Yeah there's no way you can criticize Pakistan for not going to score 450. I guess they recognized quite early that it was impossible to get that score and after that just went for the win.instead of trying something stupid.
ICC Cricket World Cup 2019
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Yeah there's no way you can criticize Pakistan for not going to score 450. I guess they recognized quite early that it was impossible to get that score and after that just went for the win.instead of trying something stupid.
Not that it matters, but Amir deserves better fielders.
Doesn’t get easier than that at slip
When did Fizz get to 20 wickets
Two consecutive five wickets haul. Against us and Pakistan.
Anyone criticising Pakistan today need their heads checked, how are you supposed to win a game of cricket by 316 runs 
Akram: any chance of Hafeez stopping a single? He’s got one job to do! They hit it right to him and run!
Man have to feel a little bit for Shakib, rest of the team really struggles to stick with him.
Anyone not criticising Pakistan needs their head checked . Who cares about a win against Bangladesh here. All I know is that if it was England I would want them to go out and bat for as big a score as possible, in the process of you get out for 200 then so be it . I hope Pakistan feel happy after the game that they beat Bangladesh today scoring 315
@KM
That's not great in 2019.
Since Jan 01 2015 in games involving all the teams at this world cup (apart from Afghanistan) :
The average batting average of a batsman in the top 3 positions is 41.72 at a S/R of 89.85.
There 28 batsman that have scored at least 1000 runs in that span of time (and against those opponents)
Imam has the second slowest S/R out of all of them 77.3 (Azar Ali is the slowest) and Babar Azam is the 7th slowest at a S/R of 85.28.
You can't have two of them in your top 3. You're eating up too many balls at the top and putting too much pressure on the lower order.
@KM
That's not great in 2019.
Since Jan 01 2015 in games involving all the teams at this world cup (apart from Afghanistan) :
The average batting average of a batsman in the top 3 positions is 41.72 at a S/R of 89.85.
There 28 batsman that have scored at least 1000 runs in that span of time (and against those opponents)
Imam has the second slowest S/R out of all of them 77.3 (Azar Ali is the slowest) and Babar Azam is the 7th slowest at a S/R of 85.28.
You can't have two of them in your top 3. You're eating up too many balls at the top and putting too much pressure on the lower order.
Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma are in a league of their own.
Kohli's average and Rohit's sixes.
@KM
That's not great in 2019.
Since Jan 01 2015 in games involving all the teams at this world cup (apart from Afghanistan) :
The average batting average of a batsman in the top 3 positions is 41.72 at a S/R of 89.85.
There 28 batsman that have scored at least 1000 runs in that span of time (and against those opponents)
Imam has the second slowest S/R out of all of them 77.3 (Azar Ali is the slowest) and Babar Azam is the 7th slowest at a S/R of 85.28.
You can't have two of them in your top 3. You're eating up too many balls at the top and putting too much pressure on the lower order.
All this is good and fine but unless they find a supremely talented batsmen like Bairstow or Sharma or Warner there is no point of replacing Imam. Also, both Imam and Babar are not finished products. From what I have seen of Babar I will not say he is a slow batsmen, he can take his time but all the top batsmen do that, but he sure knows how to accelerate his innings and if he does improve his strike rate is bound to go up, same with Imam. Ofcourse in Imam's case he has to improve much more.
I also think people are reading too much into the t20s and forgetting that batting in 50 overs is a different art. I see the likes of Hetmyer, Pooran, Avishka Fernando, Pant, Maxwell have all the talents to be great batsmen in 50 over format but they are stuck in T20 style and end up throwing away their wicket. Unless you improve and learn to play longer innings you will just be forgotten and would never be able to fulfill your talent aka Maxwell and Miller.
At least Babar & Shaheen were positives this WC. Amir performed well too. Haris should’ve been in the side to begin with.
Hopefully the last time we see Malik, Hafeez & Sarfaraz. Wahab should also be moved on, although to his credit he had a good tournament.
Will be interesting if Mickey Arthur stays as coach.
Hopefully the last time we see Malik, Hafeez & Sarfaraz. Wahab should also be moved on, although to his credit he had a good tournament.
Will be interesting if Mickey Arthur stays as coach.
Its such a shame for Pakistan. All the things are seeming to click well for them now and they would have had momentum going into the semis. Would have been a tough opposition for any of the top 4.
Only themselves to blame. They should have played their best team to start with.
Got fecked by the rain
Nope. That's just a stupid excuse. The blame is more on the team than the rain.
It's really not, if the lanka match doesnt get rained on we go through. New Zealand did not beat anyone in the top six and got through due to the rain.
If Pakistan were such a good side that a victory against Sri Lanka was guaranteed then it would be irrelevant anyway as you wouldn't have lost to a worse West Indies side.
I agree with the assessment that NZ aren't a very good side, but they were consistent against the weaker sides – something you've never really been able to say about Pakistan.
Befoee today the same could have been said about our match vs Bangladesh.
We had a shock result in the first match and since then only lost against against India and Australia( the two best sides of the tournament).
Our record barring the first match has been quite good
Yes you lot have hard done by the weather and Pak are a better team than NZ. Having said it is inexcusable to get bundled out for 105 against that Windies side. It was one of the worst performance by any side in this WC, so have to look at that match rather than just blaming the rain.
Oh definitely, if we had played properly in that match we would be going through. That was horrible but both sides did not have a level playing field.
On a whole, I am happy with how the world cup went and cant really fault the commitment of the team.
