It’s 45 overs in, and South Africa’s looking at 300.
I’m trying to work out whether Gibbs is that dominating, or whether New Zealand’s strategy of playing without a strike bowler is coming a cropper against sides with genuine class in their bats.
Anyone care to hazard a guess?
Pakistan – 255/9.
Namibia – 61/9 (15 ov)
Any bets on Namibia making the greatest comeback of all time ? 
You’re a hard man, Gyan9. Even Pakistan couldn’t lose from there.
NZ 1/131 after 21, chasing about 306. Rain threatening. Fleming is playing beautifully. Poor old Mark Boucher looks about as out of form as a wicketkeeper can be. Game on.
BigNik’s being a bit harsh about “no strike bowlers” and the Kiwis. Bond got spanked, but he’s a strike bowler. I suppose other than that, you’re right - Vettori’s a class player but he’s mainly negative. Cairns hasn’t got enough bowling behind him to be a serious threat (great run-out the other night though). But the NZ approach has always been to have a lot of dibbly-dobblers and to play with discipline and tactical nous. It’s the right game to play with what they’ve got.
The rain’s coming down in the SA/NZ team and this is bad for SA. They’ll use the Duckworth/Lewis method to calculate NZ required total and the longer the rain persists the lowert that total will be.
Enough of the England bashing already!
We’ve won a game! Gubbing mighty holland!
Piece of cake htis cricket business
SA are in a bit ot a fix now. NZ require 35 runs of 41 balls to win at the last check. SA’s World Cup plans are certainly not going according to schedule!
And NZ win.
Atleast SA can still get themselves out of this in the next few matches.
Unlike the 1992 WC Semifinal.
And the rain came down…
Well New Zealand have survived, and should make the super six. A rest day today means I can catch up on some sleep…
You’re right. From that position, Pakistan couldn’t lose if you paid…
Oh, wait…
I can’t agree with that one. Bond’s not a bad bowler, but he’s a workhorse, not a striker. He’s in the same position that McDermott was a number of years ago for Australia, or that Caddick played in the last series for England - a good bowler who’s forced to play the wrong role because there’s no-one around him to take it instead.
The fact that a bowler’s not a striker doesn’t mean he can’t be a great player, it just means that he’s at his best working in a team.
BigNik Bond and Tuffey are supposed to be strike bowlers, but haven’t done much so far. Both of them enjoyed skittling out the Indian batsmen but seem to be finding the going a bit tougher against the in form teams.
South Africa faces a real chance of being eliminated, something very few would have predicted.
Anyone who’s confused as to how New Zealand’s target was calculated after the rain can read up on the Duckworth Lewis system here.
I still disagree. Just because you’re used as a strike bowler doesn’t make you one. The Bleck Ceps do remarkably well with their currently limited resources, but like Australia in the mid-'80s, they’re hamstrung by needing to use players in roles for which they’re not well-suited.
And yeah, the Boks aren’t doing all that well. It looks like you can only afford two losses, and they’ve had both of them already. If they do get through, they’ll start a win or two off-the-pace in the Super Six, meaning they’d probably face Australia in the semi.
So who are the likely qualifiers?
Australia, India and Pakistan are still looking the goods in Pool A - Zimbabwe will still have to beat one of them to get through (assuming Australia don’t forfeit - if they do, the Zimbobs are through, probably in place of India), and England would have to beat two, which I don’t see happening. Maybe one, but I think they need those forfeited points too badly.
Pool B, though… It’s now much of a muchness. The Sri Lankans are looking good, but if they lose to South Africa…
Let’s say Sri Lanka, the Windies and South Africa - just - over NZ, whose forfeit will (also) cost them qualification.
It looks like England have finally figured out this “run-rate” deal–win as fast as you can against the minnows. It might not be enough, though.
Awesome win for the Kiwis. Fleming played the innings he’s been capable of his whole career, at exactly the right moment.
Man, am I ever jealous of you guys who are actually seeing this, live or on TV. Internet radio isn’t the tide-over I thought it would be. 
Duke, I’ve tried to e-mail you, but it doesn’t seem to be going through.
If you have access to something that can play PAL tapes, I can organise to tape some of the matches and ship them over. It’d take a couple of weeks to get there, so don’t hold your breath and try to ignore the scores, but I’m sure we can work something out.
Cricket fans should all have Kiren Tanna’s Duckworth Lewis calculator on hand. Just download and unzip. You will know over by over who has the upper hand.
