QuoteThey 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.
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.
Last edited by bennocelt; 02/04/2011 at 12:12 PM.
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
Last edited by geysir; 02/04/2011 at 1:09 PM.
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.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.
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.
Last edited by mypost; 04/04/2011 at 7:05 PM.
NL 1st Division Champions 2006
NL Premier Division Champions 2010
NL Premier Division Champions 2011
Keep Tallaght Tidy, Throw your rubbish in the Jodi
Ten Years Not Out
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.
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.
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.....
Last edited by ArdeeBhoy; 05/04/2011 at 11:04 AM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks