J. Pierik's Oz WC final player ratings:
Warner 6
Head 10
Marsh 6
Smith 4
Marny 8
Maxwell 7
Inglis 7
Cummins 9.5
Starc 8.5
Hazlewood 8.5
Zampa 8
ODI World Cup 2023
You're welcome, Donny.Donny wrote:Thanks for highlighting all that, mate. Also for the links, earlier.Pies4shaw wrote:Travis Head, this year, has been player of the match in the World Test Championship Final against India at The Oval (163 from 174 balls), outshining even the epoch-defining Bradsmith's 121, player of the match against NZ in the World Cup group stage (109 from just 67 balls), player of the match in the Semi-Final against South Africa (62 from 48 balls and 2/21) and player of the match in the Final against India (137 from 120 balls).
That's some going.
By the way, a number of these Australians are now in the position of having won the ODI World Cup twice. They are:
Warner
SPD Bradsmith
Maxwell
Starc
Hazlewood
The same 5 players were also members of the only Australian team to win the T20 World Cup in 2021.
And 3 of those players were part of the team that won Australia's only World Test Cricket Championship, so far.
So, 3 immortals of Australian cricket have become the only three men to win all three World Championships and to win the ODI World Cup twice:
Warner
SPD Bradsmith
Starc
Here's another tremendously enjoyable article: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/icc- ... ry-1409794
Just a sample:
Just a sample:
Australia.
That's it. If I'm being perfectly honest, that is the piece. In years to come, when somebody asks how Australia won the ODI World Cup in 2023, or any World Cup hereafter, that's the answer. They won the World Cup because Australia.
Of course, that feels like a cop-out. Maybe you need more than that. How? Why? You need a dissection. It's understandable that there are questions. We can talk about all of that but, I'm warning you now, you've heard all of this before. Not with the same characters, with slightly different scenarios and circumstances, but you know this story. The quickest, shortest and indeed most credible answer remains: Australia.
They were absolute underdogs, perhaps for the first time in a modern World Cup final, against a team that had dominated a tournament in the way Australia have dominated two World Cups this century. That side was playing at home, in front of over 90,000 fans, almost all of whom were their own, in conditions in which they commanded impenetrable mastery. In conditions - a slow pitch, with little bounce, taking turn - which may as well have been designed to douse Australian strengths.
Not least their fast-bowling trio of Pat Cummins, Josh Hazlewood and Mitchell Starc. Two things about this trio. One, they are all-time guys. They'd already won an ODI World Cup, a T20 World Cup, a World Test Championship and were holders of the Ashes before they even stepped out on to the field.
Two, they are Australian fast bowlers and, as a species, are rarely bettered. If anyone was going to find a way to work this pitch out, there was a good chance it'd be them. So they cut out width. They shortened lengths. They took pace off as often as they could. They bowled cutters. They found reverse. In short, they sacrificed conventional, more glamorous methods and bowled a little ugly. It wasn't always stirring viewing - like that matters - but they kept a batting order that had hit 397, 410, 326 and 357 in their last four games to four boundaries in total after the first powerplay. Four. It's so incredible it bears repeating. Virat Kohli, KL Rahul, Shreyas Iyer, Suryakumar Yadav and Ravindra Jadeja, four boundaries after the powerplay.
Naturally, Cummins the captain took on Kohli, the tournament's highest run-getter, its biggest star, on the biggest stage, and took him out.
....
Sometimes they must laugh to themselves. England have changed their entire cricket culture to bat like this. They've told county cricket it needs to bat like this. They've had a name put on it (in Tests, at least). India too have changed their entire batting culture so they could play like this and win this world title. You know who hasn't done diddly? Australia. Because this is how they are born playing. Head's innings wasn't Bazball. It wasn't a change from an old, tired approach. Head batted, in broad outline, like you remember Ponting, Hayden and Gilchrist. Attack and keep attacking is literally one of the nucleotides (no, I didn't either) in their DNA.
-
pietillidie
- Posts: 16634
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:41 pm
- Has liked: 14 times
- Been liked: 28 times
Hey, that's my highest praise!K wrote:Wow... that's faint support!!pietillidie wrote:Cummins and co. deserved the benefit of the doubt when putting India in to bat. With some teams you might worry it was a strained reaction betraying fear, but they've never struck me as prone to that kind of thing.
...
Batting or bowling is a two-item decision, not in itself a game of 4D chess, so that limits the interpretation. The strongest vote of confidence you can have when someone makes an unconventional decision is to trust their character and assuredness. Grounded, sensible decision makers aren't likely to suddenly start making rash decisions.
