World Cup Match Reports, Articles & Interviews

[Sir john]

akhtar look :phehehe:

[pinkfreud]

Best Batsman : Inzamam

Lol. He probably said that because his patriotic fervour was coming to the surface. ..but in my view, Javed Miandad was an even better batsman than Inzy as far as Pak is concerned.

[Pak_Forever]

Inzamam better than Tendulkar? He must be stoned!

World does not revolve around Sachin, yes India does, but not the world. Favorite doesn't have to be your best. If that was the case then he would have said Bradman, and that would be the end of story....and yes Sachin is second best (in my books). My all time favorite batsman is not Pakistani either, its dashing batsman Prince Brian Charles Lara......and no I am not degrading Sachin!

[pinkfreud]

Favorite doesn't have to be your best. If that was the case then he would have said Bradman

Shoaib was asked about the 'world's greatest batsman', not his favourite. ..even then, you're right. People need to stop being so touchy about Tendulkar not being everyone's pick. His numbers speak for themselves and he is truly in his own class, but people should learn to accept other's views. ...but SRT is the greatest in my book :--D

[King]

The man loves himself too much :--D Full of himself. Still better than the match fixers. It is ok for him to place Inzi or Lara ahead of any other batsman. It is his choice.

[coffee_rules]

Shoaib was asked about the 'world's greatest batsman', not his favourite.

It is world's greatest batsman (in his opinion). There is no statistical fact to show who is the world's greatest bastman. It's always in somebody's damned opinion.

[pinkfreud]

It is world's greatest batsman (in his opinion). There is no statistical fact to show who is the world's greatest bastman. It's always in somebody's damned opinion.

Did you bother to read the second half of my post before the ramble? I think not.

[Prudent]

World Cup: India will not win World Cup World Cup: India will not win World Cup India are not good enough to win World Cup. Their batting may be the best on show but their bowling lacks depth and their fielding is woeful (not that England’s is perfect either). These are cracks that will get exposed in the tightest, most pressurised matches. Yesterday’s game was relatively inconsequential, remember. http://wisdencricketer.com/blogs/blog/2011/02/28/world-cup-india-will-not-win-world-cup/

[pakexpress]

Shoaib was asked about the 'world's greatest batsman', not his favourite. ..even then, you're right. People need to stop being so touchy about Tendulkar not being everyone's pick. His numbers speak for themselves and he is truly in his own class, but people should learn to accept other's views. ...but SRT is the greatest in my book :--D

thank you .. totally agree..its his opinion and people need to some being touchy about everything.. i like Lara and Dravid better...now ppl fight with me when i say that... at least he is being honest and not sucking up to get some IPL or whatever contract like many aus/eng players do now a days.. way to go shobby...

[Sachin=GOD]

Shoaib not a fast brat anymore

COLOMBO: Once upon a time, there was a man, boy, child, demon named Shoaib Akhtar who played for Pakistan. He abused batsmen, pushed coaches, argued with umpires, hit teammates with bats, fought with captains, refused to shorten his run-up, got caught in doping controversies and shamed his country, faked injuries and occasionally picked up genuine ones. Sadly, he passed away a week before the World Cup. R.I.P. Circa, February 28, 2011. Hey, who's this guy going full tilt in the nets, bending his back, guiding younger bowlers and wait, he's not even arguing with his captain? Don't know. He looks familiar. May be he is a reincarnation of the old one. What's his name? Shoaib Akhtar. Same name, same looks! Is he any different? Yes. This one is lighter around the waist, greyer in his beard and wiser in the head. And? He doesn't boast about being super-fit and knocking batsmen's heads off. Instead he admits, "I've bowled all my life despite being only half-fit. Everybody knows that I have a problem of the hyper-extension of the knee. I've had problems with my joints and I have been carrying niggles all my life." This new guy also has layers of modesty wrapped around him and he puts the team first and himself later. "It's good that I was able to get a wicket (Jayawardene) when the team needed it most," he says. Pakistan often gagged the old Shoaib from speaking to the media for the fear of him saying something ridiculous. The new one had to be requested to speak to the press after sweating it out at the P Sara Oval during a practice session. Unlike the man who passed away, this guy isn't a champion sulker. He wants bygones to be bygones and doesn't want to talk about Aamir and Asif. "Yes, we would have had a lethal combination if the two were present, but they are not here. It's history. We should look ahead." Wait. Is there anything at all that this new guy has in common with the old Shoaib? Of course. The searing inswingers and the potential to come up with headline material. Sample this: "We are a hurt side. Now, we are here to hurt others." Wow! What a cool line! The new Shoaib also bowls fast, but he doesn't do it to boost his ego. "Long ago, I left the race of bowling fast. I'm 36 now and am more mature and am focussing on getting wickets rather than bowling fast. I have crossed the100 mph barrier and I don't wish to cross it again," he stresses. Run-ups were a touchy issue with the older bowler who sensationally announced himself in India's volatile cricketing amphitheatre called Eden Gardens in 1999. "I'm like a plane," he famously told the late Woolmer. "Without a run up, I cannot take off." The reincarnated Shoaib doesn't harbour any such illusions. "I'm 36 years old now. A smaller run up allows me to conserve energy. I can complete my quota of overs this way," he says. How realistic! Does this man use his bat to hit teammates or the ball? The ball. But did the old guy really do it? Yes. He hit Asif during the inaugural ICC World T20 in 2007 and was packed off to Pakistan. On arrival, he called for a press conference and proclaimed, "Afridi is the cause of all problems." Gosh! So the Shoaib of 2011 likes Afridi? Yup. Like a long-long brother! Look what he says about him. "I've always supported him to become Pakistan's captain one day. Yes, he's a new captain and things take time for a new captain to get things sorted out. Captani seekhi sikahyi nahi aati." How boring? This guy only has good things to say. Wait a minute. Here comes more headline material. "Afridi is a touch hyper, but that's fine." That's not too controversial. Let's sing Happy Birthday to the new Shoaib and long may he live.

