ICC Champions Trophy 2017

Not that surprising. Pakistan always do well when their backs are to the wall and they're under pressure, after the India defeat backlash.

Whereas England always underperform in 50 over tournaments, especially when expectations are high.

This is set up for a comfortable India win over Pakistan in the final.

Why did everyone have England to not just win demolish us beforehand then?
 
This is such a weird tournament and this match exemplifies it

Never expected this at all. Fair play to Pakistan and their bowling.

England's batting was weird

Just arrived in Birmingham for tomorrow's game. Gosh I hope India do the business
 
I wonder if England felt over confident and thought Pak would just not show up or choke during the game.
That said, I hope Pak don't mess it up from here :nervous:
 
I wonder if England felt over confident and thought Pak would just not show up or choke during the game.
That said, I hope Pak don't mess it up from here :nervous:

They won't. Any score under 300 is sub par here. I think England folded under the pressure. My concern with them was always setting up a big score and defending it. They probably were chasing after 350 and got themselves out trying to get there.

Plus it should be noted that Pakistan deserved the win. The debate was which team would show up and the world beater side did.
 
Wooo!!!

What a magnificent performance
 
Totally unexpected performance & result. Bowling superb again and batting finally came to play!! Well done.

Considering our ranking & performance against India in the opening game this has been a good fight back by this team. Expect us to get hammered in the final though.
 
Awesome stuff. Lets hope they're competitive in the final.. would hate to see a one sided game.

Yeah, I hope we put up a fight! Don't mind losing but it will be pointless if it's a repeat of the group game.
 
I really dislike how people keep referring to the pitch.

Both teams played on the same strip and one won.
 
I really dislike how people keep referring to the pitch.

Both teams played on the same strip and one won.

It seemed like a fair balanced wicket, decent to bat on but offered something to the bowlers. Shouldn't be discussed at all as an excuse.
 
If Pakistan win one day series v India, its important but it would all be forgotten if we lose to India in ICC group/knock out games.

Again nope, India almost boycotted this tournament. If we defeat India in India in a one day series I would give it more value than a one off win on an icc tournament, without going on to win it
 
I really dislike how people keep referring to the pitch.

Both teams played on the same strip and one won.

Has anyone used it as an excuse?

It's a fair comment that it probably wasn't the best wicket in the world, but Pakistan bowled very well on it and England didn't. I don't think I've seen anyone suggest otherwise.
 
Again nope, India almost boycotted this tournament. If we defeat India in India in a one day series I would give it more value than a one off win on an icc tournament, without going on to win it

More than a world cup game?
 
Has anyone used it as an excuse?

It's a fair comment that it probably wasn't the best wicket in the world, but Pakistan bowled very well on it and England didn't. I don't think I've seen anyone suggest otherwise.

No one's used it as an excuse, but why bring it up? I didn't see anyone going up to Kane Williamson and say "England smashed you for 300+, what do you think of the pitch?". The averages may have gone up but this wasn't a million miles from the average.

Eoin Morgan being interviewed on Hussein -- 2 questions on the pitch and a comment from Morgan: "Pakistan were used to the pitch having played on it before".

Unless it was a broken up pitch with uneven bounce, injecting a huge element of luck into the outcome, there isn't a need to refer to it. England simply weren't good enough and let's ask questions about that.
 
Has anyone used it as an excuse?

It's a fair comment that it probably wasn't the best wicket in the world, but Pakistan bowled very well on it and England didn't. I don't think I've seen anyone suggest otherwise.

Must have heard the words "used pitch" used at least twenty times in the aftermath and that England choked. I personally believe it was a very good all round performance by us and very smart captaincy.
 
No one's used it as an excuse, but why bring it up? I didn't see anyone going up to Kane Williamson and say "England smashed you for 300+, what do you think of the pitch?". The averages may have gone up but this wasn't a million miles from the average.

Eoin Morgan being interviewed on Hussein -- 2 questions on the pitch and a comment from Morgan: "Pakistan were used to the pitch having played on it before".

Unless it was a broken up pitch with uneven bounce, injecting a huge element of luck into the outcome, there isn't a need to refer to it. England simply weren't good enough and let's ask questions about that.

