The FINAL--> Westindies VS England

[Slow Love™]

I wouldn't say that Australia would have been any harder or easier.

Er they'd be about exactly the same then?

Aside from this, it's worth pointing out to roseboy that WI have beaten the Aussies in their last three matches against them (unless I'm forgetting something)...

Great win to the Windies. Dammit, I was exhausted and went to bed at 8/150 or so... They're a very underrated one-day outfit. Still, it would have been good to see some more games go against the team batting second in this tourney. As far as I remember, only the English pulled it off against Sri Lanka...?

 

[roseboy64]

The West Indies also beat Bangladesh batting first.

 

[cricketfan]

England snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again. I'll use Air Commodore HI Cozens (RAF) words he used when discussing the Lancaster bombers abilties in 1944 "At that they are supreme". I just can't believe it's happened again. Maybe we'll get it right next time?

 

[JASON]

WINDIES!!!!!!!!!!
U
BEAUTY

You beauty indeed !! I gave up and went to sleep at 8 for 150 odd, but what a comeback. This is history making stuff !!! GO WINDIES !! CARRY IT INTO TESTS NOW !!

This to me is a sign of a maturing team , that its no longer reliant on one or two individual performers to carry them thru !!


England I must say are the most gracious team in defeat !! Hats off to Michael Vaughan !!

 

[TendulkarFan]

What a great tournament - two unlikely teams made it and one of the most unlikeliest won it all. Hats off to both B's from B, and to the entire West Indies team. The game was played in great spirit by both the teams for which they deserve a good round of applause.

I hope this brings the pride and passion back in the Windies' cricket. Cricket world just isn't the same without a healthy West Indies team and a rowdy, strong fanbase.

 

[_Ed_]

That is an amazing result. I went to bed at 83/5. Watching the full replay now on Sky Sport 3.

 

[Craig]

Him out, Pietersen in anybody?

Yeah I would probably go for him, Ian Bell?

 

[Craig]

Great game, simply great, at 147-8, likeeverybody else, I thought they were gone and had no chance, but I sat there watching in disbelief as Browne and Bradshaw fought back and played an amazing innings and partnership in this great comeback. I just hope that this is the best possible news in a region, and in particular Grenda (who had their stadium trashed), that has been ravaged by hurricane after hurricane.

But great bowling, by Gayle, Bradshaw, Harmison, Flintoff, Wharf (regardless of the last over) etc. and having a look at Marcus Trescothick's List A record, for a part-timer, it is actually pretty good.

This match is the epitome of ODI cricket for me, you can take your 300+ plus wickets, sure the big scores and obvious fast scoring can be entertaining, but the tight bowling and low scoring matches can be and often are more exciting and tense as both sides have a chance of winning. That is ODI cricket for me.

Forza West Indies!

 

[Waughney]

Yes, congratulations to the West Indies, great come back.

 

[_Ed_]

After watching the full replay, I'm going to say that that was the greatest game of one day cricket I have seen. Thanks to both teams for providing such an exciting contest, a shame one team had to lose really.

 

[luckyeddie]

You beauty indeed !! I gave up and went to sleep at 8 for 150 odd, but what a comeback. This is history making stuff !!! GO WINDIES !! CARRY IT INTO TESTS NOW !!

This to me is a sign of a maturing team , that its no longer reliant on one or two individual performers to carry them thru !!


England I must say are the most gracious team in defeat !! Hats off to Michael Vaughan !!

Just a shame you weren't there to see it, JASON.

Neil said that it was as hard to take as the 'penalty shoot out' - well, if you could have one of those which goes no for an hour and a half, probably so.

I had to take a very matter-of-fact, objective, distant view of it all, being responsible doing the front-page blurb on the game, but it dawned on me about half way through the run-chase that they were just possibly going to do it, and in my mind (and on paper) I started ticking the 'tens' off.

Did Vaughan make any mistakes? Of course he did, but even with the benefit of hindsight, it's difficult to know what he would have done any differently. It's obvious to say 'Ah, Vaughan should have used Giles' - but when would have been the right time? The first 8 wickets went to either the bounce of Harmison and Flintoff or the Marmite of Trescothick and Collingwood.

The moment the eighth wicket went down, a couple of overs of Giles would have served two purposes - it would have given an opportunity to see the effect of quality spin on the wicket, could have tied down the batsmen and would have filled the quota of the 'fifth bowler' - THREE purposes - and he would have got bounce too - FOUR purposes - and it would have been a laugh - FIV.... ("Biggles... tie her (oh dear) TO THE RACK!").

But no - Vaughan went for the kill, as he had no viable alternative (think back to WC2003 and the game against Australia when the situation wasn't quite as grave for the batting side, and England held back).

