Interesting to hear Rashid Khan's reaction. Furious at first, but then reacting by gathering the team together and taking over as de facto captain. I'm not quite sure why he isn't the official captain tbh.I'm pretty sure you don't get to drop 5 catches and still beat NZ. The bowlers should be giving the fielders a good kick in the bollocks, about now.
Happy to be proved wrong on this.
The bowlers should be giving the fielders a good kick in the bollocks, about now.
Interesting to hear Rashid Khan's reaction. Furious at first, but then reacting by gathering the team together and taking over as de facto captain. I'm not quite sure why he isn't the official captain tbh.
But yeah, can't do that. They had been doing really well, squeezing NZ.
Team is based entirely outside Afghanistan. I think I'm right in saying that Trott has never set foot in the country.Jonathan Trott must have the weirdest job in world sport. Do tou think he has meetings with whoever pays the bills?
Jonathan Trott must have the weirdest job in world sport. Do tou think he has meetings with whoever pays the bills?
Team is based entirely outside Afghanistan. I think I'm right in saying that Trott has never set foot in the country.
Team is based entirely outside Afghanistan. I think I'm right in saying that Trott has never set foot in the country.
India.Where do they train?
Had some hopes for this briefly but it's another one destined for the planetgeli shit list.
That was very one-sided.Haven't really been following them but are they all fairly crap? Even England v Afghanistan or was that a bit one-sided too?
Where do they train?
Do the Taliban just let Trott cruise in and out of Afghanistan?
I haven't made this up btw. I read it somewhere, just can't remember where. Afghanistan are essentially a team in exile.I think I'm right in saying that Trott has never set foot in the country.
Would be amazing to one day have a post-Taliban test match in Kabul.
It's weird how T20 resets your expectations. When it started up I thought that's bound to be shite and will just be batters thrashing away, poor cricket etc. Only really watched it in the last couple of years and I've come round to it, though the 100 is a pointless reworking of T20 and rather silly. But then you get into this World Cup and start thinking, 'gee, 50 overs, that goes on forever. Might dip in and out, but I'm not sitting there for hours'.
Geoff Lemon was making this point on commentary today. This format is designed so that four 'big' teams are guaranteed to be in the semi-finals and all the big teams get a big set of matches. We'll have the odd shock result but none of the unfancied teams stands a chance in a league. He contrasts it with the football World Cup with its jeopardy for the big teams right from the start, where the organisers are pleased when one or two big teams take the early plane home. In cricket, all too often, this is seen as a calamity rather than good for the game. In this tournament, the winners will play 11 games in total, but nobody will play fewer than nine. That's a commercial consideration rather than a sporting one.You're right to draw psychological connections between T20 and intolerance of 50 overs. 50 overs was made for knockout cricket, not stupid leagues where NRR may come into play.
I used to love those 70s one day competitions and the JPL was a fixture in our house on a Sunday afternoon. Ditto the Gillette Cup.... pure nostalgia for a Lancs fan.... David Hughes belting 24 in an over in the gloom. But yeah, the JPL I'm ancient enough to remember that there was a 15 yard limit on the bowler's run up for the first few years, presumably to save time (Peter Lever used to pretty much start his run at the Pavillion steps). Not quite sure when it was abandoned, but it used to leave fast bowlers doing a virtual jig on the spot before launchingtheir paltry run up.You're right to draw psychological connections between T20 and intolerance of 50 overs. 50 overs was made for knockout cricket, not stupid leagues where NRR may come into play. And they've also messed up with the powerplay rules which just encourage knocking the ball around for singles in the middle overs (yes, boring, but because it's a predictable set pattern).
I'm tempted to wonder if they shouldn't have just gone with John Player League stylee 40 overs and then we may never even have got T20.
Geoff Lemon was making this point on commentary today. This format is designed so that four 'big' teams are guaranteed to be in the semi-finals and all the big teams get a big set of matches. We'll have the odd shock result but none of the unfancied teams stands a chance in a league. He contrasts it with the football World Cup with its jeopardy for the big teams right from the start, where the organisers are pleased when one or two big teams take the early plane home. In cricket, all too often, this is seen as a calamity rather than good for the game. In this tournament, the winners will play 11 games in total, but nobody will play fewer than nine. That's a commercial consideration rather than a sporting one.
It doesn't always work perfectly. West Indies weren't supposed to fail to qualify. They're putting that right next time with two groups of seven followed by a super-six. There's a chance a smaller team could make the super-six, but not a huge one. But again, knockouts will be limited to semis and a final. Just three knockout matches in total, with a format designed to maximise the chances of the richest teams to make it through.
India looking good against Bangladesh. Wouldn't surprise me if they won every game.