Welcome to Sports

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Need help?

World cricket

SOLVED
Red Carpet

Re: World cricket

288/9 (49) AUS

Also not really a winning total against WI.

So could be in for another inexplicable loss forAUS.

Not sure if in our favour anymore. Used to be that any loss by AUS  was to our advantage. WI are equally dangerous.

Octo LNB; 2 by 2x4 MS; 2 by ES 5-2; Dedicated PSU for LNB, ES's, MS's; HD PVR 4P x 2; Explora 1; DSD 660; FSM
Red Carpet

Re: World cricket

288/9 (50) AUS

Also not really a winning total against WI.

So could be in for another inexplicable loss forAUS.

Not sure if in our favour anymore. Used to be that any loss by AUS  was to our advantage. WI are equally dangerous.

Octo LNB; 2 by 2x4 MS; 2 by ES 5-2; Dedicated PSU for LNB, ES's, MS's; HD PVR 4P x 2; Explora 1; DSD 660; FSM
Red Carpet

Re: World cricket

WI is in control!  The score for AUS is 119/5 after 25 overs. 

I can't see AUS doing at all well as far as settings a winning total to defend.

Octo LNB; 2 by 2x4 MS; 2 by ES 5-2; Dedicated PSU for LNB, ES's, MS's; HD PVR 4P x 2; Explora 1; DSD 660; FSM
Romance

Re: World cricket


@Beetle wrote:

With hindsight I think I would rather have played Markram in place of Shamsi. Would have given us an extra batsman and someone who could also have turned his arm over. Him and Duminy could have shared some overs?

The problem is that we'd need to get 10 overs out of Markram and Duminy, and I think that's too much of a risk.  Markram's a decent part-time option, but shouldn't be anything more than a part-timer, and Duminy's bowling just isn't effective these days.  So while Shamsi didn't do much in the game, he was more likely to done something than Markram or Duminy, so I don't think his selection was the wrong decision.

 

I believe there's a story going around that just prior to the squad being selected AB approached Otis, Faf and someone else to say that he was available for selection. However he was told that he could not be picked because he hadn't played in the warm up games and that it would therefore be unfair to those who had. Also, I believe, one of the criteria was that you had to have played, or been available, for Domestic cricket. Something AB hadn't participated in either. My opinion is that the selectors were 100% correct in not selecting him and must not now even consider adding him to the squad. If that is possible. I see some are wanting this to be done. My feelings, rightly or wrongly, is that he has chosen to turn his back on South African cricket to chase the "dollar" and so that's were his future should lie. I'd much rather we lose all our remaining games than have him back. Personal and perhaps unpopular view but that's my take on this bloke. 

Linda Zondi (chief selector) has released a statement in which he said that he'd spoken to AB and given him the option to play in the World Cup, provided that he played in the ODI series against Pakistan and Sri Lanka.  He decided not to do that, but then made a turnaround 24 hours before the squad was announced.  So it sounds like Cricket SA did their part in trying to keep him around, and I agree with their decision.

Trending

Re: World cricket

I don't believe our score was ever going to be a winning score - irrespective of who our opponents were. This is a World Cup after all - we should be stepping things up! We have now entered very dangerous territory (yet again). The general consensus is that you need 6 wins to go through to the knock-outs (meaning we have to win all remaining games). With 5 wins mathematics/run-rates will likely come into play if there is any chance of going through. And we are one of only 4 countries with a negative net run-rate.

 

And we still need to play Aus, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies and New Zealand... I don't see us pulling this through.

 

Our next game is Monday against WI - the team with the highest current net run-rate (and currently in control against Aus) - so by Monday night our WC could potentially be over.

 

 

Octo-LNB to 2 x 5.2 switches. Explora1 (Prim) & HDPVR 2P (Sec), Samsung 55" UA55F8500 Smart 3D LED TV, HDMI picture & audio via Onkyo TX-NR626
receiver. Explora2 in bedroom, HDMI picture & audio to Samsung 32" UA32F5500 Smart LED TV. 100Mbps M-Web fibre (OpenServe).
Nominee

Re: World cricket


@Beetle wrote:

...and it was only thanks to some good rearguard batting that we managed to get a, shall we say, competitive score albeit not a winning one.


Perhaps I'm clutching at straws, but feel this isn't as much the case given how India were at needing over 6 runs an over and came back from that anyway - so, although not for a large portion of the game, they were certainly that good, at least in part, to possibly take on even a score of 300+ had we managed that.

