Poor Bas de Leede returned the most expensive figures of all time in ODIs, 2-115, though, arguably, they are better than Zampa's 0-113 against SA last month
The Aussies look to be sorting out their run rate issue. Not just leaving England needing to win all our remaining games, but probably needing to hope NZ tonk them rather than just winning narrowly. Maybe it's time to start working out what we need to do to finish above Pakistan.
The Aussies look to be sorting out their run rate issue. Not just leaving England needing to win all our remaining games, but probably needing to hope NZ tonk them rather than just winning narrowly. Maybe it's time to start working out what we need to do to finish above Pakistan.
For 5th place presumably? Because Pakistan won't finish in the top four. We have to win all five games and hope that the other results go our way because we are almost certainly out should we lose one more match as our NRR is so poor and Australia are likely to massively improve theirs today (Neths are 86-8 off 19 overs against Australia's 399 as I type).
Using the assumptions below, this is the only scenario that will allow us to qualify in my opinion:
India beat South Africa, Sri Lanka and Netherlands but lose to England = 16 points NZ beat Australia, South Africa, Pakistan and Sri Lanka = 16 points England beat Sri Lanka, India, Australia, Netherlands and Pakistan = 12 points South Africa beat Afghanistan but lose to Pakistan, NZ and India = 10 points Australia beat Netherlands, Bangladesh and Afghanistan but lose to NZ and England = 10 points Pakistan beat South Africa and Bangladesh but lose to England, and New Zealand = 8 points
As I say, this assumes that we win all five matches but, even if that happens, South Africa only have to beat, in addition to Sri Lanka, one of Pakistan, NZ and India and they will finish above us on NRR and if Australia beat NZ or us they will do so too. And if we lose to India that's that anyway.
Sadly, our qualification is the stuff of fantasy and desperation and I will be more than happy for certain posters on here to remind me of this post if I am wrong!
Netherlands 90 all out (Zampa 4-0-8-4, his third four wicket haul in a row). Australia win by 309 runs - the highest margin in the history of WC ODI history.
A 309-run margin will provide ammunition for those arguing for the end of the 50-over World Cup
You can be a very naughty boy at times.
Why? I'm sure there will be people - many from India, for instance - who will want to see the end of 50 over ODIs. For what it's worth, I hope that doesn't happen.
But, the reality is that a 309-run winning margin really isn't much of an exciting, nail-biting, fascinating watch for spectators or TV watchers.
To clarify: yes I meant trying to finish 5th and get something resembling respectability. Our chances of qualifying depended on the Aussies carrying on as badly as they started, which very definitely isn't happening.
A 309-run margin will provide ammunition for those arguing for the end of the 50-over World Cup
You can be a very naughty boy at times.
Why? I'm sure there will be people - many from India, for instance - who will want to see the end of 50 over ODIs. For what it's worth, I hope that doesn't happen.
But, the reality is that a 309-run winning margin really isn't much of an exciting, nail-biting, fascinating watch for spectators or TV watchers.
So let's deny that same side, the Netherlands, more opportunities to beat the likes of South Africa, or Afghanistan the chances of defeating both England and Pakistan by halving the number of World Cups. Afghanistan had never beaten a Test playing nation in a World Cup before this and had won just the one match in the tournament in their history. Here they had two scalps.
To those countries, such victories are not just massive successes that their fans are able to celebrate but give their youngsters the encouragement to play and get better. The only reason that it would make sense would be if those that demand the abolition of 50 over cricket to placate the feeling of the supporters of those countries that were defeated by the minnows.
Most cricket fans, especially those that love the game as much as Indian supporters do, are fans of the game itself. So when someone like Maxwell breaks a World Cup record for the fastest hundred they have something memorable to take from the match. Perhaps those that are so keen on "nail-biting" finishes would prefer more of a guarantee of that and instead of playing 100 ball games, why not just have one super over per side? Now they really would be close more often that not.
The Aussies look to be sorting out their run rate issue. Not just leaving England needing to win all our remaining games, but probably needing to hope NZ tonk them rather than just winning narrowly. Maybe it's time to start working out what we need to do to finish above Pakistan.
For 5th place presumably? Because Pakistan won't finish in the top four. We have to win all five games and hope that the other results go our way because we are almost certainly out should we lose one more match as our NRR is so poor and Australia are likely to massively improve theirs today (Neths are 86-8 off 19 overs against Australia's 399 as I type).
Using the assumptions below, this is the only scenario that will allow us to qualify in my opinion:
India beat South Africa, Sri Lanka and Netherlands but lose to England = 16 points NZ beat Australia, South Africa, Pakistan and Sri Lanka = 16 points England beat Sri Lanka, India, Australia, Netherlands and Pakistan = 12 points South Africa beat Afghanistan but lose to Pakistan, NZ and India = 10 points Australia beat Netherlands, Bangladesh and Afghanistan but lose to NZ and England = 10 points Pakistan beat South Africa and Bangladesh but lose to England, and New Zealand = 8 points
As I say, this assumes that we win all five matches but, even if that happens, South Africa only have to beat, in addition to Sri Lanka, one of Pakistan, NZ and India and they will finish above us on NRR and if Australia beat NZ or us they will do so too. And if we lose to India that's that anyway.
