PDA

View Full Version : Does anyone know about cricket??



Ta-An
Apr 11th 2007, 07:36 PM
What is power play... I have read about what it is.... I want to know, is it to anyones advantage / disadvantage when a powerplay is called...??? :hmm:

Big T
Apr 11th 2007, 10:40 PM
If it's like a powerplay in hockey, then yes one team has an advantage. But I don't know anything about the game.

Kahtar
Apr 11th 2007, 10:41 PM
Only thing I know about cricket is that his first name is Jiminy.:cool:

Jollyrogers
Apr 11th 2007, 11:17 PM
Cricket is a dart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darts) game that uses the standard 20 number dartboard with the treble and double rings. It is called Mickey Mouse in Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain)


STEP 1: Play with two people or four people on two teams.
STEP 2: Write the numbers 20 down to 15 vertically on each side of the scoreboard. Put a letter "B" (for "bull's-eye") below the 15, and below that write "points."
STEP 3: Throw three darts at a time, alternating players. Remove the darts after your turn.
STEP 4: Count any darts that land in the bull's-eye or numbers 15 through 20. Don't award points for hits on the numbers 1 through 14.
STEP 5: Mark a slash on the scoreboard next to a number when you hit one. The second time you hit, make a second slash to form an X. The third time, circle the X.
STEP 6: Count the number twice if a dart lands in the doubles ring (the narrow one around the outside), and count the number three times if a dart lands in the triples ring (the smaller one between the doubles ring and the bull's-eye).
STEP 7: Close out a number by hitting it three times. Once an X is circled, that number is closed.
STEP 8: Hit a number that you've already closed but your opponent still has open, and you get points: If you closed 15 and then hit it again, you get 15 points, which you write in the points area. If you closed the bull's-eye and then hit it again, you score 50 points.
STEP 9: Total up all of the points when one player closes out all of his numbers plus the B. The person or team with the most points wins.
STEP 10: Keep playing if you close all of your numbers before your opponent but are behind in total points. You can win only if you accumulate more points than your opponent before he closes out all of his numbers.Tips & Warnings

Try to close numbers that your opponent has closed to keep him from scoring more points. Points don't start accumulating until the number is closed.
A variation called "no slop" requires the players to close out the numbers in order starting with 20 at the top and working down to B at the bottom.http://www.ehow.com/how_8919_play-american-cricket.html:D

Ta-An
Apr 12th 2007, 11:13 AM
Uhmmmmm, Cricket is a ball and bat game.... like in World Cup that is being played at present..... but the Americans do not have a team.... :rolleyes: I suppose you play Base-ball instead. http://cricketworldcup.indya.com/

Ta-An
Apr 12th 2007, 12:15 PM
.....except for Canada...they had a team out there too :pp

Frances
Apr 12th 2007, 05:33 PM
I used to play cricket (many) years ago, but I've never heard of power play. . . perhaps it's a modern term - my only interestin the game was playing, I've always thought watching it incredibly boring.

Ta-An
Apr 12th 2007, 06:42 PM
Yes, it is a new term.... I love watching the WC :pp

Ta-An
Apr 18th 2007, 12:57 PM
Yeah!!! SA is playing in the semi-finals :kiss:

14390876
Apr 18th 2007, 01:14 PM
Powerplays have to do with the fielding restrictions. This means that the fielding team needs to have at least two men in (except the bowler and the keeper) in the inner ring. Powerplays are usually in place for at least 20 overs. The first 10 overs is compulsary but after that the fielding captain has to decide when he wants them in place. In other words, he can have fielding restrictions between over 21 and 25 and again between 31 and 35. In the old days there were fielding restrictions only for the first 15.

Crystalblue
Apr 19th 2007, 06:31 AM
Ok, - I'm confused. But that's alright, you can let me stay that way :P

excubitor
Apr 19th 2007, 07:51 AM
no idea but mr google told me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerplay_(cricket)

cbalke
Apr 19th 2007, 11:25 AM
wow - i've always wanted to learn what cricket's all about. i know baseball inside and out, but then again i grew up playing that game since i was about 2. i imagine folks on the other side of the pond have just as hard a time figuring out baseball when they've never seen it before....

excubitor
Apr 19th 2007, 11:43 AM
wow - i've always wanted to learn what cricket's all about. i know baseball inside and out, but then again i grew up playing that game since i was about 2. i imagine folks on the other side of the pond have just as hard a time figuring out baseball when they've never seen it before....

I doubt that you guys would have the patience for cricket. Can you conceive of a game that takes up to 5 days to play. Cricket test matches often go for 5 days especially the Ashes series between England and Australia.

Cricket was revolutionised in the 70's when a new form of cricket was invented which could be played in ONLY ONE day. The purists were horrified.

Cricket officials have now come up with another new form of cricket which should suit the American market (that's important you know) It is called 20/20 cricket and it takes about as long as your baseball games and fits nicely into a TV programming slot.