Doin' it 4 Tv

Re: World cricket

England and India along with New Zealand and Australia were always going to be very difficult games for us. So, losing to England and India not totally unexpected. Not by me anyway. It's the loss to Bangladesh that was unacceptable. Not just the loss but the quality, or lack of, shown by our players. Against India our batsmen once again let us down and it was only thanks to some good rearguard batting that we managed to get a, shall we say, competitive score albeit not a winning one. For the most part our bowlers did very well to keep the Indian batsmen on their toes. With hindsight I think I would rather have played Markram in place of Shamsi. Would have given us an extra batsman and someone who could also have turned his arm over. Him and Duminy could have shared some overs?

I believe there's a story going around that just prior to the squad being selected AB approached Otis, Faf and someone else to say that he was available for selection. However he was told that he could not be picked because he hadn't played in the warm up games and that it would therefore be unfair to those who had. Also, I believe, one of the criteria was that you had to have played, or been available, for Domestic cricket. Something AB hadn't participated in either. My opinion is that the selectors were 100% correct in not selecting him and must not now even consider adding him to the squad. If that is possible. I see some are wanting this to be done. My feelings, rightly or wrongly, is that he has chosen to turn his back on South African cricket to chase the "dollar" and so that's were his future should lie. I'd much rather we lose all our remaining games than have him back. Personal and perhaps unpopular view but that's my take on this bloke. 

Oh yes, Citanul, thanks for your novel which I found to be most interesting. I'm so far halfway through it but hope to conclude it sometime today. Wink wink. Thanks for taking so much time to give us your informed thoughts on the matter. 

 

Highlighted
Romance

Re: World cricket

And even though I've just written a long post complaining about the side, they are going beyond my expectations and not giving up.  There's still a long way to go and India do have wickets in hand, with Dhoni, one of the best finishers in the game still to come, but the required run rate is slowly creeping up, and run scoring doesn't look to be all that easy, so if the bowlers can keep it tight for another 10-15 overs then who knows what could happen.

Romance

Re: World cricket

Since I've been deemed the resident expert on cricket, I'll have a go at giving my view on why our cricket is in the state it is, although take it from where it comes - a keen observer but not someone with any sort of specialised knowledge. As a warning, this ended up being quite long, but I've put a brief summary at the bottom.

 

One of the problems is that make up of our domestic sides is a little odd. We've got a lot of exciting youngsters coming through, but they're possibly one or two seasons away from being fully ready for international cricket, although I would be surprised to see some of them brought into the side following the debacle that the World Cup is threatening to become. But alongside them we've got a lot of journeymen, who have been good performers domestically, but not really international class, and I'd include players like Chris Morris, Dwaine Pretorius, Dane Paterson, Junior Dala, and both Beuran and Reeza Hendricks in this group.

 

Where we seem to be lacking are those players in their mid to late 20s who would be able to make an impact on the international stage, and I'm not sure of the reasons why. We did lose a lot of players to Kolpak, but most of them were players who were fringe players at best, and I'd say that the ones that have really hurt us when it comes to ODIs were Rilee Rossouw, and Kyle Abbott. Duanne Olivier maybe in tests, although I think we're covered there. I don't know why there's been a dearth of suitable players, and maybe we've just experienced a weird cycle, or maybe there are some other reasons that I don't know enough about to be able to identify. And of course, the retirements of AB de Villiers and Morne Morkel haven't helped.

 

But you have to work with what you've got, and that's where I feel the coaching staff have failed. Our batting has struggled for a while in both tests and ODIs, and I think that got overshadowed by us having prepared pitches that favoured fast bowlers a lot, and so even though we weren't scoring runs, that got dismissed as a result of difficult batting conditions, and we were blasting out the opposition, so it didn't matter. But Sri Lanka came here and won a test series on pitches less conducive to quick bowling, and out batting deficiencies definitely cost us there. So you have to ask what the batting coach has been doing, and I suppose also why we let Neil McKenzie go, since he's now the Bangladesh batting coach and we all know how that turned out.

 

As for the bowling, Ottis Gibson was England's bowling coach, so he's familiar with English conditions, and while I have know way of knowing, the World Cup being played in England may have be the reason that Cricket South Africa chose him. So he needs to take responsibility for the abject performances so far. Although to be fair, as I've been typing this we've been bowling really well.