Link

[DomainK]

World does not revolve around Sachin, yes India does, but not the world. Favorite doesn't have to be your best. If that was the case then he would have said Bradman, and that would be the end of story....and yes Sachin is second best (in my books). My all time favorite batsman is not Pakistani either, its dashing batsman Prince Brian Charles Lara......and no I am not degrading Sachin!

Unfortunately for you, not even a stone revolves around Inzamam except some Pakistanis. You will never find a single non-pakistani who would claim that Inzamam is better than Tendulkar. That's delusional.

[NareshK]

I dont know how these guys have no shame in committing shameless acts like using drugs, ball tampering, spot fixing, infighting and everything seedy you can think of and they turn up the next day acting as if nothing happened. Their fans are even worse because they have the worst case of short term memory loss and live in perpetual denial of repeated offenses of the players who represent the national side. What's even more surprising they all get a life ban at one point and come back to play for their team a month later. I dont think I can ever respect or trust the men who play for my national side once their reputation is tarnished. But then again, I'm aware the mindset of the average Pakistani is different and quite warped.

[pranitha64]

One On One With 'boom Boom Afridi' As Pakistan start their World Cup campaign against Kenya and will be led on the field by captain Shahid Afridi NDTV's Rica Roy caught up with him in an exclusive interview Q1: You had said that it is a formality for Pakistan to reach the quarter-finals of the World Cup. On what basis do you think so? Shahid Afridi: Given what the Pakistan team was going through, we have worked hard to build character. We've worked hard with the boys and are now capable of reaching the semi-finals. As a captain, that is my aspiration. Q2: Many people are saying that Pakistan is also a favourite for the World Cup because it is being held in the sub-continent. Would you agree? Shahid Afridi: Asian teams are favourites in the World Cup. India & Sri Lanka have been in good form of late. Yes, I think if any team wins the World Cup, it will be one from the sub-continent. Q3: Pakistan has never defeated India in a 50-over ICC World Cup. Will that play in your mind when you take the field against India? Shahid Afridi: Every event is different and while it is true that we have not beaten India, times change, seasons change…! Q4: This time though, India and Pakistan are not slated to meet till the knock-out stages. Do you think the schedule should have been such that the two teams should have met in the group stages, lest either of them gets knocked out early? Shahid Afridi: Everyone would have wanted an India-Pakistan encounter in the group stages but the schedule drawn up is as per what the International Cricket Council (ICC) deemed fit. But we should hope for a meeting in the semi-final or final!

[achilles]

I like Shoaib Akhtar 2.0. Finally he's wisened up and is a force to reckon with, despite ZERO antiques. I can't wait for the day I see Sreesanth 2.0.