You should not assume that because Americans know nothing about cricket that we foreigners are as insular as Americans. We see baseball frequently on our TV's. Many of us played softball in school which is very much like baseball. Most major cities have baseball leagues.

Also the world cup of cricket was on recently in your back yard in the Carribean. The West Indies are very big in cricket so you wouldnt have to travel far to see a game. Big scandal in cricket. The pakistani team got beaten by minnows in the game Ireland. The coach ended up strangled in his hotel room. Lots of intrigue.

So anyway there is a bit of an insight into the game. We also have a game called indoor cricket which is extremely fast and very popular in the off-season amongst cricketers aiming to keep their eye in for the regular summer season.

TEITZY
Apr 19th 2007, 11:45 AM
What is power play... I have read about what it is.... I want to know, is it to anyones advantage / disadvantage when a powerplay is called...??? :hmm:

A power play is a period of 5 overs (30 balls) where fielding restrictions apply. Normally there is fielding restrictions in the first 10 overs of a 50 over match and then the fielding captain must then choose when to take his 2 compulsory power plays (2x5 over periods). Normally most captains will take the power plays straight away (overs 11-15 & 16-20). However if the batting side is scoring heavily the fielding side may delay their power play until a wicket falls.

So generally any fielding restrictions tend to favour the batting side as most of the fielders are in the fielding ring closer to the batsman rather than being spread out over the ground and protecting the boundaries.

Go Aussies!

Cheers
Leigh

cbalke
Apr 19th 2007, 12:05 PM
I doubt that you guys would have the patience for cricket. Can you conceive of a game that takes up to 5 days to play. Cricket test matches often go for 5 days especially the Ashes series between England and Australia.

Cricket was revolutionised in the 70's when a new form of cricket was invented which could be played in ONLY ONE day. The purists were horrified.

Cricket officials have now come up with another new form of cricket which should suit the American market (that's important you know) It is called 20/20 cricket and it takes about as long as your baseball games and fits nicely into a TV programming slot.

You should not assume that because Americans know nothing about cricket that we foreigners are as insular as Americans. We see baseball frequently on our TV's. Many of us played softball in school which is very much like baseball. Most major cities have baseball leagues.

Also the world cup of cricket was on recently in your back yard in the Carribean. The West Indies are very big in cricket so you wouldnt have to travel far to see a game. Big scandal in cricket. The pakistani team got beaten by minnows in the game Ireland. The coach ended up strangled in his hotel room. Lots of intrigue.

So anyway there is a bit of an insight into the game. We also have a game called indoor cricket which is extremely fast and very popular in the off-season amongst cricketers aiming to keep their eye in for the regular summer season.


ease back, jack. i wasn't ripping you. i know full well that cricket matches can take a long time to complete. as someone who admitted he wanted to know more about it, you are REALLY not instilling me with any thoughts that i should be coming to you for any answers.

and, i also know PLENTY of people from europe/asia/south america who come here knowing NOTHING about baseball and find it extremely difficult to pick up. similar to american football. the rules in both games are extremely arbitrary and take a LONG time to get comfortable with.

i'd sure appreciate a less 'i'm superior than you cause i have patience enough to sit through 5 days of cricket' attitude from you in the future. you've obviously got some really ill-informed and mis-conceived preconceptions of what you think all americans are like.

why don't you get to know me a little bit before you start making assumptions about what i'm like and what i think like? we'll get along a LOT better if you do, i promise, brother.

excubitor
Apr 19th 2007, 01:47 PM
ease back, jack. i wasn't ripping you. i know full well that cricket matches can take a long time to complete. as someone who admitted he wanted to know more about it, you are REALLY not instilling me with any thoughts that i should be coming to you for any answers.

and, i also know PLENTY of people from europe/asia/south america who come here knowing NOTHING about baseball and find it extremely difficult to pick up. similar to american football. the rules in both games are extremely arbitrary and take a LONG time to get comfortable with.

i'd sure appreciate a less 'i'm superior than you cause i have patience enough to sit through 5 days of cricket' attitude from you in the future. you've obviously got some really ill-informed and mis-conceived preconceptions of what you think all americans are like.

why don't you get to know me a little bit before you start making assumptions about what i'm like and what i think like? we'll get along a LOT better if you do, i promise, brother.

You said that you really wanted to know more about cricket so I spent a fair bit of time trying to explain some information about it. I'm sorry that you have not appreciated my efforts. Next time I suggest you just browse Google or Wikipedia. You will find plenty of information there which will not upset you.

I thought that a bit of a ribbing at the American psyche would add to the colour and humour to the post. I forgot that another aspect of the American psyche is that they interpret a bit of gentle ribbing as a personal attack on their whole way of life and nation.

I think you better stick to baseball mate.