So, the assumption was they were fully confident of the conditions, their reading of the pitch, and their run-chasing form. The bonus from there was leveraging the pressure India was under at home to deliver and their fear of losing.
Anyone else and you'd have to wonder if they were reacting through fear, going for a shock effect to wrong-foot India because they thought they needed something more to win. I rate Cummins as a sound character with deep confidence and a solid track record, not as a crazed genius.
Last edited by pietillidie on Mon Nov 20, 2023 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | Imagine if the present team had the luxury of Shane Warne bowling - it would actually never lose!
Mind you, Maxwell has played in the Final and won, twice - but, because the team as a whole has been so dominant, he's faced a total of just one ball (and, inevitably, has a career strike rate of 200 in the World Cup Final): it may be a very dark day for some team that reaches the Final and gets enough Australian wickets that Maxwell comes to the crease with more than one ball to be bowled. In fact, Maxy has taken more wickets than he's faced balls in the World Cup Final.
As it is, Australia has taken 20 wickets and lost just 7 in winning both the 2015 and 2023 World Cup Final.
On the other side of the ledger, plenty of teams have reached the finals but never won the ODI World Cup:
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Bermuda
Canada
Ireland
Kenya
Namibia
Netherlands
New Zealand
Scotland
South Africa
United Arab Emirates
Zimbabwe
Most of those countries couldn't be expected to win but South Africa and New Zealand would be expected to be ahead of the rest of that pack.
South Africa has made the semi-finals on 5 occasions but never reached the Final.
New Zealand has the "losingest" finals record in the ODI World Cup. First, they are the only team to play in every edition of the World Cup but never win it. Secondly, they've reached at least the semi-finals on 9 occasions and made the Final twice. That's the very definition of making up the numbers.
Apart from those 2, the only other "also-ran" to make a semi-final is Kenya, which did so once.
Mind you, Maxwell has played in the Final and won, twice - but, because the team as a whole has been so dominant, he's faced a total of just one ball (and, inevitably, has a career strike rate of 200 in the World Cup Final): it may be a very dark day for some team that reaches the Final and gets enough Australian wickets that Maxwell comes to the crease with more than one ball to be bowled. In fact, Maxy has taken more wickets than he's faced balls in the World Cup Final.
As it is, Australia has taken 20 wickets and lost just 7 in winning both the 2015 and 2023 World Cup Final.
On the other side of the ledger, plenty of teams have reached the finals but never won the ODI World Cup:
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Bermuda
Canada
Ireland
Kenya
Namibia
Netherlands
New Zealand
Scotland
South Africa
United Arab Emirates
Zimbabwe
Most of those countries couldn't be expected to win but South Africa and New Zealand would be expected to be ahead of the rest of that pack.
South Africa has made the semi-finals on 5 occasions but never reached the Final.
New Zealand has the "losingest" finals record in the ODI World Cup. First, they are the only team to play in every edition of the World Cup but never win it. Secondly, they've reached at least the semi-finals on 9 occasions and made the Final twice. That's the very definition of making up the numbers.
Apart from those 2, the only other "also-ran" to make a semi-final is Kenya, which did so once.
-
lazzadesilva
- Posts: 2262
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 8:01 pm
- Has liked: 2 times
- Been liked: 93 times
It also took NZ 26 years after gaining test status to win their first ever test.Pies4shaw wrote: New Zealand has the "losingest" finals record in the ODI World Cup. First, they are the only team to play in every edition of the World Cup but never win it. Secondly, they've reached at least the semi-finals on 9 occasions and made the Final twice. That's the very definition of making up the numbers.
I term the current Collingwood attack based strategy “Unceasing Waves” like on a stormy and windy day with rough seas. A Perfect Storm 
^ New Zealand's losing scores in the knock-out stages at the World Cup (I've bolded the ones in which it could be fairly said they made a fist of the game before losing):
1975 - 158 (WIndies won with 20 overs remaining)
1979 - 9/212 (England won by 9 runs)
1983 - did not make knock-out stage
1987 - did not make knock-out stage
1992 - 7/262 (Pakistan won by 4 wickets with an over remaining)
1996 - 9/286 (Australia won by 4 wickets with 13 balls remaining)
1999 - 7/241 (Pakistan won by 9 wickets with 15 balls remaining)
2003 - 146 ((india won by 7 wickets with 56 balls remaining)
2007 - 208 (Sri Lanka won by 81 runs)
2011 - 217 (Sri Lanka won by 5 wickets with 13 balls remaining)
2015 - 183 (Australia won by 7 wickets with 101 balls remaining)
2019 - 8/241 (England won on boundary countback)
2023 - 327 (India won by 70 runs)
What's notable from that list is that they've been ok-ish in New Zealand (the 1992 loss was in Auckland) and in Engalnd - but they've been thrashed in big games in Australia, the sub-continent and Africa.