[Chandan]

Of all the match reports from Indian authors of the India-England tie match, that I read, I liked this one the best: India, England battle to a tie By Prem Panicker - Yahoo! Cricket On a track that offered full value for good strokeplay, the marquee game of the World Cup thus far, between India and England at the Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bangalore, turned out to be a contest between two sets of weak bowling attacks. That needs qualification. England's attack was definitely weakened by the absence through illness of Stuart Broad, and by the fact that James Anderson, the de facto leader of the lineup, is rendered totally innocuous in sub-continental conditions, while their game-breaker Graeme Swann holds little terror for Indian batsmen reared on spin, on a track devoid of significant turn. India's bowling is just plan weak, period. Especially on a good batting track. Consider the options: Zaheer, whose best deliveries are negated in conditions that are not helpful; Munaf, a first change bowler pitchforked into the opening slot to fit in with "game plans"; an off spinner whose role - defined by the management, or selected by himself, is unclear - is to contain; a leg spinner who hasn't had the good fortune to make the squad in the year and more leading up to the World Cup; and a couple of part timers whose USP is to keep the ball slow and hope for the best. Given that, it was a straight up hitting contest against bowling machines - which side can hit harder, oftener? As it turned out, the two teams together scored 676 runs in 99.5 overs. And at the end of it all, the result was a tie. If India's first outing, in the lung-opener against Bangladesh, was about unbridled aggression, its first home game, against England today at the Chinnaswamy Stadium, was a smooth cruise, punctuated by sharp bursts of calculated aggression. For instance, the span between overs 11-15 produced 26 runs; overs 16-20 produced 27; overs 21-25 produced 29 - and then, with game-breaking suddenness came the assault between overs 26-30, when 41 runs were thrashed in stunning fashion to not just rocket the run rate up, but make mincemeat of England skipper Andrew Strauss's plans. The architect of the edifice of runs India constructed was Sachin Tendulkar. His start was slow - at times, seeming dangerously slow. When the bowling power play ended with India on 84/1, Sachin's contribution was 24 off 43 balls, including a maiden played out to England's best bowler on the day, Tim Bresnan. He continued in that vein till the half way stage of the innings, playing well within himself and combining with Gautam Gambhir to move the score along at a steady 5.6 or thereabouts. Outside of Gambhir's calculated forays down the track to Bresnan and Swann, the only signs of overt violence during this period, after the departure of Sehwag on the back of an edgy 35 off 26, was when Tendulkar decided that Paul Collingwood could not be allowed to settle down into the 5th bowler duties Strauss had whistled him up for. The idea was for Collingwood to produce a few overs of very straight wicket to wicket stuff; had he been allowed to do that, pressure would have been off the lead bowlers, who would have had the space to regroup. Displaying the shrewdness of one who has been there, seen it all many times over, Tendulkar pounced. A dead straight ball in the 18th over, Collingwood's first, was hit dead straighter, back over the bowler's head for six. In the 22nd, he demonstrated another way of dealing with the Collingwood class of bowler: a little skip to set it up, a shuffle to clear his front leg out of the way of the clean swing of the bat, and a satisfied glance at the trajectory of the ball as it soared high into the stands at midwicket. (The shot brought up his 50 - 66 balls, three 4s, two 6s). If this phase was the set up, the next was the execution. The next 49 deliveries he faced produced 68 runs, spiked with seven fours and three more sixes. What was noticeable about this acceleration was that it looked unhurried, almost inevitable. And it's centerpiece was a calculated assault, first on Swann, then on Anderson, in the period between the 36th and 40th overs. Just prior to this phase, Sachin called for a change of bats. Till then, he had been batting with the lightest bat in his arsenal; at this point, he moved to the heaviest, the one that would give him best bang for the buck. Swann was looking to tie the batsman down on an off stump line; Sachin greeted him in the 27th over with a minute adjustment of the feet that gave him the room to scythe the ball high over long on. Next ball, the bowler sought to adjust by changing the line to off and middle; Sachin stayed back and launched a slog sweep to put the ball into the stands over midwicket. In the 29th over, it was the hapless Anderson's turn - first, a vintage Sachin cover drive, characterized by that smooth glide into line and the checked punch, a seemingly defensive shot that, when he plays it, sends