I honestly think having Stokes in the squad was a disastrous decision on multiple fronts. As was having McCullum lurking around for some reason (was he working for NZ tv or something). If you're going to have two distinct squads then have two distinct squads. I wasn't joking when I said I think the Test team would have made a better fist of this, from management to captaincy to personnel. I can't see any reason why they couldn't have done that given how long there is between Test series.
Cricket World Cup 2023
- Thread starter QueenOfGoths
- Start date
Idaho
blah blah blah
I agree. I think the team and management got attached to magical thinking - that we had to somehow bottle the spirit of the recent run of success and not be practical and make sane choices in assembling the squad.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
S.Africa have cocked this up. They said they'd be going after India's 5 bowler policy - but it's India who are going after their's. I don't understand the love for Ngidi, he always goes for runs when I watch him. And relying on Jansen in the powerplay has spectacularly backfired. Also, Iyer is batting. Ngidi has him out 4 times in 30 balls. So they bowl Jansen instead.
And now they've been forced to use Markram as a 6th bowler.
And Kohli is doing what Kohli does.
And now they've been forced to use Markram as a 6th bowler.
And Kohli is doing what Kohli does.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
And, surprise surprise, Ngidi gets Iyer.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I don't see how the collective failure of the entire batting order can be blamed on Stokes. He's struggled, but not as much as others. The only batter who has had an even half-decent tournament is Malan. Everybody else has failed to some degree, including all the allrounders, who have contributed next to nothing with the bat. Buttler has been a disaster with the bat, so has Bairstow, so has Root, so has Livingstone, so has Moeen. Woakes, Curran and Willey can all bat a bit but have done little. Rashid and Wood have contributed with the bat almost as much as most of the top order, and the fact that both of them have batted every match tells its own story.
Bairstow's dismissal yesterday summed up the whole thing really. First ball is a wild delivery way down leg and he gets out to it. Shows a scrambled mind. Their minds are collectively scrambled.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Bit old-school from Kohli today, playing an anchor century. We'll see if he's judged it correctly. Probably has. India now five down with a couple of overs left. They can't afford to lose early wickets with their setup. 320 probably a very good score.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Turned out to be massive waste of Stokes' time as well, when he should have been getting treatment and resting up. Who could have predicted.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I think we can answer that question now. SA being thrashed.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
We need a handicap system. India only get two stumps to aim at?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Just shoot Kohli and Bumrah.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Right now for the tournament, Shami has 16 wickets @ 6.56 (average, not economy rate). Strike rate 9.3. That's 2 wickets every 3 overs. 
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
And that is what is meant to be the best possible final?
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
I'm not a massive cricket watcher, so this is a bit random, but could Kohli perhaps be seen as a bit selfish in this world cup? I mean century after century, veneration by the Indian fans, breaking records... this is not a point many people are going to share. Even more so as his 100 today anchored the side to another massive win. Just that I've seen a couple of matches where getting to 100 seems more important to him than pushing the score on? Couldn't imagine Ben Stokes doing the same, for example, Maybe they need to do a Boycott and drop him for slow play. 
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Tbf in the other games, he was angling for a century with the game already won. And he steered India almost all the way home in a tricky situation vs Aus.I'm not a massive cricket watcher, so this is a bit random, but could Kohli perhaps be seen as a bit selfish in this world cup? I mean century after century, veneration by the Indian fans, breaking records... this is not a point many people are going to share. Even more so as his 100 today anchored the side to another massive win. Just that I've seen a couple of matches where getting to 100 seems more important to him than pushing the score on? Couldn't imagine Ben Stokes doing the same, for example, Maybe they need to do a Boycott and drop him for slow play.
In t20, I think the question can be asked. But in f50, you need players who will knuckle down in tricky situations and take responsibility. At least one, preferably two. That's Kohli.