I agree.
 
Must have heard the words "used pitch" used at least twenty times in the aftermath.

I've never heard the pitch talked about so much after the game, pretty clear from Morgans interview he thought the pitch played a part in the loss too. I mean youre playing at home, and both teams are playing on the same pitch theres. Really poor performance from England, especially against the Pak spin bowlers who they shouldve have been more aggressive against.
 
Has anyone used it as an excuse?

It's a fair comment that it probably wasn't the best wicket in the world, but Pakistan bowled very well on it and England didn't. I don't think I've seen anyone suggest otherwise.

I've got a feeling it wouldn't even have got a mention if Pakistan batted first and got rolled over for 212.

What is a good wicket by the way? Does it have to be a pancake with 700 runs in it to be considered a good wicket?
 
No one's used it as an excuse, but why bring it up? I didn't see anyone going up to Kane Williamson and say "England smashed you for 300+, what do you think of the pitch?". The averages may have gone up but this wasn't a million miles from the average.

Eoin Morgan being interviewed on Hussein -- 2 questions on the pitch and a comment from Morgan: "Pakistan were used to the pitch having played on it before".

Unless it was a broken up pitch with uneven bounce, injecting a huge element of luck into the outcome, there isn't a need to refer to it. England simply weren't good enough and let's ask questions about that.

A million times this. Really sour grapes there from Morgan. It is that sort of mentality which will be their undoing at the next world cup.
 
No one's used it as an excuse, but why bring it up? I didn't see anyone going up to Kane Williamson and say "England smashed you for 300+, what do you think of the pitch?". The averages may have gone up but this wasn't a million miles from the average.

Eoin Morgan being interviewed on Hussein -- 2 questions on the pitch and a comment from Morgan: "Pakistan were used to the pitch having played on it before".

Unless it was a broken up pitch with uneven bounce, injecting a huge element of luck into the outcome, there isn't a need to refer to it. England simply weren't good enough and let's ask questions about that.

It's cricket though, the fact cricket is played on pitches that have differing characteristics, behave differently, and change throughout the game is absolutely integral to the sport. I appreciate that when people talk about pitches and how they suit different sides it can seem a bit like damning with faint praise, but to not talk about pitches when you're talking about the game is like talking about the game without mentioning how one side bowled.

I've not seen anyone take anything away from Pakistan today nor the performance of Hasan Ali, in particular, and the Pakistani bowling more generally, but it was a used pitch and Pakistan did adapt better to it than England (which was part of Morgan's fuller quote) those things can both be true (and they self evidently are) without that being a barbed dig.

I've got a feeling it wouldn't even have got a mention if Pakistan batted first and got rolled over for 212.

What is a good wicket by the way? Does it have to be a pancake with 700 runs in it to be considered a good wicket?

By current usage yes. A 'good' pitch is invariably referred to as one that suits batsmen with good pace and carry. Rightly or wrongly (and I would firmly agree with you that that is wrong) that has been the case probably since cricket has been invented. It's stupid, but it is what it is.
 
Seriously ? If I supported England I would be absolutely livid right now. What is the point of playing good cricket if you choke in the big matches. This is going to be an absolutely embarrassing loss at home against a bang average team
I'm not embarrassed at all. Pretty pleased with reaching the semi finals, had some great games but unfortunately batters had a bad day today and came up against a side in good form.
 
Raees had a good debut - Hasan was brilliant today; Pakistan didn't miss Amir much.
I was reading G. Boycott's article before the match titled "Only India can stop England now!" :lol:
 
Again nope, India almost boycotted this tournament. If we defeat India in India in a one day series I would give it more value than a one off win on an icc tournament, without going on to win it

So, the 2011 WC semis defeat didn't bother you lot at all?
 
Again nope, India almost boycotted this tournament. If we defeat India in India in a one day series I would give it more value than a one off win on an icc tournament, without going on to win it

:lol:
 
Anyway this talk of India already in finals is pretty uncomfortable. We're not, Bangladesh is a great team. Bangladesh beating India is less of an upset than Pakistan beating England.