the ball screaming to the fence. Like Swann, Anderson sought to adjust, and moved the next ball a bit wider in line; Tendulkar again seemed to read the bowler's mind, stayed back, and cut with crisp power to the point fence. The knock - his 47th in ODIs, the fifth and perhaps most calculated on a World Cup stage - was the pivot around which India fashioned its second successive 300+ score. Sehwag was all edges in the first Anderson over, teasing the field with three straight chances in six deliveries. Ironically, just when he seemed to be settling down, an attempt to get cute through the vacant slip region saw Matt Prior take him out with great anticipation and considerable agility. Gambhir continued his journey to mid-season form with a 50 that mixed careful accumulation with sudden forays down the wicket against pace and spin alike (with Tendulkar, Gambhir was responsible for reducing Swann, touted before the game as England's game changer, to impotence). Yuvraj, promoted to number four ahead of the in-form Kohli, was low in form, timing, and foot speed between wickets for the major part of his knock before redeeming himself with a few trademark mows to the midwicket-wide mid on region that produced a useful 58 (50 balls, 9 fours). At 327/5 after 47, India seemed set for 350 plus - but that is not to make allowance for the team's penchant for suffering a mind melt at the worse possible moment. In a performance that was cataclysmically comic - and with help from a superb spell of death bowling from Bresnan who, in the face of the general carnage, reaped a five-for through the virtues of keeping it simple and adhering to good lines and lengths - India lost Pathan, Kohli, Harbhajan, Zaheer and Piyush in the space of 11 balls and as many runs, to end up on 338 - a good 30, 40 runs less than Sachin Tendulkar had the right to expect of his mates after he had set it up in company of Gambhir. The question was, on a track that provided full value for batsmen who knew how to play shots, would it be enough to seal the deal? Perhaps there is something to "momentum" after all. India dominated for 48 overs out of 50, and England looked down and almost out. Then came the mind-melt - and whatever attack of nerves caused it, the Indians seemed to carry it out onto the field. Andrew Strauss had just gotten into his teens when he flayed at a Zaheer delivery outside off and got an edge everyone heard - except bowler and keeper, neither of whom bothered to appeal. (A little later, Strauss got into a tangle against Chawla and got the ball on his back pad in front of off stump - incredibly, all that elicited was a stifled appeal for caught behind; even there, the bowler did not go up at all). That said, Strauss and Petersen set it up superbly. Realizing early on that there was nothing in the wicket to aid Zaheer and Munaf, realizing too that without external help both were at best medium pacers who would come straight on to the bat, the two openers set about taking the attack apart. Petersen was all size and arrogance and muscle, walking down the track with contempt oozing in every stride, and hitting as he willed; Strauss was the skillful surgeon, using the width and depth of the crease to perfection to put the ball through the gaps. What was remarkable about the opening was the calm assurance they showed. 338, even on a patented featherbed, is never easy to hunt down batting under lights. Doubly so for a team with a record as dismal as England's on Indian soil. Even more so when the team is coming off a 6-1 hammering in this form of the game. And yet, there was never a sign of pressure, of stress - if anything, it was the fielding side that seemed unsure of itself and its ability to defend the total. There was only one way a wicket was going to come - accidentally. Munaf to Petersen, good length, on off, and the batsman smashed it back down the track. Munaf's reaction was purely in the interests of self-preservation; he threw his hands up in front of his face. The ball slammed into the heel of his hand, and popped gently up in front of him as he fell on his bottom; a bemused Munaf gently reached out and grabbed it like a child plucking fruit, to end a knock that threatened had threatened to decimate the target. The highly rated Jonathan Trott looked a bit out of sorts against Piyush Chawla's spin, finding it particularly difficult to pick the googlies. Sure enough, one such got him in such a tangle that he ended up squared up in front of the middle stump as ball met pad. The very next ball almost did for Ian Bell, but he survived a close brush with the LBW rule - and from that point on, India was never in the game. Bell and Strauss silenced the raucous crowd with a masterclass in how to mount a chase. Against the leaden-footed Indian fielding, they worked the ball around relentlessly, running the fielders ragged and the bowlers to distraction; with monumental patience they waited for the pressure to mount on the bowlers and, every time one of them erred, they pounced