Netherlands need 151 to go through.
Not going about it too well thus far though.
well a shame, but they got cricket in the news papers here for the first time, that's for sure.. cricket actually has quite a long history in the netherlands, with most footballclubs at the turn of the last century having a cricket department, but it never really broke through (and lots of those departments were abolished by 1910)
There was a letter in the Grauniad about Holland's cricket history, trying to claim it was invented there. The cheeky scamps.
romanista wrote:
well a shame, but they got cricket in the news papers here for the first time, that's for sure.. cricket actually has quite a long history in the netherlands, with most footballclubs at the turn of the last century having a cricket department, but it never really broke through (and lots of those departments were abolished by 1910)
I recently read a book about cricket and The Netherlands (actually it was more about cricket and America, but the protagonist was Dutch and a lot harked back to his time growing up in The Netherlands).
Said book is indeed called 'Netherland'.
Good to see England doing well. Shame they're not though.
The only realistic game we have of winning in the Super Eights is the West Indies, so not enough to get through, really. Did we expect otherwise?
It looked like England were bowling to keep the net run rate down almost from the off, and the Saffers seemed happy to play ball.
Goodness.
Just played my first online game of Brian Lara for a while. I have now remembered the main game breaking faults.
1 - The full toss is BY FAR the best ball in the game. Having just played a two player game, receiving roughly 50 full tosses in a row, directly on the stumps, in a nightmare. It makes the game less fun as a whole and reduces games to a very dull, one-dimensional affair.
2 - You have no controls over the runners. If you go for a comfortable single, be careful, because if you make your ground in time and it isn't a close call, the batsman will always turn around, look at the other end and THEN ground their bat. If it's a close call then the batsman will dive and make it in. Unfortunately, this means that whenever the run is not close, but not massively comfortable, you will get out, as your batsman will stop running and let the opposition nail over the stumps while he looks for another run at the other end.
3 - In a two-player game, there is no way to check what the first person scored. So unless you remember the precise target score, you're in the dark. You cannot even access this via the menus. OMG.
4 - The umpires are bobbins. You can bowl a ball that pitches on middle stump and hits halfway up middle stump. It will sometimes be given not out as it hit them outside of the line. How? Did the ball take advantage of the curvature of space-time?
And that's without even looking at the cosmetic stuff, of which there are tons.
Clearly this game was not once playtested by anyone who has ever played or watched a game of cricket. Or if it was, then they simply ignored everything that was raised.
Myp, I can see why you got rid. It's still a fun game, but to really enjoy it I'd have to agree with the opposition beforehand on how many fielding changes and how many full tosses are allowed.
Just played my first online game of Brian Lara for a while. I have now remembered the main game breaking faults.
1 - The full toss is BY FAR the best ball in the game. Having just played a two player game, receiving roughly 50 full tosses in a row, directly on the stumps, in a nightmare. It makes the game less fun as a whole and reduces games to a very dull, one-dimensional affair.
2 - You have no controls over the runners. If you go for a comfortable single, be careful, because if you make your ground in time and it isn't a close call, the batsman will always turn around, look at the other end and THEN ground their bat. If it's a close call then the batsman will dive and make it in. Unfortunately, this means that whenever the run is not close, but not massively comfortable, you will get out, as your batsman will stop running and let the opposition nail over the stumps while he looks for another run at the other end.
3 - In a two-player game, there is no way to check what the first person scored. So unless you remember the precise target score, you're in the dark. You cannot even access this via the menus. OMG.
4 - The umpires are bobbins. You can bowl a ball that pitches on middle stump and hits halfway up middle stump. It will sometimes be given not out as it hit them outside of the line. How? Did the ball take advantage of the curvature of space-time?
And that's without even looking at the cosmetic stuff, of which there are tons.
Clearly this game was not once playtested by anyone who has ever played or watched a game of cricket. Or if it was, then they simply ignored everything that was raised.
Myp, I can see why you got rid. It's still a fun game, but to really enjoy it I'd have to agree with the opposition beforehand on how many fielding changes and how many full tosses are allowed.
The clincher for me was when I got Riles's EA Cricket 2002 and it was more fun.