Jollyrogers
Apr 19th 2007, 02:07 PM
Dude, I can not even watch Baseball or Football without being put to sleep. THere is no way I would make it thru 5 days of a game.

I will stick to my racing.

And I do not mean watching it either:D

cbalke
Apr 19th 2007, 02:22 PM
ok - this is the problem with typing rather than talking face-to-face. what you claim was gentle ribbing, i took as insulting.


I doubt that you guys would have the patience for cricket. Can you conceive of a game that takes up to 5 days to play.

really didn't appreciate that much....



Cricket officials have now come up with another new form of cricket which should suit the American market (that's important you know) It is called 20/20 cricket and it takes about as long as your baseball games and fits nicely into a TV programming slot.

i'm just as cynical as you are about how TV money is more and more regulating our sports...but then, you wouldn't know that cause you've never talked with me before have you?

just the same, this is good info to know...can't you just say it without being insulting?



You should not assume that because Americans know nothing about cricket that we foreigners are as insular as Americans. We see baseball frequently on our TV's. Many of us played softball in school which is very much like baseball. Most major cities have baseball leagues.

another pot shot or gentle ribbing? i'm not assuming anything. i've personally met folks who aren't from here who HAVE seen the games on TV and still don't get it.


Also the world cup of cricket was on recently in your back yard in the Carribean. The West Indies are very big in cricket so you wouldnt have to travel far to see a game. Big scandal in cricket. The pakistani team got beaten by minnows in the game Ireland. The coach ended up strangled in his hotel room. Lots of intrigue.

So anyway there is a bit of an insight into the game. We also have a game called indoor cricket which is extremely fast and very popular in the off-season amongst cricketers aiming to keep their eye in for the regular summer season.

now this is good info that i could use. and, there's no ribbing/insults to be found! i like that.

yes, my friend, i have googled and wikipedia'd cricket. the information there is not very helpful. essentially what i get out of it is a posting of rules of cricket. if i can't see what i'm reading, it don't help much. it'd be the same if i handed you the rulebook for any sport you're unfamiliar with. great, you can read all the rules, but that doesn't mean you understand the game.

i'd really have appreciated if you'd just tried to explain a little bit to me without the first thing you said have been an insult to me or americans in general. that is a real turn-off, mate. if it was just ribbing like you said, fine, that's fair enough and i can live with that. but, you also need to understand how your comments were perceived.

i understand that americans have an extremely bad rap throughout the rest of the world, but that doesn't mean we're all like that. i don't think all englishmen have bad teeth despite all the jokes and stereotypes, etc. it's just stupid to think that way and even more stupid to approach someone from that standpoint, if it is being done in jest.

anyway, after all that, i would enjoy maybe a simplistic, basic explanation of the game. i gather it's similar to baseball(i've seen it play on a nearby campus once or twice), but other than the fact that there's a pitcher and a batter, i'm lost, man. why are the wickets placed where they are? i always thought the one behind the batter was just acting like a backtop, but does it have any other function?

Ta-An
Apr 19th 2007, 02:32 PM
Go Aussies!

Leigh, I just hope we don't have to face you in the semi-finals, rather in the finals.... but that means you'll be requested to lose against NZ on Sunday :eek: ,,,,, but that's okay, cause Aussies have made it to the top already... so a lose on Sunday still means the semi's just we don't need to face you then, we can beat NZ ;) and would love to prove that to them, and see you in the Finals....and bring the WC to SA ((:pray: ))

;)

Ta-An
Apr 19th 2007, 02:34 PM
Guys, take your testosterone some other place :P we love WC criket :pp

groovyloopylou
Apr 19th 2007, 03:10 PM
cricket = boring

the best thing about it is the bats, best weapon against big brothers when you were fed up with him :lol:

Ta-An
Apr 19th 2007, 05:12 PM
cricket = boring

for couch potatoes maybe ;)
One day cricket is exciting.... do yourself s fovour and watch the semi-finals and final matches..... but you might not enjoy it if your are not a sport person,,,,

TEITZY
Apr 19th 2007, 11:23 PM
Leigh, I just hope we don't have to face you in the semi-finals, rather in the finals.... but that means you'll be requested to lose against NZ on Sunday :eek: ,,,,, but that's okay, cause Aussies have made it to the top already... so a lose on Sunday still means the semi's just we don't need to face you then, we can beat NZ ;) and would love to prove that to them, and see you in the Finals....and bring the WC to SA ((:pray: ))

;)

I'd say an Aust. vs SA semi is inevitable at this stage unless NZ thump us tonight and take top spot. Let's hope the game is as exciting as the last semi Aust & SA played in the 1999 WC (sorry I had to remind you about that one:D ).

