Asim Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 The burning question is.. would Afridi & Co. want to play us in our own backyard? :cantstop: That's what they've wanted to avoid from the very beginning of the tournament. whatever they have said, I know that... but I dont think so that anyone from Pak said they dont want to play vs ind, yes for whatever reasons they said but they said "in Ind" not "vs ind"... two completely different things, but yeah Ind always refused to play vs Pak involving politics in cricket... Link to comment
Mariyam Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 NRR gives an accurate aggregate figure of your performance against all other teams. It doesn't matter whether you bat first or second. Let's say India bats second and chases dutch score of 180 all out* in 35 overs. its NRR would be (181/35) - (180/50) = +1.57. If India batted first and score 258 in 50 overs and dutch are still 180 all out. The NRR would still be (258/50) - (180/50) = +1.57. *note: if a team is all out it doesn't matter how many overs they played, it will be divided by 50 overs. Thanks. I understand the process now. What is being computed here is the difference between the run rates. The name Net Run Rate is a misnomer actually. It makes people ( me at least) think that only your own batting defines what your run rate will be. That is after all, what Run rate means. The amount you score / overs taken. But according to what you've put up , your 'Net Run Rate' is affected by how much and how fast the opposition score also. Link to comment
Jersey #10 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I am already planning for the India vs Padosi match... Absolutely CAN NOT WAIT :cantstop: Link to comment
Cricket_Guru Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I am already planning for the India vs Padosi match... Absolutely CAN NOT WAIT :cantstop: we will win you :potstir: :--D :icflove: :yay: Link to comment
kabira Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I am already planning for the India vs Padosi match... Absolutely CAN NOT WAIT :cantstop: If Padosis play us I think they will forfeit it, they are not going to play in Ahmedabad Link to comment
DeadMan Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I am already planning for the India vs Padosi match... Absolutely CAN NOT WAIT :cantstop: :haha: Link to comment
vvvslaxman Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Revenge time. We must beat Australia. We have lost to Australia 5 times in a row in the world cup . Wish we could meet in semis. Link to comment
yoda Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Preferred route: QA - PAK (DUH!) SF - AUS (they can be a pain in the finals) FIN - SA (need I say more?) Link to comment
Ultimate_Game Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 I would like to face kiwis in the quarters and then it doesn't matter. I would prefer India to play the first knockout game against a slightly weaker opposition which NZ are as compared to Aus, SL or Pak. But I wouldn't be too stressed to face anyone else either. IMO Aussies would be tough to beat with the return of Mike Hussey. Link to comment
punjabi_khota Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 QF : AUS SF: SA F: PAK This is ideal because SF is ideal time for saffers to choke, and QF is probably too early for OZ to peak. And there cannot be a greater finale than Ind Vs Pak in Mumbai Link to comment
Anakin Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Lol... no harm on making assumptions... and what I said is very simple: Love to have Ind in QF, it is as simple as that... Me too bro, just to end your misery asap, besides an easy match won't hurt us. Link to comment
cowboysfan Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Preferred route: QA - PAK (DUH!) SF - AUS (they can be a pain in the finals) FIN - SA (need I say more?) THIS!!!! Link to comment
Ultimate_Game Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 whatever they have said' date=' I know that... but I dont think so that anyone from Pak said they dont want to play vs ind, yes for whatever reasons they said but they said "in Ind" not "vs ind"... two completely different things, [b']but yeah Ind always refused to play vs Pak involving politics in cricket... Let me put it this way... Country A would always find it tough to play Country B in case Country B's citizens were invoved in carrying out terror attacks in Country A resulting in nearly 200 ppl getting killed and Country B doing nothing about it other than denying the terrorists originated from country B even though there was irrefutable evidence. Plus it doesn't help matters that Country B has always used terrorism against Country A as an instrument of foreign policy (Kargil anyone?) And you still expect Country A to carry on playing with Country B??? In this case Country A is India and I will let you figure out who Country B is. Link to comment
Zap_Brannigan Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 but yeah Ind always refused to play vs Pak involving politics in cricket... When Pakistan involves terrorism in politics, India involving politics in cricket is not that appalling. Link to comment
EwanMacKenna Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Will Ireland make the last eight? Think we have a right chance against the West Indies tomorrow! Link to comment
vaibhav_delhi Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Will Ireland make the last eight? Think we have a right chance against the West Indies tomorrow! Theoretically, Irelands can still top Group B.... Link to comment
b555 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 QF : AUS SF: SA F: PAK This is ideal because SF is ideal time for saffers to choke, and QF is probably too early for OZ to peak. And there cannot be a greater finale than Ind Vs Pak in Mumbai that would be awesome masha allah!! pakis in mumbai Link to comment
Asim Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Let me put it this way... Country A would always find it tough to play Country B in case Country B's citizens were invoved in carrying out terror attacks in Country A resulting in nearly 200 ppl getting killed and Country B doing nothing about it other than denying the terrorists originated from country B even though there was irrefutable evidence. Plus it doesn't help matters that Country B has always used terrorism against Country A as an instrument of foreign policy (Kargil anyone?) And you still expect Country A to carry on playing with Country B??? In this case Country A is India and I will let you figure out who Country B is. and how about 1. ratio of terrorism inside country A vs inside country B is 1:99 and 2. elements of country A itself with the help of some country Z are involved to support and finance terrorism inside country B... Not sure for how long A will continue to act smart and innocent... Link to comment
pinkfreud Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Can you guys seriously stop making this a political issue... there are stinky assed terrorists on both sides. Now shut up, get over it, put your pacifiers back in your mouths, and talk cricket! :D Link to comment
vaibhav_delhi Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 and how about 1. ratio of terrorism inside country A vs inside country B is 1:99 and 2. elements of country A itself with the help of some country Z are involved to support and finance terrorism inside country B... Not sure for how long A will continue to act smart and innocent... How about 1. the people of country B are known to be universal terrorists and biggest scumbags of this world?? 2. Country A has given irrefutable proof of Country B's terror acts several times and country B has not been able to do for supposed terror acts frm country A and it doesnt have any credibility?? Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now