Sadly, our qualification is the stuff of fantasy and desperation and I will be more than happy for certain posters on here to remind me of this post if I am wrong!
I reckon SA will win most if their games & will be in the top 2 with NZ. Then it will be India & Oz. We will be lucky to finish 5th.
The Aussies look to be sorting out their run rate issue. Not just leaving England needing to win all our remaining games, but probably needing to hope NZ tonk them rather than just winning narrowly. Maybe it's time to start working out what we need to do to finish above Pakistan.
For 5th place presumably? Because Pakistan won't finish in the top four. We have to win all five games and hope that the other results go our way because we are almost certainly out should we lose one more match as our NRR is so poor and Australia are likely to massively improve theirs today (Neths are 86-8 off 19 overs against Australia's 399 as I type).
Using the assumptions below, this is the only scenario that will allow us to qualify in my opinion:
India beat South Africa, Sri Lanka and Netherlands but lose to England = 16 points NZ beat Australia, South Africa, Pakistan and Sri Lanka = 16 points England beat Sri Lanka, India, Australia, Netherlands and Pakistan = 12 points South Africa beat Afghanistan but lose to Pakistan, NZ and India = 10 points Australia beat Netherlands, Bangladesh and Afghanistan but lose to NZ and England = 10 points Pakistan beat South Africa and Bangladesh but lose to England, and New Zealand = 8 points
As I say, this assumes that we win all five matches but, even if that happens, South Africa only have to beat, in addition to Sri Lanka, one of Pakistan, NZ and India and they will finish above us on NRR and if Australia beat NZ or us they will do so too. And if we lose to India that's that anyway.
Sadly, our qualification is the stuff of fantasy and desperation and I will be more than happy for certain posters on here to remind me of this post if I am wrong!
I reckon SA will win most if their games & will be in the top 2 with NZ. Then it will be India & Oz. We will be lucky to finish 5th.
I totally agree with you about South Africa and I gave my reasons in the very first comment on this thread as to why I thought they might do well. I was trying to be "devil's advocate" as to how we might qualify and SA losing three of the final games was one of the ways that it might happen. But it won't. I believe that the order will be India, SA, NZ, Australia and I am hoping that, given out exit, it will be an India v SA final.
Comments
we just need SA to play India, Australia & NZ 3 more times each & we might scrape into 4th !!
Really interesting comments from Paul Farbrace.
399-8 off 50
Using the assumptions below, this is the only scenario that will allow us to qualify in my opinion:
India beat South Africa, Sri Lanka and Netherlands but lose to England = 16 points
NZ beat Australia, South Africa, Pakistan and Sri Lanka = 16 points
England beat Sri Lanka, India, Australia, Netherlands and Pakistan = 12 points
South Africa beat Afghanistan but lose to Pakistan, NZ and India = 10 points
Australia beat Netherlands, Bangladesh and Afghanistan but lose to NZ and England = 10 points
Pakistan beat South Africa and Bangladesh but lose to England, and New Zealand = 8 points
As I say, this assumes that we win all five matches but, even if that happens, South Africa only have to beat, in addition to Sri Lanka, one of Pakistan, NZ and India and they will finish above us on NRR and if Australia beat NZ or us they will do so too. And if we lose to India that's that anyway.
Sadly, our qualification is the stuff of fantasy and desperation and I will be more than happy for certain posters on here to remind me of this post if I am wrong!
But, the reality is that a 309-run winning margin really isn't much of an exciting, nail-biting, fascinating watch for spectators or TV watchers.
So let's deny that same side, the Netherlands, more opportunities to beat the likes of South Africa, or Afghanistan the chances of defeating both England and Pakistan by halving the number of World Cups. Afghanistan had never beaten a Test playing nation in a World Cup before this and had won just the one match in the tournament in their history. Here they had two scalps.
To those countries, such victories are not just massive successes that their fans are able to celebrate but give their youngsters the encouragement to play and get better. The only reason that it would make sense would be if those that demand the abolition of 50 over cricket to placate the feeling of the supporters of those countries that were defeated by the minnows.
Most cricket fans, especially those that love the game as much as Indian supporters do, are fans of the game itself. So when someone like Maxwell breaks a World Cup record for the fastest hundred they have something memorable to take from the match. Perhaps those that are so keen on "nail-biting" finishes would prefer more of a guarantee of that and instead of playing 100 ball games, why not just have one super over per side? Now they really would be close more often that not.
Mallan and Livingstone replacing Morgan and Roy.
Last Vegas or Last of the Summer Wine?
Roy -> Malan
Morgan -> Livingstone
Plunkett -> Moeen
Archer -> Willey
57-2
Bairstow now out
68/3. No boundaries for 7 overs.
68-3
7.2 overs since: 24-3
Buttler gone