and Shankar look like Lillee and Thompson at times. They are behind the rate by a margin, and Kuldeep and Chahal have 19 overs up their sleeves.
My point regarding India and making them chase - Bat first and runs on the board has been cricket dogma for 200 years. My point is that batting first solely because you think India will be pressured chasing (all other things being equal) is a bad idea. They like chasing, and they play a lot, A LOT, of limited overs, high pressure cricket in the IPL. If a side wins the toss against India, they should look to do what they do best. In the conditions and the side they picked, Pakistan HAD to bowl first. If it was sunny and hadn’t rained in days, Bat first, and hope Imad and Shadab get them home.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 16, 2019 17:21:16 GMT
Pakistan are obviously going for the ‘wickets in hand and we will get anything in the last 10 overs’ tactics. I don’t know about that one. They are making Pandya and Shankar look like Lillee and Thompson at times. They are behind the rate by a margin, and Kuldeep and Chahal have 19 overs up their sleeves. My point regarding India and making them chase - Bat first and runs on the board has been cricket dogma for 200 years. My point is that batting first solely because you think India will be pressured chasing (all other things being equal) is a bad idea. They like chasing, and they play a lot, A LOT, of limited overs, high pressure cricket in the IPL. If a side wins the toss against India, they should look to do what they do best. In the conditions and the side they picked, Pakistan HAD to bowl first. If it was sunny and hadn’t rained in days, Bat first, and hope Imad and Shadab get them home. Yeah, that strategy usually doesn't work and especially not if you don't have a good tail and a destructive late middle order. Thankfully, this game will yield a result and not get abandoned. Next match that may generate interest is NZ vs SA unless Bangla or Afghans do something special before that.
I wouldn't have seen a Bangla win against WI an upset an year back but given good pace bowling of WI I am seeing them as most likely winners.
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Jun 16, 2019 17:27:32 GMT
Imran Khan suggested Pakistan should bat first.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 16, 2019 17:35:17 GMT
I think that’s a rubbish decision. To beat India you should bat first and then make them chase. If it’s a high score, they aren’t so confident and get the wobbles. See WC final 2003 and 2015 semi 😂 Micheal Bevan was the first. Dhoni was the second and Kohli is the king. India are confident chasing anything given they have 2 of the best finishers of all time. I think Hussey should be the 2nd on the list. Though I don't exactly remember his exact role and whether he was a finisher or a middle order builder. But he was mighty effective and one of my all-time fav cricketers. And had a great temperament too. Carl LaFongGanguly and Wasim Akram as well. But I believe it was a very difficult decision and I won't consider Pakistan's decision necessarily a bad one. Just that they stood little chance of winning this game irrespective of whether they batted first or 2nd.
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Jun 16, 2019 17:39:56 GMT
Of course Pakistan should have batted first. I don’t get this choice to bat second by any team. Even if they had only scored 150 the match would probably have been closer. It’s just hard to chase. Nothing has changed there. It used to be that teams who won the toss would routinely elect to bat. If India bats second against a strong bowling team you’ll see. And if it’s a score of 300 plus they’ll definitely be under pressure.
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Jun 17, 2019 8:03:59 GMT
Of course Pakistan should have batted first. I don’t get this choice to bat second by any team. Even if they had only scored 150 the match would probably have been closer. It’s just hard to chase. Nothing has changed there. It used to be that teams who won the toss would routinely elect to bat. If India bats second against a strong bowling team you’ll see. And if it’s a score of 300 plus they’ll definitely be under pressure. India's only fallibility is against the moving ball, conditions early on looked ideal for that to be possible, that would have been part of the decision to bowl first as well. So I'm surprised to read Akram thought they should have batted first!! Ultimately is doesn't matter, India are an outstanding side and the other 3 big sides heading to the semi finals with them are going to have to be at their best across the board to stop them.
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Jun 17, 2019 8:43:54 GMT
Of course Pakistan should have batted first. I don’t get this choice to bat second by any team. Even if they had only scored 150 the match would probably have been closer. It’s just hard to chase. Nothing has changed there. It used to be that teams who won the toss would routinely elect to bat. If India bats second against a strong bowling team you’ll see. And if it’s a score of 300 plus they’ll definitely be under pressure. India's only fallibility is against the moving ball, conditions early on looked ideal for that to be possible, that would have been part of the decision to bowl first as well. So I'm surprised to read Akram thought they should have batted first!! Ultimately is doesn't matter, India are an outstanding side and the other 3 big sides heading to the semi finals with them are going to have to be at their best across the board to stop them. India are a strong batting side but they can get out just like any other. They may have scored big against Australia but it wasn’t easy for them. There was luck and close calls and playing and missing, as well as nicks where there wasn’t a slip and some tough chances went down. India also respected the bowling enough not to try it on with certain bowlers. You add the pressure of a high run rate to this and they’re up against it. One of our women cricketer commentators here backed India after the coin toss solely based on them batting first and I agree with her. Would you really back India to chase 360 against Starc, Cummins and Maxwell? I’d think it’s possible that they could win, but probable that they wouldn’t.
