ICC Cricket World Cup 2015

[Traub]

Thing is to label South Africa as chokers is really unnecessarily cruel. Keep in mind that the players in this team are not the ones who played in 1999. So it's not the same side essentially. We're also forgetting that with about 6 overs to go NZ were cruising but SA fought back and got themselves a fighting chance. Yes, we bottled key moments but I really think it's incredibly unfair and cruel to call us chokers. I absolutely hate the term.

To add to this, NZ were the clear favourites for this match IMO. They had topped the more difficult group beating the favourites on the way whilst we had lost two group games.

Yes, we had chances to win no doubt. However, if NZ had lost, why wouldn't they be considered chokers after also having a bad day in the field?

For me chokers should be reserved for a team who is clear favourite but doesn't have the bottle to get over the line. I mean, even if we took those catches at the end, we may not necessarily have won - even Vetorri hit a 4 in the final over.

 

[Stretch]

When you guys miscalculated the DL method.

But that's not the players fault though is it and it is not exactly choking now is it?

 

[crappycraperson]

I did watch the match. Those last two run outs did them in. Klusener held his nerve and pulled them back, it's a shame others couldn't do the same.

The part in bold is true for every game though.

You still did not explain how that was different from today? Your earlier implication that SA were clearly better that day is rubbish. Even today they messed up run outs and catches in the end but Morkel kept pulling them in again while others could not.

 

[harshad]

There was that D/L miscalculation in one of the World Cups too. And in 1992 that fecking rain rule did you guys in. I wouldn't call either of those incidents "choking" if I'm honest. But hey it's just easier to just go with stereotypes right?

In 2003 against Sri Lanka.
And it was not a miscalculation, more a misreading or misinterpretation of the scenario. Ended up costing them a place in the Super 6

 

[kotha]

It shouldn't be a major issue, less so if it's India we're playing.

I don't expect us to make it to the final though..

We got lucky when the rain came down, just check out Brendan McMillans comments regarding that. Hope we play the Aussies in the final for the simple reason so many of the India fans on here come across as complete cnuts.

I think it might be a disadvantage too. Mishits go for six at Eden Park and other New Zealand grounds, which won't happen at the MCG. It's something they'll have to getused to quickly. Won't be a problem while bowling though.

Ya that's what I think too..

 

[Xaviesta]

Really really feel for Morkel here. He was the one who pulled it back superbly towards the end and the catch off him should have been taken. Bowled brilliantly right through

I felt for his wife in crowd too! She went from praying to nearly throwing up.

 

[LeChuck]

SA choked in the semis against the Aussies in '99. That's the only choke, imo.

 

[paulscholes18]

Something needs to be done about d/l method noway should a team need 18 more runs in the same amount of overs. Its great that New Zealand won.

I remeber a few years ago England got fecked over big time when they player India they needed over 30 more runs in 22 overs.

 

[Stretch]

Come on.. QF against NZ in 2011 was a clear choke job.

That's debatable as to whether that was a bottle job (so not doing the basics right under pressure) or if it was just poor batting or just good cricket from NZ. You can have a your pick depending on who you ask but the reason it was considered 'choking' was because we've always carried the tag. So as soon as we lose a knock out game, no matter how we lose, we're labelled as chokers. That's the very issue I'm talking about.

 

[Krovv]

You still did not explain how that was different from today? Your earlier implication that SA were clearly better that day is rubbish. Even today they messed up run outs and catches in the end but Morkel kept pulling them in again while others could not.

They restricted a top class batting lineup to 213, which was an excellent performance. They batted quite well for the most part - IIRC their middle order batsmen were cruising towards a win. Australia could've been beaten that day - Warne pulled them back in the game by dismissing Kallis and Rhodes. Until then they were clearly the better side. Pollock and Klusener took them real close to the win but they couldn't finish the game. Your pathetic attempts to prove a nonexistent point are rubbish.

 

[kotha]

Something needs to be done about d/l method noway should a team need 18 more runs in the same amount of overs. Its great that New Zealand won.

I remeber a few years ago England got fecked over big time when they player India, they needed more runs in less overs.

