My biological and work clock won’t handle T20s that start at 12:30am local time so didn’t see much of the match.
Switched on just as Azam got out and saw the rest of the PAK innings only.
Gee Australia bowled well. Zampa was exemplary.
Apart from 2 two full tosses (1 by Cummings, 1 by Hazelwood) which got twatted, called no balls and then the free hits were sent into orbit to boot) AUS looked like holding then to under 160. Then, with the target looking like high 180s was possible Cummins bowled a clinically superb 19th over conceding just 2 singles and a legbye and kills the momentum. In the 20th Starc, who is often lethal with his yorkers, just missed his length twice to Fakhar landing so deep in his crease. The rest of the over was immaculate in the circumstances. The crowd is going collectively off their nuts based on the last 2 sixes but PAK are 10-15 short.
Turned on the TMS with the review of ENG v NZ on the drive to work.
Aggers does his introduction in a podcast going out minutes after the game concluded and (despite describing himself as being disconsolate) with absolutely professional, disinterested voice. He’s a bloody good broadcaster for the game.
NZ batted slower and got themselves in a deeper hole.
Getting out of it was something special.
From what I’ve read/heard AUS went harder, earlier and despite losing wickets were closer to parity before the last onslaught, so a more classically controlled chase.
AUS v NZ in a game of two-up.
Place your bets, come in spinner, back the head. Take home the silver.
Really? Both were in pretty much the exact same position with 5 overs remaining. If anything, NZ had far more momentum, since Australia were strangled from overs 11-15.
Oh, I “tuned in” to both matches at the end of the 16th over of the chase (I had meetings each day that ended at 12:30pm Eastern US).
I think Australia needed 50 off 24 and New Zealand 59 off 24. I think the winning percentages on CricInfo were something like 35% for Australia and 16% for New Zealand at that stage. Of course that wouldn’t take into account momentum.
The following pair of graph shows the critical difference.
Australia were actually ahead of Pakistan throughout the middle overs though losing wickets and barely fell behind.
The Kiwis were always behind and only got their noses in front in the middle of their final surge.
(from cricinfo)
It is pretty astounding how much of a role winning the toss has played in determining the outcome of this tournament. With apologies to Namibia and Scotland, but excluding their games from this analysis, only 5 games among the top 10 teams were won “by runs”. 3 games at Sharjah (WI-Bang, Eng-SL, and SA-Eng) and 2 games at Abu Dhabi (SL- WI and Ind-Afg). None at Dubai.
Based on articles I’ve read, it’s becoming both increasingly common and increasingly successful to chose to chase.
What seems odd to this cricket-newbie American is that it was ever the other way around. In the games I’m most familiar with - football (specifically the Texas shootout tie-breaker) and baseball, you always want to be scoring second. Better to know what you’ve got to get when you have “control” over getting it. I believe soccer PK shootouts follow the same philosophy - make them kick first if you can.
Back in the 1980s unless there was something expected to happen to the pitch that would induce you otherwise you would generally insert the opposition in an ODI.
I didn’t follow cricket for a good decade and a half, but by the 2000s batting first had become the default choice.
Was listening to Peter Lalor recently on his podcast and the discussion on experience leading from Dan Christen’s (a guy who has won way more than his fair share of T20 titles ) comment that “old guys win stuff”
Pat Cummins made his T20I debut in 2011 vs SA.
He was the youngest guy in the squad at 18, which is unremarkable in itself.
In 2021, aged 28 he is still the youngest guy in the AUS T20IWC squad
There aren’t many spring chickens in the squads of NZ, ENG, or IND and WI was a farewell tour.
T20 seems to game devised for the youngsters to watch and the geezers to play.
And here we go. AUS win the toss, and obviously take the ball. However, interesting twist that 2 of the last 3 games on this specific “championship” pitch were won by the team batting first. I guess it hasn’t been used yet in this tournament.
Yes, seemed pretty straightforward for them in the end. You could put it down to big game nerves, or peaking at the right time but for whatever reason, it just never seemed difficult.
The quality of bowling was top-notch in the 1990’s. Every team had a tearaway paceman and a spinner. You batted first, gave your bowlers a target they thought they could defend.