Cheers
Leigh

excubitor
Apr 20th 2007, 01:10 AM
i understand that americans have an extremely bad rap throughout the rest of the world, but that doesn't mean we're all like that. i don't think all englishmen have bad teeth despite all the jokes and stereotypes, etc. it's just stupid to think that way and even more stupid to approach someone from that standpoint, if it is being done in jest.

anyway, after all that, i would enjoy maybe a simplistic, basic explanation of the game. i gather it's similar to baseball(i've seen it play on a nearby campus once or twice), but other than the fact that there's a pitcher and a batter, i'm lost, man. why are the wickets placed where they are? i always thought the one behind the batter was just acting like a backtop, but does it have any other function?
You said it. Americans have an extremely bad rap around the world. And you have a gigantic chip on your shoulder about it. None of my comments were directly to you but to the average American. Why have you taken it so personally? You are an American are you not? All I was saying was that most Americans would find it extremely boring and could not even imagine a game which goes for 5 days. That's a statement of truth.

It was also an absolute statement of truth that the 20/20 game is designed to appeal to Americans. Even you agree that you are cynical about money making and TV in sport. So why are you getting up tight when I express similar sentiments which you share?

It is also a statement of fact and truth that Americans are extremely ignorant of other nations culture and ways and simply assume that everyone else in the world is equally ignorant about American culture and ways. Its quite astonishing how ignorant sport-loving Americans are of cricket which is one of the most important and popular sports played in dozens of countries around the world.

Although I presented these facts in a light hearted way, as in ribbing, I believe them completely. I certainly was not joking.

You have certainly taken the first step to breaking the American stereotype by asking a few questions about cricket well done. Despite your ire and lack of appreciation I will nevertheless explain what the game is about so that you will be able to educate your fellow Americans also.

As in baseball there is a batting team and a fielding team. Each team plays two innings. A bowler (like a pitcher) must toss (bowl) the ball at the wickets with a straight arm. If he bends his arm it is a "no ball" (foul) because the bowler is not allowed to throw the ball as a pitcher does.

The object of the bowler is to hit the wickets. If he does the batter is out.
The object of the batter is to hit the ball and make runs. To make one run he must run to the opposing wicket before the fielder hits the wicket. If he runs back again then he has made a second run. At the same time there is another batter at the other wicket. So when running they swap places each time a run is made. If the batter hits the ball to the boundary then four runs are scored. If he reaches the boundary without the ball bouncing then six runs are scored. If the fielder catches the ball before the ball has bounced the batter is out. The bowler has six bowls (called an over) and then must swap with another bowler. When the entire batting team is out then the fielding team comes in to bat. To win the game you must get the opposing team out twice (two innings) before they score as many runs as your team has scored.

The game is very exciting and interesting because of the wide range of batting strokes which a batter may make to score runs. Having the wickets in the centre of the ground means that batting shots can be scored in all directions forward and backward of the batter. It is almost an art form watching a good test cricketer bat. There are also a wide range of bowling styles with fast bowling and spin bowling being the major types.

In limited overs cricket aka One Day games, each side has only 50 overs to score runs. The team with the most runs is the winner. One day cricket appeals to a greater audience because most people lack the education in the game or appreciation (or time for that matter) in the finer points of batting styles and strokes and intricacies of the long style of the game. One day cricket is all about big hitting (much like baseball. Sorry is that derogatory? I feel some egg shells underfoot) and spectacle and getting it over quickly before people get bored.
This style of game can be very exciting because there is more likely to be a tight battle to see who will win than there is in the long style of the game.

If you go to google video our you tube you will probably find some video of cricket being played which is probably the best way to learn about the sport.

Crystalblue
Apr 20th 2007, 05:24 AM
You said it. Americans have an extremely bad rap around the world. And you have a gigantic chip on your shoulder about it. None of my comments were directly to you but to the average American. Why have you taken it so personally? You are an American are you not? All I was saying was that most Americans would find it extremely boring and could not even imagine a game which goes for 5 days. That's a statement of truth.

It was also an absolute statement of truth that the 20/20 game is designed to appeal to Americans. Even you agree that you are cynical about money making and TV in sport. So why are you getting up tight when I express similar sentiments which you share?

It is also a statement of fact and truth that Americans are extremely ignorant of other nations culture and ways and simply assume that everyone else in the world is equally ignorant about American culture and ways. Its quite astonishing how ignorant sport-loving Americans are of cricket which is one of the most important and popular sports played in dozens of countries around the world.


It is also a statement of truth that some people like to take cheap shots at americans and jump about pointing the finger like a 3 year old simply because it's fun to slang off other countries because that somehow makes you feel superior.
As a non-american I tend to get sick of this myself.

Pilgrimtozion
Apr 20th 2007, 09:00 AM
Ow get over it. We're having a good conversation about cricket here!

NZ will have to really thrash the Aussies to take over top spot, wouldn't they? I mean, the run rate of the Aussies is quite high to begin with anyway!

