Laaloo Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 :WTF: do you mean some shyt bowling and fielding is fine? It's atrocious. And worse than they, these mofos keep living in denial.
Trichromatic Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 don't you all agree that we have the most fked up luck as a team??? I mean we hardly get lucky. We ahve been lucky really once in recent history when it rained and dhoni saved us during the lords test of 06 tour, but other than that, this shyt rain has cost us more games than won. :facepalm: We were lucky in 2nd during England series. We had to play only last session to save the match and we couldn't do even that. 5th day was washed out. How about more rain hit matches in that test series? When SL managed to draw two test matches, everyone was giving credit to rain. Why couldn't we take advantage of that to draw any test match in Emgland? We were so bad that luck favored us and we lost matches by innings.
rkt.india Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Even Afghani's will be oiling their bats to butcher this gentle bowling attack in T20 WC this year. We will need genuine pacers like Yadav and Aaron fit. They may go for runs to, but they can take wickets and they can be long term solution.
maniac Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 When our captain gives Suresh Raina bowls the last over of a LOI game....than the opposition derserves all the luck to win the game.
Needforspeed Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Luck has nothing to do with it. We had 4 regular bowlers and the 20th over was bowled by Raina and he went for 26 runs. Says a lot about the quality of our bowling. Lets not blame luck for having the worst bowling attack in the world. Dhon's faith in trundlers will only work on Indian wickets, where the ball slows down after pitching. Bowlers like Praveen Kumar and Irfan have no business playing International cricket. In T20 matches at least, bowlers who performed well in IPL & CLT20, like Rahul Sharma, Abu Nechim, Iqbal Abdulla etc should have been given a chance. Time bring back Bhajji in the Limited overs format. He was always a decent one day bowl
saneindian Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 When the team refuses to learn from its mistakes, a bull headed captain seems intent on showing utter disregard to form of players, lacks the courage to change the status quo and come up with new plans, we deserve everything that we have been getting. I would say given the current state of affairs, we were really lucky that it all came together for us during that 2011 WC. Zaheer lasting such a long tournament without an injury, no internal fights, Yuvraj saving his best for the crunch games, no rains during the tournament..think of it we did get lucky or rather we created our own luck. Unfortunately, post the WC the captain, the board and some key players thought they had conquered the world and took things for granted without any forward planning and the results are before us.
Sean Bradley Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Simplicity vs Duckworth-Lewis ! Why cant cricket follow a simplest of method, where in if a match gets interrupted & Abandoned in the second innings of a T20 or an ODI, compare the score of the team batting second with the Team batting first at that point in time. i.e. if the match gets abandoned at over 15.2 and the score is 100 - 2, and the team who batted first was 90-0 at 15.2 overs, then the team batting second should be considered the obvious winners, similarly if the scores are level at 100-2 and the other team is 100-3, then the team at 100-2 should be the winners on the wickets aggregate, and in case of 100-3 each, the match should be a tie. Your Views !
Crookbond Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 You should just read a little bit more on the history of D/L. The Wiki page can be a good starting point. Also read, http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/RAIN_RULES/DL_FAQ.html http://static.cricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/RAIN_RULES/DUCKWORTH_LEWIS.html If you really want to understand the technical nous, try to read D/L paper published in JSTOR - http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.180.3272 Finally, if you want to calculate D/L for a game try this - http://www.duckworth-lewis.com/CalculatorforT20ODI/tabid/56/Default.aspx
cameron_black Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Why cant cricket follow a simplest of method, where in if a match gets interrupted & Abandoned in the second innings of a T20 or an ODI, compare the score of the team batting second with the Team batting first at that point in time. i.e. if the match gets abandoned at over 15.2 and the score is 100 - 2, and the team who batted first was 90-0 at 15.2 overs, then the team batting second should be considered the obvious winners, similarly if the scores are level at 100-2 and the other team is 100-3, then the team at 100-2 should be the winners on the wickets aggregate, and in case of 100-3 each, the match should be a tie. Your Views ! :cantstop:
cameron_black Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 if the match gets abandoned at over 15.2 and the score is 100 - 2, and the team who batted first was 90-0 at 15.2 overs, then the team batting second should be considered the obvious winners. what's your basis for it being 'obvious'? what if, the team batting second is, 100-3? 100-4? 100-5? 100-6? 100-7?
Zero_Unit Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 well in all fairness am not going to ***** around about it cause if we batted first, the posibility would have been us as the winner. So all is fair ... Blame the rain
Prakat Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Why cant cricket follow a simplest of method, where in if a match gets interrupted & Abandoned in the second innings of a T20 or an ODI, compare the score of the team batting second with the Team batting first at that point in time. i.e. if the match gets abandoned at over 15.2 and the score is 100 - 2, and the team who batted first was 90-0 at 15.2 overs, then the team batting second should be considered the obvious winners, similarly if the scores are level at 100-2 and the other team is 100-3, then the team at 100-2 should be the winners on the wickets aggregate, and in case of 100-3 each, the match should be a tie. Your Views ! you from joberg brah?
Crookbond Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Fitting farcical end to meaningless game http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-india-2012/content/current/story/559347.html Gary Kirsten, the coach, suggested that South Africa would treat this match as a "fairly light-hearted" affair. In fact, they handled it with even less care than that. The squad did not hold a single training session. Late on Thursday afternoon, the day before the match, Johan Botha had not even met Kirsten, nor did he have any idea about who would be in his starting XI. Two hours before the start, none of that had changed. Dane Vilas was clueless whether he would keep or Morne van Wyk would get the gloves. Tsotsobe had only just arrived from Port Elizabeth and didn't know if he would play. South Africa's management were sending a message that they would treat a match without context with the casualness it calls for. India treated it with more respect. They arrived two days before with some of their best players, held a net session and discussed the match with sincerity. MS Dhoni usually has a hint of mischief in his voice but that only came when he left his press conference and slipped in this prophetic remark. "Let's hope it doesn't rain," Dhoni quipped. But, rain it did. The showers added a different dimension of meaninglessness to an already hollow game and almost fittingly brought it to its end. Important to note the difference in attitude towards the T20.
achilles Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Babus of BCCIs must have been hoping for a win to show how "corrective measures" have helped the team. Lekin kya KLPD ho gayi :hehe:
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