Sri Lanka: 231-0 (39.3 overs)
Awesome, as they say.
Printable View
Sri Lanka: 231-0 (39.3 overs)
Awesome, as they say.
They did. 10 wicket defeat. Both openers got 100s, in fact they held off going for the win at the end to let the guy in the 90s get the strike.
In fairness to England, they must be knackered. They've been on the road since November.
Always good to see them take a good beating....
Hard to find a watchable stream for the final.
SL 67/2 18 overs
It looks like India have SL in a vice grip.
The second link there is better. for now.
SL really did well after a slow start.
into the last over now, they should get 260 - 265.
Finish with 274 runs, bloody hell
Yeah the second one is better, good effort from the last pair - got a good partnership - still too close to call -
33/2 and Tendulkar gone
Pressure getting to India, they could be bottling it.
Are they the Shamrock Rovers of the cricket world?
neck and neck
India 128-3 26 overs gone
I'd say India are ahead, they still have their biggest weapon to come, Yuvraj Singh.
I swear to god didnt u just know that when the commentator says that gambhir was set to get a 100 - i just knew he wud be bowled out straight after- commentators curse always happens
Tense and fitting Final to end a great tournament with India, deserved winners.
Watched with it with an Indian pal and an Ireland fan who'd been out to India, in Southall, London which is a massive Indian (Punjabi) area which witnessed epic celebrations afterwards.
That was funny alright.
Really enjoyable tournament. Hopefully the 50 over format will regain its status. 20/20 is like rugby Sevens. Kind of enjoyable but totally frivolous. 20/20 is cricket for people who don't like cricket.
Well done India. Well done that girl in the orange t-shirt and light blue jeans.
http://www.rte.ie/sport/cricket/2011...worldcup_.html
Shocking decision
But sadly unsurprising.
It's "McDonalds" type cricket. Fast, exciting, but not very good for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Nothing shocking about it. It was entirely predictable. We gave the ICC everything they wanted at this WC. By producing an upset, but not enough of them to stop the best 8 ranked nations making the quarter finals.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
In reality, we are getting kicked for the poor game scheduling in recent tournaments. Because the other countries were uncompetitive, and the tournament was dragged out so long, most neutrals lost interest until the knockout phase.
But I'm sure the test teams all playing each other once, if not twice or more in the next tournament, will enhance the sport no end. :rolleyes:
Real bad decision. Looks like they are frightened of getting turned over by one of the 'minnows'.
Very disappointing, I certainly will not be watching it.
Hmm, a lot can happen in 4 years. Will Zimbabwe even be playing Tests by then? They hardly play any now, mainly because most people don't want to play them....based on the security factor.
I imagine Ireland (and Canada and Holland) simply add very little to viewing figures, attendances and TV rights income. You can argue it's a bad decision alright, but I don't see any point in misrepresenting the point of view of those who made it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
Zimbabwe, New Zealand, West Indies and even Sri Lanka don't add much income either. Pakistan can't stage any games because of political instability. Games not featuring the host country have tiny crowds- only English fans travel abroad in any number.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
The ICC (dominated by India, whose TV largely funds the sport nowadays) have take this decision to reduce the number of mismatches while still ensuring that there aren't more players from Strabane than India and Pakistan combined at the business end of the tournament.
Personally, I'd prefer
* 12 teams in the finals (eight pre-qualifying, everyone else including Bangla and Zim have to qualify)
* three groups of four, top two progress
* 'super six' where each team plays the other four, points from first stage carried through
* top two in final
total games at finals: 18 (groups) + 12 (super six) + final = 31.
Erm, similarly Zimbabwe/NZ.
In answer to PS's post.
As in virtually nothing in terms of crowds or even TV income.
Though to be fair NZ have reached (& lost) 5 WC S-F's.
As for the suggested tournament format, that just won't happen. Too few games for TV etc.
Finally, whilst the Strabane input is welcome, that was a one-off blip.....
Quite possible; I don't know enough that much about cricket really. I suppose the organisers would say that seeing as they can't take all those countries, taking out the worst offenders is a start in "improving" the tournament. My point is just that to say that the decision was taken because the big teams were afraid of losing is, I think, to overlook the obvious reasons why the change might have been made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
When this was first talked about during the world cup, the issue seemed to be more the total duration of the tournament. That was more to do with the scheduling than the extra teams - they could play lesser matches at the same time to run it of quicker, if that wasn't just a convenient excuse.
