• PlanetCricket has been upgraded to the latest version of the XenForo forum software, to find out more - including asking any questions or making any notes about any part of the forum that may be broken - see this discussion thread.

22nd Match, Group E: England v New Zealand at Gros Islet

BKB1991

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Location
Manchester
Online Cricket Games Owned
:banana2 :banana2 :banana2

Surely We owe England one, bigtime! Cant believe our luck!! Our fielding wasnt as bad today and felt for Kallis had their been any other fielder than Akmal it was a safe shot. We may not have deserved to go through, but which team would you say should go then? NZL OR SAF? Tbh its the team that wins in pressure situations that are the most successful. Cant believe it. Pakistan to beat Australia next!!! :D

Oh Yeah Baby we are in the Semi's!!!
 

BKB1991

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Location
Manchester
Online Cricket Games Owned
Pretty much, Unless Sri Lanka beat India heavily and WI beat Australia, then we might face Sri Lanka. So its most likely that we are going to face Australia
 

barmyarmy

Retired Administrator
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Location
Edinburgh
I'd quite fancy WI again in the semis rather than India or Sri Lanka. Great performance today; looks like a team with something about them for a change.
 

SaiSrini

ICC President
PlanetCricket Award Winner
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Location
USA
Pretty much, Unless Sri Lanka beat India heavily and WI beat Australia, then we might face Sri Lanka. So its most likely that we are going to face Australia

Its very likely that Pakistan will face Australia. Cant see SL beating us heavily (although beating us is possible) and WI beating Australia. But anyways, for Pakistan being there in the semifinal is a bonus. I back Pakistan to be there in the final. Give them backdoor opportunities like this and they can storm through. And the semis is at St Lucia and not Barbados (Australia looked invincible at Barbados but not as much in St Lucia)
 

ali_ed2001

Club Cricketer
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Location
USA
Online Cricket Games Owned
thank you England! you've given us one more chance...although it's against Australia
 

aussie1st

Retired Administrator
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Location
Auckland
Well played England you guys are definitely the second favourites in my book and have the team to beat us. NZ batsmen just never fired, those 30s and 40s aren't enough.
 

Aoun13

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Location
Rawalpindi (Pak)
Profile Flag
Pakistan
Online Cricket Games Owned
  1. Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
Great, what a lucky bets today I have. Pakistan is some how through and now we can assume a hard,heavy Semifinal in St. Lucia.
 
P

pcfan123

Guest
The difference between us and Australia will be the 40 runs Sidebottom goes for
 

irottev

School Cricketer
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Location
England
Online Cricket Games Owned
I think we lost on form more than anything. England are at the top of their game and could play without fear having their spot secured. Morgan especially seems to just not be failing. Us on the other hand, we have no consistency, none of the batsmen have been consistent. McCullum and Ryder have had 2 decent knocks each and then 2 failures, same with the rest of the order really. The bowling - we've had to make changes brining in Butler which was a bad move. People say he won us the Pakistan game but I disagree. His bowling was poor. We probably woulda been better off with Southee. He did nothing to deserve being dropped

South Africa are in the same boat as us. No form. On paper SA and NZ are stronger but Pakistan go through (mainly due to luck - they don't really deserve a spot, none of the 3 sides do) and England who are in form.

We need to be more aggressive at the top of the order as that's probably the stage of the game we suffered - we played nervously. The death batting coulda been better too. Weak links like Hopkins who shouldn't be in the side losing momentum.
 

War

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Online Cricket Games Owned
Yeah. The last year Collingwood's really improved:

2009: 7 innings, 134 runs at 19.14 with 1 half century and a strike rate of 136.
2010: 7 innings, 59 runs at 8.33 with 0 half centuries (HS of 16) and a strike rate of 102.

Ha hold up. I never said KP had improved in the last year. So i dont know why you felt you needed to show me his recent T20 record, im well aware of it.

Collingwood's been abysmal in the last 2 years of T20i cricket. The only year he's ever maintained a remotely impressive level of performance was in 2007, and he only averaged 24 that year, with a strike rate of 139. If he's one of our best T20 bats at International level, don't you think he should start proving it, and start making some runs of actual note.

Sure. But as said before, up until 2008 T20 worldwide & for England was treated as basically exhibition games. It wasn't taking seriously. So their is no need to dwell on hsi performances crica 2005-2008 or any ENG player.

Collingwood is clearly one of the best T20 batsmen we have & overall T20 players. His record doesn't reflect his true ability, im sure he knows he needs to improve & im sure he will soon enough, when it matters for us. So you need to camn down & not worry so much yo...

Surely you don't doubt Collingwood has all the skills to be an effective T20I batsman??.