Windies first, Pakistan 2nd?My second team, Pakistan
Yes, of course. That's exactly my point. Until you actually beat a side you can't claim that you've beaten them. You'd have gone in to the game against Sri Lanka as favourites, but Sri Lanka aren't woeful (they did after all beat us) and Pakistan do have form for not being clinical against sides they should beat. Hell, even ignoring the WIndies game you'd have given yourself a far better chance of going through if you hadn't made an absolute meal of the Afghanistan chase.
I agree with that, there is no guarantee that we would have won and if we had beaten either Afghanistan or New Zealand (83-5) convincingly we would be going through.
I just believe that a side getting a free point against India vs one getting one against Srilanka had a bigger impact on which one went through.
It's almost like teams werent aware that NRR could be crucial...
No doubt, I just think it's a touch unfair on Sri Lanka to characterise it as a walkover as (I felt) you did in the post I responded to.
NZ went life and death with the weaker sides. Barely made it through West Indies, Bangladesh, and the Saffers, for example. Pak meanwhile, beat two of the four semi-finalists.
You could argue that NZ were more consistent, but I think it's more the case that they found a way to win when they were in difficult situations and fair play to them - Pak were in a similar spot v the Windies and capitulated.
But you can't really say that NZ are one of the four best sides when they've been demolished by Aus and England, and handily beaten by Pak.
As we were batting second in both games v Afghanistan and NZ, we weren't going to make much of a dent in the NRR tbh. There are many facets of the games where you could lay the blame at Pak's door, but the run chases can't be one of them.
Especially since we were one of the very few sides towards the end of the tournament thus far who were actually able to get a handle of the chases. Something that India, England, and NZ certainly can't say right now.
Ah yeah I definitely think it wouldn't be a walk over, I mean Afghanistan wasn't a walk over for us
Was talking about it more in the context of no rain in our and nz match than just ours.
Perhaps, but in those life and death chases they 'went life' and won and, according to the rules which judge this in this tournament, were more consistent across their 8 games in doing it than Pakistan. I'm not really sure you can say the Pakistan victory over New Zealand was anymore convincing than some of those NZ wins either.
But either way, my point isn't that Pakistan are a bad team and New Zealand a good one — there's not much between them in my opinion — but rather that there's been enough cricket played despite each side having a game rained off that Pakistan had it within their own hands to finish fourth if they were convincingly in the four best sides in this tournament. You might have been unlucky in that you had the theoretically more winnable game rained off, but with no guarantee you would have won it, we also need to look at what was in Pakistan's hands to ensure they qualified.
They weren't more consistent though. They ended up on exactly same amount of points and benefited from a point in a washout, just like Pak did.
It was out of our hands as soon as Wahab was out vs the Windies. It was a death knell to our NRR. The two games we lost subsequently were to two teams that no team would be ashamed of losing to.
Likewise, my point isn't necessarily to say that NZ are a horrible team or that Pak were even unlucky. I just think to say that NZ were a more consistent team is a bit of a misnomer, and the NRR system needs looking into. It's not like GD in football, where the games are a level playing field.
Cricket is so open to the elements, and even the concept of chance. The difference between a win and a loss in this world cup was increasingly hinging on the flick of a coin, for example. Batting first would always allow you to rack up as high a run-rate as you want or can. While batting second, even if you win handily with multiple overs to spare, won't be fully reflected in the margin of victory. Say, you chase down 200 in 25 or so overs, you still would likely be going slower than your potential because even with a low total, there will be scoreboard pressure, the opposing team will set defensive fields, as opposed to attacking ones when bowling first, etc. NRR takes none of that in to account.
That's why the chases v Afghanistan and NZ, while we took them deep; it wouldn't have made much of a difference to our NRR if we got them with overs to spare, because the low totals would have capped our RR in any case. If we batted first, especially v Afghanistan, I have no doubt we'd have posted a much more resounding total and would have ran through their weak batting line up with consummate ease. That would have likely reflected in a wide margin of victory and a much larger NRR impact. Likewise, NZ, though the swing would have been more pronounced if Babar hadn't slowed down in the lead up to his century, but even so, it was only a case of 3 or so overs so not sure how much difference it would have made.
I didn't. I said they were more consistent according to the rules of this tournament. You both knew going into it that NRR was the second decider and NZ managed to play over the eight games in a way which gave them a marginally better one. You can say they were lucky and you were unlucky and that's fine, but if you were convincingly the better side you did play enough cricket to make sure not leave it to luck.
Neither of you, NZ or Eng were really good enough to do it and unluckily for you you were the ones to pay the price.
Weird thing to say considering NZ built up their run rate while chasing against Bangladesh, Afghanistan ,Saffers and Sri Lanka
But when you're in a disadvantaged state like Pak were after the Windies game, batting first is where you can really put a dent in the NRR, as opposed to batting second. That is what I'm trying to get at.
Day 38: Sri Lanka vs India | Australia vs South Africa
Sri Lanka win the toss and decide to bat first.
India drop Shami and Chahal. Kuldeep and Jadeja in. Kolhi says one of the two dropped was forced, I hope it's not Shami. :/
Edit: bat first
India drop Shami and Chahal. Kuldeep and Jadeja in. Kolhi says one of the two dropped was forced, I hope it's not Shami. :/
Edit: bat first
I wonder what the weather in Manchester is like right now because there is definitely rain around and if the Australia game gets rained out then India might not to focus on nrr