Since there is a thread for the rugby, I thought I'd make on for the Twenty20 WC as well. Anyone else following this? If not, here is an update so far!
South Africa > West Indies by 8 wickets New Zealand > Kenya by 9 wickets Pakistan > Scotland by 51 runs Zimbabwe > Australia by 5 wickets
The matches have been very interesting. I went to watch the warm-up game between SA and AUS (also saw PAK vs SL), and the match was incredible. SA did really well vs. WI in the first game, chasing down 205 with 8 wickets in hand and 14 balls to spare. Gayle got 105 for WI though, first century in international twenty20.
NZ destroyed KEN, bowling them out for a measly 65 (lowest ever international twenty20 score).
Scotland put up a very good fight against PAK, taking wickets regularly and containing them to 171/9 after 20. Unfortunately they tried to hit the "weaker" bowlers a bit too much, and Afridi took four wickets, all from catches.
AUS vs ZIM was an epic game. I didn't see the start of the game (as I was watching the amazing JPN vs FIJI rugby game) but AUS somehow got bowled out for 141. Zimbabwe managed to chase that down, needing 12 runs from the last (Bracken) over. Fortunately their brand new batsman (they lost a wicket on the last ball of the previous over) managed to get 4 runs from the 2 balls he faced, and Taylor got two fours and a single from the three balls he faced, allowing Zimbabwe to scrape a win with 1 ball remaining.
What do you guys think is going to happen with the rest of the tournament? New Zealand looks powerful, and SA seems to have its top batsmen in form, but you can never count AUS out. Should be awesome!
Well, I wouldn't say twenty20 was ridiculous, it's just a comrpomise. I prefer test matches myself, but twenty20 attempts to do something completely different. The fewer the overs, the higher the excitement, but the lower the strategy. It's like running a 100m compared to running a marathon. Twenty20 have more excitement but less strategy, while test matches have more strategy but less excitement. Both forms are good!
PS. I'd say Cricket is the #2 sport in SA, after Rugby, among the white population. The black population prefers soccer, which would make soccer the official #1 sport.
The cricket starts in SA (CET), 9am and continues till 9pm (much the same as the rugby). I'm not sure if they'll broadcast all the games in AUS though, but you should be able to catch the first one if I'm not mistaken.
yeah australia is big on cricket.. i never though much of the sport till i watched the ashses in australia. was amazing =] made me think twice about it.
Australia is the Federer of cricket, probably even more dominant.
I can't let that quote pass. Australia might have won the last three world cups, but South Africa should have won the 1999 one, and South Africa should have had the 1992 one as well (rain system used before Duckworth/Lewis completely screwed us over, we needed 30 runs from 20 balls with two in form bastmen swinging, then it rained, and after rain we needed 20 runs from 1 ball).
Also, SA has consistently beaten AUS in the one day cricket recently, and even passed AUS on the one day rankings. That said, I do believe that AUS is still a better team, but Federer is in a different league with the tennis. He's broken every record that can be broken (Grand slam titles, winning streaks, prize money, time at #1) and at the start of this year he had 8700 points on the rankings, while Nadal was on 4200. Australia is dominant in cricket, but not nearly as dominant as Federer.
I hate it when SA loses to AUS, although that hasn't been happening as much (as it did at one point) recently.
NZ is suddenly very strong as well. I don't know why, their players don't look as impressive, but they play incredibly well.
How the how did Australia lose to Zimbabwe?
I caught the highlights this morning, and I'm shocked to say that it was more because ZIM was playing well than because AUS screwed up (which is obviously what everyone thought happened). AUS lost a few dumb wickets which is to be expected in twenty20, but what restricted them to 140 was that ZIM took crucial wickets at the right time, through stunning play. Anyway, the wickets fell as follows:
Hayden hit a four and then swung at a clear wide, edged the ball and got caught behind. Gilchrist tried that straight-bat pull/scoop shot he plays to the legside, but took a leading edge and got caught on the boundary. Ponting tried to sweep a fast bowler and top edged the ball to fine leg. Hussey and Symonds then put up a nice partnership before Symonds sent Hussey back for a run, and the Zimbabwean fielder got a direct hit at the wickets from 100% square of the wickets, awesome fielding. Then Symonds and Hodge did well until Symonds went for a big drive, and slipped as he tried to get back into his crease. He was out of his crease for half a second maybe, but the keeper stumped him perfectly. Once again great fielding. After this I can't really remember too much, I remember there were 2 diving catches, Lee or Johnson was bowled by a nice swinging yorker, and Hodge remained not-out with a highest score of 35.