Surely the team batting second have a huge advantage.. They know the target and can plan accordingly.. While the team batting first might have played slowly not knowing about the rain and just building their innings slowly.. Like what happened to SA today. D/L might be flawed,but its better than not having anything..

 

[Neelu]

Surely the team batting second have a huge advantage.. They know the target and can plan accordingly.. While the team batting first might have played slowly not knowing about the rain and just building their innings slowly.. Like what happened to SA today. D/L might be flawed,but its better than not having anything..

That is exactly what has happened. I don't understand why some have a problem with this.

 

[Stretch]

Something needs to be done about d/l method noway should a team need 18 more runs in the same amount of overs. Its great that New Zealand won.

I remeber a few years ago England got fecked over big time when they player India they needed over 30 more runs in 22 overs.

This. The D/L method has to be improved. It really screws over teams and there's always a winner and a loser in the D/L situations. It has to be done better.

 

[MDFC Manager]

This. The D/L method has to be improved. It really screws over teams and there's always a winner and a loser in the D/L situations. It has to be done better.

Its a statistical method; once the match is done, there will always be a feeling of one team being hard done by. There is no real better way of doing it.

 

[kps88]

Just keep multiple reserve days and let the match play out normally.

 

[Ole's_toe_poke]

Steyn had a poor world cup.

As talented as De Villiers is, I don't think he's a very good captain.

 

[Xaviesta]

We possibly won't see Morkel, De Villiers or Steyn at the next World cup so that probably had a huge amount to with emotion those two blokes displayed

 

[Kazi]

As talented as De Villiers is, I don't think he's a very good captain.

Agree. When he brought on Albie against Pakistan instead of the spinners at the T20 World Cup...

The D/L didn't account for New Zealand having to bowl their part-timers, and AB having a strike rate of 290 in the final 10 overs during this World Cup.

 

[crappycraperson]

They restricted a top class batting lineup to 213, which was an excellent performance. They batted quite well for the most part - IIRC their middle order batsmen were cruising towards a win. Australia could've been beaten that day - Warne pulled them back in the game by dismissing Kallis and Rhodes. Until then they were clearly the better side. Pollock and Klusener took them real close to the win but they couldn't finish the game. Your pathetic attempts to prove a nonexistent point are rubbish.

Again you have completely skirted the issue. Oz had already beaten them in the super 6s and kept that semi close all the way through. Similar to how this game was 50/50 throughout the NZ innings. Even in this game if they hold on the catches and don't bottle the run outs, they would have been clear favorites going into the final over. Not to say they would have definitely won but it would have leaned heaving in their favor. Now you seem to think that SA making all those mistakes is routine stuff while it is clear to many that it was due to the pressure of being a semi final. Which again.. falls into the classic definition of bottling or choking under pressure of a big game.

 

[crappycraperson]

That's debatable as to whether that was a bottle job (so not doing the basics right under pressure) or if it was just poor batting or just good cricket from NZ. You can have a your pick depending on who you ask but the reason it was considered 'choking' was because we've always carried the tag. So as soon as we lose a knock out game, no matter how we lose, we're labelled as chokers. That's the very issue I'm talking about.

I do not agree at all. For starters, that was a very poor NZ team and I don't think they put up an exceptional bowling performance in that match. They exerted pressure in multiple ways and your guys folded.

 

[Stretch]

I do not agree at all. For starters, that was a very poor NZ team and I don't think they put up an exceptional bowling performance in that match. They exerted pressure in multiple ways and your guys folded.

So you mean to tell me there's plenty other teams that have 'choked' then? Because what you explained above happens to other teams too. We were never in a winning position in that game, even though we looked good at 1 stage (after recovering btw). To me choking is being in a winning position and then folding under some pressure. 1999 was the epitome of choking. 1 run needed of 4 and we bottled it. That's choking. Not needing over 100 runs to win and getting squeezed by a side that's bowling well. That's just good tactics from the other team. Nothing more, nothing less. A phenomenon that happens all the time in cricket mind you.

