Cricket Official Thread: We love super overs

Who is gonna win the cup?


  • Total voters
    150
  • Poll closed .

Zapages

Member
Oct 28, 2017
82
Voted for Pakistan, but realistically I believe england and India have the best chance...
 

Hamchan

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
2,596
England looking good.

SA need Steyn back ASAP.

I picked Australia since I’m Australian, but honestly England are the clear favourites for once and Australia are the dark horses. Australia only getting serious about ODIs before world cups is a meme but considering how awful we were in 2018, and now we’re on a long winning streak.... meme might be true.
 

jayu26

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,972
There is Cricket World Cup this year! Man I have fallen out of touch with this sport.
This is India’s weakest batting and strongest bowling lineup in WC history so it’s up in the air
India! Strong blowing lineup! What crazy universe have I fallen into?

Edit: Also England are favourites? What the hell man?

Edit2: So they reduced the number of teams and still ended up with that schedule? They make it so hard to follow it again.
 
Last edited:

rafiki

Member
May 18, 2019
512
Australia, NZ has good bowling. India is mixed bag this time around. Definitely going to be following.
 

Puroresu_kid

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,722
I had to vote West indies. More in hope than anything even though we don't do too bad in the shorter format.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,893
There is Cricket World Cup this year! Man I have fallen out of touch with this sport.

India! Strong blowing lineup! What crazy universe have I fallen into?

Edit: Also England are favourites? What the hell man?

Edit2: So they reduced the number of teams and still ended up with that schedule? They make it so hard to follow it again.
England are absolute beasts now, which is why they won't win. After the last World Cup they just decided their strategy was to bat down to 10 or 11 and try to see if they can score 500 runs in a game.

It's pretty fucking incredible and if it wasn't England then this would be everybody's second team because its so fun to watch.

I want to see Afghanistan take a couple of big scalps.

Edit: and yeah, fuck the ICC. Just let the diddy teams play for fucks sake. Every other sport is expanding and this sport is the only one actively trying to make their World Cup smaller, all so the big moneymaking teams like India don't get knocked out early. Which is why we have this stupid fucking schedule where each team plays a million games which makes a 10 team tournament last forever.

Cricket is so fucking backwards sometimes it pisses me off.
 
Last edited:

Window

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,923
This really snuck up on me. Had no idea it was happening this month.

Watching the SA vs England match now, and lol they're playing songs from like 5 years ago.
 

OtherWorldly

Member
Dec 3, 2018
2,136
The problem with cricket today is it is too batting friendly, it’s discouraging For fast bowling to become a norm again. Haven’t you noticed that not a single fast bowler exists who can consistently bowl at 150 kph? There used to be plenty in previous years but teams have focused on line and length and accuracy over speed due to batting advantages

They need to regulate the bat sizes back to what they were in the 90s. Lower order batsmen shouldn’t be able to flick a ball to six because now the entire bat is a sweet spot . Batting should be about skills
They need to reallow proper bouncers
They need to use one ball per innings to allow reverse swing
They need to get rid of some power plays

It needs to go back to being a battle between bat and ball instead of 2 batting sides battling each other
 

Window

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,923
The problem with cricket today is it is too batting friendly, it’s discouraging For fast bowling to become a norm again. Haven’t you noticed that not a single fast bowler exists who can consistently bowl at 150 kph? There used to be plenty in previous years but teams have focused on line and length and accuracy over speed due to batting advantages

They need to regulate the bat sizes back to what they were in the 90s. Lower order batsmen shouldn’t be able to flick a ball to six because now the entire bat is a sweet spot . Batting should be about skills
They need to reallow proper bouncers
They need to use one ball per innings to allow reverse swing
They need to get rid of some power plays

It needs to go back to being a battle between bat and ball instead of 2 batting sides battling each other
I don't think this is true in test cricket anymore. Things are more even now than they were in the 00s and early 10s. ODIs definitely edge more towards T20 nowadays though. It feels like an obsolete game now tbh with how closely it resembles T20. No longer do we get the high stakes tri-series of old.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,893
The problem with cricket today is it is too batting friendly, it’s discouraging For fast bowling to become a norm again. Haven’t you noticed that not a single fast bowler exists who can consistently bowl at 150 kph? There used to be plenty in previous years but teams have focused on line and length and accuracy over speed due to batting advantages

They need to regulate the bat sizes back to what they were in the 90s
They need to reallow proper bouncers
They need to use one ball per innings to allow reverse swing
They need to get rid of some power plays

It needs to go back to being a battle between bat and ball instead of 2 batting sides battling each other
They have already regulated bat sizes and it's made no difference because how big the edges are makes no difference. Its only something that idiot commentators talk about all the time because they are idiots.

Albert Trott hit a six over the top of the Lords Pavilion with a bat that was the thickness of a toothpick, was pressed to within an inch of its life and had probably been soaked in a vat of Linseed oil for an entire week.

Nobody else has done it in 120 years despite all the massive bats that make everything go for six.

