|
|
Post by hhsussex on Mar 21, 2015 10:01:14 GMT
Despite a last little flash of brilliance from Gayle we have the obvious result and more omens for England to take New Zealand very seriously in a couple of months time. Guptill and Boult have set records here and their squad looks balanced, optimistic and dangerously versatile. The semi-finals will be 1st Semi-Final: New Zealand v South Africa at Auckland on Mar 24, 2015 and 2nd Semi-Final: Australia v India at Sydney on Mar 26, 2015, and the obvious seeding of a NZ/Aus final will be hard to resist. If that happens then the final could be thrilling, and I would stick my neck out and say that New Zealand would have greater overall strength in all departments and will win. This is cricket played on a much higher plane than anything England have been capable of for some time and we will have to re-learn the skills, as well as pick the right players, to compete effectively. There's a fascinating piece on cricinfo arguing that even the batting style of Joe Root - the brightest of England's young hopes and surely the next captain - will be totally outdated and redundant by the 2019 world cup: www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/852945.htmlI can see Root being the man England looks to bat through in 2019 and score hundreds at around a run-a -ball. But that will only be successful if there are five or six batsmen around him who can score at double that rate. At the moment, I'm not sure England have any such players, although a couple from Hales, Roy, Buttler, Billings and Stokes might do it if they continue developing. The other requirement of course, is some bowlers and I'd guess by the world cup of 2019, the search will be on for anyone who only goes for ten an over at the death, for the way it is going 12 and upwards is going to be the norm by then! The game is in a phase of very rapid development and there could be two possible courses for this development to take. One would be for all forms of cricket to adapt to scoring faster, harder, using bigger bats and greater endeavour, whilst bowlers try to develop new kinds of delivery that will upset these plans. If that happens, everyone will benefit alike from a spectator sport of heightened interest and great excitement, worthy to rival soccer for its intensity and capacity to enthuse the young. Those who prefer the T20 style will enjoy a couple of hours of skill and rivalry, and then go home and enjoy their other leisure pursuits, whilst those who have the time to indulge can look forward to fascinating days spent in the sunshine watching formidable contests. To bring this about the architects of the game at all levels, from ICC to national associations, down to county level must buy in to a concept of how to make this kind of total cricket work best in practice, and what ancillary needs must be supported, from tv and internet access to coaching skills and playing field provision. The other course will be for the one-day game to develop in isolation from Test and first-class,longer form cricket. This game will boast all of that intensity and skill, but it will attract allthe sponsorship and investment of money and media coverage. It may be played in 20 over and 50 over forms; it may adopt a different methodology. It will be played where it is practical to gather large crowds and offer related marketing of products, from catering to media advertising. Simplified forms will be developed for children to play in open spaces or, more likely,indoors in sports halls. The longer form of the game will carry on for a few years, wirth showpiece Test matches being played from time to time - probably only in England, Australia and South Africa. The counties will wither away from their own irrelevance and obstinacy, driven by their failure to learn the lessons of the game's own history. The two-division championship will go first, to be replaced by a 10 or 12 team league, and when membership of that dwindles there may be occasional matches played over one or two days. The old-schoioll version of cricket will only survive at any level if it adopts the rules and conduct of the new sport. At the moment I think it could go either way, but the change has to happen now. This is another cyclical change in the development of the sport, but it is a fundamental one. Tinkering round the edges won't help, nor will sentimental but misguided campaigns based on trying to refight the battles of the last few years. What matters is not whether Graves backs KP and hates Moores, but what relationship does Graves and the structure of the ECB have with the structure of the game at large? How can those who love cricket ensure the continuity of the things they enjoy whilst understanding that new forms can and musty emerge to engage the attention of the forgotten generation of people under 30? Right...off to the allotment now to get my onions in! |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 21, 2015 10:05:50 GMT
hhs,
This is cricket played on a much higher plane than anything England have been capable of for some time and we will have to re-learn
the skills, as well as pick the right players, to compete effectively.
You are being generous to England. They have never been able to play cricket at this level and one fears there are only a few who are
even capable of matching the present standard of ODIs. Due to the Franchises there has been a giant leap in ability - primarily
from batsmen - and the gulf between England and NZ, for example, is so large you could sail an aircraft carrier through it.
The critics might say ODIs have now become a circus sideshow - supporters will become bored of seeing sixes and fours every other ball,
where bowlers may become so fed up, they'll hold the white flag up before each over. There are only half a dozen world bowlers,
at present, who have any chance of containing the might of the Gayles, Guptils and McCullums. So, to some extent, I agree with them.
Imho, ODIs have become a batsman's paradise and bowling must change accordingly where far greater flexibility is shown to bowlers to
offer a better balance. If a batsman is allowed to 'switch-hit' why not bowlers just before delivery, where an ambidextrous player comes to
the fore?
