Sooda Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 ^He might be very fit, but he is not physically powerful, relatively speaking. Just a quick look at T20I records Jaya played 42 Ave 32 SR 136 with 28 6's Watson played 35 Ave 31 SR 149 with 62 6's A higher SR for Watto sure, but no so significantly higher... point being power does help a lot but its not vital , anyway Jaya is in a class of his own really
msb1991 Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 Ranking us bottom of hitting sixes as something important is utterly ridiculous. Does anyone care that we beat Pakistan and South Africa? Do results not matter anymore? Does one defeat mean a team is useless?
vamos_rafa Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 People are saying Kohli was crying but he was more dejected than anything else. Kambli on the other hand looked like a sissy little girl whose favorite toy was snatched. Huge difference between the two. Con'on yaar U_G. This is now far fetched. Crying or no crying, what makes you feel that only he was the most dejected? Gambhir's face was also pretty down. This just does not make any sense. He's just the favourite of the crowd right now and hence gets the benefits of doubts. BTW, I myslef enjoy Kohli's batting, but cant stand these far fetched things.
vamos_rafa Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 He is just a passionate cricketer. Ya, just like Sreesanth, who got away with this passionate cricketer tag when he used to take wickets. But, now when he inflates his nostrils with the same aggro, it looks stupid does not it?
Precambrian Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Past data suggests: WC 07 Team Matches 6s 6/match West Indies 2 20 10.00 New Zealand 6 40 6.67 Pakistan 7 41 5.86 India 7 38 5.43 England 5 27 5.40 Sri Lanka 5 27 5.40 South Africa 5 23 4.60 Australia 6 26 4.33 Bangladesh 5 16 3.20 Zimbabwe 2 5 2.50 Kenya 2 2 1.00 Scotland 2 0 - WC 09 Team Matches 6s 6/match Australia 2 13 6.50 Bangladesh 2 10 5.00 India 5 19 3.80 New Zealand 5 17 3.40 South Africa 6 19 3.17 Pakistan 7 21 3.00 West Indies 6 18 3.00 Scotland 2 6 3.00 Netherlands 2 5 2.50 England 5 12 2.40 Sri Lanka 7 16 2.29 Ireland 5 10 2.00 WC 10 Team Matches 6s 6/match Australia 7 57 8.14 South Africa 5 33 6.60 India 5 32 6.40 Pakistan 6 33 5.50 Sri Lanka 6 31 5.17 Bangladesh 2 10 5.00 England 7 34 4.86 New Zealand 5 20 4.00 West Indies 5 20 4.00 Afghanistan 2 8 4.00 Zimbabwe 2 0 -
Crookbond Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Ranking us bottom of hitting sixes as something important is utterly ridiculous. Does anyone care that we beat Pakistan and South Africa? Do results not matter anymore? Does one defeat mean a team is useless? The theory is - if you do not win the WC you are 'useless'. Try making sense out of that.
saneindian Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Ranking us bottom of hitting sixes as something important is utterly ridiculous. Does anyone care that we beat Pakistan and South Africa? Do results not matter anymore? Does one defeat mean a team is useless? Does it really matter how many matches you go onto win? When you go into a tournament like this, ultimately what counts is how far you go into the tournament and not the matches a side wins. If matches won was the criteria, SA would perhaps be the best ever side in the WCs and we should not have won the last ODI WC. Or for that matter AUstralia and not India should be alled the better team of the CB series in 2008. 4/5 may look fantastic on paper but end of the day we have not made it to the knockout stage again. Those wins become irrelevant as they did not help us progress in the tournament. In fact that win vs SA may actually prove to be harmful in the long run as 4/5 is the number that will be thrown around as the proof of how well this team has played under MSD and how unlucky they were. A loss there would have certainly meant the end of the road for MSD's captaincy career.
CG Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Does it really matter how many matches you go onto win? When you go into a tournament like this, ultimately what counts is how far you go into the tournament and not the matches a side wins. If matches won was the criteria, SA would perhaps be the best ever side in the WCs and we should not have won the last ODI WC. Or for that matter AUstralia and not India should be alled the better team of the CB series in 2008. 4/5 may look fantastic on paper but end of the day we have not made it to the knockout stage again. Those wins become irrelevant as they did not help us progress in the tournament. In fact that win vs SA may actually prove to be harmful in the long run as 4/5 is the number that will be thrown around as the proof of how well this team has played under MSD and how unlucky they were. A loss there would have certainly meant the end of the road for MSD's captaincy career. You are right but i do not agree a loss would have ended his career ,dhoni has so much backing its up to him and he is shameless ,so he will never step away.
Old guy Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 P.S : I did not create this! like i said i wont complain..even dhoni captained well imo picked right guys most of times yes rohit was selected but that is team policy.. ask gauti :cantstop: after 8-0 this feels like we won world cup :giggle:
rkt.india Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 like i said i wont complain..even dhoni captained well imo picked right guys most of times yes rohit was selected but that is team policy.. ask gauti :cantstop: after 8-0 this feels like we won world cup :giggle: and Rohit played an important role in win against England.
Old guy Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 and Rohit played an important role in win against England. yep if e would have played like tht vs saffers we could have won and qualified long shot but possible
msb1991 Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Does it really matter how many matches you go onto win? When you go into a tournament like this, ultimately what counts is how far you go into the tournament and not the matches a side wins. If matches won was the criteria, SA would perhaps be the best ever side in the WCs and we should not have won the last ODI WC. Or for that matter AUstralia and not India should be alled the better team of the CB series in 2008. 4/5 may look fantastic on paper but end of the day we have not made it to the knockout stage again. Those wins become irrelevant as they did not help us progress in the tournament. In fact that win vs SA may actually prove to be harmful in the long run as 4/5 is the number that will be thrown around as the proof of how well this team has played under MSD and how unlucky they were. A loss there would have certainly meant the end of the road for MSD's captaincy career. This post is madness. One, there is little to no proof that this is a long term trend. Two, in what way can the absence of sixes link to winning most matches but not progressing in a tournament. How do sixes have anything to do with that? Unless you try to connect it with net run rate but that is a tenuous connection indeed.
rkt.india Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 This post is madness. One' date=' there is little to no proof that this is a long term trend. Two, [b']in what way can the absence of sixes link to winning most matches but not progressing in a tournament. How do sixes have anything to do with that? Unless you try to connect it with net run rate but that is a tenuous connection indeed. Sixes increases scoring rate and then will ultimately help in better RR.
Crookbond Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 ^ Depends - number of dot balls can balance it out.
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