Saying that, I have Ashes 09 on pre-order, but it's being developed by the team who did the PSP game, so might be good.
Please?
Saying that, I have Ashes 09 on pre-order, but it's being developed by the team who did the PSP game, so might be good.
Please?
So then fellow experts.... Are we going to beat India at 5.30pm?
Morte wrote:
No
Haha!
I love that optimism. I on the other hand am a stupid optimist. They shouldn't beat India, but I think they can if things go their way.
It depends whether the Jekyll team or the Hyde team turn up.
myp wrote:
It depends whether the Jekyll team or the Hyde team turn up.
Quite. And that is really determined by whether our batsman (singular) gets runs.
The Irish have given themselves a chance here dropping SL for 144.
Great stumping from Foster. I take back what I was saying before.
Still all in the balance though. Pathan and Dhoni are more than capable of winning this from here. And Harbajhan (I hate him) is a capable batsman.
*bites fingernails*
Still all in the balance though. Pathan and Dhoni are more than capable of winning this from here. And Harbajhan (I hate him) is a capable batsman.
*bites fingernails*
Hurrah!
Get the Fuck in...
Malc
Malc
That was closer than it should have been with 7 overs to go. Still, I'd have taken that result if you'd offered it at the start!
We've got the sign over West Indies at the moment, but I still think we'll belm it up. We're due a shit game next.
Positive thinking boyos.
This really is more than a possibility now. WI didn't look good when they were put under pressure earlier in the tournament and England have a decent bowling attack.
I am once again optimistic!
This really is more than a possibility now. WI didn't look good when they were put under pressure earlier in the tournament and England have a decent bowling attack.
I am once again optimistic!
We've only got one batsman, though. 
myp wrote:
We've only got one batsman, though.
He's a bit useful though.
We beat them earlier pretty easily, but Chris Gayle wasn't playing. We need to get him the fuck out, and do it quickly.
Great game today. I reckon we got a little under par, but the bowlers did brilliantly.
myp wrote:
We've only got one batsman, though.
Doesn't matter if he gets runs!
And one of the others is bound to have something go right at some point in this tournament and get a score. Bopara, Shah and Collingwood can all play afterall. Mascerenhas can slap it about, Luke Wright is an out and out slogger but effective nonetheless.
WI are fragile, knock Gayle over and the rest struggle.
Optimisic.
If KP fails we tend to struggle, though sometimes Wright and Bopara get us off to a flyer.
I'm unsure about Owais Shah. Against SA he was the best batsman, but it was too late by the time he turned it on, which was more out of desperation than anything else. I dunno, as he did really well in some ODIs recently(ish), but his running between the wickets is shocking, and he sometimes seems a little out of place.
The problem is, I think, do you go for the more accomplished batsmen who you know are good and can get you runs in any circumstances but who might not be able to slog if necessary, or do you bring in the sloggers and shit yourself if your succession of gambles doesn't work?
Answer - who fucking knows? No team has ever been a success at this type of cricket for very long. SA are the team to beat, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were skittled out in the semis or final.
I'm unsure about Owais Shah. Against SA he was the best batsman, but it was too late by the time he turned it on, which was more out of desperation than anything else. I dunno, as he did really well in some ODIs recently(ish), but his running between the wickets is shocking, and he sometimes seems a little out of place.
The problem is, I think, do you go for the more accomplished batsmen who you know are good and can get you runs in any circumstances but who might not be able to slog if necessary, or do you bring in the sloggers and shit yourself if your succession of gambles doesn't work?
Answer - who fucking knows? No team has ever been a success at this type of cricket for very long. SA are the team to beat, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were skittled out in the semis or final.
The difference between the two teams turned out to be that misfield of the wide on the penultimate ball of the England innings that went for four when it should have been a single. Remember kids - fielding matters.
Our lineup looks a batsman light in the absence of Prior or (2004-era) Freddie, doesn't it? Not sure there's an obvious solution. You've either got a slogging all-rounder or you haven't.
Our lineup looks a batsman light in the absence of Prior or (2004-era) Freddie, doesn't it? Not sure there's an obvious solution. You've either got a slogging all-rounder or you haven't.
