2015 World Cup - Day 22 - Pak v SA, Ire v Zim

Jacovs

At this point they could ask Graeme Smith back into the team to open the batting. He is knocking about over there anyways and cant do worse than de Kock. Also another bowling option in him :pac:

Rjd2

dfx- wrote: »

The hole is Kallis and to be honest, who and where would you pick another 5th bowler when Kallis was available in the past? It's got to be Kallis every time, he's arguably the best cricketer ever - it's going to take time to fill the gap.

What has happened to Tsotsobe, not picked in 12 months

Tsotobe got injured not to long ago, and just fell out of favour. He was number one in the world a few years ago according to the rankings, cracking bowler.

I dunno about all rounders really, they definitely messed Albie about, as they never had a clue how to use him, although to be fair he failed more often than not, so he has to take some blame. He got injured this year which killed his hopes anyhow.

Wiese? Monster hitter, but from limited exposure to his bowling, he may get carted by quality batsmen. However he should have played an ODI or two before the world cup so we could judge.

Its a shame that the likes of Abbot,Mc Claren Philander, Parnell, Morris aren't good enough to bat in the top seven.

Parnell is the heart breaking one, touted as the next great all rounder, looked quality when in England a few years ago, but injury and silliness has really affected his game. He can't be given up on, but this World Cup may be to soon for him to put it all together sadly.


Should have reached out to Tendo a few years ago, but you'd have been a brave man to back Kallis to retire before the World Cup.

Palz

Correct me if I'm wrong but we don't have a decent swing bowler to allow us play slips.

Gillespy

More lack of pace but Porterfield had three slips at times today, first wicket was a slip catch by Stirling. If he had the riches of McCullum or Clarke he would have a packed slip cordon the whole time.

feargale

KevIRL wrote: »

They are still far more likely to qualify though...

Don't count on England beating Bangladesh.

Gillespy

You've seen something in the Bangladeshis?

Dozen Wicked Words

Gillespy wrote: »

You've seen something in the Bangladeshis?

It's probably as much what he hasn't seen in England. Although I do think England will win (please fuppin win), nothing would surprise me the way they have been playing.

Gillespy

They lost to three great one day sides though, ok the manner wasn't great but that happens. Their tournament has been no worse than South Africa's only they're in a easier group so have got away with it. Embarrassed by India and capitulated against Pakistan. The one side England were supposed to beat they did in Scotland. Some people thought that was a banana skin too but it was a mismatch.

pelevin

Gillespy wrote: »

They lost to three great one day sides though, ok the manner wasn't great but that happens. Their tournament has been no worse than South Africa's only they're in a easier group so have got away with it. Embarrassed by India and capitulated against Pakistan. The one side England were supposed to beat they did in Scotland. Some people thought that was a banana skin too but it was a mismatch.

The manner they lost wasn't great? They lost in 12 overs I think it was to NZ. 12 overs?! Rescued another utter humiliation against Australia to some degree. Bowlers were stripped of dignity by Sri Lanka though at least a decent batting performance.
Maybe England will come to life - and they do have plenty raw talent to do so - but I think you're doing some serious PR work in your descriptions here.

Gillespy

Just putting things into perceptive. Bangladesh have offered nothing to say England will lose to them.

pelevin

I think putting things into perspective though would be emphasising Bangladesh's limitations. England as supposedly one of the major cricketing powers of the world - and the best Test side or thereabouts up till little over a year ago - would imo be pretty reasonable to describe as thus far not much better than pathetic. Scotland, the side they've beaten, have never won a World Cup match in 2 decades or so.

Gillespy

England aren't a great one day side. They have the talent to be doing a lot better but are a mess and lack direction. Scotland was the only game they were dead certs to win, had they our group, they would have a few more gimmes and a few more winnable games. Aus, NZ and Sri Lanka are proper teams, Bangladesh aren't and England should have enough. Good news is there isn't long to wait to find out.

thebaz

Gillespy wrote: »

England aren't a great one day side. They have the talent to be doing a lot better but are a mess and lack direction.

considering also, England take our best players , the performance of Ireland at this WC has been truly outstanding.

what chance has cricket got of growing , with the small mindedness of the powers that be in reducing the next WC , to keep out the likes of Ireland, Afghanistan, Scotland, Holland - ridiculous.

