|
Post Reply 
|
Page 123 7> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Delicious Digg Facebook Furl Google Boomarks Google Buzz MySpace Newsvine reddit StumbleUpon Translate Twitter Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks Topic Search  Topic Options
|
-JP- 
Manager 
Joined: 21 January 2005 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6232 |
 Post Options
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Group A DiscussionPosted: 17 January 2011 at 1:07pm |
|
Please use this thread for discussion of matches/squads/players in Group A - which comprises Australia, Canada, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Kenya and New Zealand.
|
|
 |
|
|
spin wizard
Opening Bowler 
The world’s next great spinner Joined: 21 January 2006 Location: Saint Vincent Online Status: Offline Posts: 9453 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 January 2011 at 12:21am |
|
Would anyone be surprise if Pakistan and Australia don't make it through? *disclaimer* Please note that spin wizard has been on a more cheerful note these past few days so comments might be influenced by that.
|
|
|
In troubled times, being philosophical helps a great deal, it helps you to remain sane and not do any further damage.
|
|
|
|
|
Sledger
Captain
Dickenson can marry my mother-in-law ! Joined: 08 August 2005 Location: South Africa Online Status: Offline Posts: 15694 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 January 2011 at 5:29am |
|
This world cup could be more tiresome than the last one. A full month of round robin matches just to see Zimbabwe, Canada and Kenya fall by the wayside.
|
|
|
Mental disintegration works for me !!
|
|
|
|
|
zuhair_abbasi
Number 3 Batsman
Joined: 19 December 2006 Location: Pakistan Online Status: Offline Posts: 6202 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 January 2011 at 5:57am |
|
If any team, it would be NZL to go out for Zim.
|
|
|
|
|
cric_master
Trialist 
Joined: 15 January 2011 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 January 2011 at 9:04am |
|
The final 15 for Australia 2011 world cup are:
Ricky Ponting Brad Haddin Shane Watson Michael Clarke Michael Hussey David Hussey Cameron White Tim Paine Steve Smith John Hastings Mitchel Johnson Nathan Hauritz Brett Lee Shaun Tait Doug Bollinger |
|
|
|
|
zuhair_abbasi
Number 3 Batsman
Joined: 19 December 2006 Location: Pakistan Online Status: Offline Posts: 6202 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 January 2011 at 12:12pm |
|
Pakistan's Squad: Shahid Afridi, Misbah-ul-Haq, Mohammad Hafeez, Kamran Akmal (wk), Younis Khan, Asad Shafiq, Umar Akmal, Abdul Razzaq, Abdur Rehman, Saeed Ajmal, Shoaib Akhtar, Umar Gul, Wahab Riaz, Sohail Tanvir, Ahmed Shehzad.
Horrible to leave out Yousuf and Malik - Pakistan will pay the price. They are not going beyond the QFs with this team. |
|
|
|
|
kirankri
Wicket-Keeper
Joined: 21 November 2007 Location: India Online Status: Offline Posts: 1088 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 January 2011 at 12:26pm |
Don't worry Zuhair. Our team will accompany them.
|
|
|
|
|
zuhair_abbasi
Number 3 Batsman
Joined: 19 December 2006 Location: Pakistan Online Status: Offline Posts: 6202 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 January 2011 at 12:41pm |
|
That will be a huge consolation just like the 2007 WC. And I would not be surprised if the same boys spoil the Indian party this time too.
Edited by zuhair_abbasi - 18 January 2011 at 12:42pm |
|
|
|
|
sam_ahmed
Middle-Order Batsman
Joined: 27 November 2007 Location: India Online Status: Offline Posts: 4363 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 January 2011 at 5:31pm |
|
Malik and Yousuf were never expected to be in Zuhair, I think it is a good team, the bowlers will surprise a lot of people, while batting remains a concern. A lot will depend on senior members like Younus, Misbah, Afridi, Kamran and Razzaq and hopefully the youngsters will contribute esp Umer Akmal.