14390876
Apr 20th 2007, 09:10 AM
that is true. But it takes just one game to turn it around. The semi's will be very exciting. Lets not count sri lanka out just yet. When they get it together they can be very dangerous

Pilgrimtozion
Apr 20th 2007, 09:15 AM
Oh yeah! They beat NZ in that one match, though I think a semi-final clash between us and Sri-Lanka will not be as much of a walk in the park as it was in the Super 8 stage!

Ta-An
Apr 20th 2007, 09:43 AM
England beat NZ :eek: it shows that miracles do happen.....

Pilgrimtozion
Apr 20th 2007, 09:44 AM
Yeah, but not during the World Cup, Anneke. And as we can see with Australia, that is when the true strength of a team comes out...

Ta-An
Apr 20th 2007, 09:47 AM
With the current standing.... NZ is third on the list... but them and the Aussies are palying today!!! Wow this is gonna be exciting...
SA is first from the bottom for now tho ;)

Ta-An
Apr 20th 2007, 09:48 AM
Yeah, but not during the World Cup, Anneke. And as we can see with Australia, that is when the true strength of a team comes out...
True, they know what they are doing :)

14390876
Apr 20th 2007, 09:56 AM
The fans over here are often so silly. They only support the team when the team does well

Ta-An
Apr 20th 2007, 10:24 AM
WI still has to play England...... who is gonna win??? :hmm: If the WI win, they have 8 points like SA.... does that mean we can still come home?? oh no!!! I hope England wins

cbalke
Apr 20th 2007, 11:27 AM
As in baseball there is a batting team and a fielding team. Each team plays two innings. A bowler (like a pitcher) must toss (bowl) the ball at the wickets with a straight arm. If he bends his arm it is a "no ball" (foul) because the bowler is not allowed to throw the ball as a pitcher does.

The object of the bowler is to hit the wickets. If he does the batter is out.
The object of the batter is to hit the ball and make runs. To make one run he must run to the opposing wicket before the fielder hits the wicket. If he runs back again then he has made a second run. At the same time there is another batter at the other wicket. So when running they swap places each time a run is made. If the batter hits the ball to the boundary then four runs are scored. If he reaches the boundary without the ball bouncing then six runs are scored. If the fielder catches the ball before the ball has bounced the batter is out. The bowler has six bowls (called an over) and then must swap with another bowler. When the entire batting team is out then the fielding team comes in to bat. To win the game you must get the opposing team out twice (two innings) before they score as many runs as your team has scored.

The game is very exciting and interesting because of the wide range of batting strokes which a batter may make to score runs. Having the wickets in the centre of the ground means that batting shots can be scored in all directions forward and backward of the batter. It is almost an art form watching a good test cricketer bat. There are also a wide range of bowling styles with fast bowling and spin bowling being the major types.

In limited overs cricket aka One Day games, each side has only 50 overs to score runs. The team with the most runs is the winner. One day cricket appeals to a greater audience because most people lack the education in the game or appreciation (or time for that matter) in the finer points of batting styles and strokes and intricacies of the long style of the game. One day cricket is all about big hitting (much like baseball. Sorry is that derogatory? I feel some egg shells underfoot) and spectacle and getting it over quickly before people get bored.
This style of game can be very exciting because there is more likely to be a tight battle to see who will win than there is in the long style of the game.

If you go to google video our you tube you will probably find some video of cricket being played which is probably the best way to learn about the sport.

thanks, man. that's a lot of well-explained info that i can get started digesting. now, the hard part will be(aside from youtube) finding a broadcast of an actual game to watch. flipping around, i do see a lot of rugby, lacrosse, soccer, etc(tertiary sports over here), but i have yet to find myself flipping through and just stumbling on a cricket match.

Saved7
Apr 20th 2007, 11:36 AM
What is power play... I have read about what it is.... I want to know, is it to anyones advantage / disadvantage when a powerplay is called...??? :hmm:

Yah, they can be nice to listen to in the summer nights. But if you get too many of them going, they'll keep you up for hours. And good luck finding the one that got in your house!!:rofl: :rofl:

14390876
Apr 20th 2007, 12:14 PM
Don't worry, WI can't make it. They are on 4 points. if they win they will have 6.

Ta-An
Apr 20th 2007, 05:11 PM
Don't worry, WI can't make it. They are on 4 points. if they win they will have 6.
Plus two they carried over from the first round gives them 8 !!!!