with unerring instinct, smashing the ball to the fence. More than anything else, what they did was ensure that there was never a lull in the scoring for "consolidation" or whatever reason, never a point when the pressure was relieved because the batsmen were "biding their time". No bowler was allowed the luxury of a maiden over; no bowler got to bowl at any one batsman for any length of time. What lit the night skies was Strauss - a picture of class, concentration, determination and incandescent skill. "Captain's knock" is a phrase used for every scratchy 50 a skipper scores, but this one had "leader" engraved on every silken stroke. If Strauss made one error, it was in how late he left taking the batting power play. The Indian attack was really under the pump; every single bowler was going for over 6 rpo. The part-timers had been decimated, and Dhoni, in one desperate gamble, was saving a few overs of his leading bowlers for the death. Had Strauss taken the PP in the 30-40 over space, he would have forced Dhoni's hand - but as it turned out, Strauss opted for the Power Play in the 43rd over - and, in inexplicable fashion, a ploy meant to accelerate the run rate ended up torpedoing the team's smooth progress. Zaheer was called on to bowl the first PP over. Off his fourth ball, Bell attempted a heave as insane as his batting till then had been sensible, and skied an eacy catch to mid off where Kohli made no mistake. Off the very next ball Strauss, who had crossed over before the catch was completed, got a yorker that has to be among the best of its kind ever - Zaheer stepped up the pace; the ball curved through the air and crashed into the batsman's toe in front of middle - and a game that seemed headed in one direction did an abrupt about face. Some teams are so habituated to losing, that they never believe they can win, even when they are clearly doing just that. England is one such - they never seem to have about them the confidence that they can nail down even the easiest tasks, and that failing now surfaced as the side imploded. In his next over, Zaheer saw Collingwood looking to chip down the track to him, and produced a superbly disguised slower ball that beat the shot and pegged back the stumps. From 280/2 in 42, England had suddenly slumped to 285/5 in 44.4. Worse followed. Matt Prior succumbed to the prevailing air of madness, and aimed an almighty heave at Harbhajan Singh that merely got an edge for Raina at midwicket to grab with ease. The Power Plays produced 25 runs and four wickets; the ask became 34 runs off the last three overs - and the odds had clearly flowed to the bowling side. Insanity is contagious. Michael Yardy looked around the field, went across his stumps, and paddled a Munaf delivery straight to Sehwag, the short fine leg placed just for that shot and the man he had checked out before facing that ball. Tim Bresnan, who saw all his hard work with the ball going to nought, briefly raised hopes that he would do with the bat what he had done with the ball, and in the penultimate over smacked Piyush Chawla for two sixes over midwicket. Chawla, who had briefly experimented with the round the wicket option, realized he was giving Bresnan the angle to hit, went back over the wicket, cut out the frills, and bowled straight and quick. Bresnan flailed, and the ball went scudding through to hit the stumps. That reduced England to 325/8, needing 14 off the last 6 balls with Munaf to bowl - the best option India could have used anyway, since his forte is bowling straight, wicket to wicket, with few if any frills. Shehzad produced yet another twist. Winding up, he swung clean through the anticipated line, and smacked Munaf over the long on boundary for another six. A scrambled single off the next ball made the ask four off two. Another mow, two to the midwicket region, and it was 2 needed off one, with Swann on strike. Perhaps the way the game ended was true cricketing justice. Swann drove, extra cover dived and intercepted, the batsman crossed for the single, and the score stood tied. 676 runs had been scored in 99.5 overs. And at the end of it, neither team had won. A superb innings had lit up each innings; a superb spell of late overs bowling had swung the game around on its axis. Perhaps in the final analysis there was nothing really separating the efforts of the two teams - both had equally scintillating moments and, in patches, played equally badly. One final thought: Off the 5th ball of the 50th over of the Indian innings, Zaheer and Munaf took one, then crossed for the second - but Zaheer never managed to make his ground, getting run out to end the Indian innings. To add to his chagrin, he saw the umpire signal one-short - Munaf had failed to ground his bat. Thus, two men ran twice the length of the pitch, and failed to score a single run. One run more in the Indian total, and... Just one of those ifs and buts that make this game so fascinating. =========== Any other match report worth reading, from any foreign author?

