ICC Cricket World Cup 2019

Varun

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
46,780
Location
Mumbai
Shankar should be dropped for Pant. He's literally useless.

Have a fixed top 3 and then depending on the situation, float Jadav, Dhoni, Pant and Hardik.
 

Moby

Dick
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
51,356
Location
Barcelona, Catalunya
Shankar should be dropped for Pant. He's literally useless.

Have a fixed top 3 and then depending on the situation, float Jadav, Dhoni, Pant and Hardik.
So far it didn't matter since the top 3 made 200+ and Hardik could just come up. It's only when the top order fails all hell breaks lose, but that is the weakness we have that we are incredibly reliant on the top 3 (now top 2, dont trust Rahul whatsoever). Any match that fails, we will be in trouble.
 

zing

Zingle balls
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
13,818
That's a way too optimistic way to think about it. Even Kohli said we were 20-30 short of a par score. Anyone else than Afghanistan would have chased this down. No matter how slow the pitch, no excuse to score just score 49 off last 10 overs. Shankar has shown nothing as an ODI batsman to deserve a spot at 4. If you rate him for first class performances etc it is another thing but he does not even has a ODI 50 as of now. Like @Moby said there are no good solutions to this problem as of now since we completely bundled the last year or so. Don't want to rehash that old debate so for now it will be basically down to giving Shankar more chances and hoping he comes good. With Jadhav, I think people underrate him as a batsman. He kinda got stuck today against spinners but in the past he has played well for us. Not using him as a spinner does reduces his value though. Worst case scenario for us is that Shankar couple of times more and then we barely have enough time to blood in Pant or try Kartikl before the semis.
We bungled number four for two years like you said. It's between Shankar and Pant, both can go wrong, both need to be blooded. If you've picked a guy, you need to stick with him. Couple of innings isn't enough data to make a change.

We are saying the same thing.

Mine was a general comment as well - there are people in this thread who didn't want Rohit and dhawan at the start of the tournament. There are people still complaining about the pace we play at in the power play. Jadhav is a reliable player, but we have people complaining about him as well.
 

VP

Full Member
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
11,557
That's fine and far less important than having the best teams qualify for the final stage. This isn't a movie going on where thrill and upsets need to be catered for.
Then why even have a tournament? let's ditch the whole thing and have semifinals based on odi rankings.
 

crappycraperson

"Resident cricket authority"
Scout
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
38,188
Location
Interweb
It is pretty horrible because lot of games have nothing at stake
You are overstating format's impact for teams like Afghanistan. Even in a group of 7 teams, even if a team loses first first 3-5 matches they are out of contention more or less. So best case scenario is some upset victory. If anything this format allows team to qualify despite a bad start. Pakistan for example qualified in 1992 from exact same position they are in now. Problem with format is that some games towards the end lose value. Schedulers also fecked up by putting some big games between higher ranked teams at a late stage.
 

Moby

Dick
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
51,356
Location
Barcelona, Catalunya
Then why even have a tournament? let's ditch the whole thing and have semifinals based on odi rankings.
I said the best performing teams make through in this tournament, nothing to do with the rankings. The 4 teams that will go through to the semis will be the best 4 teams in the WC and won't be there down to a single upset or fluke.
 

crappycraperson

"Resident cricket authority"
Scout
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
38,188
Location
Interweb
We bungled number four for two years like you said. It's between Shankar and Pant, both can go wrong, both need to be blooded. If you've picked a guy, you need to stick with him. Couple of innings isn't enough data to make a change.

We are saying the same thing.

Mine was a general comment as well - there are people in this thread who didn't want Rohit and dhawan at the start of the tournament. There are people still complaining about the pace we play at in the power play. Jadhav is a reliable player, but we have people complaining about him as well.
It is mostly one poster who complains about all this.....

