Not at all, I’m 100% in agreement with your aims.
I’d like to get the balance back through modifying as few of the rules/regulations as possible.
Me and the BBC commentators, then:
“AB De Villiers truly produced one of the greatest innings of all time”
Naah. Regardless of which teams are playing, I prefer cricket that has the big knocks or the exceptional bowling spells, not even-handed slogging.
I have my kid’s soccer matches for that “everyone’s a winner”-type of game.
How do you address the counter, though - if it’s all about the batsmen, explain the WI collapse and Tahir’s 5…
For some reason quotes not working for me. Odd.
A) And, in the fable, everyone tells the emperor his new togs are wonderful. Doesn’t necessarily make it so though.
B) Who said anything abut even handed slogging? Not me. An even contest doesn’t require even handed slogging and even contests are more interesting than one sided blow-outs (to me at least).
C) The Windies had to chase a ridiculous total. What were they going to do? Play like Gavaskar and Tavare and go home at 134-3? They had to try and score runs, which meant they were much more likely to get out. Chasing 280, they don’t get skittled for less than AB scored himself, I reckon. This is the argument that AB’s knock was great - he basically forced the Windies into this position - which is a position I have sympathy for. You can’t say it wasn’t a great innings in that context. But you’re talking past me and I’m talking past you - this is a symptom of a wider malaise in the game for me. I’d much rather have seen the alternative game where the game was in the balance in the last 5 overs. Only the associate nations have proven capable of that thus far.
The BBC commentators aren’t everyman know-nothings, though. People like Swann, I would expect to be reasonably knowledgeable about the game.
It would if you expected SA to post the same-ish totals as the Windies.
Depends on if the reason for the blow-out is whether one side is outmatched, or outplayed. This was the latter, I’d say.
Whose fault was that? Sounds like you’d blame the SA squad when it was all on the Windies’ bowling and fielding.
For 3? No, you start off by consolidating first, build up that initial partnership, then go for it in the last 25. SA didn’t take off from the get-go with the big scores, why did WI have to?
Precisely - they saw a big total to chase and went about it the wrong way. They should have taken 5 overs or so to build their own confidence.
I didn’t pay money for a stadium ticket, I don’t feel they owe me all 100 overs.
The difference between the two batting innings is a mental one. SA and De Villiers had loose targets: I imagine they started wanting over 300 (but prepared to settle for 280 if it was a difficult wicket), then revised that upwards but always to a vague “over 330”, “over 350”, “over 380” rather than anything specific. Equally, De Villiers in his (amazing, wonderful) charge must have been thinking in terms of “let’s see how much I can get” rather than “if I don’t score X amount we will definitely lose and also I can’t possibly afford to get out”. If things had gone slightly differently and SA had “only” got 380 they would not have felt that they had fallen short. By contrast WI start their innings knowing that nothing less than 409 will do. They know* in theory *how to do this: stay in, build a platform with wickets in hand and go crazy in the last 15-20 overs. But that puts a huge premium on keeping wickets now (otherwise they will definitely lose) which promotes cautious play; on the other hand they must keep scoring at a reasonable rate which demands some level of shot making. And so batters will get caught between two impulses, get hasty or get becalmed, and get out.
Obviously the SA batters have the same demands, but without the same desperate urgency of knowing that they will *definitely *lose if they get it even a little bit wrong.
However. This is a mental issue which can be addressed. As teams get their fair share of batting first and seeing that they can put big scores up by following the platform-and-blast model they will become more confident about their ability to chase the big targets. The batters will become steadier when chasing and find themselves caught in two minds less often. There will always be more pressure on the chasing team, but it will probably reduce as people get used to this mode of playing.
MrDribble I enjoyed the knock much as any non-Aussie (:D) or West Indian. But, I don’t think you can compare this knock with some of the great WC ones. Steve Waughs in 1999, De Silva in the 1996 Final, Inzi against the Kiwis. The standard of bowling these days is pathetic (unless its the Pakistan lineup, then every bowler is satans own minion). How well would AB have done if the Windies still had Walsh and Ambrose type bowlers?