 

There is something which nobody can be blamed for, and that's the lack of allrounders in the team. We've produced so many good ones over the years, but we've struggled to find any in recent years. Wiaan Mulder looks like he's got what it takes, but he's not quite ready in the shorter format, and I can understand why they didn't take him to the World Cup, but maybe they should have taken a chance.

 

So because our bowlers can't bat and our batsmen can't bowl, the strategy has been to put together a bowling attack capable of contain teams/dismissing them cheaply, and defending most scores (unless they're truly ridiculous). That looked like it was working - the trio of Dale Steyn, Kagiso Rabada, and Lungi Ngidi is one of the best that we've fielded, Imran Tahir has been consistently good over the years, and Andile Phehlukwayo has quietly been developing into a very useful bowler, who is better than the typical fifth bowler, so is certainly not a weak link in the bowling attack. And serving a very crucial backup role was Anrich Nortje, who is something of a rising star, and while untested does seem like the latest player to come from the seemingly endless production line of quality fast bowlers.

 

And then the wheels came off.

 

Nortje got injured, and as his replacement they called up Morris. There had been a lot of people clamouring for his inclusion, but a lot of that had to do with his batting, as he does hit the ball a long way. However, he was being picked as a bowler and he averages over 40 with the ball in ODIs, and you can't justify his selection on that.

 

The problem is that the other options being considered weren't that great either. Hendricks, Paterson, and Dala have all been tried and not made much of an impression, so maybe the selectors went with Morris as he's the best batsman of the lot and the thinking is that his batting would offset the loss in quality of his bowling.

 

And that's where the selectors failed a bit. They looked at all the safe options instead of taking a chance and going with someone else, even if it would have meant given them their ODI debut at the World Cup. I haven't actually kept that close an eye on players at domestic level, but two names that come to mind are Lutho Sipamla, who has played some T20s for South Africa, although I'm not sure he's ready yet, and Daryn Dupavillon, who has had injury problems but looks to be over them and did well in the recent local T20 competition.

 

The injury problems were compounded by Ngidi's hamstring injury, and of course Dale Steyn being ruled out of the tournament. There are people who've said that he shouldn't have gone to the IPL, but if he hadn't then his injury could very well have happened at the World Cup, and at least we didn't get to seem him break down in a match.

 

And I don't think anyone could have predicted that he would break down as he bowled all summer without incident, so there was every reason to think that he'd made a complete recovery. But now it looks as though his career might be over as it's probably too much of a risk to continue selecting him.

 

The other side of the strategy that we've gone with is that since we've gone in with a long tail, the batsman need to rise to the occasion, and I think that's where we got our selections wrong. Hashim Amla is a little lucky to have made it to the World Cup, although he did appear to come right in the warm up games, but that's more something they were hoping for rather than expecting. And the other two who should have been scrutinised more are David Miller and JP Duminy.

 

Miller on his day is one of the most destructive batsmen around, on a par with De Villiers, but unlike him doesn't do it consistently enough. As for Duminy, he's got a decent record, although his stats are inflated by very good performance against weaker teams, and there was a probably a bit of sentimentality in his selection, as there would have been with Amla, giving them one last chance at a World Cup. On a side note, I'm of the opinion that Duminy is overrated as a bowler and is nowhere near as good as people make him out to be, and definitely shouldn't be bowling as much as he does.

 

The problem was that they stuck with these players and didn't look far enough for alternatives. Yes, they tried out Rassie van der Dussen, Reeza Hendricks, and Aiden Markram, and Van der Dussen did come right, but Markram should have been backed far more than he was, and I think that's resulted in him not delivering in ODIs on the talent we know that he has. As for who else they could have looked at, again I'm not entirely certain, but perhaps Pieter and Janneman Malan, although they're both top-order players, or maybe Jon-Jon Smuts and Dean Elgar, who I think have been batting down the order a bit of late. But they didn't, and now we're stuck with what he have.

 

Kudos to anyone who read through all that, but the TLDR version can probably be summed up as going with players who've been tried before and who are possibly no longer up to the task rather than taking more chances, and also the coaching staff not doing a good enough job with the players they did choose.

Nominee

Re: World cricket

Thanks BB.

 

Here's a quick stat which wasn't given - just before that initial six shot, the required run rate crept over the 5 per over level, so perhaps there is hope.