Last edited:
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
I'm not a massive cricket watcher, so this is a bit random, but could Kohli perhaps be seen as a bit selfish in this world cup? I mean century after century, veneration by the Indian fans, breaking records... this is not a point many people are going to share. Even more so as his 100 today anchored the side to another massive win. Just that I've seen a couple of matches where getting to 100 seems more important to him than pushing the score on? Couldn't imagine Ben Stokes doing the same, for example, Maybe they need to do a Boycott and drop him for slow play.
Rohit gives him the chance to do this with his quick (and high) scoring. And you just can't knock a man who comes in at number 3 behind a successful opening pair and constantly scores 100. It wins you games. It also shows how the Indian team gel. Rohit complementing Kohli. It goes through the team, batting and bowling.
It'll actually be a travesty if they don't win it.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Fair enough and I really don't know enough about his career/role in the team. JUst seemed, even today, that once they got past that sticky bit in the middle he could have pushed the score on a bit (given the wickets they had in hand).
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Does he do that Ben Stokes thing, starting slow when the team are in trouble and then speeding up at the risk of his own wicket to get a total/achieve a run chase? Genuine question, as they say.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Also india only bat to seven. Boring I know but once the power play is done and the balls are soft there are still plenty of overs to bat.
Other teams have regularly run out of wickets this tourno. Meanwhile Siraj has played every game and hasn't batted yet.
Other teams have regularly run out of wickets this tourno. Meanwhile Siraj has played every game and hasn't batted yet.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
He generally starts carefully. He plays himself in. He doesn't do/isn't comparable to the Ben Stokes thing. Stokes fails lots of times. Kohli's numbers are ridiculous. As LBJ just said, India don't bat deep. The batters are there to bat. He bats. Effectively. For the team, I assure you.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
He's very different from Stokes, though. As geli said, he's kind of 'old-fashioned' as he will give himself time at the start. But tbh Stokes sometimes isn't playing himself in. He's just stuck. Then maybe it clicks or maybe it doesn't.
Kohli also isn't a big hitter like Stokes. He plays conventional cricket shots mostly and hits fours rather than sixes. As I said above, in t20, that can be questioned sometimes - sometimes Kohli can bat too long in a t20 innings. But it's not an issue in 50 overs. And the other big difference between Kohli and Stokes is that Kohli rarely gets stuck. He's very good at pushing for singles and runs hard to turn ones into twos. You need to be on your toes batting with Kohli. It's a strength of his game.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
As for how India could lose this, following the injury to Hardik Pandya they've switched from 8 batters and 6 bowlers to 7 batters and 5 bowlers. Their top order is in amazing form, so getting six wickets to expose the tail is not easy. But if one of the five bowlers breaks down, they have very little else. Kohli's right-arm filth? So if, say, Bumrah limps off half-way through his second over, they could have a problem.
QueenOfGoths
Fuck you Dave!
Timed out....I have never seen that before, I was vaguely aware of the rule due to the "How many ways can you get out in cricket?" type questions but..first player in international cricket to be timed out!!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
wtf
He had the wrong helmet. Honest mistake.
Fuck's sake, Bangladesh, you don't appeal for that. Really fucking poor.
He had the wrong helmet. Honest mistake.
Fuck's sake, Bangladesh, you don't appeal for that. Really fucking poor.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Fucking farcical. That's going to cause a row. Matthews, of course, could have stopped this by facing one ball without a helmet. But Bangladesh should never have appealed.
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
Not allowed.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
What's not allowed? He was facing slow left arm bowling. Of course it's allowed.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
He was facing a spinner so yes, could/should have just faced a ball, but as pointed out on cricinfo, there is such a fuss about concussion protocols nowadays that he was well within his rights to say that he needed to fix the helmet and could not face a ball until he had on safety grounds.
Not only should Bangladesh not have appealed, the umpires should not have given him out. He had equipment failure.
Not only should Bangladesh not have appealed, the umpires should not have given him out. He had equipment failure.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Fucking disgrace to appeal for that.