One innings, in South Africa on a flat pitch is not enough to prove that he's one of our best T20 batsmen.

Haha Excuse me what?. Why is & when is the state of the pitch ever important in a T20?. That was a top SA attack & it was the same game where Morgan batted brillaintly. What kind of double standard is that?. Was the pitch different when Morgan was batitng?? Really now son..:facepalm



His performances this year have been pathetic, and performing decently in the IPL on flat pitches against generally poor bowling attacks is not enough to prove he's a flash International T20 batsman.

Nah. Evne though IPL bowling is poor, its still better than our domestic T20. Its still a fair guide as to whether a player would be a good T20 player internationally.

- Its the same IPL that propelled Michael Lumb into the team currently.

- Australia picked Sean Marsh based on IPL performances.

- Mahela & Kallis revived their international careers as T20 players by learning to open in a T20 in the IPL.

- Yusuf Pathan got his international career going based on IPL performances

So its not wise to dscredit all IPL performances. You can definately watch a player in the IPL & judge whether he could have success in international cricket. Collingwood certainly come acorss as a batsman who has all the pre-requiste skills to be a good T2Oi player.



Maybe Trott isn't the right option, though I'd consider dropping Kieswetter down to 5 and having Trott open with Lumb; but I don't think Collingwood is either. He isn't a particularly proficient captain, isn't making runs and the captaincy does appear to affect his fielding. If he's good enough in this form of the game, at International level then he needs to step up and start proving it. I'm struggling to see how he could possibly be deemed one of our best T20 batsmen at the minute tbh.

Kieswetter must always open. He has never played in the middle-order role in ODIs & T20s domestically. His game againts the spinners looks a bit hit & miss. Dropping down the middle-order could possibly be as troublesome as when we picked Prior & G Jones to open in limited overs when they clearly never did it before domestically. If Trott can ever play in the T20 is to replace Lumb - which ATM is not going to happen.

I really dont know what you have been watching if you telling me captaincy has affecting has affected Collingwood's fielding. You sure your skypsorts is working well my friend :laugh

Finally he is one of T20 bats. As i said above yes his record is not the best. But he has all the skills to do well in this format, its only a matter of time.

Im shocked to hear anyone question Collingwood's place in the T20 side. You defiantely are in a minority with this one since he is clealry safe in Andy Flower, the selectors books & probably 99% of England fans.
 

Chewie

BCCI President
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Location
Auckland
Online Cricket Games Owned
  1. Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
Butler :facepalm

Would have been much better with Southee in the team.
 

CG123

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Location
Auckland
Online Cricket Games Owned
I think our line-up is all WRONG.
I just don't think we have the batting power down the order to mix it.
In that last over all six balls Nathan McCullum and Dan were trying to play stupid paddel sweeps, while our 7 and 8 really should be power players who can clear the rope with ease.

My proposal, however stupid it may seem:

1. McCullum
2. Southee (6)
3. Vettori (4)
4. Taylor
5. Styris (5)
6. Ryder
7. Oram (In a year or two bring in de Grandhomme)
8. McCullum (2/3)
9. Hopkins (can move around depending on the situation)
10. Mills (2/3)
11. Bond (1)

I think play Southee as a wild card and open with him, just say he can swing the bat in the first six and if he gets out who cares as he wouldn't of normally got a bat.
Vettori at three, not at six/seven. At six and seven you need players who can hit the ball down the ground and a long way, which Vettori plain and simply can't.
I think he would be more use with a harder ball, and with only two fielders out he can play the gaps.
Ryder should go down the order, this T20 WC he just hasn't looked good opening. It seems to many times when McCullum (or him) go out early the first six are just wasted by him working the ball and not trying to lose another wicket. This way he will have a free license to swing the bat, and we know he can hit big.
I would play Oram a specialist batsmen down at seven. Who cares if he only comes off one in five, he's match winner with the bat and needs to be there.
Bowling wise Southee will just bowl at the death, meaning Bond will share the new ball with Mills or McCullum. Vettori and Styris will take the pace off during the middle. Oram and Ryder can also bowl, but are mainly there for their batting.

I think we got the players, in fact we have a much better overall side when compared with ENG and PAK, it's just that especially ENG seemed a lot more prepared for the T20 game, and have specialists who just play this form. It seemed like England players knew what the roles were, and played well with good tactics.
PAK getting into semis is total BS, as they only won one game against a good team and they are in.
 

Chewie

BCCI President
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Location
Auckland
Online Cricket Games Owned
  1. Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
It's a very good idea, but the likelihood of the selectors ever going with that is zero. Southee really can only swing big if its against fast medium bowlers, he couldn't open against say Australia or Malinga.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top