Would be a better time to make that point had the two host nations not just battled over less than 200.
ICC Cricket World Cup 2015
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Indeed.
I'm not sure that rings true across ALL limited overs cricket, but obviously it's a good point when you're reviewing the matches between test and non-test playing nations.
There's some huge mismatches obviously, but when we get down to the nitty gritty I'm sure the bowlers will come back to the fore.
There's some huge mismatches obviously, but when we get down to the nitty gritty I'm sure the bowlers will come back to the fore.
I remember when we all wanted to be Dennis Lillee, these cycles happen and there is always some malcontent claiming the sky is falling.
It is stacked too much in favour of the batsmen. It's clear as day and night.
The introduction of two match balls has basically killed off reverse swing.
The Powerplays (I actually think this has more merits than not...but still).
The removal of another fielder from the opening 10-15 overs (started in 2012 I think).
Smaller boundaries.
Considering the match of the century (SAF-Aus 2006) occurred before any of these took place shows that you can have great games in 50 over cricket without making the odds more favourable for the batsmen. Even the World Cup in '99, which was probably the best cricket World Cup was before all of these changes occurred. It's a symptom of the '20/20 constant entertainment in every delivery' being moved into 50 over.
The introduction of two match balls has basically killed off reverse swing.
The Powerplays (I actually think this has more merits than not...but still).
The removal of another fielder from the opening 10-15 overs (started in 2012 I think).
Smaller boundaries.
Considering the match of the century (SAF-Aus 2006) occurred before any of these took place shows that you can have great games in 50 over cricket without making the odds more favourable for the batsmen. Even the World Cup in '99, which was probably the best cricket World Cup was before all of these changes occurred. It's a symptom of the '20/20 constant entertainment in every delivery' being moved into 50 over.
Great World Cup so far. Loving the 400+ scores. Surely India will join the party soon enough too?
I wouldn't say that, the boundaries have been pulled in a long way.
Why don't teams load up with 11 specialist batsmen and use part time bowlers to defend mammoth totals? Think about it...
Well if and it's a big IF England sneak through, we will probably face India in the QTR finals so There's India scoring 450.
Haven't India been doing that for years now? 9 batsmen and 2 seamers, the rest part timers.
Day 19: Bangladesh vs Scotland
Scotland batting very well here, if they win it could benefit England
Coetzer on for a double ton here, hope no one has him in their team. Need to get the spinners on, seamers taking a hammering.
Great knock from Coetzer. Some terrific shots so far.
It was between him and Mashrafe. I chose the wrong guy.
I really don't get how a cricket mad nation of 150 million people has only produced one top level cricketer (Shakib).
Really?. Its not that hard to work out.
Poverty? It's not that much poorer than Pakistan.
Will the Scots do the English a massive favor here?
Agree wholeheartedly.
Think these two need to do most of the work for Bangladesh. Don't fancy the rest of them.
It's a bit like England, having invented the game and being shit at it.
Look at Australia - only Hazelwood is a designated bowler as both Starc and Johnson can hold a bat.
However I guess technically those three are the bowlers, whilst we have several part-timers in: Marsh, Faulkner, Maxwell, Smith, Clarke, Watson (when picked).
Preferable to being the second largest country in the world, more obsessed with cricket than any other, and still crap.
Wait... why are we doing this?
Did WI once played 10 batsman and one bowler in 2007 WC and still got out for 130 odd runs.
This stupid competition of catching the ball in the crowd is the most inane thing I've heard.
I don't think that gets near explaining the gap. They financial one is small, the physical differences don't really excuse much apart from deficiency in fast bowling and they've been a full member for a good while, now. Every now and then a young player comes in, shows considerable talent, and then they fall away (with one exception). The set up has to be hugely flawed to not be getting more out of what's available.
No Bangladesh player has ever scored a century at the World Cup. Interesting.
The financial one is huge. Its not how much players are paid etc but the lack of finance to enable decent infrastructure from grassroots all the way through to senior cricket. Lack of money for decent training facilities, coach education, equipment etc. Add in the countries history with respect to war, famine, weather disasters etc over the course of the last 40 years and its simply not surprising. And also the fact they have only been a democratic nation for the last 22 or so years which adds stability to the social systems. No brainer really
According to Wiki, Pakistan is 148th in GDP(per capita), Bangladesh 162nd.
Indian is not the second largest country in the world. You need geography lessons.
Current World Champions, Holders of the Champions Trophy, Finalist in the last T20 WC. Crap!
Behave. You know I meant popuation.
They are a bit crap though. Being good a while ago doesn't change that and they're ranked 7th in the form of the game you've chosen not to mention there.
I'm still a bit confused as to how this conversation started, to be honest.
Behave. You know I meant popuation.
They are a bit crap though. Being good a while ago doesn't change that and they're ranked 7th in the form of the game you've chosen not to mention there.
I'm still a bit confused as to how this conversation started, to be honest.
We don't care about test cricket. We are nation of limited over format cricketers and lovers.
Death to test cricket!
I know, and it pains me more than anything else. We are a bit shit.
Bangladesh-England is a huge game now. Theoretically, Bangladesh can lose it and still go through if they beat New Zealand.
Good grief
And what were those numbers 30 years ago?
Do you have any understanding of how long it takes to build quality into a nations sporting abilities?
Im going to guess that you are under 30. Are you in any way aware of all the various trials and tribulations Bangladesh has been through in the last 40 or more years?.
Last edited:
Out of the 138 countries the IMF has 1985 estimates for, Pakistan are 110th, Bangladesh 126th.
Your ignorance is staggering.
Thank god that Bangladesh have New Zealand in their last game, assuming that result goes to plan if England win our last two games we will qualify.