I agree with Sledge, this format is quite pathetic, A month of round robin to eliminate 3 minnow teams!
|
|
|
God is a better planner... so whenever u'r plan fails, cheer up... God has a better plan for you!
|
|
|
|
|
zuhair_abbasi
Number 3 Batsman
Joined: 19 December 2006 Location: Pakistan Online Status: Offline Posts: 6202 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 January 2011 at 6:10am |
|
It should just have been semi finals straight after the round matches giving meaning to every single match even the ones including the minnows.
|
|
|
|
|
Sledger
Captain
Dickenson can marry my mother-in-law ! Joined: 08 August 2005 Location: South Africa Online Status: Offline Posts: 15694 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 January 2011 at 7:13am |
|
Yes mate , I think all cricket lovers agree too. Your point about the strength vs strength round robin games is spot on - they would be much more intense affairs if only 2 sides qualified for what would be the semifinals.
As usual it's an ICC directive where money comes before the cricket watching public . Th early games could be one long yawn. |
|
|
Mental disintegration works for me !!
|
|
|
|
|
zuhair_abbasi
Number 3 Batsman
Joined: 19 December 2006 Location: Pakistan Online Status: Offline Posts: 6202 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 January 2011 at 8:18am |
|
And it is just 4 extra matches that will kill the contest and would also mean one bad day for a good team can end the hopes. This is where I liked the 92 WC format. The EC could have been 47 matches instead of the 51 and could have been really interesting throughout. the QF thing sort of negates the superior team advantage for my likings.
|
|
|
|
|
Amal
Extra Cover
Joined: 13 March 2008 Location: Pakistan Online Status: Offline Posts: 507 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 January 2011 at 8:22am |
|
What? there will be QF's too. Pathetic
|
|
|
Cricket for peace!
|
|
|
|
|
zuhair_abbasi
Number 3 Batsman
Joined: 19 December 2006 Location: Pakistan Online Status: Offline Posts: 6202 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 January 2011 at 8:28am |
|
Pathetic is the word Amal. But all what the ICC cares about is money and more money.
|
|
|
|
|
MalhotraRaj84
Opener
Joined: 13 April 2009 Location: India1 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2204 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 January 2011 at 9:05pm |
|
Ya ICC is making money , and I feel there is nothing wrong in it (as long as everything is leagal).
When there are less matches - There can be first round exits like last time around (when again format is blamed)
If there are less teams in WC - Then ICC is blamed that it is not trying spread the game
If Super Six is there - Carry forward points make the third teams literally out.(again format is blamed)
If it more like KO - What is the difference between Champions tropy and WC?
If QF is there - Again it is blamed
Guys, what should ICC do. No matter what they do it is criticized.
|
|
|
Race to No 1 again ... started!
|
|
|
|
|
MalhotraRaj84
Opener
Joined: 13 April 2009 Location: India1 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2204 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 January 2011 at 9:15pm |
|
I feel this format is good too. (A-1) will play (B-4) , which means a stronger team plays a considerable weaker team. Yes, there is a chance of (B-4)winning, but that is the beauty of sport.
Weaker teams can even win in Semis or Finals.
Apart from '75 (WI),'79 (WI),2003(AUS) and 2007(AUS) WC, I don't think any of the other world cup winning teams truly deserved to win.
Edited by MalhotraRaj84 - 19 January 2011 at 9:19pm |
|
|
Race to No 1 again ... started!
|
|
|
|
|
Sledger
Captain
Dickenson can marry my mother-in-law ! Joined: 08 August 2005 Location: South Africa Online Status: Offline Posts: 15694 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 January 2011 at 6:40am |
|
Raj , I have no problem with the round robin format where all teams , including the minnows play 6 matches. What zuhair , Amal and I have problems with is that 4 teams qualify from each group. Make that only 2 and you'll see seriously intense cricket when the big sides meet in the first phase. With 4 sides qualifying a team can probably lose 3 matches and still makes the next phase - that level of success doesn't warrant progression .
