[Cricket] T20 World Cup 2022 in Australia

[mikeyjh]

Now folks, after this little jolly, join me tuning into TMS at 04.30 on the 1st December for the distant crackles from the empirical telegraph and the joys of the long game.

Looking forward to it!

Love a bit of TMS so I'm not a BBC basher but their bloody cricket highlights! What's with the music and special effects?!? You're getting all the razzmatazz from the ground and that's great but the BBC stuff is just irritating.

 

[Audax]

Wow, I didn't expect sour grapes.

'Our bowling is the best in the world, but we lost one player for 2 overs and that's why we lost'.

Ok mate.

Sour grapes? Take a step back for a moment and take the pro-England spectacles off. They lost two overs from their best bowler, a bloke who's proven he can be a match winner in white ball cricket. Those deliveries he couldn't bowl, they had to replace with far inferior bowlers and that had a definite impact on the direction of the match.

Now whether or not it actually changed the result of the match will forever be a moot point (personally, I think they would have lost anyway). But I do think it's fair enough for them to mention it as a mitigating factor in their loss. Exactly the same as England would have mentioned it if they'd lost after, say, Sam Curran had hobbled off after 2 overs and the overs from whoever bowled his remaining quota had gone for big runs.

In other news, England have a boost ahead of their three 50-over games vs Australia starting later this week: "The Big Show" (Maxwell) will be a "no show" after breaking a leg at a birthday party. https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/...-after-breaking-leg-in-freak-accident-1344640

 

[keaton]

Now folks, after this little jolly, join me tuning into TMS at 04.30 on the 1st December for the distant crackles from the empirical telegraph and the joys of the long game.

There's a ODI on Thursday

 

[Triggaaar]

Sour grapes? Take a step back for a moment and take the pro-England spectacles off.

It's nothing to do with pro-England specs. Captains don't usually make excuses when they're missing a player. And they didn't miss him for much either.

They lost two overs from their best bowler, a bloke who's proven he can be a match winner in white ball cricket. Those deliveries he couldn't bowl, they had to replace with far inferior bowlers and that had a definite impact on the direction of the match.

It was only 1.5 overs he missed, and his first 2 overs went for 13 runs, so not exactly Sam Curran level. Pakistan scored 137 - that never looked likely to be enough and England were favourites the whole way, even before Shaheen's injury.

Now whether or not it actually changed the result of the match will forever be a moot point (personally, I think they would have lost anyway). But I do think it's fair enough for them to mention it as a mitigating factor in their loss.

It wasn't that Babar just mentioned it, it was that he suggested it was the reason they lost. Fast bowlers are always at risk of injury.

 

[nicko31]

Like 1992 most of the crowd at the MCG wanted England to lose. Thankfully this time they didn't go home happy.

Beating the Ozzies would have been sweeter, but parading in their backyard instead will do.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

It's nothing to do with pro-England specs. Captains don't usually make excuses when they're missing a player. And they didn't miss him for much either.


It was only 1.5 overs he missed, and his first 2 overs went for 13 runs, so not exactly Sam Curran level. Pakistan scored 137 - that never looked likely to be enough and England were favourites the whole way, even before Shaheen's injury.



It wasn't that Babar just mentioned it, it was that he suggested it was the reason they lost. Fast bowlers are always at risk of injury.

They missed him for near enough 10% of the innings.
That economy rate is less than England required to win. More to the point, he's a bowler they might have hoped would get a couple of wickets in those remaining deliveries.
Fast bowlers aren't normally considered to be at any more risk than anybody else of ricking themselves while taking a catch.
Of course you could suggest that Pakistan should have better back up bowlers in the team, but it's not like England would look much better if Curran had pulled up part way through his third over and his remaining deliveries had to be bowled by Moeen or Livingstone.
Regardless of whether we would have won anyway, it's fair enough to bring it up afterwards.

 

[Triggaaar]

They missed him for near enough 10% of the innings.

We won with an over to spare.

That economy rate is less than England required to win. More to the point, he's a bowler they might have hoped would get a couple of wickets in those remaining deliveries.
Fast bowlers aren't normally considered to be at any more risk than anybody else of ricking themselves while taking a catch.

Not while taking a catch, but fast bowlers are often out with injuries.

Regardless of whether we would have won anyway, it's fair enough to bring it up afterwards.

As I said, it's one thing to bring it up ('he was a miss at the end') but Babar went further than that, and it sounded like sour grapes.

It seems that you guys have spent too long in Australia, their bitterness is rubbing off on you

 

[Triggaaar]

Buttler and Hales:

I just need to bounce this, as I'm not allowed to give it another like

 

[Simster]

We won with an over to spare.


Not while taking a catch, but fast bowlers are often out with injuries.




As I said, it's one thing to bring it up ('he was a miss at the end') but Babar went further than that, and it sounded like sour grapes.

It seems that you guys have spent too long in Australia, their bitterness is rubbing off on you

I sympathize with Pakistan but I agree with you. You can't say "we lost a key player and that's why we lost". Sounds bitter, ignored the state of the game at the time and had no basis in fact.

He might have made the difference but probably not in all likelihood. The real reason they lost is that a) they were probably 20-30 runs short, followed by b) England scoring plenty during the power play. So even though we were 3 down after 5 or 6 overs, our decent start meant we could take the easy 1s and 2s without taking risks for the middle part of the innings. Even when the asking rate did move away from a comfortable run a ball, Stokes and Moeen slapped 4 boundaries in 4 balls and pretty much won the game right then.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I sympathize with Pakistan but I agree with you. You can't say "we lost a key player and that's why we lost". Sounds bitter, ignored the state of the game at the time and had no basis in fact.

