Cricket

[Stan]

Great effort from them. Missed most of their chase so to come back to them only losing by 48 runs was pleasing to see - glad they gave it a proper fight. Likeable side so I hope they continue to improve and be a threat to big sides. For a country of their size they've done so well to be a decent force in international cricket.

[Toinho]

1 hour ago, Stan said:

Great effort from them. Missed most of their chase so to come back to them only losing by 48 runs was pleasing to see - glad they gave it a proper fight. Likeable side so I hope they continue to improve and be a threat to big sides. For a country of their size they've done so well to be a decent force in international cricket.

Yeah they’ve only got 165 million people wtf you on about 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Toinho

[Stan]

12 minutes ago, Toinho said:

Yeah they’ve only got 165 million people wtf you on about 

Wtf you serious?! 

Genuinely had no idea it was that many

 

[Toinho]

Just now, Stan said:

Wtf you serious?! 

Genuinely had no idea it was that many

 

Yeah I googled for accuracy but knew there were at least 100million. But in fairness the ODI cricket side has come along way.

[Devil-Dick Willie]

The test side has as well. went 1-1 with Australia last series.

[Toinho]

8 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

The test side has as well. went 1-1 with Australia last series.

True forgot about that 

[IgnisExcubitor]

Yep, huge population and lot of it spills into our country. We have similar connect to their people, just like how US has to Mexico - minus the drugs. A major chunk of the maids and labourers working here are Bangladeshis. 

Also, their T-20 league is quality. Has helped them find and nurture new talents. One of them is Shabbir, who failed yesterday but is talked about very highly. 

On another note, Dhawan is officially out of the World Cup. Pant joins the squad. It would be interesting to see if they select him in the side. It would be harsh on Shankar. 

Edited June 21, 2019 by IgnisExcubitor

[Stan]

1 hour ago, IgnisExcubitor said:

Yep, huge population and lot of it spills into our country. We have similar connect to their people, just like how US has to Mexico - minus the drugs. A major chunk of the maids and labourers working here are Bangladeshis. 

Also, their T-20 league is quality. Has helped them find and nurture new talents. One of them is Shabbir, who failed yesterday but is talked about very highly. 

On another note, Dhawan is officially out of the World Cup. Pant joins the squad. It would be interesting to see if they select him in the side. It would be harsh on Shankar. 

I reckon Pant will play against Sri Lanka & Afghanistan. Would be surprised if he's brought straight in. 

[6666]

Sri Lanka pull off an upset. Thought their total was too low for England not to beat. Malinga still great, even as a fat bastard. 

[Stan]

Wow, England. How have you not won that? 

Too used to batting first setting huge totals. Not enough batting experience down the order because all the batting is done further up in the big totals? Perhaps not enough experience chasing? 

The way some of those wickets were lost was silly. Woakes and Ali/Rashid (?) especially. 

Throws it open a bit but not by much. Probably doesn't help Bangladesh much. England still have to play the rest of the top 4 though. Next game vs Australia will be massive.

[Azeem]

Zimbabwe lost an ODI series to Netherlands, they might be the next Kenya

[CaaC (John)+]

Same old story with England, become tournament favourites with the English press making them up to be Supermen and they come back down to Earth with an almighty thump, my money will go on New Zealand winning it as underdogs with Australia and India in the mix.

[Stan]

Given how we have played today on a decent wicket, I'm worried about West Indies and their pace on Thursday. But then there's the rest of the tournament where we've been solid. 

I have no idea what to expect any more especially after England's performance yesterday. I just pray there's no rain ffs. 

It's good for the tournament though that the smaller nations give the bigger ones a run for their money or even beating them. Won't happen often but makes it less boring. 

[Stan]

Fair play Afghanistan. Ran us so close. 

Glad to get that game out of the way! 

[IgnisExcubitor]

Brilliant bowling by Shami, but Bumrah showing once again why he is the best. Shami has had quite a turnaround after all those personal problems, which affected his cricket then. 

Priceless contribution by Jadhav. Looks like a non-threatning player but he usually delivers when the team needs him, with the bat or ball. 

Good bowling by Afghans, and a terrific innings by Nabi. He has done it few times in the IPL for Hyderabad. 

On the current match, crazy collapse by the Windies after Gayle and Hetmyer were batting so wonderfully. 