Edited by Sledger - 20 January 2011 at 6:41am |
|
|
Mental disintegration works for me !!
|
|
|
|
|
zuhair_abbasi
Number 3 Batsman
Joined: 19 December 2006 Location: Pakistan Online Status: Offline Posts: 6202 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 January 2011 at 7:45am |
|
And you think Aussies did not deserve to win the 99 WC Raj? They win 7 consecutive games if I recall correctly. That's good enough to be the champion.
|
|
|
|
|
Sledger
Captain
Dickenson can marry my mother-in-law ! Joined: 08 August 2005 Location: South Africa Online Status: Offline Posts: 15694 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 January 2011 at 12:02pm |
|
Australia won in 1999 because SA really messed up mate - but that doesn't detract from the way Australia made the most of their good fortune and then played seriously fine cricket to go on and win it.
|
|
|
Mental disintegration works for me !!
|
|
|
|
|
zuhair_abbasi
Number 3 Batsman
Joined: 19 December 2006 Location: Pakistan Online Status: Offline Posts: 6202 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 January 2011 at 12:08pm |
|
But it wasn't like they did not deserve to go the distance. It was not like the way Pakistan and India won their titles.
|
|
|
|
|
MalhotraRaj84
Opener
Joined: 13 April 2009 Location: India1 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2204 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 January 2011 at 4:09pm |
|
If you look at '99 WC, SA won all the matches in group except against ZIM which was the last match when SA had qualified to next round. [Only one loss in group stage].Even in Super six , they won against Pak and NZ , and a very narrow loss to Aus.[two losses by the time they reached Semis].
SA victories were all convincing ones.
Even Aus had two losses (in group stage) before Semis and so did SA, So nothing seperating them in terms of loss, but in terms of overall supramacy on opponents SA were well and truly ahead. Yes, Aus had high pressure games to play , but they had luxuary of facing ZIM as one of the opponent in super six.
Enter Semis , it was again a closest of the match ever in the history and mind you SA did not lose the match. The foolish rule that Aus had beaten them in Super six sailed them to next round.
In '99 Aus was my fav team courtesy Steve Waugh and I liked SA outfit too (because of Klusner and Donald).
It would have been fitting if it was Aus-SA final, and SA winning it as they were better team than Aus, ironically it did not happen.
Summary of all the matches ,
|
|
|
Race to No 1 again ... started!
|
|
|
|
|
sam_ahmed
Middle-Order Batsman
Joined: 27 November 2007 Location: India Online Status: Offline Posts: 4363 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 January 2011 at 5:45pm |
|
saying a WC winning team doesn't deserve to win it is a ridiculous statement. WC is not only about winning all round robin games and saying we are the best, it is a lot more than that. You need mental strength, you need that self belief and you need to rise to the occasion even if you are not doing well initially.
AUS could so easily have had a bad KO game in the last 3 WC's but there is a reason why they haven't, RSA and NZL could so easily have made it to atleast one WC final but there is a reason why they haven't. SLN lost the toss on an eden gardens wicket which was impossible to bat on in the 2nd innings, there is a reason why Azhar still allowed SLN to bat first, he didn't believe his bowlers can win him the game.
Also if we look at the WC winning captains, all of them had that determination to win, I think it was michael holding who said, "Imran believed and so he made PAK to believe". Edited by sam_ahmed - 20 January 2011 at 5:50pm |
|
|
God is a better planner... so whenever u'r plan fails, cheer up... God has a better plan for you!
|
|
|
|
|
spin wizard
Opening Bowler
The world’s next great spinner Joined: 21 January 2006 Location: Saint Vincent Online Status: Offline Posts: 9453 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 January 2011 at 5:54pm |
|
I agree with you guys, Australia in 99 had more to do with SA (mainly an Alan Donald panic really). And SA were probably playing the best ODI cricket of their time, with Lance Klusener in scintillating form.
|
|
|
In troubled times, being philosophical helps a great deal, it helps you to remain sane and not do any further damage.
