• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Cricket World Cup 2007

#321
Bruce Lindfield said:
Well if Jayawardene plays like he did in the semi - no risks at the start, then incredible acceleration at the end - that should work.

Also - nobody seems to be able to live with Malinga and Murali...?

I'm surprised that a lot of teams have had trouble with Brad Hogg - I can see the Sri Lankans playing him with relish!

For me the key is whether they can stand up to the pace of Tait and not collapse - if so, they can win! :)
Click to expand...
I can't believe I'm finally agreeing with you on something Bruce :)

I'm not sure about Tait is the handfull you think he is though. He's too expensive to be considered dangerous. I must admit he's performed better so far than I thought he would so who knows what'll happen on the day?
 
#322
The ICC agree with me that this tournament has gone on too long and has been a bit of a let-down or dampsquib - they are going to make the next one shorter!


Speed admits World Cup too long

ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed has admitted to the BBC that the 2007 Cricket World Cup has been too long.
The tournament, which began on 13 March, finishes on Saturday, 28 April.

"We listen to criticism, and there has been a lot of it from people saying it's been too long - so we'll look to make it shorter," he told Five Live.

"We'll seek to reduce this 47-day World Cup by seven or 10 days, and hopefully we'll get it down to somewhere between five and six weeks next time."
 
#323
Yep I heard they're talking about changing the format so it resembles the Soccer world cup. ie The second round becomes a knockout round. Not only will it make the tournament shorter, it'll stop teams like SL from resting key players in games they don't feel they need to win.

I'm cool with that. Actually I think it's a great idea.
 
#327
Komakino said:
Jesus, it's true what they say about you Aussies having a chip on each shoulder, you're so bloody cynical :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He he he he he - gave me a good laugh there mate - I'd almost forgotten we won 5-0! :cool:

Did anyone else see Shaun Pollock (name?) get out in the semi?
I swear he was on the brink of crying! The bottom lip was starting to quiver, the eyes were welling up, ears goes red, couldn't get off the ground quick enough............I almost felt sorry for the saffer (almost;) )

The pitch for the final is a lot bouncier by reputation, than most W.I. grounds - and should favour the fast bowlers and anyone who flights the ball well - like Hoggy and Murali.
Could be a low-scoring game from what the experts are saying.:eek:
 
#330
WOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOO
Nicely played Aussie team.

But...um....yeah - that game, once the Gilly onslaught GOT STARTED was great - but when he got out - it all kinda went downhill. You can't blame the players tho, especially not Gilly - he tried his best to avoid the damp squib.:ninja:
Having a final decided by Duckworth-Lewis (?name) really sucked.
I'm not sure why they didn't just play 50 overs first - then another 50 the following day..........I don't get it.

Anyways....does anyone know where the next World Cups' gonna be?
 
#332
Maurice Carr said:
Congratulations Aussie on your winning the ICC World Cup 2007

You played well and deserved the win.

Mo
Click to expand...
Thanks Mo! The record books will show we did it easily. Personally I'll remember it as one where we very nearly shot ourselves in the foot with selections. Luckily our batsmen played well enough that our bowling weaknesses weren't a factor. I can't believe Hussey barely even got a bat... he'd been our run-machine going into this tournament but was barely needed thanks to the great form of our top order.

Brucelindfield said:
I'm not so sure - it was total farce and typical of a very poor world cup - that it ended in impossible light in a delayed match that gave a hugely unfair advantage to one team, who hardly needed it!

A damp squib has never semeed a more appropriate description!
Click to expand...
:D Oh man this is getting funnier by the day.....

Oh ok so the rain delay system is a problem now. Funnily enough, I don't remember the English whinging about when it helped them beat Australia recently? Hmmm.... come to think of it, I don't remember us Aussies whingin about it at the time either. Nice try, But you'll have to try harder :D

Duckworth / Lewis favours the team batting first, no doubt about it. However if you look at the systems that preceed it, they were far worse. In time they'll refine the formula but how exactly do you make if an equal fight when conditions aren't eaual? They'll never get in 100% perfect. So if it looks like rain, win the toss and bat - everyone knows that.

smo said:
I'm not sure why they didn't just play 50 overs first - then another 50 the following day..........I don't get it.
Click to expand...
The conditions may vary too much. I've already acknowledged you can't ever get the condition 100% the same for both teams when foul weather is involved, but spreading the two innings over two days could see one team batting in cold drizzle and the other batting in 40 degree sauna.
 
