Cricket World Cup- Ireland Vs. South Africa. See Mod Warning in post 18

Memnoch

You have to remember that this attack took something like 7 wickets for 29 runs against supposedly the best batting line up in the world on what was a home game for them.

SA might have had a blip against England with their batting, but they're a class team and there's a huge gulf there obviously, still.

d'Oracle

dfx- wrote: »

Duminy quietly accumulating runs by being very quick, making ones into twos, twos into threes made a difference that perhaps Smith or Kallis wouldn't have got up to.

I know I'm bordering on raving here, but he was brilliant.

The way he milked the space around silly mid on to mid wicket/square leg for singles when nothing else was on, it was absolute murder. He also played some fine boundaries.


Edit: Yes I had to check the names of the positions.

D3PO

was a great innings and you have to admire him for putting the team ahead of personal goals going for runs at the risk of his ton.

Personally speaking I think I probably would have nurdled the single then gone ballistic. Guess Im not a team player :eek::eek::o

SD7792

Is it just me who doesnt think he should have put the team ahead of himself?

Dont get me wrong, i am a team player but World cup centuries are rare enough and I think he should have taken it. Also on the very slight chance that Ireland chased down the target, I seriously doubt there would be much blame on Duminy for missing out on 3 runs. Especially considering he was the person who would have got a century and held their innings together in a part of the game where they looked in a bit of trouble.

d'Oracle

SD7792 wrote: »

Is it just me who doesnt think he should have put the team ahead of himself?

Dont get me wrong, i am a team player but World cup centuries are rare enough and I think he should have taken it. Also on the very slight chance that Ireland chased down the target, I seriously doubt there would be much blame on Duminy for missing out on 3 runs. Especially considering he was the person who would have got a century and held their innings together in a part of the game where they looked in a bit of trouble.

At the risk of sounding flippant, he still got 99 and held their innings together. I know its a milestone, but its surely much of a muchness.

If he had taken a single and got bowled next ball there was still a fair score their for their bowlers to deal with.

Also, are we sure he didn't just want to get his tonne with a boundary?
Are we maybe guilty of listening to the commentators a little too much?

SD7792

d'Oracle wrote: »

At the risk of sounding flippant, he still got 99 and held their innings together. I know its a milestone, but its surely much of a muchness.

If he had taken a single and got bowled next ball there was still a fair score their for their bowlers to deal with.

Also, are we sure he didn't just want to get his tonne with a boundary?
Are we maybe guilty of listening to the commentators a little too much?

I agree with you to some extent but I'm sure he'd rather say he got 100 not out rather than 99.

And yeah he could easily have wanted to get it with a boundary but generally you will see most players trying to get the century with a single or a ground shot rather than a slog up in the air. Also he hadnt played too many big shots in his innings until that point so you'd have to feel he was doing it purely for the team.

I'd still be greedy and take the century :P

dfx-

dooferoaks wrote: »

I always thought it was because the new ball had been seen off and therefore runs would be easier to get.*


*Probably talking out of an orifice that isn't my mouth.

I always thought it was best batsman at 4, a solid player at three to see off any liveliness in the pitch/opening bowling

TheDrog

randomer wrote: »

Do boards.ie have a cricket team?

no, it was mentioned at one point but nobody ran with it