I had worked out a whole P2P video streaming & sharing tool, but then I realized someone would have to actually code the damn thing and get users :smack:
True. Someone tell this to the clueless Indian captain. Make that ex-captain (I hope).
…out of interest, how do you define a strike bowler? Bond say’s he is…
http://www.hindustantimes.com/htcricket/14_117100.htm
…this article defines him as one…
http://www.tssonnet.com/tss2540/25400170.htm
and here http://www.espnstar.com/jsp/cda/cricket/aid=450113cricket_newsdetail.html
and here
http://onesport.nzoom.com/sport_detail/0,1278,158623-2-17,00.html
and here
http://www.hindustantimes.com/htcricket/74_000100040009,118541.htm
…just because you don’t think he’s a strike bowler, doesn’t mean that he isn’t one. Who do you think are the strike bowlers world-wide, and do you think that the Avalon social grade B’s fastest and most successful bowler shouldn’t be considered the main strike bowler of that team?
The strike bowler is a bowler who can be relied upon to take wickets at the level at which they play, regardless of opposition. They usually bowl aggressively, and often get hit around, tending to give up more runs. Quicks who act in this role usually don’t get as many overs as others, usually (but not always) because they bowl faster, use more energy, and also because they tend not to be as effective if they’re overused.
Taking the Australian team as an example, McGrath, Warne and Lee all have claims to being genuine strike bowlers. Gillespie and Bichel are more effective (than Lee, certainly - McGrath’s pretty freaky) at putting the ball in the spot, and far more effective at restricting and frustrating batsmen, but they don’t have Lee’s fire or McGrath’s ability to deceive.
Often a quick may start as a strike bowler and, as they get older, move to another role in the team. Donald had to do this as he lost his pace, as did Wasim Akram. Both great bowlers, but neither are the threat they once were.
Spinners who can act in this capacity are rare. Warne can do it. Muralitharan can do it, if you don’t mind the fact that he throws his off-spinners. MacGill - in my opinion a far better traditional spinner than Warne - and Hogg can’t do it, but it doesn’t make them less important in a team make-up. It just means that they have a different role to play and a different mindset when they bowl.
Medium pacers usually don’t fall into this category. They’re far better at tying down and frustrating batsmen than actually making the breakthrough.
A strike bowler is the guy you throw the ball to when you need to break a partnership, or when you need quick wickets. The Windies had four during their run in the '80s, but ran out of them when Ambrose and Walsh ran out of steam at the end of their careers. Again, nothing against Dillon, Collins, Hooper or Nixon Maclean (who, in my opinion, has far more talent than we’ve seen), but they don’t have the strike power of Marshall, Holding and Garner.
Now sure, it’s a relative term, in that someone who can act as a strike bowler in park cricket (or first class cricket) isn’t necessarily going to be able to do the same on the international stage, and many times someone who can strike at a lower level can’t do so at the next level up. But it’s a step from there to say that the person who fills that role is suited to it. On their most recent tour England’s striker, Gough, was injured. Jones, who looked like stepping up in replacement, was out injured. The guy who took the role, Caddick, was overmatched. While Caddick is a fine bowler in terms of nagging and worrying batsmen, you can’t toss the ball to him and expect him to give you back two scalps. He works best with someone at the other end spearing the ball in and causing more worry than his partners were actually providing.
In any team - even one that’s not of the top flight - someone has to take more wickets than anyone else. Witness McDermott and Hughes for Australia some years back. It doesn’t mean that they’re a world-class striker - it just means that the team has limited resources and someone not best suited is filling their shoes.
Recently wisdom has said that one-day sides don’t need genuine strikers. The idea is to prevent batsmen from scoring quickly, and that giving up runs to take wickets isn’t worth the trade. Over the past few years NZ has had a large amount of success with this tactic, playing medium pacers and keeping them on a good line. I think that, given Australia’s success in using Lee to take wickets at the start of the innings and being willing to have a team at 4/90 after 15 if it means that they’re all out for under 200 may mean that the tide is starting to turn.
…do you think that Bond is a medium pacer?
http://www.geocities.com/farrukh_ahmed/fastestbowler1.htm
…I would say that Bond is arguably the third fastest bowler in the world-and he is New Zealand’s current leading strike bowler. I honestly can’t see how you could see it any other way, sorry.
…oh, and sorry for the hijack…back to the world cup again!!!
Damn our spam filter at work…it’s already killed off a few legitimate work enquiries too. I’m going to change my e-mail, so try me again!