Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1356714

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 395 ✭✭Cricket fan


    Faded out a bit in the end but I would've taken that after 20 overs. Couple things to note.

    How damaging will Porterfields knock be? 29 off 61 could be the difference between winning and losing.

    Could have gotten 20 runs extra IMO, but the Zimbos bowled well enough in the last couple overs.

    I think our bowling will struggle here, but if ever they will defend a total its today.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,478 ✭✭✭✭KevIRL


    332 the target then. 330 achieved but a good last 2 overs for zim.

    Early wickets please!


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,478 ✭✭✭✭KevIRL


    Faded out a bit in the end but I would've taken that after 20 overs. Couple things to note.

    How damaging will Porterfields knock be? 29 off 61 could be the difference between winning and losing.

    Could have gotten 20 runs extra IMO, but the Zimbos bowled well enough in the last couple overs.

    I think our bowling will struggle here, but if ever they will defend a total its today.

    Yer some man for focussing on the negatives I'll give you that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,478 ✭✭✭✭KevIRL


    Ireland 2/9 on PP with Zim 3/1


  • Registered Users Posts: 395 ✭✭Cricket fan


    KevIRL wrote: »
    Yer some man for focussing on the negatives I'll give you that.

    Lol sorry, we did bat excellently for the vast majority of the game.

    We are favourites no doubt, but it isnt over by any means.

    A triple wicket maiden first over would do nicely :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭booth70


    Rjd2 wrote: »
    The most overrated side in ODI cricket, look like beasts when the pressure is off especially against the smaller sides, but in a chase like this, they are awful.

    Chokers.

    Not out of it yet though...... They only require less than 5 an over.....

    Will be thanking their stars that they are playing the extra batter today


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,478 ✭✭✭✭KevIRL


    Lol sorry, we did bat excellently for the vast majority of the game.

    We are favourites no doubt, but it isnt over by any means.

    A triple wicket maiden first over would do nicely :D

    Not over by a long shot. However

    Our highest ever ODI total
    2 fantastic knocks by Joyce and Balirnie
    Couple of great supporting cameos from Wilson and KOB
    Even porter field did his beat in terms of keeping wickets in hand
    Zim missing chigumburu

    Now our bowling is weak but we just have to keep it tight
    No mistakes in the field

    Zim have only ever chased 300+ once


  • Registered Users Posts: 395 ✭✭Cricket fan


    Pakistan look set for a comfortable enough win tbh, all rests on AB now


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,715 ✭✭✭Doodah7


    According to the BBC statistician, Andrew Samson, Zimbabwe have only got more than 300 when chasing once in 41 attempts and then they got 329. They will have to break records to win today...


  • Registered Users Posts: 395 ✭✭Cricket fan


    tallpaul wrote: »
    According to the BBC statistician, Andrew Samson, Zimbabwe have only got more than 300 when chasing once in 41 attempts and then they got 329. They will have to break records to win today...

    IIRC correctly, that chase came vs NZ in 2010/2011


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,705 ✭✭✭Jacovs


    I know a fair bit about cricket but the DL system always does my head in.

    Someone care to explain why when Pakistan got 222 in their 47 overs, SA now needs to get 232 in their 47 overs? Does not seem fair at all. :confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,724 ✭✭✭✭Pudsy33


    I'm not following the game but presumably SA were in a bad position with wickets etc when the calculation was made


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭booth70


    AB v Pakistan from here on in


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,715 ✭✭✭Doodah7


    A few parsimonious overs from Mooney and Dockrell early on would nicely un- nerve the Zimbabweans...


  • Registered Users Posts: 395 ✭✭Cricket fan


    Jacovs wrote: »
    I know a fair bit about cricket but the DL system always does my head in.

    Someone care to explain why when Pakistan got 222 in their 47 overs, SA now needs to get 232 in their 47 overs? Does not seem fair at all. :confused:

    This happened vs us in 2013 vs Pak.

    Basically, Pakistan batted in the mindset that they had 50 overs to play with, but 3 overs were lost to rain. So the D/L assumes that had Pak known they had 47 overs and not 50, they'd have been more aggressive or started going for shots slightly earlier, hence the small increase.

    Makes sense on paper


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,705 ✭✭✭Jacovs


    Pudsy33 wrote: »
    I'm not following the game but presumably SA were in a bad position with wickets etc when the calculation was made

    Was the total not set before SA started batting? Looking back through the commentary on cricinfo it seems the total was set at 232 from the start of their innings.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,705 ✭✭✭Jacovs


    This happened vs us in 2013 vs Pak.

    Basically, Pakistan batted in the mindset that they had 50 overs to play with, but 3 overs were lost to rain. So the D/L assumes that had Pak known they had 47 overs and not 50, they'd have been more aggressive or started going for shots slightly earlier, hence the small increase.

    Makes sense on paper

    Cheers. Guess it makes sense when you know how they get to it.
    Yet, if by the end of the game if South Africa make it to 225 all out in 46,4 overs, Pakistan still win even though they only made it to 222 in the same 46,4 overs. So afterwards it would look all confusing to someone who doesnt know.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,724 ✭✭✭✭Pudsy33


    Jacovs wrote: »
    Was the total not set before SA started batting? Looking back through the commentary on cricinfo it seems the total was set at 232 from the start of their innings.

    You're probably right, totally discard what I said


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,705 ✭✭✭Jacovs


    Pudsy33 wrote: »
    You're probably right, totally discard what I said

    No bother. It seems it was decided around Pakistan's 40 over mark that the game would be reduced to 47 overs. The worst part is, if the game had stopped at 40 overs they predict SA wouldve needed 240 to win from 40 overs, so im glad it got to the 47 overs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,917 ✭✭✭BarryD


    Well, we're in the game with a good shout at least. Pity about Balbirnie not getting his century, especially as he did well in the game against SA as well. But then, that's ODI cricket I guess.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 39,478 ✭✭✭✭KevIRL


    Looks v much like we have to win this and one other game to qualify


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,705 ✭✭✭Jacovs


    On the topic of people not getting centuries, I never knew Misbah-ul-Haq hasnt got a century in his 159 ODI career. 4993 runs but no century. And this world cup might be his last games, considering he is nearly 41.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,724 ✭✭✭✭Pudsy33


    It's AB vs the rest. He could still rescue this for us


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,478 ✭✭✭✭KevIRL


    Pudsy33 wrote: »
    It's AB vs the rest. He could still rescue this for us

    Can someone stay with him long enough though is the question


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,917 ✭✭✭BarryD


    Good start :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,521 ✭✭✭Giggsy11


    I went out when Ireland were around 100 something for 25 overs, never expected them to score 330. Should catch the highlights.

    Also very disappointing performance from South Africa.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,880 ✭✭✭✭Rock Lesnar


    Good opening spell of bowling by Cooosack so far.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,478 ✭✭✭✭KevIRL


    BarryD wrote: »
    Good start :)

    Yep, tight but wickets all important. We all know how weak our death bowling is


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,880 ✭✭✭✭Rock Lesnar


    KevIRL wrote: »
    Yep, tight but wickets all important. We all know how weak our death bowling is

    Yeah get the wickets before O'Brien starts


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,521 ✭✭✭Giggsy11


    lol, what a ridiculous review by Pak. They just took a chance because it's AB.


Advertisement