No-one's saying they should include all the second-tier countries in the finals. I suggested above a format which would include only the strongest qualifiers (best of the worst offenders, if you like), and which would also reduce the number of games from 49 to 31 while still giving all the top six seven matches each, as now.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
The obvious reason is that Indian TV bankrolls the game and is scared of losing money. The most obvious way that happens is if India don't qualify for the later stages, as happened in 2007.Quote:
My point is just that to say that the decision was taken because the big teams were afraid of losing is, I think, to overlook the obvious reasons why the change might have been made
I'm agreeing with you, by the way. I just wanted to challenge the idea that it was being done because the big countries were afraid of being embarrassed by losing to the small countries.
Fair enough. As for the big countries, I think there's a definite hierarchy nowadays:Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
India (finances the sport)
England, Australia (used to finance and dominate it, respectively)
Pakistan (limited by political instability) South Africa (minority sport status) Sri Lanka (relatively small poor country)
West Indies (see Pakistan on obviously much lesser scale), New Zealand (see South Africa), Bangladesh (see Sri Lanka)
Everybody else led By Zim, Ireland, Netherlands, Canada, Kenya.
(note- this table doesn't equate to playing strength, New Zealand have reached five semi finals in the World Cup).
NZ & SA both have cricket as their main summer sport.
Just not too many punters in the former's case.
And both massively smaller than the combined rugby/soccer interest there.
AB- I think we're largely agreed.
I don't pretend to understanding TV's scheduling in detail, but of the 18 games lost in my plan, nine or 10 of them involved the two weakest teams getting routine thrashings (Kenya and Netherlands lost every game). Is that really what Sky, Star etc. want?
Well there's some hypocrisy by the organisers in a certain way, more minor teams means more leeway for bigger sides, should they muck-up v. one of their main rivals....
More seriously, they should be looking to broaden the game's very narrow appeal.
Never mind Ireland, but hearing great things about the game in the US, who will be a serious threat in the next 20 years or so, even if there's no interest in their own backyard.
hearing great thigns from where? Remember reading that there's only 5 cricket pitches in the whole country.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
EDIT; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_IC...Division_Three
Are you making stuff up agian?
When u think that Ireland were very competitive in all their world cup games and that it doesnt look that difficult to win a cricket world cup - its a joke of a decision. The only thing that set the world cup alight over here amongst the English public was Ireland beating England, nothing else. Only in Southall and the like was the final a big thing
What are you on about??Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Why would I (or anyone) 'make stuff up' ??
It's just what I read.
Maybe the journalists were exaggerating though....
And I asked you where you heard it, so links would help prove you're not making stuff up
So every MB assertion has to be backed up a corresponding link??
Hmm.
That seems unnecessary even by the pedantry standards some seem to crave at every opportunity....
Try Cricinfo or Google if it's so important.
I read it in sports pages, guessing of English papers, but one of them may have been The Irish Times about a cricket project* & league for former gang members in Compton and the LA/Oakland area.
If memory serves me correctly the writer of the piece or possibly somebody senior in that set-up seemed very bullish about their prospects.
Especially tapping into those from the Indian sub-continent stateside and W.Indian immigrants. Plus some more 'local' Afro-Americans and Hispanics.
* There is a similar League in the New York area
It's a nice check to see if people aren't just talking crap. Dodge has posted a link which shows America getting relegated into Division Four of the World Cricket league, being dismissed for 44 against the mighty Papua New Guinea. That really doesn't correspond at all with what you're saying. And that was after trying google, as you suggest.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
One link on Google proves nothing.
The American gentleman did say, erm, in the future....
And was backed up by pundits in the article. Simply by nature of the potential player base.
If you really want to be pedants come back in 5 years and tell me I'm wrong then???
Though I notice you both have a large no.of posts without associated links, as do numerous others.
Does that mean they're all talking cr*p then??
It proves more than no links. Especially when it shows them being all out against PNG for 44 in 20.2 overs, with one PNG bowler recording figures of 4 for 1, and with PNG taking just 7 overs to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
You made a claim; Dodge refuted it. Ball's in your court to show something - anything - to back your claim up now. Or, if you're going on a vague article that you read once, you're free to admit that maybe you took it up wrong as well.
Hmm, it must be hard, being so perfect.
Like the man said, ask again in 5-10 yrs. & tell them they're talking cr*p then....
Taking it a bit personal there Ardee? Not a huge deal, but if you're going to make an outrageous claim, you can't be too dismissive of people who try and bring facts into it.
Agreed. Given NZL's sustained success in the tournament it's not inconceivable Ireland could make a quarter-final in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
England fans lost interest when England got knocked out. I think it might be slighter truer to say that the Irish fans in England were most engaged by Ireland's win against England.Quote:
The only thing that set the world cup alight over here amongst the English public was Ireland beating England, nothing else. Only in Southall and the like was the final a big thing
I found that English fans were just happy to beat the Australians in the Ashes this year, and more than a few didnt give a fiddlers about the world cupQuote:
Originally Posted by Gather round