Chasing down the total wasn't that hard, ZIM needed 60 from 40 at one point, with 6 wickets in hand, and their batsmen both with decent scores. They got it down to 25 needed of 21, and then they stagnated a bit, losing a wicket along the way. In the final over they needed 12 to win, which they reached with one ball remaining. But the ZIM played exceptionally well, especially in the field.
Australia is the Federer of cricket, probably even more dominant.
I can't let that quote pass. Australia might have won the last three world cups, but South Africa should have won the 1999 one, and South Africa should have had the 1992 one as well (rain system used before Duckworth/Lewis completely screwed us over, we needed 30 runs from 20 balls with two in form bastmen swinging, then it rained, and after rain we needed 20 runs from 1 ball).
Also, SA has consistently beaten AUS in the one day cricket recently, and even passed AUS on the one day rankings. That said, I do believe that AUS is still a better team, but Federer is in a different league with the tennis. He's broken every record that can be broken (Grand slam titles, winning streaks, prize money, time at #1) and at the start of this year he had 8700 points on the rankings, while Nadal was on 4200. Australia is dominant in cricket, but not nearly as dominant as Federer.
I hate it when SA loses to AUS, although that hasn't been happening as much (as it did at one point) recently.
NZ is suddenly very strong as well. I don't know why, their players don't look as impressive, but they play incredibly well.
Yes, in one-dayers it is more evem. But test cricket is where all the skills come in.
Australia's test record over the last 9 years. Played: 93 Won: 69 Lost: 13 Tied/Draw: 11 Win%: 74.19
And quite a few of those losses were from dead rubbers.
I won't argue with the test match stats, South Africa had a short run as a test match power, and we're probably still 2nd or 3rd best (although we are ranked 5th), but Australia is much better. I do not agree that test cricket is where the skill comes in. That is like saying that Marathon running is the only skillful form of running, while 400m and 100m sprints don't count for anything. In this case, Ethiopia is the world running champion, and Australia doesn't feature at all.
I think test matches consist of a lot of strategy, but also of patience and endurance. ODIs still have a decent amount of strategy, but it's not as much dependent on endurance and patience, and it rewards creative play more. Twenty20 cricket rewards pure hitting talent more than ODIs or Test matches, but it still depends on strategy a lot, especially bowling and fielding strategy.
So in my opinion ODIs are the most balanced form of the game, while test matches focus more on endurance an long term strategy, and twenty20 depends more on pure skill.
PS: Bangladesh > West Indies with 5 wickets, West Indies are out, SA and BAN are through. England are 51/3 vs. Zim after 5.3 overs, their big hitter just went out.
Australia is the Federer of cricket, because whenever it matters we win.
We've been the best team in both forms since 1999 and there isn't much argument on this one.
A whole bunch of our guys retired last year, so we probably won't be winning as much anymore, but for any team to win three consecutive World Cups in any sports is a massive, massive achievement.
New Zealand just played an awful game there. It was fairly tight (SL needed about 44 from 36) but NZ kept on miss-fielding (I think 2 of the mistakes went for four), over-throwing, and just not concentrating. Jayasuria is clearly in form, but perhaps he is tiring a bit? He slowed down a lot at the end. In anyway, comfortable victory for SL.
lol south africa chocked again, still havn't made it to a final of a major tournament
australia was pretty unlucky to lose to india, they were cruising to victory with about 5 overs left
SA was the only team with only one loss in the whole tournament, and they fell out due to that loss. Australia got their third loss, and you say they were unlucky to fall out?
SA did play badly though, but I felt they were very unfortunate to go out after just one loss. Sigh, now lets hope the rugby goes better.
EPT