Rjd2

Gillespy wrote: »

England aren't a great one day side. They have the talent to be doing a lot better but are a mess and lack direction. Scotland was the only game they were dead certs to win, had they our group, they would have a few more gimmes and a few more winnable games. Aus, NZ and Sri Lanka are proper teams, Bangladesh aren't and England should have enough. Good news is there isn't long to wait to find out.

The match is in Adelaide which will please England and not Bangladesh

England have at best been erratic in ODI cricket in the last year or so, but Bangladesh have been awful. Is it a formality that England win? Course not, but they have a much better 11 overall and in Aussie conditions they should have to much.

feargale

Compare the performances of England and Bangladesh against the same opposition. I'm just saying don't bank on an England win.
Do I care? I don't want to engage in England bashing for the sake of it but I endorse the poster who has criticised the ICC's mealy mouthed attitude towards the likes of Ireland and Afghanistan. If Ireland do better than England, especially if Ireland qualify for quarter-finals and England don't, it will make the powers that be look very foolish in persisting with this apartheid if I may call it that. England exert particularly strong influence in the corridors of power. The myopic unwillingness to spread the gospel froze out a relatively strong USA a century ago. Neither Sri Lanka nor Zimbabwe would have attained their present levels if they hadn't been given test status. One has to ask if the reluctance to recognise Ireland has more to do with its implications for poaching Irish players by our neighbour.

dfx-

England will get through, but I wouldn't necessarily say Sri Lanka are that good a side in Australia, I would've had England on a level par with them before the tournament.

And have a massive Sangakkara problem when he retires after this tournament...

Gillespy

Sri Lanka beat them in England and then won the series in Sri Lanka a few months ago. They have the wood over them at least but it's more than that I think.

BarryD

feargale wrote: »

England exert particularly strong influence in the corridors of power. The myopic unwillingness to spread the gospel froze out a relatively strong USA a century ago. Neither Sri Lanka nor Zimbabwe would have attained their present levels if they hadn't been given test status. One has to ask if the reluctance to recognise Ireland has more to do with its implications for poaching Irish players by our neighbour.

Not sure if this is entirely the full picture; as in many other matters, England's influence has fallen steadily in the last 50 years. It should in theory, be in their interests to encourage the development of cricket in Europe as the power in the global game has very much shifted to the southern hemisphere and Asia. That's where it seems the real decisions about the world game are made now.

Dozen Wicked Words

BarryD wrote: »

Not sure if this is entirely the full picture; as in many other matters, England's influence has fallen steadily in the last 50 years. It should in theory, be in their interests to encourage the development of cricket in Europe as the power in the global game has very much shifted to the southern hemisphere and Asia. That's where it seems the real decisions about the world game are made now.

This is off topic but I agree, virtually all influence in the game now lies with India, and to a much much lesser extent with England and Australia. Hence the financial carve up those 3 countries organised last year.

josip

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

This is off topic but I agree, virtually all influence in the game now lies with India, and to a much much lesser extent with England and Australia. Hence the financial carve up those 3 countries organised last year.

So when we beat India it'll help our case for next time around?

feargale

josip wrote: »

So when we beat India it'll help our case for next time around?

A draw will do very nicely, thank you. It will surely be the first time since Edward Bruce's scorched earth campaign that the Irish nation has prayed for rain!

feargale

Gillespy wrote: »

You've seen something in the Bangladeshis?

A few handy bowlers. What do you think?

Gillespy

Your prediction was based on their quicks taking all ten wickets and defending just 275? Or just your hope for English cricket and its apartheid regime to fail?

India won't fear them that's for sure.

feargale

Gillespy wrote: »

Your prediction was based on their quicks taking all ten wickets and defending just 275? Or just your hope for English cricket and its apartheid regime to fail?
India won't fear them that's for sure.

Ah look at the bright side. Here's a quote from the Guess the Village thread to cheer you up

josip wrote: »

Correct. Even the English cricket team usually last longer than that did.