This World Cup has changed cricket, some would say for the worse, as for the spectator it has become a gorge-fest of big hitting. If
that is how cricket must survive, so be it. What is better, stadia full of youngsters, enthralled by sixes and fours, or half empty grounds
littered with a few dogs on the brink of bankruptcy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2015 10:41:29 GMT
hhs, This is cricket played on a much higher plane than anything England have been capable of for some time and we will have to re-learn
the skills, as well as pick the right players, to compete effectively.You are being generous to England. They have never been able to play cricket at this level and one fears there are only a few who are even capable of matching the present standard of ODI cricket. Due to the Franchises there has been a giant leap in ability - primarily from batsmen - and the gulf between England and NZ, for example, is so large you could sail an aircraft carrier through it. The critics might say ODIs have now become a circus sideshow - supporters will become bored of seeing sixes and fours every other ball, where bowlers may become so fed up, they'll hold the white flag up before each over. There are only half a dozen world bowlers, at present, who have any chance of containing the might of the Gayles, Guptils and McCullums. So, to some extent, I agree with them. Imho, ODIs have become a batsman's paradise and bowling must change accordingly where far greater flexibility is shown to bowlers to offer a better balance. If a batsman is allowed to 'switch-hit' why not bowlers just before delivery, where an ambidextrous player comes to the fore? This World Cup has changed cricket, some would say for the worse, as for the spectator it has become a gorge-fest of big hitting. If that is how cricket must survive, so be it. What is better, stadia full of youngsters, enthralled by sixes and fours, or half empty grounds littered with a few dogs on the brink of bankruptcy? What has happened basically is that the four sides who have made the semi-finals have all worked out how to apply and extend T20 tactics and skills over 50 overs. Go hard for the first 10-15 , consolidate between overs 15-30 keeping wkts in hand while still coming at the bowling - and then go berserk over the last 20. Swann said something interesting yesterday, to the effect that the rule of thumb in 50 over cricket used to be take the score at 30 overs and look to double it in the last 20. He reckons now you can take the score at 33 overs and double it in 17 overs, so there's a 12/13 per cent increase in the number of runs immediately. Using the Swann formula, get to 150-3 at 33 overs (which is a doddle as its only four and a half per over), and you should go on to top 300. Get to 180-3 at 33 overs, and you should be aiming at 360 plus. Yet against Sri Lanka, England planned their innings on the basis that 270-280 was par and the captain reckoned we had done "brilliantly" to get 30 more than that. Sri Lanka, of course, then chased it down with ease. What was most depressing about England's performances was not so much that we didn't have the players with the skills to play like other countries, but that we didn't even seem to have worked out the tactics that the best sides are now applying. We probably wouldn't have been able to do anything about it even if we had worked it out. But it was bitterly frustrating to see England playing - quite literally - a different game to the opposition in the defeats to Australia, NZ and Sri Lanka. |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Mar 21, 2015 11:04:32 GMT
Agree with your comments, BM. But, I was surprised to hear that arch statistician, Swann, explaining the data!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2015 11:18:19 GMT
Agree with your comments, BM. But, I was surprised to hear that arch statistician, Swann, explaining the data! Yes, it is surprising; but he comes out with some rather sharp analysis at times, while at others talking the most banal and juvenile tosh. It's like a cross between Mike Brearley and Phil Tufnell, which is both very weird and quite disorientating! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2015 11:42:35 GMT
One thing that I think has to change in the culture of English cricket is the chorus of finger-wagging, head-shaking criticism that greets any England batsman who gets out to a "rash shot".
If you're going to play like David Warner or Glenn Maxwell or Brendan McCullum or Chris Gayle you are going to get out to a so-called "rash shot" fairly often. It's the price you pay for the match-winning innings they will also provide you.
The censorious attitude that greets a Ben Stokes or an Alex Hales when they are out to that "rash shot" is not going to help them develop into the next McCullum or Maxwell. It's going to make them cautious and fearful and they will end up batting like Ian Bell rather than ""expressing themselves" and batting with "no fear" , notions to which English cricket pays lip service but in reality actively discourages by its attitude that getting out to a "rash shot" is unforgivably sinful and a wicked betrayal of the true art of batsmanship, as defined in the ancient and sacred text of the MCC Coaching Manual.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2015 23:31:31 GMT
Anyone else staying up all night to watch the semi-final?
Be good to share an idle observation or two over the course of the night on what should be a cracking match...
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Mar 24, 2015 6:45:34 GMT
Are the perennial chokers about to choke again?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 9:58:08 GMT
I always wondered what was the point of Grant Elliott. Now we know...
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Mar 24, 2015 9:58:41 GMT
Caught the game late - what a brilliant match. NZ deserved to win given their past form. Fantastic ending. This is what cricket should
be about! Elliott, you're a star.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 10:13:47 GMT
Fabulous match with two heavyweights slugging it out blow for blow.
Further evidence that in this form of the game England are bantamweights. And if this was boxing , England wouldn't even be allowed to enter the ring with likes of SA and NZ.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Mar 24, 2015 10:24:14 GMT
Fabulous match with two heavyweights slugging it out blow for blow. Further evidence that in this form of the game England are bantamweights. And if this was boxing , England wouldn't even be allowed to enter the ring with likes of SA and NZ. We may be bantamweights, but we're frightfully nice chaps. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 14:50:59 GMT
Still two games to go but time to start thinking about the best world cup XI. My team might be a fast bowler short and I admit I'm slightly worried about juggling ten overs between Maxwell, Gayle and AB, but for me something like:
McCullum
Warner or Gayle
Guptil
Sangakarra
De Villiers
Maxwell
Dhoni
Vettori
Starc
Wahab Riaz
Boult
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Mar 26, 2015 6:01:58 GMT
Australia 216-2 and on course for 400.
|
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Mar 26, 2015 15:33:31 GMT
I confess that I have lost interest in this competition which drags on for an eternity. The 20/20 World cup is over in two weeks as is the derided by some Champions Trophy. Is it too much to ask that the next 50 over World Cup be concluded within four weeks?
|
|
