Page 5 of 5 First ... 2345
Results 101 to 110 of 110

  1. Post
    <N> wrote:
    The salt from losing teams, eh https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricke...c51d7fa19cf486

    "TIME FOR BEST-OF-THREE SEMIS"

    Ffs. This isn't a bilateral series. You perform when it matters or go home. If you simply get another go then what's the point?

    "But no one outside of New Zealand would be arguing the Kiwis are the second best team on the planet and if that’s the case then perhaps the semi-finals should be best of three."
    Oh that is brilliant and priceless. So salty. Good to show they do care about ODI cricket over there still despite claiming only the Ashes matters.

    A best of 3 semi final and then a best of 3 final will add more weeks to the competition. It will increase injuries. It also means for at the least the first final, the result is not determinitive. That isn't want the ticket holding fan - often a tourist - wants to plan around. Do you skip the third game if the first 2 aren't won? That will be fun to schedule the grounds and staff for.

    This is a silly suggestion. Just silly. He even called the Poms lucky. I'd hate to think of what Australia's head to head with them of late is, but I imagine its pretty dire after the thrashings England gave Aus home and away of late.

    England is the #1 ranked team. They are #1 for a reason. They were always, I mean always, going to click into gear at some point in games. Despite qualifying first, their Net Run Rate was so far ahead of everyone else's. When they win, they often crush opposition. This wasn't a poor facet of a few wickets dropping early for Australia, their bowlers were smashed to smithereens too. They were comprehensively mauled, with both bat and ball.

    India is #2. This is just a salty sob story.
    Last edited by Paddles; 12th July 2019 at 7:52 pm.

  2. Post
    signman wrote:
    That's a silly comment... if you watched the match we played against India you'd realise we are in with a decent chance of winning.
    In case you haven't noticed, MX is trying to jinx the English.

  3. Post
    <N> wrote:
    The salt from losing teams, eh https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricke...c51d7fa19cf486

    "TIME FOR BEST-OF-THREE SEMIS"

    Ffs. This isn't a bilateral series. You perform when it matters or go home. If you simply get another go then what's the point?

    "But no one outside of New Zealand would be arguing the Kiwis are the second best team on the planet and if thatís the case then perhaps the semi-finals should be best of three."

    Gee, welcome to the nature World Cups. We're not the 2nd best, but we're certainly top four. The All Blacks were the best team for many years and couldn't win a WC. ODI rankings don't mean shit when it comes to tournaments.

    Sure, ODI cricket could do with a bit of a makeover... but that won't change the nature of tournament play. I think I'd prefer ODI's to be 40 overs in the long run tbh, needs to be trialled.
    lol what a load of dribble

  4. Post
    Dead Sexy wrote:
    In case you haven't noticed, MX is trying to jinx the English.
    England don't have to be jinxed as they're not that bloody good & this will be our 2nd WC Final in a row, so we have every chance of winning it.

  5. Post
    signman wrote:
    England don't have to be jinxed as they're not that bloody good & this will be our 2nd WC Final in a row, so we have every chance of winning it.
    They are that bloody good. Their form has been insane since 2015. Not unbeatable of course, but jeez if they slightly play to their potential we'll be struggling. Not to mention Archer is on board since those previous years. England just look a far better side than India to me.

  6. Post
    Into "The Final" thread now lads.

  7. Post
    <N> wrote:
    They are that bloody good. Their form has been insane since 2015. Not unbeatable of course, but jeez if they slightly play to their potential we'll be struggling. Not to mention Archer is on board since those previous years. England just look a far better side than India to me.
    Disagree, we are well in this match.

    In terms of their openers it's clear they have copied McCullum's aggressive style from the last world cup & so have some of their other batsmen, the big diff is they've done it intelligently, Baz would idiotically attack the very good balls whereas they defend the very good deliveries & attack anything loose.

    Yeah, the West Indies bowler Archer is a big asset for them.

  8. Post
    signman wrote:
    Disagree, we are well in this match.

    In terms of their openers it's clear they have copied McCullum's aggressive style from the last world cup & so have some of their other batsmen, the big diff is they've done it intelligently, Baz would idiotically attack the very good balls whereas they defend the very good deliveries & attack anything loose.

    Yeah, the West Indies bowler Archer is a big asset for them.
    I never said we weren't in the match, England are the better team and have far more strikepower. That isn't even up for debate. The fact it's a final and we have enough quality to test them means it could be close, but again we'll have to make everything count.

    Last match against England our top 5 dismissals were pretty unfortunate, none of them got out to a good ball.

  9. Post
    wrighty wrote:
    Into "The Final" thread now lads.
    qft

  10. Post
    Fair point wrighty, will continue the debate in The Final thread.