ICC Cricket World Cup 2019
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
There is no one specific answer to that. It can be many thing like arrogance (one which I pointed out) or trusting wrong individuals for the job (Shastri and selectors) and too much power given to certian individuals (Kohli) all are some of the reasons.
I think Kohli and co. put extra focus on tests and they were rightly rewarded but they just did not do a similar planning in ODIs.
Rahane is pretty crap in ODIs so that's why he wasn't considered.
Isn't Rahane an ODI opener?
I'm not anti NZ at all. I just accept this result and outcome.
Anyways if you want to torture yourself with denial and regret, do carry on
The last thing we need is Rahane back in ODIs. He should just stick playing Tests.
Hasn't been good in tests for a while too.
Goes way beyond 'supporting an underdog' though doesn't it?
I was 'supporting an underdog' when I wanted Croatia to win in the WC final, and thought the handball pen was bs. I didn't go crying about it for ages because just backing the underdog generally doesn't make people all that heated and/or upset when the underdog doesn't win. It's not their team, just one they adopted for a one off game.
Quite clearly plenty of people have overlapped in to 'anyone but England' territory and I don't know why some are so desperate to pretend otherwise and make out that people only backed NZ because they were an underdog. Whenever England as a team play at almost anything there's generally a bunch of people who want to try and play down the success/desperately support whoever we faced. It was the exact same situation during the football World Cup.
A bloke I used to work with has now retired from full time work but does a lot of stewarding at Derbyshire CCC and Derby County. He says Bairstow got out once playing for Yorkshire at Derby and threw a right hissy fit, throwing his bat and gloves around like a child. He got warned by the ground staff.
That's probably going back 5 years maybe slightly more and I agree he comes across much better these days. There's nothing wrong with a bit of passion anyway. I still totally disagree with his comments in the group stage about the media ganging up and wanting England to fail - that was absolute drivel but to be fair to him he has become some cricketer over the last 18-24 months.
Dhawan
Rohit
Kohli
Gill
Iyer
Pant
Pandya
Jadeja
Kuldeep
Bumrah
Shami
Ideally I'd like us too see this team start from now on in ODIs.
Add Aggarwal/Shaw for openers.
Rohit
Kohli
Gill
Iyer
Pant
Pandya
Jadeja
Kuldeep
Bumrah
Shami
Ideally I'd like us too see this team start from now on in ODIs.
Add Aggarwal/Shaw for openers.
Why am I not getting enough alerts from this group. It always stops after a while.
Kohli for all his good things is not the most innovative captains like Dhoni or Ganguly was for us. Ganguly was bold in giving chances to the likes of DHoni, Yuvraj, Sehwag etc. Similarly Dhoni was innovative in asking Rohit to open and trusting him more. Kohli just uses same tried and tested combo. He could have easily shown more trust to the likes of Pant, Iyer, Samson and even Rana. He could have actually shown more trust to Jadeja the batsmen and given more opportunity to him with bat so that he could have cemented his place ahead of Jadhav. Even they gave up on the likes of Ashwin very soon. He would have been a far better option than Shankar and again Kohli could have shown more trust on him to be a proper bowling all rounder in ODIs. We have good amount of talented players but not many were given proper chance under Kohli.
He's rubbish. Lucky to be in Test team. Has been garbage for English county this season too.
Yeah, of course, no need to have him in now.
I'd push for: Shaw, Rohit, Kohli, Rahul, Iyer, Pant, Pandya, Jadeja, Kuldeep, Bhuvi, Bumrah.
Dhawan, Shami, Chahal, Gill and Samson in and around, too. Wonder whether the Chahars will get a call up?
Just to clarify, I only mean we should have picked him for the WC. I wouldn't consider him now.
Shame, though, he was a real talent at 18/19.
India will win in 2023. Be warned though, my predictions are crap!
That doesn’t surprise me at all, some people turn into monsters once they’re in the competitive zone. I’m one of them, I’m vile when I play sport
Isn't Gill another top order batsman? I thini it's time for India to start phasing Dhawan out & also carefully evaluate Rohit too over the next few years (to see if he'll really be the best available option for 2023).
The thing is that if Kohli remains captain then it's a sign that the board & selectors along with Virat believe that they lost because of 45 minutes of bad cricket . This loss was something anyone who watches India regularly saw coming for a while but I get the feeling that Kohli will still remain captain
Yeah but I'd like to get him eased in the team and then make him an opener. He's a ridiculous player.
Good for cricket.
Shame it all goes behind a paywall again.
It's a joke that it takes getting to the WC final to get it on free tv.
The Ashes might get 2 million if lucky.
Well the hundred will be on BBC ...
I'm sure the rules say that the team that pick up the trophy win the world cup. End of.
If the umpires made a mistake it wouldn't be the first in this game never mind the whole tournament. What's to say that if we needed 3 of the last ball Stokes wouldn't have thrown his bat at it and got another boundary.
Shame it's crap cricket!
I've ditched Sky, so will have to find some other means of watching.
I am not too sure if the hundred will be a good thing for the game. We already have three formats, why introduce a 4th one to further complicate the game. Maybe I will love it once it his here but so far I feel they should have stuck with T20.
Let's see . England started T20 as well and people didn't like it at the start . The idea of the hundred is to make it less complicated to watch the game so let's see how it goes
Find it quite funny that there’s people who were crying about the fact it was won by a strange rule/method, are now claiming NZ should have won because of a strange rule about the batsman not crossing in time.
It would make more sense if the rule was had they had crossed when he was hit with the ball, or just nothing to do with crossing at all.
It would make more sense if the rule was had they had crossed when he was hit with the ball, or just nothing to do with crossing at all.
Nah it's to make it shorter.
All of the patronising drivel they've subsequently come out with about how 'mums and kids' can't understand cricket is just to retcon that change.
WTF is the hundred?
100-ball matches. Last over will be 10 deliveries.
A new format of cricket. It shortens the game even more than 20/20.
All overs will be 10 deliveries
So 5 10-ball overs per innings?
Yeah change of ends every 10 balls (though a single bowler can bowl either 5 bowls or 10 balls in that over). 25 balls max per innings for a bowler.
The idea is to speed up the game with less transitions/change of ends.
100 deliveries per innings. 10 “overs” each.
Another thing that's interesting is that this is the first time a team got all out and still won .
Just goes to show what a farce this is.
. Just goes to show what a farce this is.
Would you still have thought it was a farce if NZ had only scored say 5 in their Super Over?Another thing that's interesting is that this is the first time a team got all out and still won
Just goes to show what a farce this is.