14390876
Apr 20th 2007, 05:39 PM
Thjose points were already added. so the score you see on the scoreboard is there score with the points that they have carried over already added. i'll show you:
each side has to play 6 matches in the super-8 the 7th for each team has already played against each other in the previous round (group A,B,C and D) which is why they don't play against each other in the second round (super-8) again.
WI beat ireland in the previous round (Match 1),add 2 points (the points that were carried over)
Loose against Australia (Match 2), add 0 points
Loose against New Zealand (Match 3), add 0 points
Loose against Sri Lanka (Match 4), add 0 points
Loose against South Africa (Match 5), add 0 points
Win against Bangladesh (Match 6) add 2 points (i.e. 4 points)
They have one Match (Match 7) left. If they win,+2 points =6 in total. If they loose (which is probable)+0 points= 4 points in total
Therefore they can't possibly get through.
England can't get through either.
So worry. We definitly made it

cbalke
Apr 20th 2007, 06:14 PM
so...i was looking through my satellite schedule and it does list WC cricket matches! only thing is - i don't get those channels!!! they're listed in the 2 thousands and my service only goes up to the 9 hundreds. doh! i'd have liked to have seen it at least. oh well...a youtubin' i will go.

TEITZY
Apr 25th 2007, 04:38 AM
ACCM,
I haven't seen any prayer requests for SA in the prayer forum. You had better post one before tonight's game.:lol:

If SA do win :o I'll probably be posting in the Counseling forum tomorrow.:lol:

Jemma Ash
Apr 25th 2007, 04:20 PM
Well the SA team is struggling at the moment...yike!
Well lets hope that we can still beat these aussies...

GO SOUTH AFRICA!!

TEITZY
Apr 25th 2007, 11:42 PM
I think some of the SA players will need counseling after that loss, it was ugly (sorry ACCM).

Is there any Sri Lankan's on the board?

Pilgrimtozion
Apr 26th 2007, 06:36 AM
Nope, just a Kiwi...the poor guys. Their performance was better than last week when Sri Lanka whooped them...but it still wasn't good enough. I do hope Lanka wins the World Cup. Can't stand to see the Aussies win it again!

Jemma Ash
Apr 26th 2007, 07:51 AM
i agree to that!!
About the power play thing...who does understand it? i don't even think the commentators understand it...

14390876
Apr 30th 2007, 03:53 PM
Well done to Australia. They won quite easily in the end. Although I though Sri Lanka missed a few chances. Well, now my next sporting interst for the next few weeks will be tennis. I'm hoping Rafael Nadal will win the French Open a thrid time in a row, beating Federer in the final.

Pilgrimtozion
Apr 30th 2007, 03:55 PM
Ah, the final was a joke. Had the circumstances been different I think Sri Lanka would have put up a terrific fight...

14390876
Apr 30th 2007, 04:04 PM
If it was in sri lanka for example. The pitch did not suit them at all. i think there is a way to beat them. People so easily overlook all the various signs of weakness that they have shown. Their bowling was good enough, but lets face it, it wasn't the best bowling attack in the tournament. The best bowling attack, I still believe, belonged to Sri Lanka. They did not bowl badly in the final. Malinga bowled briliantly at times and Murali still looked as if he could trouble th batsmen. Fernando was a poor selction. I feel they should have gone with Maharoof. The Australians had conditons which suited them and theor batsmen backed them up everytime. And they relied heavily on one or two batsmen to pull them through. I wonder what would have happend if those wickets fell sooner. Hussey, for example looked out of form.

Pilgrimtozion
Apr 30th 2007, 04:09 PM
And the commentators were all over the interesting end to the match, with the players going off the field, coming back, playing in near darkness without being able to see the ball properly...a fitting end to this world cup I would say.

And I hope Federer beats Nadal in the final!

14390876
Apr 30th 2007, 04:14 PM
No way.
Although, of course, there is this intersting fact that Federer has South African blood. On his mother's side if I'm not mistaken. But I don't want him to win. I always fight for the underdog

Ta-An
May 2nd 2007, 07:04 PM
I take my hat off to the Aussies....Well done, you did a good job, :kiss:

We can't always win , it is good to let the Aussies win sometimes too :rolleyes:















:eek: :help:

Jemma Ash
May 2nd 2007, 07:34 PM
as my friend would say "snort" the aussies win everything thats why no one but the aussies root for them...oh well...did you see the latest Zapiro in the mail and guardian...its brilliant...

Ta-An
May 2nd 2007, 07:47 PM
as my friend would say "snort" the aussies win everything thats why no one but the aussies root for them...oh well...did you see the latest Zapiro in the mail and guardian...its brilliant...nope :blush: .

Well at least we went out to save the Aussie sailship in dagerous waters :)

TEITZY
May 3rd 2007, 05:58 AM
If it was in sri lanka for example. The pitch did not suit them at all. i think there is a way to beat them. People so easily overlook all the various signs of weakness that they have shown. Their bowling was good enough, but lets face it, it wasn't the best bowling attack in the tournament. The best bowling attack, I still believe, belonged to Sri Lanka. They did not bowl badly in the final. Malinga bowled briliantly at times and Murali still looked as if he could trouble th batsmen. Fernando was a poor selction. I feel they should have gone with Maharoof. The Australians had conditons which suited them and theor batsmen backed them up everytime. And they relied heavily on one or two batsmen to pull them through. I wonder what would have happend if those wickets fell sooner. Hussey, for example looked out of form.