With Shankar it is kind of a strange situation. He was picked on the back of very few innings so it can go in any direction and it comes down if you back him to make it or not. Personally I don't think he will come good this WC and more importantly think a player like Pant coming good would increase odds of us winning much more given the nature of most of the pitches in England.
 

crappycraperson

"Resident cricket authority"
Scout
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
38,188
Location
Interweb
WI NZ shaping up to be a good game. They need a bug hundred from either Gayle or Hetymer though. Gayle dropped! :lol:
 

KM

I’m afraid I just blue myself
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
49,749
Gayle dropped twice in an over!
 

RedTiger

Half mast
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
23,044
Location
Beside the sea-side, Beside the sea.
The problem with this ridiculous format is that it is impossible for smaller teams to progress. Even if Afghanistan had managed to win this, it wouldn't have made much difference to overall standings.. Made this game far less tense than it could've been
I'm firmly on the side of associate teams on this. It should have been 16 sides with the inclusion of Zimbabwe, Ireland, Netherlands, Kenya, Nepal and PNG.

Saying that though, I still think that this format is good as it really does allow the best teams to rise to the top.
 

VP

Full Member
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
11,557
You are overstating format's impact for teams like Afghanistan. Even in a group of 7 teams, even if a team loses first first 3-5 matches they are out of contention more or less. So best case scenario is some upset victory. If anything this format allows team to qualify despite a bad start. Pakistan for example qualified in 1992 from exact same position they are in now. Problem with format is that some games towards the end lose value. Schedulers also fecked up by putting some big games between higher ranked teams at a late stage.
I'm firmly on the side of associate teams on this. It should have been 16 sides with the inclusion of Zimbabwe, Ireland, Netherlands, Kenya, Nepal and PNG.

Saying that though, I still think that this format is good as it really does allow the best teams to rise to the top.
I think 16 teams in 4 groups followed by quarters would work the best. Every game would matter, genuine hope for smaller countries but enough opportunities for quality to shine.
 

Di Maria's angel

Captain of Moanchester United
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
14,797
Location
London
I think 16 teams in 4 groups followed by quarters would work the best. Every game would matter, genuine hope for smaller countries but enough opportunities for quality to shine.
I don't even think there are 16 countries that play the sport.
 

crappycraperson

"Resident cricket authority"
Scout
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
38,188
Location
Interweb
I think 16 teams in 4 groups followed by quarters would work the best. Every game would matter, genuine hope for smaller countries but enough opportunities for quality to shine.
2007 had that format (except Super 8s instead of quarters) and it didn't end well.
 

Di Maria's angel

Captain of Moanchester United
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
14,797
Location
London
We bungled number four for two years like you said. It's between Shankar and Pant, both can go wrong, both need to be blooded. If you've picked a guy, you need to stick with him. Couple of innings isn't enough data to make a change.

We are saying the same thing.

Mine was a general comment as well - there are people in this thread who didn't want Rohit and dhawan at the start of the tournament. There are people still complaining about the pace we play at in the power play. Jadhav is a reliable player, but we have people complaining about him as well.
I honestly think Rohit could work at 4 - obviously not now but we could always have had a different set of openers.
 

zing

Zingle balls
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
13,818
I honestly think Rohit could work at 4 - obviously not now but we could always have had a different set of openers.
I doubt it. Rahul is the next best cab off the rank and he's playing like dogshit.

Hetmyer is hitting some beautiful shots. Anyone watching?
 

AshRK

Full Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
12,194
Location
Canada
West indies just know how to play t20. Should stick to that. Ridiculously bad.
 

Di Maria's angel

Captain of Moanchester United
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
14,797
Location
London
I doubt it. Rahul is the next best cab off the rank and he's playing like dogshit.

Hetmyer is hitting some beautiful shots. Anyone watching?
Rahuls got two hard working 30s and a slowish 50 - hes not been dogshit.
 

RussellWilson

2020 NFC Fantasy League winner
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
1,306
And another one trying to smash it out the ground. Do they have somewhere to be?
 

ha_rooney

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
38,843
Windies still have a slight chance to do this...
 

AJ10

Full Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2018
Messages
2,498
Windies could have won this if they didn't want to finish within 30 overs.