Would England have won or even qualified without Archer?

[vvvslaxman]

As we all know he was the last minute inclusion based on the pounding their bowling received at the hands of many teams leading upto the world cup. How much of an impact he made? This is a luxury other teams didn't have. Including a totally new player from another country.  How much of an impact he played in their performance in this world cup? I feel they might have struggled to qualify for the semis.

[cric_fan]

Yes

[cric_fan]

Yes

[zen]

Crybabies are out!

[Ranvir]

As a last resort they could have begged Anderson to come out of retirement 

 

England have been the dominant ODI team for quite a while now, they would have found a way to win without Archer.

[cric_fan]

Yes

[zen]

Perfect sore loser thread!

[Jamadagni]

Sore losers!!

[vvvslaxman]

Couple of moronic responses. It is just a hypothetical topic where i just asked how much an impact he was in the world cup. Didn't say "they didn't deserve to win"

[zen]

The guy had been writing against Eng because they play "exciting cricket". When Eng lost a few games, I guess, he was very happy,  so Eng victory = 

 

 

PS  spammed on the inclusion of Shankar and DK as well, who were utter thrash in the WC. Though Ind bowling would smash Eng but ....  ....Probably, finally started supporting NZ out of desperation but in the end nothing much went for him in this WC .... poor soul 

Edited July 15, 2019 by zen

[vvvslaxman]

Still butt hurt after "will he turn a page" thread lol

 

[cricketfan28]

yes, they have enough firepower

[The Hound]

Let's see,  David Willey would've been selected if not Archer. Although he is not as good as Archer but his left arm angle would've provided some variety to the attack and in conditions that we got in later half of the tournament would've been lethal with the new ball. 

Plunkett who finished his spells by 45th over would've been their primary death bowler then or Tom Curran who didn't got a game in the tournament.  

 

Both Willey & Curran are better batsmen than Archer so batting line up would've been stronger and they might have even won that PAK & SL match.  

[zen]

OP cried at night as Eng marched into sight 

How could this happen? There must be a reason 

Suddenly Archer flashed in his mind, then the poor soul tried to find some rest in threads of this kind 

 

Edited July 15, 2019 by zen

[vvvslaxman]

 

 

0

 Advanced issues found

▲

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, The Hound said:

Let's see,  David Willey would've been selected if not Archer. Although he is not as good as Archer but his left arm angle would've provided some variety to the attack and in conditions that we got in later half of the tournament would've been lethal with the new ball. 

Plunkett who finished his spells by 45th over would've been their primary death bowler then or Tom Curran who didn't got a game in the tournament.  

 

Both Willey & Curran are better batsmen than Archer so batting line up would've been stronger and they might have even won that PAK & SL match.  

But they were all thrashed in the ENgland vs Pakistan series. ONe of the main reason they expedited this inclusion was because of that series.  He lived upto his hype by being the highest wicket taker for his side.  His ER was 4.57. Also teams decided to see him off.  His 10 overs had a big say in more than one way

[zen]

[zen]

[Norman]

He was their highest wicket taker. 

 

So yes ....he has made a huge impact.  

 

Bowling was a massive weak link for poms before the tournament. But Archer with his pace and steep bounce  has given a new dimension to this otherwise one dimensional English bowling attack. 

[vvvslaxman]

5 minutes ago, Norman said:

He was their highest wicket taker. 

 

So yes ....he has made a huge impact.  

 

Bowling was a massive weak link for poms before the tournament. But Archer with his pace and steep bounce  has given a new dimension to this otherwise one dimensional English bowling attack. 

Exactly. Teams even had to see him off and readjust their plan. 

[Norman]

1 minute ago, vvvslaxman said:

Exactly. Teams even had to see him off and readjust their plan. 

Seriously doubt they would have won it if Archer weren't there. His death bowling was phenomenal in the final which eventually was the difference between the two teams. Don't think a curran or a Willey would have been as effective as him.