 

[Moonred]

SA threw it away. I would call it choking for sure, otherwise I cant explain a brilliant fielding side messing 3/4 golden chances to capitalize. The rain was harsh as I think SA would have easily made 350ish which would have been much more difficult for NZ to chase. Absolutely enthralling match though, I genuinely would have liked either to reach the final. At the end of the day though, NZ have been much the better side in the tournament. Unbeaten and have shown quality to pull off close wins, stuff of champions. Final away from home will be a different story though, I think NZ would fancy the aussies than us.

 

[Stretch]

Its a statistical method; once the match is done, there will always be a feeling of one team being hard done by. There is no real better way of doing it.

That's not good enough and here's why

- Why have a 'rain day' when you've no intention of using it? It's a WC and it's a KO game. Give both teams a fair chance. It's not that difficult.
- The historical scores component of D/L should take into account the most recent ODIs played, for example the last 50 or 100 as with the advent of T20 the 'par' or 'average' scores have increased considerably.
- Whilst a higher target might well be set from D/L, you might be better of reducing the number of wickets in hand of Team 2 since the overs they have to bat less overs. A new method can certainly be developed.
- There's been too many cases where teams have been hard done by simply because it rained. And it's not just SA. Yes, you won't find a perfect method, ever, but you can improve the current way of doing it.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Steyn had a poor world cup.

True, and so did the rest of their bowlers bar Morkel and Tahir. Sri Lanka will be kicking themselves till the next WC for folding so miserably in the QF. Steyn is too inconsistent in the shorter formats of the game and often tends to bleed loads of runs in critical situations.

Steyn had a poor world cup.

As talented as De Villiers is, I don't think he's a very good captain.

Yeah and their team selection wasn't too smart either. Again, they got away with it in the QF but a good side was eventually going to punish the lack of a decent 5th bowler. This could bite us tomorrow too, mind.

 

[Stretch]

True, and so did the rest of their bowlers bar Morkel and Tahir. Sri Lanka will be kicking themselves till the next WC for folding so miserably in the QF. Steyn is too inconsistent in the shorter formats of the game and often tends to bleed loads of runs in critical situations.


Yeah and their team selection wasn't too smart either. Again, they got away with it in the QF but a good side was eventually going to punish the lack of a decent 5th bowler. This could bite us tomorrow too, mind.

Agree. I've never been a fan of Dale as a ODI/T20 bowler. His main weapon is swing and he loses that with the white ball fairly quickly. From then on he doesn't have enough variety to counter batsmen. Morkel again is a fantastic ODI bowler because of his natural back of length err length.

And I was never comfortable with not having a 5th bowler. That's our biggest weakness by far since Kallis hung up his boots. We simply don't have a solid all rounder to make the team more balanced.

 

[The Taurean]

Kudos to both teams. Although SA are one of the top teams and one which I fancied this WC, the better performing team went through.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Apparently its been raining in Sydney as well, with the pitch under covers. Not good this. Probably be a low scoring contest

 

[VidaRed]

Apparently its been raining in Sydney as well, with the pitch under covers. Not good this. Probably be a low scoring contest

dont worry dhoni will hit a double century and kohli will top him by hitting a triple century

 

[NM]

Commismerations to @Traub @Stretch
and the other South Africans on here. Was an epic game and I stayed up all night watching it. Currently suffering at work..

Now come on India! If they get through to the final, I'd be happy no matter which team wins really.

Just not the damn Aussies

 

[Zen]

Alrite. Another thing is someone can. Why were New Zealand required to score WAY more in the same amount of overs than Australia were? Something to do power plays or whatever....but still, someone who knows the D/L system, enlighten me. Like why didn't they give SA bowlers the same power plays instead of giving NZ a higher target if it's that.

 

[Kazi]

Alrite. Another thing is someone can. Why were New Zealand required to score WAY more in the same amount of overs than Australia were? Something to do power plays or whatever....but still, someone who knows the D/L system, enlighten me. Like why didn't they give SA bowlers the same power plays instead of giving NZ a higher target if it's that.

Because the match was reduced by 7 overs to 43 overs. South Africa were under assumption that they were playing a 50 over game for the first 38 overs, so D/L takes into consideration that SA would have scored at a higher rate if they knew from the start that it'd be a 43 over match and been less cautious of losing wickets. Wickets are taken into consideration too when setting the revised target.

