zorax
likes this
disappointed no one has liked this yet tbh
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
World cup review thread
- Thread starter ankitj
- Start date
tooextracool
Well-known member
SA have beaten all of those teams soundly in the past year so your logic is baffling at best. If the tournament was in the subcontinent, all of those teams maybe favored but in England, SA should have done much better than they did (Also note - no one is dissing Bangladesh but just because they are the second best team in Asia, it doesn’t make them a top 4 team in the world particularly outside of Asia)
There is simply no excuse for why QDK and Faf haven’t scored a ton this World Cup. Zero. Both walked into this tournament with a pile of runs under their belt. To simply put their individual performances down to a “poor team” is ludicrous considering that NZ has made it though to the semis on the back of one batsman and Bangladesh have done admirably on the back of maybe 2.
Amla is more excusable but Amla has never scored a ton in a World Cup against a side that wasn’t a minnow which is an embarrassing record for a player of his class. This was his last real chance to change that and yes, it is in the twilight of his career but I’ve seen plenty of other great players who showed up in big tournaments even when they were past their best.
Miller has been dicked around for years so it’s hard to really rate him in this tournament. Could he have done better? Absolutely. But I doubt even he knows his exact role in the side.
The other batters are filler players who were meant to bat around these 4 with possible exception of Van Der Dussen who can be excused given he was thrust with holding the batting order together in his first World Cup.
So you can call that shitshow whatever you want. You can tell me that SA never had the quality to win the World Cup and that they have been a middling side recently, which I agree with. But it doesn’t explain why individual players couldn’t score runs when it mattered. If their best players averaged 50+ and Rabada took 15 wickets@25 but SA were eliminated, i’d be more than happy to concede that they played to their abilities and lost. But that’s clearly not what happened, it took a collective performance of playing like jokers to get in the position that they are currently on the table. But I’m sure glad you called it.
Last edited:
wrongun
Banned
Re-read your post and you will realize that not have you proven my point but have also contradicted yourself badly.
"If the tournament was in the subcontinent, all of those teams maybe favored but in England, SA should have done much better than they did (Also note - no one is dissing Bangladesh but just because they are the second best team in Asia, it doesn’t make them a top 4 team in the world particularly outside of Asia)"
But it's not in the subcontinent. Your use of outdated stereotypes like 'South Africa should have done much better because its in England' is outdated. English wickets drain better and hence are often dry and condusive to spin too. I never said Bangladesh was a top 4 team. That's your silly assumption. I claimed that I expected Bangladesh to be better than SAF this World Cup based on their skill and form. I watched the entire IPL..DeKock was highly inconsistent. Sure an ODI WC is different than an exhibition T20 but habits do carry over. It wasn't hard to notice Rabada, FAF and DeKock playing brainless cricket with the exception of a few games here and there. In contrast, I noticed Steve Smith building up his elbow and playing slow and steady innings and Warner constantly choosing intelligent shots over simply slogging. It's the intent that reflects on your form too. Again not hard to see if you actually watched all the games. And if you did, then you need to work on your analytical skills. So while you expected SAF to do well based on past history, its the recent history and the sum of the parts that matters. SAF beat Pak at home 4-1 IIRC but i remember realizing then that they were playing scrappy chippy cricket...nothing was fluent.
"There is simply no excuse for why QDK and Faf haven’t scored a ton this World Cup. Zero. Both walked into this tournament with a pile of runs under their belt. To simply put their individual performances down to a “poor team” is ludicrous considering that NZ has made it though to the semis on the back of one batsman and Bangladesh have done admirably on the back of maybe 2.
Amla is more excusable but Amla has never scored a ton in a World Cup against a side that wasn’t a minnow which is an embarrassing record for a player of his class. This was his last real chance to change that and yes, it is in the twilight of his career but I’ve seen plenty of other great players who showed up in big tournaments even when they were past their best.
Miller has been dicked around for years so it’s hard to really rate him in this tournament. Could he have done better? Absolutely. But I doubt even he knows his exact role in the side.
The other batters are filler players who were meant to bat around these 4 with possible exception of Van Der Dussen who can be excused given he was thrust with holding the batting order together in his first World Cup."
Right.....and SAF didnt even have 1 batsman who played consistently. You yourself admit here that many key players are either washed up or have low expectations hence proving that this isnt a choke.
"So you can call that shitshow whatever you want. You can tell me that SA never had the quality to win the World Cup and that they have been a middling side recently, which I agree with. But it doesn’t explain why individual players couldn’t score runs when it mattered".
You just answered your own question.
"If their best players averaged 50+ and Rabada took 15 wickets@25 but SA were eliminated, i’d be more than happy to concede that they played to their abilities and lost "
No then you'd call it a choke and rightfully so.
"But I’m sure glad you called it."
Your sarcasm just tries to mask the idiocies in your argument. It's like arguing that England choked in 2015 because they lost to Bangladesh. No, Bangers were the better side and beat them. There was no choke. A choke would be SAF in 1996 when they were playing flawlessly and lost to Windies because of Lara having one good day. A choke would be 1999....enough said.
Look Mr. Burns at the end of the day, I'm an Aussie fan so you can call SAF whatever you want and it doesn't bother me. But your lazy analysis of SAF in this WC does because many 'fans' in cricket subscribe to biases. It's like most Indian fans who only watch when India plays and claim that they are cricket die-hards. It's time for SAF to blow it all up and start afresh.
Last edited:
stephen
Well-known member
Faf has 287 runs at an average of 57 striking at 85 with three half centuries this tournament. I wouldn't say he's exactly failed. Had a very similar tournament to Steve Smith actually - he's been good without really excelling. If you can call an average of 57 merely "good". It's Amla and De Kock who have underperformed. It's been a tournament for the openers and South Africa's openers haven't delivered.
Woah, how'd he manage that? Genuinely can't remember anything Faf's done all tournament. Russie was their best batsman imo, pity he didn't get to fill his boots against SL and Afghanistan.
wrongun
Banned
Precisely. I didn't quite enjoy replying but eh you summed it up. Thank you.
Dendarii
Well-known member
He scored 62 off 53 against Bangladesh and got 96 not out against Sri Lanka, which have helped his stats look good. He did score runs in the other matches but his strike rate in those was below 80, which was part of the problem for South Africa as he either ate up too much time thereby preventing a defendable score from being posted, or it left the remaining batsmen too much to do when chasing.
Last edited:
wrongun
Banned
LOL I read the post on my phone and for some reason I can't dish out likes on there. Either way, there you go!
Bijed
Well-known member
FWIW, I'm more with Wrongun's definition, a choke to me has always been bottling it from a winning or close-but-even position. If SA had come into the tournament with lofty aspirations, you could have argued their entire World Cup has been a choked, but people weren't even tipping them for the semis for the most part, so the tag doesn't apply imo
Bahnz
Well-known member
I'm obviously glad we're there, but as an NZ fan I've gotta say this format is leaving me with mixed feelings. NZ have been playing so badly over the past couple of weeks that it just seems odd that one come from behind win is enough to drop us into the final. I think I really miss the quarter-final stage - it meant that teams had to build up and maintain momentum to make the final, which resulted in the end of the tournament feeling more climactic.
morgieb
Well-known member
His last two games were brilliant. O/c they were basically dead rubbers....
Bahnz
Well-known member
Btw, the come down following the return to BAU after this world cup is going to be savage. At least after 2015 and 2011 we had the IPL to give us a couple months breather before international cricket resumed. This time Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are going to play a 3 match ODI series starting less than 2 weeks after the final. I can't imagine either the players or the viewers will be particularly invested in that.