He might have made the difference but probably not in all likelihood. The real reason they lost is that a) they were probably 20-30 runs short, followed by b) England scoring plenty during the power play. So even though we were 3 down after 5 or 6 overs, our decent start meant we could take the easy 1s and 2s without taking risks for the middle part of the innings. Even when the asking rate did move away from a comfortable run a ball, Stokes and Moeen slapped 4 boundaries in 4 balls and pretty much won the game right then.

I don't think anybody doubts that the main reason that they lost is that their batting is shit (which it is, England's generally good performance with the ball notwithstanding).
Having just listened to his post match interview, he started by saying congratulations to England for their win, later said they were 20 or 30 runs short, and said that things might have been different had Shaheen not been injured (which is undeniably true) in answer to a question about their bowling attack. What exactly is he meant to say?

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

It wasn't that Babar just mentioned it, it was that he suggested it was the reason they lost. Fast bowlers are always at risk of injury.

Exactly, bit disappointing.

Alternatively if England had Bairstow and Joffra…….. etc. etc..

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

We won with an over to spare.

Which could have been very different if we'd lost wickets earlier on. Obviously there's no guarantee Afridi would have taken any wickets, but it's reasonable to say things could have turned out differently if he'd been fit to bowl throughout.

Not while taking a catch, but fast bowlers are often out with injuries.

Not normally halfway through their allocation in a T20. As I said, it's a fair criticism of Pakistan that their team doesn't include more backup bowling options, but once they're on the field it's reasonable for Azam to expect to get the full 4 overs from him, and to be able to bring him on whenever he wants.

As I said, it's one thing to bring it up ('he was a miss at the end') but Babar went further than that, and it sounded like sour grapes.

He said things might have been different, which is true. He also said they were 20-30 runs short and started by congratulating England.

It seems that you guys have spent too long in Australia, their bitterness is rubbing off on you

 

[mikeyjh]

Exactly, bit disappointing.

Alternatively if England had Bairstow and Joffra…….. etc. etc..

And Mark Wood...

 

[Triggaaar]

Having just listened to his post match interview, he started by saying congratulations to England for their win

Yep, I remember that.

later said they were 20 or 30 runs short, and said that things might have been different had Shaheen not been injured (which is undeniably true) in answer to a question about their bowling attack. What exactly is he meant to say?

I haven't got it recorded, so can't check, but I didn't remember it being in answer to a question about their bowling attack. But you're not meant to say we might have won without bad luck (and if his words were 'it might have been different', we might have won is what that means), and that's what it sounded like to me when he said it. It's not like I was looking for anything to be said wrong, I was celebrating, and then I was taken aback.

We don't have to agree with each other.

 

[Triggaaar]

Which could have been very different if we'd lost wickets earlier on.

Eh? We're talking about Shaheen here and he was injured in the 13th over when we had 84 runs on the board, so him not getting injured wouldn't have led to any more early wickets.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

We don't have to agree with each other.

That's lucky

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Eh? We're talking about Shaheen here and he was injured in the 13th over when we had 84 runs on the board, so him not getting injured wouldn't have led to any more early wickets.

Losing a wicket or two when you're behind the rate can still a major problem. We managed to throw away one of the matches on the recent tour of Pakistan from what was probably a better position.
Since you mentioned it in the other post, the post match interviews are on YouTube. I really don't hear anything worth getting wound up about.

 

[Triggaaar]

Losing a wicket or two when you're behind the rate can still a major problem

We bat deep and there's nothing to suggest he'd have got a couple of wickets. He swung the new ball in the first over, but his second wasn't special. Would he have bowled the 14th over anyway?

Since you mentioned it in the other post, the post match interviews are on YouTube. I really don't hear anything worth getting wound up about.

He just didn't need to say "Unfortunately Shaheen injury cost us maybe a different result"

Playing against a better side cost them a different result

 

[Audax]

1. It's nothing to do with pro-England specs. Captains don't usually make excuses when they're missing a player. And they didn't miss him for much either.


2. It was only 1.5 overs he missed, and his first 2 overs went for 13 runs, so not exactly Sam Curran level. Pakistan scored 137 - that never looked likely to be enough and England were favourites the whole way, even before Shaheen's injury.


3. It wasn't that Babar just mentioned it, it was that he suggested it was the reason they lost. Fast bowlers are always at risk of injury.

1. Captains frequently do, especially when it's your #1 strike bowler. I've been watching cricket for over 30 years and I've rarely seen losing a bowler to injury *not* mentioned by the losing team captain. How it gets mentioned varies on how close the result is, but this WC final is by no way the first time I've heard a captain blame a loss on losing a bowler to injury. 13 runs from 2 overs isn't "bad" in T20, especially when those overs are bowled in the powerplay. More to the point, however, he's their bowler who can produce that little something magic that turns a match on its head in just a few balls.

2. Yes, and in a T20 that's just 1 ball short of 50% of his quota. 11 deliveries is a lot to replace in a T20, especially when you're replacing your #1 with #6 in your available bowlers. The 5 balls in the over where Afridi got injured went for 13, and it completely changed how Pakistan had to plan for the rest of the innings. Even if they'd managed to push it into the 20th, the 20th would have been bowled by that #6 bowler. England, on the other hand, could pace their innings knowing they had 6 deliveries from a bit-part bowler still to come. It completely changed the way both sides approached the rest of the innings.

3. And as I said - I don't agree with that. But I do agree that chances are good they could have pushed it into the 20th, and if you get a game into the 20th the pressure mounts and anything could have happened.

Just saying I don't see it as sour grapes. I see it as a reasonable thing to mention, if slightly exaggerated.