 

[PvsNP]

How do you Indians feel about your chances of progressing?

 

[Samid]

Alrite. Another thing is someone can. Why were New Zealand required to score WAY more in the same amount of overs than Australia were? Something to do power plays or whatever....but still, someone who knows the D/L system, enlighten me. Like why didn't they give SA bowlers the same power plays instead of giving NZ a higher target if it's that.

From Cricinfo:

"In an ODI, Team 1 have lost 2 wickets in scoring 100 runs in 25 overs from an expected 50 when extended rain leads to Team 1's innings being terminated and Team 2's innings is also restricted to 25 overs. What is the target score for Team 2?

Because of the different stages of the teams' innings that their 25 overs are lost, they represent different losses of resource. Team 1 have lost 2 wickets and had 25 overs left when the rain arrived and so from the table you will see that the premature termination of their innings has deprived them of the 61.8% resource percentage they had remaining. Having started with 100% they have used 100 - 61.8 = 38.2%; in other words they have had only 38.2% resources available for their innings.

Team 2 will also receive 25 overs. With 25 overs left and no wicket lost you will see from the table that the resource percentage which they have available (compared to a full 50 over innings) is 68.7%. Team 2 thus have 68.7 - 38.2 = 30.5% greater resource than had Team 1 and so they are set a target which is 30.5% of 225, or 68.63, more runs than Team 1 scored. [225 is the average in 50 overs for ODIs]

Team 2's revised target is therefore set at 168.63, or 169 to win in 25 overs, and the advantage to Team 2 from knowing in advance of the reduction in their overs is neutralised.

Note: Most of the other target resetting methods in use make no allowance for this interruption. They set the target of 101 to win simply because both teams are to receive the same number of overs. This is clearly an injustice to Team 1 who were pacing their innings to last 50 overs when it was curtailed, whereas Team 2 knew in advance of the reduction of their innings to 25 overs and have been handed an unfair advantage. D/L allows for this by setting Team 2 a higher target than the number of runs Team 1 actually scored, as described above."

 

[MDFC Manager]

How do you Indians feel about your chances of progressing?

We've an abysmal record vs Australia at Sydney, but given our form, I'm backing us to put up a good fight.

At the start of the tournament, most people felt reaching the semis would be an excellent achievement.

 

[PvsNP]

We've an abysmal record vs Australia at Sydney, but given our form, I'm backing us to put up a good fight.

At the start of the tournament, most people felt reaching the semis would be an excellent achievement.

That's what I thought. I hope your players don't choke. I actually want India to win - it'd be nice to see a country that's even more cricket crazy than mine win it again.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

The "contest" between bat and ball at this World Cup has been a joke.

 

[Ole's_toe_poke]

I wouldn't call the match a choke but I think once again a lot of South Africa's celebrated players didn't turn up when it mattered.

Apart from De Villiers and Tahir no one consistently played well in all the matches.

Once again they came with big reputations and once again they disappointed.

 

[zing]

How do you Indians feel about your chances of progressing?

Men against boys. We're punching way about our weight to have gotten this far without losses. Mohit Sharma, Shami and the others.. as well as they have done, it is a no contest against the likes of Starc, Johnson.

Australia clearly the better team, but in a 1 off game, I would give India a 30% chance.

 

[sport2793]

Men against boys. We're punching way about our weight to have gotten this far without losses. Mohit Sharma, Shami and the others.. as well as they have done, it is a no contest against the likes of Starc, Johnson.

Australia clearly the better team, but in a 1 off game, I would give India a 30% chance.

I would say the Indians have underperformed greatly over the past year or two. Their recent performances are probably closer to their actual level imo.

 

[Krovv]

I'd be really surprised if India reached the final. This Indian team has been the surprise package this tournament. After over two months in Australia without a win, we beat every team that we were up against. Don't think we can beat Australia, but yeah with a little bit of luck we can sneak a win. Our bowlers are good enough to contain them until the 35th over. After that I think we'll go for a lot of runs. I don't think our bowling is that great at the death and Australia can be lethal at that time.

My gut feeling is that the batsmen will win or lose the game.