|
|
|
Post by weststigersbob on Jun 17, 2019 10:04:49 GMT
India's only fallibility is against the moving ball, conditions early on looked ideal for that to be possible, that would have been part of the decision to bowl first as well. So I'm surprised to read Akram thought they should have batted first!! Ultimately is doesn't matter, India are an outstanding side and the other 3 big sides heading to the semi finals with them are going to have to be at their best across the board to stop them. India are a strong batting side but they can get out just like any other. They may have scored big against Australia but it wasn’t easy for them. There was luck and close calls and playing and missing, as well as nicks where there wasn’t a slip and some tough chances went down. India also respected the bowling enough not to try it on with certain bowlers. You add the pressure of a high run rate to this and they’re up against it. One of our women cricketer commentators here backed India after the coin toss solely based on them batting first and I agree with her. Would you really back India to chase 360 against Starc, Cummins and Maxwell? I’d think it’s possible that they could win, but probable that they wouldn’t. I think you are missing a very big picture argument here. In day games, especially in England, the best bowling conditions are in the morning, doubly so when it’s damp, overcast and the wicket has a green tinge. It gets better as the day progresses. Now, Pakistan has to decide whether they believe that the advantage the conditions give them in the morning offsets the pressure of chasing runs, or, conversely can they score enough runs in poor conditions to be able to put pressure on India when they have to bat. The obvious answer is to bowl first. Especially when India has Bumrah (no 1 in the world), and Bhuvi + Shankar and Pandya - all of them can swing it in good conditions. Pakistan had Amir White record in England is outstanding, Hasan Ali who was the bowler of the tournament in the Champions Trophy 2 years ago in England, and Wahab - an experienced seamer whose good in all conditions. Pakistan bowled terribly (except Amir) and the difference between Shadab and Imad to Kuldeep and Chahal was stark. Pakistan did the right thing, but bowled shit and batted worse. My point - when winning the toss, you do what’s best FOR YOU. This insane belief that you should always bat first because it’s harder to chase is nonsense, and against India even more so. They love chasing, and are the best chasing team of all time. And if you fancy your bowling attack is the better, then unleash it in the best of the conditions for your attack.
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Jun 17, 2019 10:51:24 GMT
India are a strong batting side but they can get out just like any other. They may have scored big against Australia but it wasn’t easy for them. There was luck and close calls and playing and missing, as well as nicks where there wasn’t a slip and some tough chances went down. India also respected the bowling enough not to try it on with certain bowlers. You add the pressure of a high run rate to this and they’re up against it. One of our women cricketer commentators here backed India after the coin toss solely based on them batting first and I agree with her. Would you really back India to chase 360 against Starc, Cummins and Maxwell? I’d think it’s possible that they could win, but probable that they wouldn’t. I think you are missing a very big picture argument here. In day games, especially in England, the best bowling conditions are in the morning, doubly so when it’s damp, overcast and the wicket has a green tinge. It gets better as the day progresses. Now, Pakistan has to decide whether they believe that the advantage the conditions give them in the morning offsets the pressure of chasing runs, or, conversely can they score enough runs in poor conditions to be able to put pressure on India when they have to bat. The obvious answer is to bowl first. Especially when India has Bumrah (no 1 in the world), and Bhuvi + Shankar and Pandya - all of them can swing it in good conditions. Pakistan had Amir White record in England is outstanding, Hasan Ali who was the bowler of the tournament in the Champions Trophy 2 years ago in England, and Wahab - an experienced seamer whose good in all conditions. Pakistan bowled terribly (except Amir) and the difference between Shadab and Imad to Kuldeep and Chahal was stark. Pakistan did the right thing, but bowled shit and batted worse. My point - when winning the toss, you do what’s best FOR YOU. This insane belief that you should always bat first because it’s harder to chase is nonsense, and against India even more so. They love chasing, and are the best chasing team of all time. And if you fancy your bowling attack is the better, then unleash it in the best of the conditions for your attack. India the best chasing team? What’s the highest total which they chased? 362, 356 and 351 . What’s the next highest? 331. So India has successfully chased a total of 350+ three times in total. It’s not something to bank on. And the form that Finch, Warner and Smith are in, that’s the score they will be hoping for. I don’t think the Australian bowling attack is better than the Indian batting, so I wouldn’t want Australia to bowl first. But the Australian bowling attack is strong enough to defend 350+ against India. The Pakistan team could do it too. Pakistan beat England by batting first just a fortnight ago.
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Jun 17, 2019 16:37:28 GMT
Mon The Bangers
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Jun 17, 2019 17:05:26 GMT
Shak Attack!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 17, 2019 17:15:29 GMT
The Bangers hit right back at me for not calling them strong enough to be put on equal footing with WI. But WI prove me right about what I said after their initial good performance that they shouldn't be trusted.
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Jun 17, 2019 18:56:46 GMT
The Bangers hit right back at me for not calling them strong enough to be put on equal footing with WI. But WI prove me right about what I said after their initial good performance that they shouldn't be trusted. Windies and Pakistan can always be relied upon to prove us wrong and that they can't be trusted!
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Jun 17, 2019 19:26:08 GMT
Yeah Windies are turning into what the Pakistanis traditionally were and are again. Unpredictable. They have a good side who at their best can challenge any team. But you never know what you’re going to get. But Bangladesh do have the highest run scorer. It will be interesting to see what they do with the rest of the tournament.
|
|