Spoken like a true South African:lol:

Most of the pitches had nothing like the pace and bounce we have in Australia and were generally slower and lower wickets which should have suited the Asian sides more.

"Relied heavily on one or two batsmen"? Well the fact is that most of the middle and lower order didn't even get a chance to bat, so to say we "relied" on one or two batsmen is perhaps a bit unfair.

I think our bowling attack was potentially our greatest weakness and on paper it didn't look particularly formidable. However our 4 frontline bowlers were ranked 1st, 3rd, 4th, & 6th in the leading wicket takers which probably says as much about the quality of the opposition as it does about the quality of the bowlers!

At least you guys got to be the number one ranked team for a couple of weeks:D

Cheers
Leigh

Jemma Ash
May 3rd 2007, 07:35 AM
mmm but pls remember that memorable game is SA where SA beat AUS, that was an awesome game...

TEITZY
May 3rd 2007, 09:48 AM
mmm but pls remember that memorable game is SA where SA beat AUS, that was an awesome game...

Yeah we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on that one. I think it was a bit ridiculous that both teams could score 400+ runs. That ground must have been no bigger than a postage stamp.:lol:

I suppose where Australia stand out is their consistency and ability to win the BIG games.

14390876
May 4th 2007, 08:07 PM
Most of the pitches had nothing like the pace and bounce we have in Australia and were generally slower and lower wickets which should have suited the Asian sides more.

The one which they played on last was too batsmen friendly. this is something i complain about for more reasons than one. They have turned it into a batsmans game. the bowlers virtually don't stand a chance these days. Just look at the amount of high scores that one find often in the last few years. Pitches are prepared to be as batsman friendly as possible. But cricket is not just about batting. It's about batting and bowling and fielding and these elements should be more equal. i much prefer a contest where there is a real chance for both sides. A delivary that sails just over the leg stump, or inches wide, should not be called a wide. And with the equipment that the batsmen have, bowlers whould be able to bowl more than two bouncers.


"Relied heavily on one or two batsmen"? Well the fact is that most of the middle and lower order didn't even get a chance to bat, so to say we "relied" on one or two batsmen is perhaps a bit unfair.

Let me put it this way: Hussey did not seem to me to be playing at his best. I could name afew other that just looked so vulnarable when they came to the crease. Gillchrest did not look good for most of the tournament. I'm not saying that they would not have had a chance even if they lost early wickets. But I would like to have seen what would have happened had Ponting and Hayden not been playing.


I think our bowling attack was potentially our greatest weakness and on paper it didn't look particularly formidable. However our 4 frontline bowlers were ranked 1st, 3rd, 4th, & 6th in the leading wicket takers which probably says as much about the quality of the opposition as it does about the quality of the bowlers!

Exactly. And my point is that if the Australian batting hadn't been so good, then the other teams would have stood a better chance. The sri lankans did well to reach the total that they did. They were going at over 5 runs and over which is more than good enough ina one day match. There were quite a few individual batmen in other teams which showed that they could bat. Kallis was the leading run scorer at one time.

By contrast, all bowling attacks excpet the sri lankan bowling attack looked as if they would be under pressure. Vaas, Malinga, Muralitharan are match winners and Jayasuria, Maharoof could do a job. I believe the week link was Fernando. not to mention that the Sri lanka fielding was the best by a subcontinent team that I have seen in years. They were up there with South Africa, New Zealand and Australia at times. So the only thing, to me, that really stood between the Ausies and specifically the Sri lankans, was the brilliant batting performance by Gillchrest and one or two others.


At least you guys got to be the number one ranked team for a couple of weeks:D

Everybody at home complains about this for some reason. We all new that rankings in cricket mean basically nothing and the team can't help that they were placed in that possition. They did not one day decide that they were going to declare themselves number 1. We did reach the semi final. and we have had a good season at home (beating India and Pakistan). In fact the last few years we have won more than we have lost, if i'm not mistaken. Most of these losses, I admit, were against the Australians, although we have shown that we are capable of beating them. In fact, South Africa is the type of team that i imagine one can never be sure of. They can beat any team on a good day, but they can lose badly agiants any team as well. I think it has alot to do with the attitude of the players here. But on the whole I truely believe that this is (1) the best team since Hansie Cronje's team (2) probably the second best team in the world. Only Sri Lanka and New Zealand might be contenders for second place. I believe that if we had played either of those, we would have made it to the final. It also says alot that Those that I have named ended up being in the semi finals. It was what was expected from the start and, I think, reflects the true standings of the teams.

I also want to add that i think the tournament organisers were silly to put South Africa and Australia in the same group. It would have made more sense to have us in a group with the West Indies or Pakistan.

Some of this is of course me ranting, so ignore it if it makes no sense.

