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

pelevin · 08-03-2015 1:09am

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 · 08-03-2015 1:31am

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 · 08-03-2015 2:02am

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 · 08-03-2015 3:05am

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 · 08-03-2015 3:18am

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- · 08-03-2015 3:23am

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 · 08-03-2015 6:10pm

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 · 08-03-2015 8:29pm

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 · 08-03-2015 8:31pm

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 · 09-03-2015 1:48am

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 · 09-03-2015 2:29am

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 · 09-03-2015 11:38pm

Gillespy wrote: »

You've seen something in the Bangladeshis?

A few handy bowlers. What do you think?

Gillespy · 10-03-2015 12:04am

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 · 10-03-2015 6:06pm

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.

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

Comments