#333
From the BBC

Speed sorry for World Cup farce

Speed faces the media to apologise for the World Cup final error
International Cricket Council chief executive Malcolm Speed has apologised for the umpire error which led to the farcical ending of the World Cup.

Speed acknowledged the potential public-relations damage of the bizarre ending.

"It's not a good image for the game, it was unfortunate - a very sad way to finish the World Cup."


He will get no argument on that score from Sri Lanka coach Moody - who hinted too that he would like to see extra provision for the availability of a full 100 overs in the event of bad weather, rather than always trying to shoe-horn a result into one day.

"It is disappointing that you spend two months playing in a World Cup to get to a final and, firstly, you can't play 100 overs to complete the match," said Moody.

"That seems a bit of a puzzle itself; potentially we could have played a Twenty20 for the World Cup final.

"I personally don't think that is quite fitting for the event - particularly after not only the two months in the Caribbean but the two years you have spent preparing for it."
 
#334
And then this morning we learn that Bob Woolmer was poisoned to incapacitate him, before being strangled! :(

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6606175.stm

It's really been a terrible "World Cup" :(

Too long and boring
Too many meaningless matches
No crowds or atmosphere due to overpricing
Over-regulation
Marred by tragedy of Bob Woolmer's horrific murder
Little real competition and huge under-achievement of teams like Pakistan, SA and India
Farcical final that dragged on meaning nobody watched!

Could it have been any worse? :hmm:
 
#337
Bruce Lindfield said:
It's really been a terrible "World Cup" :(
Farcical final that dragged on meaning nobody watched!
Could it have been any worse? :hmm:
Click to expand...

I don't agree with you all the way there mate - For one, watching 149 runs off only 100-something balls is pretty bloody amazing to watch, no matter who it is. If you mean that watching a normal batting display following that is comparatively boring - well, okay - fair enough.
And secondly, seeing some of the minnow teams knocking out the bigger teams is what the world cup is all about.

I do agree the world cup was farcical on the large part - but that has nothing to do with the cricket being played.

Anyways - thanks for the cricket talk fella's - I'll now have to wait for the next ashes!;)
smo
 
#338
I meant that the whole world cup tournament was boring and too long - not just the final - which was more of a farce! :p

I only saw one good, close game, with a great atmosphere in the whole thing - England vs West Indies.

I can remember other tournaments where there were lots of games where it came down to the last over and last wicket!

But the lack of atmosphere was what was really disappointing....?
 
#339
smo said:
I don't agree with you all the way there mate - For one, watching 149 runs off only 100-something balls is pretty bloody amazing to watch, no matter who it is. If you mean that watching a normal batting display following that is comparatively boring - well, okay - fair enough.
And secondly, seeing some of the minnow teams knocking out the bigger teams is what the world cup is all about.

I do agree the world cup was farcical on the large part - but that has nothing to do with the cricket being played.

Anyways - thanks for the cricket talk fella's - I'll now have to wait for the next ashes!;)
smo
Click to expand...

I agree partly with both of you:

I think the cricket has been great: The 149 in the final was awesome; 4 wickets in 4 balls from (insert name here, I've forgotten); Ireland beating Pakistan; the England SL and England WI games that were so close...I think the cricket has been very good. My only complaint cricket wise is that no one came close to challenging Australia, but I certainly can't hold that against them!

On the other hand, the organisation has been poor: The final WAS farcical with all the on/off and bad light etc; 7 weeks is far too long for a tournament, any casual observers would have lost interest; the high ticket prices meant we lost the carnival atmosphere we wanted because locals couldn't get in.

Then there's the death of Bob Woolmer to give the whole thing a sad overtone.

If I had to grade this tournament I'd grade it C - could do better.

Well done Australia though. Hopefully next time there'll be more of a challenge.
 
#340
Phew!

I am glad we can all agree to a larger extent :hyper:

All in all , a very average series with some great highlights here and there, some upsets of the big boys by the minnows and then some disappointments plus a tragedy.

Roll on the Ashes - althouh we have nothing to do with it as a participating team.

Mo
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back