TEITZY
May 5th 2007, 01:46 AM
The one which they played on last was too batsmen friendly. this is something i complain about for more reasons than one. They have turned it into a batsmans game. the bowlers virtually don't stand a chance these days. Just look at the amount of high scores that one find often in the last few years. Pitches are prepared to be as batsman friendly as possible. But cricket is not just about batting. It's about batting and bowling and fielding and these elements should be more equal. i much prefer a contest where there is a real chance for both sides. A delivary that sails just over the leg stump, or inches wide, should not be called a wide. And with the equipment that the batsmen have, bowlers whould be able to bowl more than two bouncers.

I agree for the most part. I suppose the reason the 50 over game is geared more toward the batsmen is to enhance the excitment factor and get more people through the gates. Obviously 20/20 cricket is an extreme example of that and it seems to be working. I suppose the problem is that unless you're a cricket tragic like me, watching test matches is going to put most people to sleep. Also the shorter game is more appealing to advertisers as well.




Let me put it this way: Hussey did not seem to me to be playing at his best. I could name afew other that just looked so vulnarable when they came to the crease. Gillchrest did not look good for most of the tournament. I'm not saying that they would not have had a chance even if they lost early wickets. But I would like to have seen what would have happened had Ponting and Hayden not been playing.


Hussey didn't look great but he did occupy the crease when he got a chance. Besides Ponting and Hayden we also had Clarke and Symonds who looked in pretty good form plus Watson in the lower order. Brad Hogg is also handy with the bat. So I think Australia still would have done ok if they had lost their top 3 quickly and even if they had made 50-60 fewer runs per innings they still would have won most games pretty comfortably.




Exactly. And my point is that if the Australian batting hadn't been so good, then the other teams would have stood a better chance. The sri lankans did well to reach the total that they did. They were going at over 5 runs and over which is more than good enough ina one day match. There were quite a few individual batmen in other teams which showed that they could bat. Kallis was the leading run scorer at one time.

By contrast, all bowling attacks excpet the sri lankan bowling attack looked as if they would be under pressure. Vaas, Malinga, Muralitharan are match winners and Jayasuria, Maharoof could do a job. I believe the week link was Fernando. not to mention that the Sri lanka fielding was the best by a subcontinent team that I have seen in years. They were up there with South Africa, New Zealand and Australia at times. So the only thing, to me, that really stood between the Ausies and specifically the Sri lankans, was the brilliant batting performance by Gillchrest and one or two others.

The main problem with those teams who looked like they had a chance against Australia was they weren't able to sustain the pressure for long enough and even when our bowlers were put under pressure (eg. against England & the 1st game against SA) it only took one wicket and the rest fell like flies.

Prior to the tournament all the experts said this would be the most even WC ever. On paper, the top 6 teams looked fairly even but I think where Australia and SL excelled was in their confidence in their own ability. Having played a fair bit a cricket I can attest to the fact that it is very much a confidence game and this can often have a greater impact on the result than the combined talent of the team. England's performance in the one day series in Australia just prior to the WC is ample testament to that.



Everybody at home complains about this for some reason. We all new that rankings in cricket mean basically nothing and the team can't help that they were placed in that possition. They did not one day decide that they were going to declare themselves number 1. We did reach the semi final. and we have had a good season at home (beating India and Pakistan). In fact the last few years we have won more than we have lost, if i'm not mistaken. Most of these losses, I admit, were against the Australians, although we have shown that we are capable of beating them. In fact, South Africa is the type of team that i imagine one can never be sure of. They can beat any team on a good day, but they can lose badly agiants any team as well. I think it has alot to do with the attitude of the players here. But on the whole I truely believe that this is (1) the best team since Hansie Cronje's team (2) probably the second best team in the world. Only Sri Lanka and New Zealand might be contenders for second place. I believe that if we had played either of those, we would have made it to the final. It also says alot that Those that I have named ended up being in the semi finals. It was what was expected from the start and, I think, reflects the true standings of the teams.


Yeah those rankings can be a bit of a joke at times. I think SA biggest loss was the poor form of Ntini. He may have been down on confidence but most of the pitches over there didn't suit his bowling anyhow with not much bounce or movement off the seam.

The nature of one day cricket is that any side can win on the day as we saw with Bangladesh and Ireland. I think the only way someone would have beaten Australia was if they had an off day, but they didn't!



I also want to add that i think the tournament organisers were silly to put South Africa and Australia in the same group. It would have made more sense to have us in a group with the West Indies or Pakistan.


Well I don't think that would have made much difference in the end as SA lost a couple games they should have easily won. All SA had to do to avoid Australia in the semi was finish higher than fourth. The organizers ideally would have liked to see Aust. & SA 1 & 2 come the semi's but as I said SA lost a couple games they should have won and paid the price for it.


Some of this is of course me ranting, so ignore it if it makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense to me even if no one else in the universe has a clue about what you are saying.;)

Cheers
Leigh