ICC Cricket World Cup 2019

It wasn't a demand. SC of India has laid down some rules for BCCI which mandated a gap between when IPL ends and international cricket starts. ICC accommodated the same. But yeah we have now like 4 matches in a week's time.
How is that not a demand?
 
The on field decision was not out. The third umpire didn't had conclusive decision to reverse it. Stupid error by the third umpire.
 
Not the worst start from us. Certainly not the best either. Far too many loose deliveries.
 
I can see why it was given. In this frame there's the sound, but for me, its clear it cannot be the pad. The left image shows it would have to hit on the left edge of the pad (as we look at it) where the pad is furthest away from the viewer, but in the right hand image, it would need to be hitting near the front of the pad. Which isn't possible.

 
I can see why it was given. In this frame there's the sound, but for me, its clear it cannot be the pad. The left image shows it would have to hit on the left edge of the pad (as we look at it) where the pad is furthest away from the viewer, but in the right hand image, it would need to be hitting near the front of the pad. Which isn't possible.



Third umpire did not spend that much time thinking it over as you have. Not sure what you are saying is 100% conclusive either.
 
I can see why it was given. In this frame there's the sound, but for me, its clear it cannot be the pad. The left image shows it would have to hit on the left edge of the pad (as we look at it) where the pad is furthest away from the viewer, but in the right hand image, it would need to be hitting near the front of the pad. Which isn't possible.



Not sure what point you're making here? Looks like it could be either.
 
Standard, Indian fans complaining about their team as they win with relative ease.
 
Standard, Indian fans complaining about their team as they win with relative ease.

:lol: They’re like the Barcelona fans of cricket

You might think winning a couple of group stage games negates the fact that our opener has a consistent strike rate of about 60.

I don't.

To be fair he’s not your first choice opener. He’s a decent enough stand in I think.
 
I can see why it was given. In this frame there's the sound, but for me, its clear it cannot be the pad. The left image shows it would have to hit on the left edge of the pad (as we look at it) where the pad is furthest away from the viewer, but in the right hand image, it would need to be hitting near the front of the pad. Which isn't possible.



It depends a lot on the on field umpire decision. There is not a chance that anyone can say conclusively that it has hit the bat and that's what's needed to overturn the decision.
 
There are many things this WI team is substandard at, but feck me we are truly one of the worst fielding teams I’ve ever seen in my life.
 
You might think winning a couple of group stage games negates the fact that our opener has a consistent strike rate of about 60.

I don't.

I think it's fine - if he can find his form while we don't lose matches, we'll be in good shape.
 
Not sure what point you're making here? Looks like it could be either.
I'm saying that from those images, if that is the point the sound was made, it cannot be the pad. It can't be hitting the back and front of the pad at the same time.
 
I'm saying that from those images, if that is the point the sound was made, it cannot be the pad. It can't be hitting the back and front of the pad at the same time.

When you're having to factor in so much, you stay with the onfield decision. The third umpire was wrong in so many ways.
 
When you're having to factor in so much, you stay with the onfield decision. The third umpire was wrong in so many ways.
Isn't this like a really tight VAR offside decision? Just because the margin is small doesn't mean its not conclusive. It can be 100% conclusive with a tiny margin. If you can show from the images the sound isn't caused by the pad, even if the sound is small, the ball is close to both etc. doesn't mean its not conclusive.
 
Isn't this like a really tight VAR offside decision? Just because the margin is small doesn't mean its not conclusive. It can be 100% conclusive with a tiny margin. If you can show from the images the sound isn't caused by the pad, even if the sound is small, the ball is close to both etc. doesn't mean its not conclusive.

You and the third umpire might be the only two people in the world who think that it was anyway near conclusive.
 
Have any of you considered that the WI are just bowling really well? The pitch also doesn't look great. Even the great Kohli hasn't smashed anything yet. Calm down.
 
Have any of you considered that the WI are just bowling really well? The pitch also doesn't look great. Even the great Kohli hasn't smashed anything yet. Calm down.

Nah, this has been our formula for a long time now. Slow and steady, and trust our bowling.
 
Well hopefully that's that for Shankar.
 
Wtf is Shankar doing at number 4?

Wait, wtf is he doing at the world cup in the first place? fecking crazy.
 
Nah, this has been our formula for a long time now. Slow and steady, and trust our bowling.
Not 100% true. Rohit and Dhawan generally start slow in first 10/15 overs but then pick up the pace a lot and generally we are around 6 RPO mark by 30th over if all goes to plan. Today we have failed to push on after the first 10 properly. Think since this is a used pitch, it may not be as easy to score off the old ball here.