ICC World T20, 2012 SriLanka

[Crookbond]

After the fall, Harbhajan's rise has just begun http://www.wisdenindia.com/cricket-article/fall-harbhajans-rise-begun/26885

In four overs, he more than suggested that time away from the international spotlight had done wonders. There was purpose and intent, but if there was any anxiety as there surely must have been, it was well concealed. His unfurled all his variations he had put away a few of them in the time leading up to his ouster and did so without fuss, spinning his way to the best figures by an Indian in a Twenty20 International. Impressive as HarbhajanÃÔ spell of 4-2-12-4 was, it wasnÃÕ necessarily the figures that edified it. If anything, the returns, however flattering, were a by-product of the way he bowled in difficult circumstances in his first game for India in 13 and a half months, with the entire world wondering how he would cope with an entirely different kind of pressure.

[Tridibans_16]

92 WC was the best format I know of.

+1 .... that was the first WC i watched and it was awesome.... all matches were important and you had to get thru all top sides before the knock-outs..... However' date=' that is not possible now with 16 or 14 teams... the freaking tourney would last 3 months[/quote'] But one thing you guys are forgetting is that with super good teams like Saf and Aus (probably Ind too in SC), soon during half way stage, many teams woiuld be so far ahead than the rest that the last 5-6 matches could end up being dead rubbers (as only 4 teams will qualify from 12). Also, with the intent of accomodating minnows, 92WC will become too boring with meaningless minnow matches all over the place. I think 99WC format was the best (personally ofcourse)

[Lord]

I think we are playing all our matches in Colombo itself' date=' so I would think as Dhoni said, we have to back our strength, which is spin bowling. [b']I would have loved to have A.Mishra in the squad instead of fat chin Chawla, but as it is I think go with Bhajji, Chawla and Ashwin. Pathan will be the opening bowler.

Mishra is fatter

[Crookbond]

So what you reckon our bowling attack should be against SAF and Aus (excluding pak as I think we need two seamers against them)

I am not sure if you understood what I said. It is based on the wicket on that day for that game. You have to see the wicket to decide the bowling attack. No point in thinking ahead.

[BeautifulGame]

Pakistan have a poor record against Leg spinners too

[Lord]

too early to say hes back.its just Eng were pathetic

[Laaloo]

He's back and better than ever :yay: :mi:

[Crookbond]

But one thing you guys are forgetting is that with super good teams like Saf and Aus (probably Ind too in SC)' date=' [b']soon during half way stage, many teams woiuld be so far ahead than the rest that the last 5-6 matches could end up being dead rubbers (as only 4 teams will qualify from 12). Also, with the intent of accomodating minnows, 92WC will become too boring with meaningless minnow matches all over the place. I think 99WC format was the best (personally ofcourse)

That does not happen as the law of averages catches up. It is only the Australian great team which can do what you said. SA - not really. You should also consider that it gives everyone a great chance to come back as well! It's a test of fatigue in addition to skill.

[Lord]

Playing with 5 bowlers is not happening' date= it will never happen in Indian cricket, people like ganguly who have been so hell bent on 6/5 strategy in media have never implied it themselves in their playing days, Dhoni & Fletcher are never gonna go in with 6/5, we are going with 7/4, zack, ashwin, bhajji, pathan, that is what you gonna get, our strength is batting, if yesterdays match was an indication of things to come, then the pitches have started deteriorating already, plus yuvi is an highly underrated bowler, guy can turn the ball and has a lethal arm ball. Virat should be used as a 3rd medium pacer if required, his pace, line n length is very gangulysque.

we won T20 WC 2007 with 5 bowlers.

[Tridibans_16]

That does not happen as the law of averages catches up. It is only the Australian great team which can do what you said. SA - not really. You should also consider that it gives everyone a great chance to come back as well! It's a test of fatigue in addition to skill.

But what about the minnow matches? with teams like ZIM/AFG atleast 8-9 matches each will play and more often than not will result in one sided encounters. For me, if 12 teams had to play (taking the same pool as this wc), have two groups each of 6 teams and two from each qualifies for the semi final. 33 matches in total and hardly a dead rubber. Group A: AUS ENG SRI WI AFG ZIM Group B: IND PAK NZL RSA BAN IRL SEMIFINALS: A1 v B2 B1 v A2 FINALS If you see, with 4 major nations in each group, obviously it will be tough to qualify and more often than not 2-3 teams will fight it out (excluding a team like inform AUS/SAF who would invariably qualify half way stage.) So matches involving the minnows with these borderline teams would be crucial too.