On a side note, Kiwis WAGs are really fine. 

 

EDIT: Brathwaite must just pull this off. The World Cup has really taken off in the last few days. Hope this goes to the last over. 

Edited June 22, 2019 by IgnisExcubitor

[IgnisExcubitor]

Wow what a day for cricket. What an innings from Brathwaite. Almost pulled it off. 

[Burning Gold]

That is a phenomenal innings from Carlos Brathwaite. Glad he got his 100 at least, but I had a funny feeling he wasn't going to get them over the line for the win when he pumped his fist and kissed his bat to celebrate.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Burning Gold

[Guest]

Probably a silly question but if team A bats first and scores 250 for 6 and teams B bats second and reaches their target loosing 4 wickets I know team B wins by 2 wickets. But if team B reaches their target but they have lost 7 wickets do they just win by the amount of runs they chased? So say they scored a 4 and so scored 252 do they win by 2 runs?

 

[CaaC (John)+]

9 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Probably a silly question but if team A bats first and scores 250 for 6 and teams B bats second and reaches their target loosing 4 wickets I know team B wins by 2 wickets. But if team B reaches their target but they have lost 7 wickets do they just win by the amount of runs they chased? So say they scored a 4 and so scored 252 do they win by 2 runs?

 

Even if they only scored 1 run they would win, remember there are eleven players in a team and even if they lose 7 wickets they still have 4 players available to bat, if they lose 9 wickets they still have 2 players at the crease and either one could score the runs needed. 

[Stan]

Gutted to see Braithwaite and WI fall just short. That would have been potentially the best innings by a player this tournament had be carried on til the end and secured the win. 

As @IgnisExcubitor said it's like the tournament has properly come to life now after a dull period following the rain-affected games. Hope it continues... 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, CaaC (John) said:

Even if they only scored 1 run they would win, remember there are eleven players in a team and even if they lose 7 wickets they still have 4 players available to bat, if they lose 9 wickets they still have 2 players at the crease and either one could score the runs needed. 

So it would basically say that team won by one run? What does it mean in test cricket when a teams wins by runs and an innings? E.G I think England lost to Australia by an innings and 47 runs in the ashes

[Stan]

2 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

So it would basically say that team won by one run? What does it mean in test cricket when a teams wins by runs and an innings? E.G I think England lost to Australia by an innings and 47 runs in the ashes

That would mean the following (figures hypothetical for benefit of the example) :

England bat first and score 100 losing all their wickets.

Australia bat second and score 400 losing all their wickets. 

England bat third and score 253 losing all their wickets. 

England therefore only totalled 353. Australia therefore don't need to bat again as their innings total was higher than England's total across 2 innings (by 47 runs). 

 

In ODI cricket, like this world cup, and in your example:

Team A scores 250 losing 6 wickets 

Team B scores 252 losing 4 wickets means they win by six wickets as that's how many wickets they had left. 

If Team B scored 252 losing 7 wickets, they'd win by three wickets as that's how many they'd had left before being all out. 

You win 'by runs' if you bat first and defend your total (restrict the team batting second getting to the total, as follows:

Team A scores 250 (doesn't matter how many wickets lost) 

Team B scores 200 by the end of the innings OR losing all their wickets. 

Therefore Team A won by 50 runs. 

[CaaC (John)+]

21 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

So it would basically say that team won by one run? What does it mean in test cricket when a teams wins by runs and an innings? E.G I think England lost to Australia by an innings and 47 runs in the ashes

As per what @Stan said, I was in the middle of typing the answer but Stan beat me to it and his reply popped up first lol.  

You also have a follow rule on but just look at this link below and you might understand Cricket a lot better, even I can get lost especially with the follow on rule.

A beginners guide to Cricket

What is the follow-on rule in cricket? 

Edited June 23, 2019 by CaaC (John)
Spelling corrections

[IgnisExcubitor]

The Saffers have been a mess. Don't think they have played that poorly, but just haven't taken their chances and made some lousy tactical decisions. Amla's poor form hasn't helped. 

[Stan]

7 minutes ago, IgnisExcubitor said:

The Saffers have been a mess. Don't think they have played that poorly, but just haven't taken their chances and made some lousy tactical decisions. Amla's poor form hasn't helped. 

They seem to lack a leader. Losing ABDV really has fucked them up.