Cricket

[TheGayTent]

Bloody hell, just heard that Farby (ex Spitfire coach) was injured by flying shrapnel. Still, at least he's alive unlike some poor buggers who were there

[harper11]

IPL looks like being moved from india

probably to south africa

i think in an ashes year no england player should take part

especially not flintoff who isnt fit anyway

its just greed

[brfcstar]

IPL looks like being moved from india

probably to south africa

i think in an ashes year no england player should take part

especially not flintoff who isnt fit anyway

its just greed

I Agree with what happened in the last ashes we need all our best players 100% fit

[TheGayTent]

IPL looks like being moved from india

probably to south africa

Logically it should be SA. Their season will be finishing and the pitches will be in the right shape. Cricket pitches in England just won't be in any fit state to play meaningful games on in April. It'd be farcical.

I still reckon a lot of it is political posturing by Lalit Modi and the most likely venue remains India.

i think in an ashes year no england player should take part

especially not flintoff who isnt fit anyway

its just greed

IMO, it's not the player's fault...

[harper11]

a new low for english cricket

[Alcatraz]

Funny viewing

[worm]

Hardly. It's 20/20 after all.

They got 162, which is good. The Dutch batting was just excellent. Blame Broad's last over if you must. Stupid twat shouldn't have thrown the ball and should have held onto a catch and a stumping. Nob.

Outstanding performance by the Dutch.

Edited June 5, 2009 by worm

[modey]

what a cock up that was on the last ball

[worm]

what a cock up that was on the last ball

Similar to South Africa v Australia in '99.

[ste4_20]

162 wasn't a good total, considering 100-0 after 11 overs, you'd realistically be aiming at a 180-200 score. With exception to Bopara and Wright, England collapsed. To not hit any sixes in a 20-20 innings is shocking.

I'd say Broads last over was bowled really well, just everything else about it summed up English cricket.

Dutch did play well though.

[worm]

162 wasn't a good total, considering 100-0 after 11 overs, you'd realistically be aiming at a 180-200 score. With exception to Bopara and Wright, England collapsed. To not hit any sixes in a 20-20 innings is shocking.

There's nowt wrong with 162 (especially in an innings with no sixes).

Take into account that the Dutch bowled fairly well and that England were in no panic.

I'd say Broads last over was bowled really well, just everything else about it summed up English cricket.

He lost the game.

Edited June 6, 2009 by worm

[ste4_20]

There's nowt wrong with 162 (especially in an innings with no sixes).

Take into account that the Dutch bowled fairly well and that England were in no panic.

He lost the game.

From that position after 11 overs though, 162 is poor, it would've been expected to total at least 180. England being in no panic is exactly why they lost. If it had have been any other of the top 8 nations, 200 would've been the par score from there.

I didn't think he bowled that badly though. 7 runs from the last over with most of the deliveries being yorker length is a good over, England (Broad mostly) just fell apart with poor fielding. Similarly, if he'd hit the stumps with the last ball, he'd have won the game. Should've held the ball and taken the super over or whatever it's called. England would've won that; put Bopara and Wright in and let Broad bowl.

[worm]

From that position after 11 overs though, 162 is poor.

Why look at it after 11 overs? Rather bias.

As I said, 162 is not bad against the Dutch. It's reasonable and safe. The problem was therefore that the Dutch batted really well and above people's expectations. England did little wrong other than poor fielding.

Had the Dutch batted first you may have had more cause for critiquing England's batting. As it was, there was little problem with 162. Look at Broad if you want a scape goat.

The Pakistan game is going to be interesting. Both against England and the Netherlands.

Edited June 6, 2009 by worm

[worm]

Should've held the ball and taken the super over or whatever it's called.

Bingo!

Missed a run out and catch too. He was all over the place.

[ste4_20]

Why look at it after 11 overs? Rather bias.

As I said, 162 is not bad against the Dutch. It's reasonable and safe. The problem was therefore that the Dutch batted really well and above people's expectations. England did little wrong other than poor fielding.

Had the Dutch batted first you may have had more cause for critiquing England's batting. As it was, there was little problem with 162. Look at Broad if you want a scape goat.

The Pakistan game is going to be interesting. Both against England and the Netherlands.

From 11 overs onwards, England eased off and the middle order didn't perform. That's dangerous in any sport, something which we do more so than any other team playing. It's that that I'm criticising, most other teams would've reached at least 180. That's what impressed me against WI; the ruthlessness.

The Dutch played superbly as a team, everyone chipped in. Pakistan didn't look good against India, but after yesterday, should beat Holland. Think England can win on Sunday, making the group very tight, but should go through at Hollands expense. Can't see past India taking the tournament though.

Bingo!

Missed a run out and catch too. He was all over the place.

He's still young, and it was a well bowled over. By the same token, who was backing up the throw? I can forgive him the catch, they're difficult to take after a run up, inexperience showed in his fielding. Need Gough back for last over bowling...

Think Scotland might win this 7 over match now too.

[harper11]

England getting hammered by south africa

no suprise really

[thesixthzuton]

They got 162, which is good. The Dutch batting was just excellent. Blame Broad's last over if you must. Stupid twat shouldn't have thrown the ball and should have held onto a catch and a stumping. Nob.