|
|
|
|
|
MalhotraRaj84
Opener
Joined: 13 April 2009 Location: India1 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2204 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 January 2011 at 6:09pm |
|
There is a huge gulf between India '83 and Pakistan '92 victory.They cannot be compared Zuhair. '83 WC Analysis : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Cricket_World_Cup Anyone who has doubts about India, can have a look at India's group matches.They had beaten WI once and lost once,they got thrashed by Aus once,but they returned thrashing back at them. In Semis England was the worthy team,but India won that day.The same happened in Finals too,WI should have won but they did not.No help whatsoever from rain/absurd rule/sharing points or anything like that. If you examine carefully, At the end of tournament WI,ENG and IND all had lost 2 matches each.I don't say it means India were deserved winners, but comparing India's 1983 hard earned victory to 1992 Pakistan does not go well. I might be wrong , I have not witnessed it, all analysis from history archives and old video footage. '92 WC Analysis : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Cricket_World_Cup 1. The table explains everything Pak/Aus and WI all together.Just that the 1st March game Eng Vs Pak gave them crucial 1 point that mattered in the end [Pak 74 all out;Eng 24/1 in 8 overs - Match Abondoned and Points shared].Well without this crucial 1 point Pakistan might have been just above India at 6th place as their run rate would have fallen further down if that match would have been completed.Oops India had a pathetic WC. 2. 18th March, NZ having won all the matches (7 out of 7 in a row) had to play thier final dead rubber match against Pakistan.How motivated they were?Then, I remember Ken Rutherford's comment about NZ being in a position to choose thier opponents in Final.(I think it was rumour and I don't buy that, not sure of this) In semis and finals, Pakistan played like true champions and won it.On the other side Rain robbed SA's berth in final.SA was very very strong team throught the tournament, twice they lost to England both the time DuckWorth Lewis had spoiled the party in denying a strong team in final. I might be wrong, The great Wasim Akram might have ran through English batting order on 1st March game and won it for Pakistan fair and square, In any case, Equating '83 and '92 does not seem fair.In '83 India forced their way to win the world cup against all odds on sheer weight of thier performance, while in '92, there was lot of undeniable luck .. You are the best judge. |
|
|
Race to No 1 again ... started!
|
|
|
|
|
sam_ahmed
Middle-Order Batsman
Joined: 27 November 2007 Location: India Online Status: Offline Posts: 4363 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 January 2011 at 2:45am |
|
oh! ok, so going by that analysis, I think PAK should have won the WC in 1999 and may be even in 1987?
Now we have new WC winners guys.
|
|
|
God is a better planner... so whenever u'r plan fails, cheer up... God has a better plan for you!
|
|
|
|
|
MalhotraRaj84
Opener
Joined: 13 April 2009 Location: India1 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2204 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 January 2011 at 6:21am |
In '99 : I have already explained it was SA, Aus then Pak. Pakistan had lost two game in Super six in addition to 1 loss in group stage. Edited by MalhotraRaj84 - 22 January 2011 at 6:22am |
|
|
Race to No 1 again ... started!
|
|
|
|
|
sam_ahmed
Middle-Order Batsman
Joined: 27 November 2007 Location: India Online Status: Offline Posts: 4363 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 January 2011 at 10:54am |
|
that loss in group stage was because of lack of concentration, just like NZL against PAK in 92 you know, again both losses in supersix were because of lack of concentration, they carried forward 4 points you know and despite losing 2 supersix games they still topped the super six stage. (again just like NZL in 92)
|
|
|
God is a better planner... so whenever u'r plan fails, cheer up... God has a better plan for you!
|
|
|
|
|
MalhotraRaj84
Opener
Joined: 13 April 2009 Location: India1 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2204 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 January 2011 at 11:12am |
Yes, in '87 they deserved to win just like India.I have posted that. Are you trying to find some fault in my analysis.Go ahead sam, I will be happy if you can find a bug in my algorithm
 . |
|
|
Race to No 1 again ... started!
|
|
|
|
|
MalhotraRaj84
Opener
Joined: 13 April 2009 Location: India1 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2204 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 12 February 2011 at 3:41am |
The good thing about this QFs is our Group B (the stronger group, where good teams like IND,SA,WI and ENG), still 4 teams will have a crack at QFs.
The bad thing is some weak undeserving team will not be filtered out
 . |
|
|
Race to No 1 again ... started!
|
|
|
|
|
GreenCap
Square Leg
Joined: 19 February 2007 Location: Pakistan Online Status: Offline Posts: 265 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 February 2011 at 5:49pm |
|
Pak can win the WC if they want to win it. But i still doubt whether all the 11 guys have the same captain.
Edited by GreenCap - 14 February 2011 at 5:50pm |
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 7> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Group A Discussion