Has Ind been lucky? (WC19)

[zen]

• vs. SA: Steyn and Lungi were ruled out. SA also dropped catches (which does not happen with its good fielders) and umpire's call went in our favor. Saw an unusually dumb runout as well (De Kock)  
• vs. Aus: Won the toss. Two dropped catches from what I recall. Warner running out Finch and playing dumb cricket 

 

On the other hand, we saw what happened to WI with Gayle. There has been some good cricket as well such as Dhawan's 100, Pandya's hitting, bowling, etc., so performances have complimented luck.

 

In '92, Pak had luck with rain and with Martin Crowe getting injured at the wrong time. In '96, Ind put SL in at Kol, and so on. I hope that the trend continues as most teams need the luck to win such events!

 

 

 

 

[Vijy]

1 minute ago, zen said:

• vs. SA: Steyn and Lungi were ruled out. SA also dropped catches (which does not happen with its good fielders) and umpire's call went in our favor. Saw an unusually dumb runout as well (De Kock)  
• vs. Aus: Won the toss. Two dropped catches from what I recall. Warner running out Finch and playing dumb cricket 

 

On the other hand, we saw what happened to WI with Gayle. There has been some good cricket as well such as Dhawan's 100, Pandya's hitting, bowling, etc., so performances have complimented luck.

 

In '92, Pak had luck with rain and with Martin Crowe getting injured at the wrong time. In '96, Ind put SL in at Kol, and so on. I hope that the trend continues as most teams need the luck to win such events!

 

 

 

 

I don't think we've been all that lucky. Our planning pre-WC was quite bad, and if anything, we should consider ourselves lucky that the middle order has done better than expected.

 

In the SA match: de Kock is generally an airhead, so a dumb runout isn't lucky.

In the Aus match: Bumrah bowled Warner, but the stupid bails stayed on. Carey dropping Rohit wasn't "luck" because he drops so many catches than actually holding on to one is "luck".

 

Having luck go our way would be nice, but many of the great WC-winning teams like WI in the 70s and Aus in the 2000s just won because of sheer dominance.

[WC2011INDIA]

This Indian team was selected on the basis of luck factor. I think that was clear from the start. The selectors and team management pooled all their Babaji knowledge to come up with this winning team.

[zen]

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Vijy said:

Having luck go our way would be nice, but many of the great WC-winning teams like WI in the 70s and Aus in the 2000s just won because of sheer dominance.

There is no team in this tournament of the ATG teams WI and Aus level. Though Eng can be seen as a big favorite  

[jusarrived]

Don’t think lucky , but rather we haven’t been tested .  We bowled first on a difficult pitch and batted first on a flat one , which made things easier 

[zen]

In top 4 now:

 

World Cup

TEAM	M	W	L	T	N/R	PT	NRR	FOR	AGAINST
1New Zealand	3	3	0	0	0	6	2.163	558/95.3	552/150.0
2England	3	2	1	0	0	4	1.307	1031/150.0	835/150.0
3India	2	2	0	0	0	4	0.539	582/97.3	543/100.0
4Australia	3	2	1	0	0	4	0.483	813/134.5	832/150.0
5Sri Lanka	3	1	1	0	1	3	-1.517	322/91.0	289/57.1
6Pakistan	3	1	1	0	1	3	-2.412	453/100.0	442/63.4
7West Indies	2	1	1	0	0	2	2.054	381/63.4	393/100.0
8Bangladesh	3	1	2	0	0	2	-0.714	854/150.0	943/147.1
9South Africa	3	0	3	0	0	0	-0.952	743/150.0	871/147.3
10Afghanistan	3	0	3	0	0	0	-1.493	531/141.0	568/108.

[mani sha]

Luck favors the brave 

india reaping reward of getting rid of ashwin and getting two legspinners who maintain pressure 

 

Zampa poor spell was the main reason india won ... 

india also has been constantly trying players for no 4 . 

Steyn got injured - so who is the replacement ? 

Imagine if Bumrah gets injured - we still have shami in wings with Big Ish coming in ... 

 

 

think india prepared well for this tournament . We struggled with our no 4 but Rahul / karthik / Shankar are good players and most teams will be happy to have them esp Rahul . 

 

 

[zen]

8 hours ago, mani sha said:

Steyn got injured - so who is the replacement ? 

Imagine if Bumrah gets injured - we still have shami in wings with Big Ish coming in ... 

In SA's case, not only Steyn but also Lungi is injured. Fast bowler Nortje got injured too before the WC. Therefore from those in the squad, SA was forced to use ARs to support Rabada. Hendricks is supposed to join the squad as a replacement for Steyn

[Charlie_]

If AUS had won the toss, if they had sent Maxwell up the order, Aussies most probably had won this. 