Outstanding performance by the Dutch.

He lost the game.

No no no no no no no. Absolute bollocks. What lost the Dutch game was England's piss poor batting - to only score 162 from a position of 100-0 is shocking. Oh, and we failed to hit one six in the innings. With 7 needed off the last over, Broad did very well to limit them to 1 run an over, and as someone said, who was backing up the throw? To blame Broad for the defeat is nonsense.

Moving on to tonight's shambles, how do we expect to win at this sport with only three specialist batsmen in the team? The selection has been somewhat perplexing at times - OK, play Key if you must but why send him in at 6? What's Graham Napier doing in the squad if you're not going to use him?

The only players to come out of this tournament with any credit are Bopara (again), Pietersen, Foster and Sidebottom. Shah was a disaster, Wright doesn't look like the player we thought he would be and Collingwood's captaincy was bewildering - especially his choice tonight to send in Broad for the penultimate over when perhaps Sidebottom's aggression would have restricted the runs scored.

[ste4_20]

No no no no no no no. Absolute bollocks. What lost the Dutch game was England's piss poor batting - to only score 162 from a position of 100-0 is shocking. Oh, and we failed to hit one six in the innings. With 7 needed off the last over, Broad did very well to limit them to 1 run an over, and as someone said, who was backing up the throw? To blame Broad for the defeat is nonsense.

Moving on to tonight's shambles, how do we expect to win at this sport with only three specialist batsmen in the team? The selection has been somewhat perplexing at times - OK, play Key if you must but why send him in at 6? What's Graham Napier doing in the squad if you're not going to use him?

The only players to come out of this tournament with any credit are Bopara (again), Pietersen, Foster and Sidebottom. Shah was a disaster, Wright doesn't look like the player we thought he would be and Collingwood's captaincy was bewildering - especially his choice tonight to send in Broad for the penultimate over when perhaps Sidebottom's aggression would have restricted the runs scored.

I actually thought England played alright yesterday. With rain forecast, the worst thing they did all day was bat first. D/L always favours the team batting second in 20/20. What should happen is to bring in some kind of wicket allowance in the event of D/L; if WI had to chase 80 with 6 or 7 wickets, it would have levelled the field a lot.

I'd add Broad to the list above. For his mistakes against the Dutch, he batted well at the end when given the chance and thought his bowling has improved massively in restricted over games. Rashid has come out alright, but I'm not sure if that's just because he was an unknown before. I've been really impressed by Foster, his speed and reflexes are just incredible. What it's done has highlighted Englands lack of a middle order. I think you can play only 3 specialist batsmen, that's not the issue, England don't have anyone to hurry along the innings after Pietersen. Moving Broad up the order might be a decent idea.

Team to win it is anyones guess. SA are down as favourites as they haven't had a bad day yet, SL rely almost purely on their bowling and WI are one of the most unpredictable teams in any sport. I'd guess WI.

[worm]

No no no no no no no. Absolute bollocks. What lost the Dutch game was England's piss poor batting - to only score 162 from a position of 100-0 is shocking. Oh, and we failed to hit one six in the innings. With 7 needed off the last over, Broad did very well to limit them to 1 run an over, and as someone said, who was backing up the throw? To blame Broad for the defeat is nonsense.

I disagree.

[thesixthzuton]

I've been really impressed by Foster, his speed and reflexes are just incredible.

He's been probably the best wicketkeeper in England for a few years now, however with the current prevalence to have a batter who can keep wicket, rather than to have a specialist keeper regardless of his batting ability, he's not had a sniff of a chance in either Test or ODI cricket. Twenty20 cricket is, ironically, the one version of the sport where teams prefer to have a specialist than a batsman.

[TheGayTent]

Until the England selectors actually choose a proven T20 team they will continue to struggle for any consistency.

Have a look at all the English players featuring in the sides that have reached T20 finals day in the last two years. Where are they in the squad?

What type of bowlers have proved most effective at slowing down the run rate after the first power play in T20 cricket? Clue, it isn't fast bowlers, nor is it spinners...

[Cardboard Box City]

Some of the England womens team are quite tasty

Edited June 21, 2009 by Cardboard Box City

[ste4_20]

I'd guess WI.

Golden rule of sport in our house. If I tip someone to win something, they're going out at the very next possible chance. Despite the fact its twenty20, I've actually enjoyed this tournament. Been a big tournament in terms of invention and delivery and there's been some entertaining games.

Despite what people say about it being a game for batsmen, it's a team who rely on bowling that look favourites to win. Which of course obviously means Pakistan are going to win.

[Gre]

Which of course obviously means Pakistan are going to win.

Bingo!

Right, that's the crash-bang-wallop out of the way - bring on the Aussies!

[TheGayTent]

So the quarter final line ups are complete:

Kent v Durham

Sussex v Warwickshire

Lancashire v Somerset

Northants v Hampshire

Am hoping to get down to see the Spitfires on the Monday, then fingers crossed another finals day at Edgbaston on Aug 15th...

Lancs for me are the stand out side in the competition...not too bothered though, they often are and always choke.

Anyone else going to a qtr final match? Or planning on doing finals day?