The World Cup.

gobbles21 · Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2003 6:44 pm

Who is saying that Zimbabwae and Kenya wouldn't have won those matches. Zimbabwae were certainly a chance against England. Kenya, well that would be a BIG upset, but they were the only ones who could be Sri Lanka (Not including South Africas tie).
But I think everyone is just asuming that England and New Zealand would have won against these two underdogs. It would have been good to see the matches played with the underdogs winning just to see everones faces.

JLC you used a good example there. But (This will sound ridiculas) what if Carlton were to win that match.

Think of it this way. If we were to play Brisbane in the Preliminary Final right now, and no one rated us a chance to beat them. Just think if the match was abandoned, everyone would have asumed that Brisbane would have won. But we would have known better, everyone here probably would have gone into the match knowing that we could win. Other than ourselves knowone rates us. But we know how good we really are.

Now put youself in the shoes of a Zimbabwian or Kenyan, and would you have assumed that just because other people don't rate you, that you were going to loose those matches.

MrsTarrant · Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2003 7:08 pm

JLC I wonder if you would be saying the same things had it been Australia who lost the game due to rain like South Africa? I think not.

Donny · Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2003 8:16 pm

There could be NO reason Collingwood would want to forfeit the chance of beating Carlton.

What's happening to your head, JLC? Are you still trying to digest seeing Boofa's name on top of the batting averages AND with the fourth lowest bowling economy rate. Or is it seeing Symmo's average of 101 and S/R of 104?

Maybe you're still recovering from Bevo's terribly boring innings against your precious Pommies that provided one of the most exciting finishes of this World Cup. Lol.

Donny.

THE BOYS ARE BACK IN TOWN !!!!

Donny · Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2003 8:22 pm

Why are most people assuming Zimbabwe would have lost to England. Or Pakistan for that matter.

Other than Saeed Anwar, Pakistn's batsmen seemed to have their minds elswhere and Akhtar and Waqar had the worst economy rate of all the main bowlers in the tournament. Their decision to play Afridi ahead of Saqlain was a shocker.

Zimbabwe's Andy Flower, recently rated in the top three batsmen in the world, brother Grant and Wishart are up there with the best and Blignaut and Streak have two of the best batting strike rates in this World Cup. After Streak, Murphy and Blignaut, their bowling is pedestrian but, other than their openers, the English batsmen haven't exactly set the world on fire either.

Donny.

THE BOYS ARE BACK IN TOWN !!!!

JLC · Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:05 am

Well if there was a moral issue at sake or the players feared for their safety......would you want Bucks and co to risk their lives.....

go on i cant wait to hear your answer

jlc

Its not arrogance if you can back it up

Fate is what you are given, Destiny is what you do with it

Essendon 2000 premiers
2001 runners up
2002 fifth
2003 ????
The slide continues

JLC · Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:06 am

When minnows are in the tournament averages are deceiving.

jlc

Its not arrogance if you can back it up

Fate is what you are given, Destiny is what you do with it

Essendon 2000 premiers
2001 runners up
2002 fifth
2003 ????
The slide continues

Pies Premiers 2003 · KEEP SEPTEMBER FREE Joined: 01 Nov 2002 Location: vic

They would have lost to Eng and Pak because they are useless...

just wait and see how good they are in the super six and you might re-think your statement......

THE PIES GO MARCHING ON

Pies Premiers 2003 · KEEP SEPTEMBER FREE Joined: 01 Nov 2002 Location: vic

You cant rely on your batsman doing the work....Zim have a very weak bowling attack and will be smashed out of the world cup

THE PIES GO MARCHING ON

woe_is_me · Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:31 am

There are only two teams that can challenge Australia left in the tournament - India and New Zealand.

India for their batting strength alone on their day could make more than enough to stop the Aussies.

New Zealand because they have this happy knack of beating us when we least want them to.

Woe, woe, woe, what am I good for????

JLC · Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:35 am

Sri Lanka can go close if there bowlers have 200 runs to play with. Murali is the man

jlc

Its not arrogance if you can back it up

Fate is what you are given, Destiny is what you do with it

Essendon 2000 premiers
2001 runners up
2002 fifth
2003 ????
The slide continues

Scotty Russell · Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2003 5:18 pm

200 runs???? try 305/3 off 48.2 overs - the monster is awake!!!!!!!

JLC · Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2003 5:32 pm

Well 200 runs to play with means as in defend as in if they were defending a total. Australia struggled to get Englands total the other night. I thought if Sri Lanka could get a similar total then they could trouble Australia more. Pitched was obviously nice and bouncy and didnt appear to be that condusive to spin bowling which is where Sri Lanakas strength lies

Full credit to Australia with Gilchrist and Ponting setting an upbeat tempo. Thats the Gilchrist we all love and know. It begs the question as to whether Gilchris is better than Bevan ??

However Sri lanka were their own worst enemies with some sloppy fielding, two lazy bits of wicket keeping (apart from Vaas run out) a couple dropped catches. I also felt they didnt support Murali with their field placings. Should have put more pressure on a couple of the batsman when he was bowling earlier in innings.

jlc

Its not arrogance if you can back it up

Fate is what you are given, Destiny is what you do with it

Essendon 2000 premiers
2001 runners up
2002 fifth
2003 ????
The slide continues

MrsTarrant · Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2003 6:36 pm

You can't compare Gilchrist and Bevan they are two completely different batsman, the sort of batsman every team needs to win a game.

Well done to Gilchrist and Ponting, very entertaining stuff! Martyn did a good job too if I might add! What a great total! The Sri Lankans were appauling in the field it was rather amusing to watch!

GO AUSTRALIA!

Donny · Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2003 9:11 pm

It begs the question ...? Really, JLC, who cares!?

They both do their job, well.

Donny.

THE BOYS ARE BACK IN TOWN !!!!

JLC · Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:52 am

I was just posing the question as if Bevan is the best ever that naturally means that Gilchrist cant be better....lol lol

jlc

Its not arrogance if you can back it up

Fate is what you are given, Destiny is what you do with it

Essendon 2000 premiers
2001 runners up
2002 fifth
2003 ????
The slide continues