Well played West Indies. From my own point of view, it would have been nice to have seen England win, but at least it means that any maggots who joined CW just to have a quick flame at the Aussies won't be around for a while.

 

[Sudeep]

After watching the full replay, I'm going to say that that was the greatest game of one day cricket I have seen. Thanks to both teams for providing such an exciting contest, a shame one team had to lose really.

I wouldn't call it THE GREATEST, that place is well occupied by Aus-SAF 99 WC Semis. But yes, this was one of what could be top 10-15 matches I've watched.

Once again, congratulations Windies.

 

[Sudeep]

Did Vaughan make any mistakes? Of course he did, but even with the benefit of hindsight, it's difficult to know what he would have done any differently. It's obvious to say 'Ah, Vaughan should have used Giles' - but when would have been the right time? The first 8 wickets went to either the bounce of Harmison and Flintoff or the Marmite of Trescothick and Collingwood.

The moment the eighth wicket went down, a couple of overs of Giles would have served two purposes - it would have given an opportunity to see the effect of quality spin on the wicket, could have tied down the batsmen and would have filled the quota of the 'fifth bowler' - THREE purposes - and he would have got bounce too - FOUR purposes - and it would have been a laugh - FIV.... ("Biggles... tie her (oh dear) TO THE RACK!").

It's not fair to blame Vaughan's decision of not bowling Giles. We can easily say Giles should've been bowled. But the question is when? And, we'll never know the answer.

Now that they've lost, I can say probably after Flintoff and Harmison were left with one over each, which should've been kept for the last. But Vaughan IMO did the right thing by going for the kill. As Dravid said once, retrospect is a beautiful thing, but the problem is, you can think over it only after the moment has passed...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Now that they've lost, I can say probably after Flintoff and Harmison were left with one over each, which should've been kept for the last. But Vaughan IMO did the right thing by going for the kill. As Dravid said once, retrospect is a beautiful thing, but the problem is, you can think over it only after the moment has passed...

Vaughan didn't go for the kill early enough. He should have brought Harmison back when Bradshaw and Browne were fresh, not when they'd been in for a few overs and were seeing it a bit (yet squinting).

 

[luckyeddie]

Vaughan didn't go for the kill early enough. He should have brought Harmison back when Bradshaw and Browne were fresh, not when they'd been in for a few overs and were seeing it a bit (yet squinting).

Sorry, Liam, but he did.

The next over after they went 8 down, Vaughan brought Gough back - and he was supposedly our man for cleaning up tails.

The over after that, he brought back Harmison.

I think Vaughan played it absolutely perfectly, but the Windies just outplayed us at the death.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Sorry, Liam, but he did.

The next over after they went 8 down, Vaughan brought Gough back - and he was supposedly our man for cleaning up tails.

The over after that, he brought back Harmison.

I think Vaughan played it absolutely perfectly, but the Windies just outplayed us at the death.

My memories probably shot then, because I though Bradshaw had faced 11 or 12 balls and Browne 20+ when Harmison came back. He didn't return until at least 3 overs after the dismissal of Chanderpaul. I'm sure of it.

 

[luckyeddie]

Yup.

34th over, Chanderpaul dismissed by Collingwood. At that stage, Wharf had bowled 1 over of his current spell. He bowled the 35th, Collingwood the 36th, Gough the 37th (Browne 3*, Bradshaw 6*), Harmison the 38th (Browne 5*, Bradshaw 6*).

I read 'balls' as 'runs'

 

[honestbharani]

I don't think it is fair to be criticizing Vaughan for not using Giles. Giles was just an option, that is all. I mean, having gotten the top 8 out and having seen the part timers get 3 of them, I don't think any captain would have wanted to turn to a spinner. For all we know, Bradshaw might have clobbered 3 or 4 sixes of Giles. Hindsight is wonderful, but I think most people would agree that at the time, what Vaughan did seemed to be right.



The only thing that Vaughan did which was even remotely close to being wrong was probably not using Giles before Collingwood and Tresco. Because even if Giles had been attacked, he could have turned to the dobblers and still had a chance of winning the match.

 

[luckyeddie]

honestbharani :

No-one IS criticising Vaughan for not bowling Giles.

I refer you back to my original statement...

"but even with the benefit of hindsight, it's difficult to know what he would have done any differently."

Move along - these are not the droids you are looking for.

 

[honestbharani]

I was not just referring to the some who 'seemed' (atleast to me) to be criticizing Vaughan here at CW. I was also referring to the various pundits and others who were saying that it was wrong and a mistake etc in TV and in the magazines.