I looked at the top 8 nations playing each other in ODIs over the last 10 years. The results for the team batting first do show a big shift in win/loss ratio. These are the results:
Year Teams Mat Won Lost Tied NR W/L Ave RPO
year 2005 8 58 23 32 1 2 0.718 31.01 5.09
year 2006 8 93 38 51 0 4 0.745 29.91 5
year 2007 8 97 46 46 0 5 1 33.27 5.23
year 2008 8 63 29 27 1 6 1.074 31.21 5.15
year 2009 8 96 44 46 0 6 0.956 31.89 5.31
year 2010 8 63 29 32 0 2 0.906 32.27 5.3
year 2011 8 83 35 42 2 4 0.833 29.4 5.07
year 2012 8 69 26 38 2 3 0.684 31.85 5.08
year 2013 8 96 46 42 2 6 1.095 31.91 5.24
year 2014 8 69 37 30 1 1 1.233 35.98 5.64
year 2015 8 28 14 12 0 2 1.166 36.66 5.85
For most of this time batting first has been a losing strategy. W/L barely reached par in 2007/8 before subsiding again. Since 2013 it has climbed again and swung noticeably in favour of batting first. Averages and RPO have increased sharply as well which suggests that victory is due to higher batting scores rather than better bowling.This does coincide with the October 2012 changes in fielding restrictions.
Whether this is a problem that needs to be fixed, or whether players can adjust, remains to be seen, IMHO.
I don’t know much about cricket although I enjoyed summer school days watching matches.
Hadn’t been to match for a decade when a mate suggested we drive to Dunedin yesterday, and see Scotland v Afghanistan.
Frankly we didn’t expect much apart from a nice day in the sun. Presumably Scotland would be too strong.
However traveling to see this match turned out to be one of the most enjoyable sports events for many years. The Afghan minnows held the Scots run rate down, and then turned in a respectable batting effort themselves. Still, when Afghan needed 60 runs to win people started leaving and my mate and I decided they’d lose with dignity.
Well bugger me. They won. Outstanding. Moments like these going down to the last three deliveries are rare and can only be appreciated live at the ground.
Glad I went.
That’s hardly fair, you can only play the team that shows up.
I think this knock is up there in the great WC innings, to be honest. Not for the effect it had on the game - a more ‘sedate’ pace getting SA up past 350 would probably have had a similar effect on the WI batting lineup - but for the acceleration and style of the last few overs.
Nice. Actually low scoring matches can be most exciting. For ex. SA vs Aus. semifinal-1999 WC.
I hear that many of the pitches used in this WC are prepared elsewhere n placed in the grounds. They are called ‘drop-in’ pitches. Which is probably why many pitches are behaving in the same way. And most matches are high scoring.
I am hoping some of these associate players get IPL contracts n rightfully earn big bucks n get more exposure n league gets representation from more nations . But competition for foreigner-slots in immense (4 players per team) n many ordinary Indian players earn much more. thats a glaring discrepancy .
It must have been a fantastic day, and despite the result I wish I’d been there.
But for the record, you did Scotland too much credit - they are every bit the minnows Afghanistan are. They’re not a major cricketing nation (despite neighbouring one), they’ve never won a WC game* (neither had Afghanistan until now) and they may have been slight favourites (not sure) but a close match was well within expectations.
*But one day, man. One day.
Anyone know what they’ve been feeding de Villiers? He’s been around for a while and I don’t recall him being described as the best ODI batsman in the world before a year or two ago.
Criticising de Villiers (or Chris Gayle) is rather beside the point - they’re the best in the world, and we want the World Cup to be a stage where the best can show what they can do. The problem isn’t that the best batsmen, on their day, can demolish a bowling attack, it’s when seemingly every top-level side, even against other top-level sides, can flog 150 off the last 15, score 300+ and watch the chase collapse.
Name a great bowling performance this World Cup. OK, Tim Southey vs England. Now name a second. Who’d be a bowler?
What de Villiers did was epic (one stat - SA scored 261 off the last 20. The record T20I score is 260). I don’t imagine anyone who watched it will forget it for a while. But epic feats only stay epic when they don’t become routine.
I doubt we’ll ever see innings like that become routine. I suspect we’ll see new tactics adopted by fielding teams to disrupt the launch in the last 15 overs. Perhaps more attacking fields to keep the wickets coming during the middle overs? After all the run rate drops to zero after the tenth wicket falls.
New Zealand v Australia starting soon. I have a feeling this will be a cracker.
And we have another bowling performance to remember - Trent Boult takes 5/1 in 3 overs as Australia crash from 80/1 to 106/9!
Holy. Shit. Aussies all out for 151. Never, ever seen a Kiwi bowling side that could dominate Australia the way they just did. Eden Park crowd are foaming with glee. It’s fucking pandemonium in there!
That last wicket stand could be crucial. 151 is a lot more defensible than 120 odd.
Nice work from Vettori in restricting them, too. They were looking dangerous at the outset and then he just strangled them.
Apparently, flogging has not been abolished in NZ.
Let’s see what they can do with the bat now: it’s not over yet…
Although McCullum didn’t get that memo; I think he must have a taxi waiting with the meter on.
It’s not over yet as Taylor goes just before the break.