People are hitting lots of sixes now because they practice range hitting and they actually try and hit sixes nowadays.

The boundaries should go back where possible depending on the ground but bat sizes is tilting at windmills.

As for the pace of bowlers, there's never been more than two or three properly rapid bowlers around at one time. Shoaib, Lee and then add Shane Bond to that list if you want. Sami was quick as hell too but was a bit rubbish. That was probably unique in the history of cricket as a time with more than a couple of 95mph international bowlers around at the same time.

Then we had Shaun Tait for a couple of years, Mitch Johnson for a while, Fidel Edwards was pretty rapid too but we've never seen anything like that before or since so it's not logical to expect that to be the norm or the current state to be am aberration.

Jofra Archer might ramp it up when England bowl, you might be satisfied if you want to see some decent pace.

I think I agree about the two new balls thing but the 1992 World Cup had a new ball at each end and with the amount that balls get hit into the stands nowadays they will get scuffed up pretty quickly anyway.

Basically what I am saying it you need to relax and just appreciate how lovely Moeen Ali and Chris Woakes are.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,893
I don't think this is true in test cricket anymore. Things are more even now than they were in the 00s and early 10s. ODIs definitely edge more towards T20 nowadays though. It feels like an obsolete game now tbh with how closely it resembles T20. No longer do we get the high stakes tri-series of old.
Pitches make the biggest difference, you're more likely to see 450 in this World Cup than you are to see 350 in the UAE.
 

Window

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,923
Pitches make the biggest difference, you're more likely to see 450 in this World Cup than you are to see 350 in the UAE.
That and fielding restrictions/power play make a difference in ODIs. And the new ball option halfway through the game. Test cricket and old ODIs were a slower game because of the different pitches, fielding and the ball in play. But yeah players are a lot more willing and skilled at playing the big shots nowadays too.
 

Working yet?

Member
Oct 31, 2017
1,768
I'm calling it: If South Africa doesn't come out of this victorious, I'll eat a tart. Don't think I won't do it!
 

Working yet?

Member
Oct 31, 2017
1,768
Saffers have done a great job of grabbing a wicket just when England might have looked to push into top gear.

England gonna end up with 300 on a 350 surface.
I must admit that I haven't been watching the match as I should have. I'm sure they're missing the tumultuous screeches of support directed at my screen. That said, it seems to be going well for them.
 

Window

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,923
Looking at SA's batting...and I just found out AB's retired. They're gonna miss him dearly.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,893
Good job from South Africa.

I want to see some pace from Jofra to rattle the top order and Amla to roll back the years with a vintage innings.
 

mclem

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,217
It strikes me that runs that include world cups are a different beast than ones which don't, because in normal ODI play you'll often be playing a series against the same opponents multiple times in a row whereas with the WC you're going to be playing different opponents each match. Wonder if Australia's run includes that years' World Cup?

Edit: Don't know if it does, but they did have an extended run of 300+-scoring innings in that WC - which looks like it actually ended due to rain and them batting second giving them a target of only just over 100, making it impossible to get 300 anyhow, which I guess is another quirk of this sort of stat: If you're batting second you can only get as much as the opposition does!
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,893
It strikes me that runs that include world cups are a different beast than ones which don't, because in normal ODI play you'll often be playing a series against the same opponents multiple times in a row whereas with the WC you're going to be playing different opponents each match. Wonder if Australia's run includes that years' World Cup?

Edit: Don't know if it does, but they did have an extended run of 300+-scoring innings in that WC - which looks like it actually ended due to rain and them batting second giving them a target of only just over 100, making it impossible to get 300 anyhow, which I guess is another quirk of this sort of stat: If you're batting second you can only get as much as the opposition does!
I looked it up myself and the first two games were on a tour of new Zealand and the next 4 were in the World Cup, albeit including Scotland and Netherlands.

It could have been a longer streak but they bowled first and dismissed Bangladesh for 100-odd in what would have been the 7th game
 

mclem

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,217
I looked it up myself and the first two games were on a tour of new Zealand and the next 4 were in the World Cup, albeit including Scotland and Netherlands.

It could have been a longer streak but they bowled first and dismissed Bangladesh for 100-odd in what would have been the 7th game
Yeah, that's the one I was referring to at the end; that game was also a shortened 22-over affair (they didn't actually dismiss Bangladesh; they got six wickets in that 22 overs). But yeah a stat like that rather gets in the way of this sort of achievement when the run is ended through no fault of their own!
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,893
Yeah, that's the one I was referring to at the end; that game was also a shortened 22-over affair (they didn't actually dismiss Bangladesh; they got six wickets in that 22 overs). But yeah a stat like that rather gets in the way of this sort of achievement when the run is ended through no fault of their own!
Sorry, didn't see the edit and looking it up on my phone was annoying enough that I didn't check the scorecards.

The good thing about England's approach of batting down to #11 is that the bowling is never good enough to stop the opposition scoring 300 so this record will fall no matter who wins the toss.