[Switchblade]

England reacts to "greatest humiliation" against Irish England's shock defeat by Ireland at the Cricket World Cup was described as the country's greatest humiliation by one newspaper on Thursday, as pundits and headline writers laid into the team with gusto. Here is a selection of reaction from England on Thursday: "GREATEST HUMILIATION" The headline in The Daily Telegraph read simply, "England's greatest humiliation" while inside former batsman Geoffrey Boycott advised the team that without a massive improvement in their bowling they should start their packing early. "How the mighty have fallen so quickly," Boycott wrote. "England were national heroes after winning the Ashes. Now they are national chumps after this shocking and embarrassing defeat." "COMPLACENCY AND ARROGANCE" Former England captain Mike Atherton in The Times: "England, of course, made it easy for them with shoddy cricket. There was a palpable sense of complacency that crept in during the Ireland innings, born undoubtedly of arrogance and a ridiculous belief in their superiority. "England were bad but take nothing away from Ireland; they played magnificently and courageously. This was the greatest night in Irish cricketing history." "SOUND BARRIER BROKEN" Stephen Brenkley, The Independent: "On the scale of sporting shocks, Ireland broke the sound barrier last night. It was not so much that they defeated England in the World Cup ... but the unthinkable fashion of their three-wicket victory. "With their top five batsmen all dismissed after they set off in pursuit of 328 runs to win, a 26-year-old Dubliner with pink and blond hair turned the match and perhaps the tournament on its head." "CLOWN SHOES" Ali Martin, The Sun: "England are making hay with the bat ... but they might as well don big red noses and clown shoes against South Africa on Sunday, so calamitous has been their fielding so far." http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/03032011/2/cricket-england-reacts-greatest-humiliation-against-irish.html

[flamy]

[Switchblade]

"CLOWN SHOES":lmao:

[Switchblade]

Swann 'shell-shocked' after humiliating defeat Graeme Swann admitted that England were left shell-shocked by the manner and magnitude of their incredible three-wicket defeat at the hands of Kevin O'Brien on Wednesday night, but insisted that the team's best response would be to put the result right out of their minds as they turn their attention to Sunday's crucial showdown against the Group B pacesetters, South Africa, in Chennai. As Ireland's celebrations continued long and loud in the wake of the biggest result of their lives, England flew out of Bangalore knowing that their World Cup campaign is in danger of sliding out of control, after three consecutive fixtures - including a thrilling tie with India - in which their frailties have been exposed with both bat and ball. However, with contests against South Africa, Bangladesh and West Indies still to come, qualification for the quarter-finals remains in their own hands, so long as they revert to winning ways at the earliest opportunity. "If we are going to win this World Cup - which we truly believe we can - we've got to go out and prove it, and we do that first and foremost in the field," said Swann. "Four or five days ago, the whole world was saying 'Oh my God, England can win' this - because we didn't get destroyed by that invincible Indian team. We know the fickle nature of the world, and we're going to ignore that and just carry on and play the best cricket we can." At 111 for 5, chasing a massive 328 for victory, Ireland's chances of victory were seemingly non-existent, until Kevin O'Brien climbed onto the offensive with the innings of his - or anyone else's - life. His incredible 50-ball century slammed England's bowlers onto the defensive, and in partnership with first Alex Cusack and then John Mooney, Ireland clawed their way back into the contest. "It's disappointing to lose any game of cricket," said Swann. "But it was one where we got ourselves into a position of such dominance, to then have it taken away from us is quite shell-shocking. Every now and again someone wakes up and has the best day of their life - and yesterday Kevin O'Brien did that. We should have bowled better; we certainly could have bowled better, but that's tarnishing the knock he had - personally I think he won the game rather than we lost it." Despite that assertion, the cracks in England's performance were visible long before O'Brien got going, with Matt Prior dropping a steepling chance behind the stumps to reprieve Ed Joyce, and Swann himself was visibly peeved with his fielders before claiming three quick wickets to put his team firmly in charge of the contest. "A lot of guys were peed off, and rightly so," he said. "We got ourselves into a position where the opposition were 110 for five, with 20 overs to go. That's a game an international team of the calibre that we feel we are should win 10 out of 10." "It's annoying in the extreme, but I'm not taking anything away from Kevin O'Brien and the performance of his life," Swann added. "It's the best knock I've seen in a long time. If a guy gets 100 off 60 balls [sic], a guy gets 100 off 60 balls. There's not a lot you can do, except say we should have bowled differently - and in the next game we will do. If we start panicking and thinking we're the disgrace that half the people on Twitter thought we were last night, there's no point in us playing. "You can always bowl better," he added. "When a guy hits that many sixes you are obviously putting the ball in the wrong place. We could have bowled more yorkers and more slower balls wide of the wicket - that's easy in retrospect to say. When you're in the middle and the pressure is on with a guy going great guns, it can be difficult to think clearly. But we back ourselves to be professional and think clearly, so in future that's certainly something we have to look at." http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/current/story/504126.html

[theanalyst]

Trying to forget about this game. What an embarrassing performance. Credit to the Irish for a great performance though!