[Crookbond]

But what about the minnow matches? with teams like ZIM/AFG atleast 8-9 matches each will play and more often than not will result in one sided encounters. For me, if 12 teams had to play (taking the same pool as this wc), have two groups each of 6 teams and two from each qualifies for the semi final. 33 matches in total and hardly a dead rubber. Group A: AUS ENG SRI WI AFG ZIM Group B: IND PAK NZL RSA BAN IRL SEMIFINALS: A1 v B2 B1 v A2 FINALS

Who were the minnows in the 92 WC? Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. Sri Lanka defeated India and Zimbabwe defeated finalists England. There were no two groups AFAIK and that it how it should be. There can be some other method for make associate teams play.

[Tridibans_16]

I am not sure if you understood what I said. It is based on the wicket on that day for that game. You have to see the wicket to decide the bowling attack. No point in thinking ahead.

OK I see you point now. But consider a similar pitch like yesterday which was neither too spin friendly nor was anything that would suggest Zak/Dinda would have something in it.

[Tridibans_16]

Pakistan have a poor record against Leg spinners too

+1 Remember Warne going thorugh their lineup many times. Also Bhajji is poor against them don't know why.

[Tridibans_16]

Who were the minnows in the 92 WC? Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. Sri Lanka defeated India and Zimbabwe defeated finalists England. There were no two groups AFAIK and that it how it should be. There can be some other method for make associate teams play.

Arey Bhaiyya we are not talking about 92 wc but 92 wc format. Do you seroiusly think ZIm/AFG/IRL of today are same as SRI/ZIM of 92 WC? Heck, even Bang is worse than them. I still remember that SL side causing upsets all oer the world.

[Crookbond]

Arey Bhaiyya we are not talking about 92 wc but 92 wc format. Do you seroiusly think ZIm/AFG/IRL of today are same as SRI/ZIM of 92 WC? Heck' date=' even Bang is worse than them. I still remember that SL side causing upsets all oer the world.[/quote'] If the 1992 format would be followed Afghanistan and Ireland will not play! :--D

[Crookbond]

OK I see you point now. But consider a similar pitch like yesterday which was neither too spin friendly nor was anything that would suggest Zak/Dinda would have something in it.

The pitch on which we played with Afghanistan was also on the same ground and it was quite different than against England. There are 4 pitches on that ground and each can behave entirely different from the rest. We need to wait and watch.

[Tridibans_16]

Who were the minnows in the 92 WC? Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. Sri Lanka defeated India and Zimbabwe defeated finalists England. There were no two groups AFAIK and that it how it should be. There can be some other method for make associate teams play.

That is precisely the point I am making. The 92 WC format would suit a tournament with all strong teams like 2013 champions trophy. With a tornament where 3-4 teams are really poor, you cannot have them play against 8 other strong teams and hope to see good cricket. Even in 92WC, ZIM/SRI were quite good as compared to ZIM/AFG/KEN etc of today. Also, with 1 or two dominating team like SAF (as always in the group stages) or say IND(in these conditions) would easily qualify after their 5-6 matches into the tornament. So for the bottom 6-7 teams, it would be really hard to catch up with the points. So again you end up with dead rubbers. In fact, in 92 WC, had the results gone as expected (ENG was robbed of a win against PAK chasing 76 :omg: due to rain, Zim not winning against ENG and SRI winning against IND). AUS/WI would have easily qualified. Pakistan was actually getting knocked out but due to rain affected matches and other favourable results, they made it through. IIRC WI needed to win the last match in the group stages against AUS to qualify but messed up a moderate target of 220.

[NareshK]

Bangladesh have themselves to blame because they lost by a huge margin of 50 odd runs to New Zealand, who are poor players of spin and BD have lots of spinners and their primary bowling attack is through spin. If they had lost closely to NZ, they could have had a chance of winning against Pakistan and edging them out on the NRR. But now, I cant see them defeating Pak by 37 runs. Bangladesh always have these brain fart moments when you expect them to do well. The World Cup match against West Indies where they were bowled out for 50 odd comes to mind.

[Tridibans_16]

.

BTW I always wondered, do you have any soft spot for Eoin Morgan? Just asking :giggle:

[Crookbond]

BTW I always wondered' date=' do you have any soft spot for Eoin Morgan? Just asking :giggle:[/quote'] Do you know who Dexter Morgan stands for ?