By contrast, Australia has won the competition in Australia, England, India (twice, now) the West Indies and South Africa. Australia's dominance is not dependent upon getting conditions they are "used" to or pitches suited to thei style of play. New Zealand's competitiveness is limited in just that way.
1975 - 158 (WIndies won with 20 overs remaining)
1979 - 9/212 (England won by 9 runs)
1983 - did not make knock-out stage
1987 - did not make knock-out stage
1992 - 7/262 (Pakistan won by 4 wickets with an over remaining)
1996 - 9/286 (Australia won by 4 wickets with 13 balls remaining)
1999 - 7/241 (Pakistan won by 9 wickets with 15 balls remaining)
2003 - 146 ((india won by 7 wickets with 56 balls remaining)
2007 - 208 (Sri Lanka won by 81 runs)
2011 - 217 (Sri Lanka won by 5 wickets with 13 balls remaining)
2015 - 183 (Australia won by 7 wickets with 101 balls remaining)
2019 - 8/241 (England won on boundary countback)
2023 - 327 (India won by 70 runs)
What's notable from that list is that they've been ok-ish in New Zealand (the 1992 loss was in Auckland) and in Engalnd - but they've been thrashed in big games in Australia, the sub-continent and Africa.
By contrast, Australia has won the competition in Australia, England, India (twice, now) the West Indies and South Africa. Australia's dominance is not dependent upon getting conditions they are "used" to or pitches suited to thei style of play. New Zealand's competitiveness is limited in just that way.
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54832
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 126 times
- Been liked: 163 times
[quote="Pies4shaw"]Here's another tremendously enjoyable article: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/icc- ... ry-1409794
I read that article shortly after it was posted, I loved it.
As you said, we've now won 6 ODI world Cups and won them all over the world. England has 1, at home, on doctored pitches.
I'm still enjoying this. Not as much as Travis Head apparently is though.
I read that article shortly after it was posted, I loved it.
As you said, we've now won 6 ODI world Cups and won them all over the world. England has 1, at home, on doctored pitches.
I'm still enjoying this. Not as much as Travis Head apparently is though.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Yes - I saw that headline - sadly, it was paywalled but it sounds like he's had so much fun that he will be an early scratching for Friday because you can't cut over deep point with the DTs.
It's fair to say that I haven't ever really gone back and watched replays of old cricket matches (although I do occasionally watch old footage of Sir IVAR - the greatest of them all) before this - but I re-watched the entire game on Kayo's Hindi broadcast - there's something that's transfixing about not being able to understand a word people are saying (except all the technical cricketing language, which seems to be in English) but still hear the expression of deep tragedy in their voices when the Kohli-wobbles strike. Seriously, if you just listened to it without the video, you'd think the commentary was covering an alien invasion.
... which I suppose, if yoiu think about it, it was!
It's fair to say that I haven't ever really gone back and watched replays of old cricket matches (although I do occasionally watch old footage of Sir IVAR - the greatest of them all) before this - but I re-watched the entire game on Kayo's Hindi broadcast - there's something that's transfixing about not being able to understand a word people are saying (except all the technical cricketing language, which seems to be in English) but still hear the expression of deep tragedy in their voices when the Kohli-wobbles strike. Seriously, if you just listened to it without the video, you'd think the commentary was covering an alien invasion.
... which I suppose, if yoiu think about it, it was!
^ T20 World Cups are like barley-sugars. You know - you have one and 15 minutes after it's done, you can't remember anything about it.
It's like the BBL - fun watching but I have genuine difficulty remembering which teams played the previous day.
ODIs - and I understand your view about the middle overs - are more like a tiny Test match, in that they are long enough to have twists and turns and I generally think the knockout rounds, at the least - and some of the earlier games that involve great individual performances - are memorable.
It's like the BBL - fun watching but I have genuine difficulty remembering which teams played the previous day.
ODIs - and I understand your view about the middle overs - are more like a tiny Test match, in that they are long enough to have twists and turns and I generally think the knockout rounds, at the least - and some of the earlier games that involve great individual performances - are memorable.