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?
Fair enough, you would say that SA are traditionally the better cricketing nation though.
New Zealand were never considered good enough to win the tournament before this. Even '92, their best performance before this, came as a surprise to everyone.
You are making nonsense arguments now because you have taken a stand that South Africa didn't choke.
Your definition of choking is messed up.
I take it you clearly remember all those semis NZ were knocked out in? Did they mess up simple chances towards the end of games or were they just simply outplayed?
Disappointing from our stand point but an excellent game overall. Well done to New Zealand I would say.
Regardless of choking or not, that was a fantastic game of cricket for a neutral. Do feel sorry for South Africa as the rain came down at the worst possible time when they were batting.
Congrats to NZ for getting to the final.
I want to say I hope the semi final on Thursday is as good, but honestly, I hope its not and its one sided to India, lol.
Congrats to NZ for getting to the final.
I want to say I hope the semi final on Thursday is as good, but honestly, I hope its not and its one sided to India, lol.
Our 1992 team was crazy good, but most of our world cup teams over the past 2 decades have had quite major flaws, and most world cups I think we've done better our quality on paper.
He is an Arsenal fan. Does it surprise you?
Internet hardman alert.
Who cares if they choked, people are just using that word today because it's already associated with South Africa, and to have a giggle to themselves.
It is what it is, a brilliant game of cricket won by New Zealand.
It is what it is, a brilliant game of cricket won by New Zealand.
Tbf, while I would agree usually, India have been fantastic at the MCG in the 2 matches they have played there so far. That's where the beat SA and they just won the QF at the MCG against Bangladesh.
What is wrong with you lot? I asked a simple question, just give a straight answer or feck off. I haven't taken any stand about anyone - just wondering why SA are called chokers when England or NZ are not. Anyone wants to give a simple answer that makes sense - I'll gladly accept your arguments. 
The SA players seem to be greatly affected by the choker tag which is why it's easy to target them for it. Even in the recent World T20 they choked. It's a hard tag to shake it seems.What is wrong with you lot? I asked a simple question, just give a straight answer or feck off. I haven't taken any stand about anyone - just wondering why SA are called chokers when England or NZ are not. Anyone wants to give a simple answer that makes sense - I'll gladly accept your arguments.
No one thought they were crazy good before the tournament. It was your innovations with Greatbach and opening the bowling with Deepak Patel that took everyone by surprise. You guys exceeded expectations.
The Blackcaps have never been one of favorites before this world cup.
I'd reckon in 1999 they were the best team in the World Cup. They just choked at the time when it mattered the most.
I think its cause SA is generally and consistently ranked top1-2 in the world in both formats. For a long time as well.What is wrong with you lot? I asked a simple question, just give a straight answer or feck off. I haven't taken any stand about anyone - just wondering why SA are called chokers when England or NZ are not. Anyone wants to give a simple answer that makes sense - I'll gladly accept your arguments.
It's been explained in this thread, you just aren't listening. Losing a semi final doesn't make you a choker.What is wrong with you lot? I asked a simple question, just give a straight answer or feck off. I haven't taken any stand about anyone - just wondering why SA are called chokers when England or NZ are not. Anyone wants to give a simple answer that makes sense - I'll gladly accept your arguments.
Partnership between Anderson and Elliot did this for NZ.
I agree.. SA would have won this without the rain IMO. So they can bemoan that part of the luck but I still think they let the game slip once Guptil got run out. After that they could neither squeeze the runs or take wickets/
All I know is, this is definitely NZ's best ever team at a WC and they have delivered (and will be in with a strong chance for a first WC trophy). You can't say the same for SA.
I've only been watching cricket since 1999 but my dad said he had a great feeling about our 1992 team. But sure we exceeded expectations, I would still agree with that.
As for this world cup, we definitely weren't favourites. South Africa and Australia were more fancied before the tournament started.
I have explained NZ in my earlier posts.What is wrong with you lot? I asked a simple question, just give a straight answer or feck off. I haven't taken any stand about anyone - just wondering why SA are called chokers when England or NZ are not. Anyone wants to give a simple answer that makes sense - I'll gladly accept your arguments.
As for England they have basically been shit since '92. Haven't won a world cup knock-out game since then.
The tag is associated with South Africa as they lose crucial moments in the crucial matches. They can't handle the pressure.
Fair enough. 1992 was a disappointment though, but yeah point taken.
True that. I don't remember but didn't England win a T20 World Cup? They actually have a trophy to show if that's the case.
Did you actually watch that game or just checked the scorecard? Oz did exceptionally well in that game and IIRC Warne took 4 wickets. It was Klusner who pulled back the match for SA and even in the final over it went as 50/50 with 9 needed of 6 balls and only 1 wicket left. Neither time, today or that day, either side was the better one. It was too close to call and losing your cool at the key moments decide the game then. As it did today, just like that day.
Holy shit how many pages this thread since they've been mentioned.
Surprised they bowled Duminy those overs so early on. If it was NZ in the field they would have brought Boult back into the attack and tried to get through the middle order. SA had chances later on to take control, especially after Ross Taylor's wicket, but couldn't do it.
Yes, in 2010.
I think it might be a disadvantage too. Mishits go for six at Eden Park and other New Zealand grounds, which won't happen at the MCG. It's something they'll have to getused to quickly. Won't be a problem while bowling though.
Did NZ lose any semi where they bottle up a regulation skill at a key moment? I don't think so. Even in 92, Inzi played a blinder to knock them out. In 99 Shoib Akhtar was in form, in 2011 they were not even good enough for semis so got easily beaten by Lanka. Same in 2007.What is wrong with you lot? I asked a simple question, just give a straight answer or feck off. I haven't taken any stand about anyone - just wondering why SA are called chokers when England or NZ are not. Anyone wants to give a simple answer that makes sense - I'll gladly accept your arguments.
'92 just clicked for you. Those innovations worked and then there was no stopping you. I loved that NZ team and have since rooted for you guys in neutral games.
I think with the form you guys entered the tournament, you were one of the favorites.
Really really feel for Morkel here. He was the one who pulled it back superbly towards the end and the catch off him should have been taken. Bowled brilliantly right through
Thing is to label South Africa as chokers is really unnecessarily cruel. Keep in mind that the players in this team are not the ones who played in 1999. So it's not the same side essentially. We're also forgetting that with about 6 overs to go NZ were cruising but SA fought back and got themselves a fighting chance. Yes, we bottled key moments but I really think it's incredibly unfair and cruel to call us chokers. I absolutely hate the term.
Fair enough. Also genuinely thank you for explaining again.
As for England, I was thinking back to that Gatting reverse sweep. They've got the monkey off their backs with the T20 WC though.
I did watch the match. Those last two run outs did them in. Klusener held his nerve and pulled them back, it's a shame others couldn't do the same.The part in bold is true for every game though.
Psychologically chasing 350 is difficult,any batsmen getting in after a wkt loss would be put under huge pressure.
Another thing about this chokers tag is that the only other time I can think of us bottling it was 99. Can't recall any other matches. In those other matches where we lost we just got outplayed.
When you guys miscalculated the DL method.
There was that D/L miscalculation in one of the World Cups too. And in 1992 that fecking rain rule did you guys in. I wouldn't call either of those incidents "choking" if I'm honest. But hey it's just easier to just go with stereotypes right?
Come on.. QF against NZ in 2011 was a clear choke job.
Man that's harsh. That had nothing to do with players bottling it.