For India to take the toss out of the equation they really need to get the team combination right and get 1 to 7 batters into really good hitting form to score 350 on most days. 

[Lannister]

We are lucky we keep winning despite the poor team selections. But the same thing happened in the last 5-6 ICC tournaments and our luck eventually ran out in Knockout stages. If Kohli refuses to learn from his mistakes, another CT final thrashing awaits him. 

[SK_IH]

9 minutes ago, Lannister said:

We are lucky we keep winning despite the poor team selections. But the same thing happened in the last 5-6 ICC tournaments and our luck eventually ran out in Knockout stages. If Kohli refuses to learn from his mistakes, another CT final thrashing awaits him. 

Teams in this WC are so evenly matched that the toss of coin is becoming too crucial and decisive. Yesterday I was thinking had the boot would have on other foot and Ind were bowling, things could have been drastically different. Teams are crumbling under pressure.  I must say I dont see that resilience any team that can ace a chase in the knock out matches. So, Virat has to be at the top of coin flipping and calling ability. However , we all know Virat has a torrid luck 

[ShoonyaSifar]

These threads would not have existed if Rohit had failed. Basically Statsguru filters now replaced by "Luck"

[sergio04]

Rayudu was needed in place of selfish Rohit.

Rayudu was great last year with CSK

while opening the batting.

[Lannister]

1 hour ago, SK_IH said:

Teams in this WC are so evenly matched that the toss of coin is becoming too crucial and decisive. Yesterday I was thinking had the boot would have on other foot and Ind were bowling, things could have been drastically different. Teams are crumbling under pressure.  I must say I dont see that resilience any team that can ace a chase in the knock out matches. So, Virat has to be at the top of coin flipping and calling ability. However , we all know Virat has a torrid luck 

Don't think the bowling attacks are evenly matched. NZ and Indian attacks are on top, but we need to fine tune ours before taking on stronger batting units. This is where Rat is too stupid to come up with a plan. 

[Sachinism]

You're being pedantic. You could pick apart other teams the same way. 

[gakgupta]

14 hours ago, zen said:

• vs. SA: Steyn and Lungi were ruled out. SA also dropped catches (which does not happen with its good fielders) and umpire's call went in our favor. Saw an unusually dumb runout as well (De Kock)  
• vs. Aus: Won the toss. Two dropped catches from what I recall. Warner running out Finch and playing dumb cricket 

 

On the other hand, we saw what happened to WI with Gayle. There has been some good cricket as well such as Dhawan's 100, Pandya's hitting, bowling, etc., so performances have complimented luck.

 

In '92, Pak had luck with rain and with Martin Crowe getting injured at the wrong time. In '96, Ind put SL in at Kol, and so on. I hope that the trend continues as most teams need the luck to win such events!

 

 

 

 

If we are talking about luck, then australia shouldn't have won 1999 world cup.

-Controversial Gibbs catch during the league stages made sure australia reached semis.

-Donald run-out was the heart breaking incident for any cricket fan and SA was the worthy winners of that world cup.

 

In 2003 semis, SL had the upper hand in the semi finals. Light played the spoilsport.

 

I still remember (2003 final match), Ponting was not given out of srinath which was plumb LBW. (It was of a slow ball). He went to make big hundred and post huge total. If not for that, things would have been different.

 

Cricket is sometimes about luck and rub of the green was on indian side so far.

 

Australia shouldn't have won against WI few days back. Controversial no-ball was not called and Gayle shouldn't have been out.

 

 

[zen]

4 hours ago, gakgupta said:

If we are talking about luck, then australia shouldn't have won 1999 world cup.

The crux is “most teams (unless of ATG level) need luck to win such events” 

[Real McCoy]

4 hours ago, gakgupta said:

If we are talking about luck, then australia shouldn't have won 1999 world cup.

-Controversial Gibbs catch during the league stages made sure australia reached semis.

-Donald run-out was the heart breaking incident for any cricket fan and SA was the worthy winners of that world cup.

In the very same SF, Klusener's catch was shelled by Paul Reifell at long on and bumped it to six in the penultimate over off Mcgrath. In a match that seesawed and tested nerves, Aus made better use of luck than SA

[Real McCoy]

11 minutes ago, zen said:

The crux is “most teams (unless of ATG level) need luck to win such events” 

The crux is most clutch teams use luck to their advantage while others squander

[zen]

1 minute ago, Real McCoy said:

The crux is most clutch teams use luck to their advantage while others squander

And it is better to be lucky!