You'll laugh, but we really should have someone like Ian Bell in the team to glue the innings together. He's not got bad T20 stats, either.
By the looks of it, yesterdays performance was academic. Heavy rain forecast for South London all this afternoon and evening, and if we tie we go out on Net run rate
Riles wrote:
By the looks of it, yesterdays performance was academic. Heavy rain forecast for South London all this afternoon and evening, and if we tie we go out on Net run rate
That would be upsetting.
We only need to have time for a 5 overs each slogathon!
Ashes 2009 has been put back to 7th August.
The game, that is.
The game, that is.
So by the time it's released England will already have lost the series and nobody in this country will want to so much as look at a cricket game. Nice work, marketing department!
myp wrote:
Ashes 2009 has been put back to 7th August.
But...... My tickets!!?
myp wrote:
The game, that is.
Ah......
*shuffle*
Riles wrote:
By the looks of it, yesterdays performance was academic. Heavy rain forecast for South London all this afternoon and evening, and if we tie we go out on Net run rate
Well, here we go. We need an innings, plus 5 overs of the second innings for a match if it rains. May the rain god smile upon England (unless we need him).
No Fiddy. That's a bonus. My optimism persists.
Decent first 10 overs. You need more runs at The Oval than at Lord's.
A shame that KP did his usual trick of getting his eye in and then getting out, but that's what he has to do in the T20 games; always score fast.
Potentially crazy team selection in bringing in Rashid though. A couple of quick wickets and we're in trouble. That's five specialist bowlers and a specialist WK... in a team with a decent all-rounder in Wright (and a decent one in Colly, who doesn't like bowling himself, it would appear).
A shame that KP did his usual trick of getting his eye in and then getting out, but that's what he has to do in the T20 games; always score fast.
Potentially crazy team selection in bringing in Rashid though. A couple of quick wickets and we're in trouble. That's five specialist bowlers and a specialist WK... in a team with a decent all-rounder in Wright (and a decent one in Colly, who doesn't like bowling himself, it would appear).
So England are as good as out now then aren't they?
Almost no boundaries in the second half of the innings. None since the second ball of the 11th over... that's more than 8 overs. Whilst this was clearly the plan, it was a stupid plan. Five specialist bowlers, a specialist wicketkeeper, an all-rounder, a specialist fielder and three batsmen.
Maybe it'll all come to fruition and our superior bowlers will skittle them out in 15 overs. Maybe.
Oooh! A boundary! And another! Get him batting ahead of Colly!
Maybe it'll all come to fruition and our superior bowlers will skittle them out in 15 overs. Maybe.
Oooh! A boundary! And another! Get him batting ahead of Colly!
Curiosity wrote:
Almost no boundaries in the second half of the innings. None since the second ball of the 11th over... that's more than 8 overs. Whilst this was clearly the plan, it was a stupid plan. Five specialist bowlers, a specialist wicketkeeper, an all-rounder, a specialist fielder and three batsmen.
Maybe it'll all come to fruition and our superior bowlers will skittle them out in 15 overs. Maybe.
Oooh! A boundary! And another! Get him batting ahead of Colly!
Maybe it'll all come to fruition and our superior bowlers will skittle them out in 15 overs. Maybe.
Oooh! A boundary! And another! Get him batting ahead of Colly!
Bah. They just look like a team of players terrified to play their shots. If Yuvraj or Gayle was English, neither would play. They would be considered to flighty and inconsistent and would never have got in. Case in point: England struggle to hit boundaries in the last 5 overs while Mascerhenas and Napier warm the bench.
Myfinger wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
Almost no boundaries in the second half of the innings. None since the second ball of the 11th over... that's more than 8 overs. Whilst this was clearly the plan, it was a stupid plan. Five specialist bowlers, a specialist wicketkeeper, an all-rounder, a specialist fielder and three batsmen.
Maybe it'll all come to fruition and our superior bowlers will skittle them out in 15 overs. Maybe.
Oooh! A boundary! And another! Get him batting ahead of Colly!
Maybe it'll all come to fruition and our superior bowlers will skittle them out in 15 overs. Maybe.
Oooh! A boundary! And another! Get him batting ahead of Colly!
Bah. They just look like a team of players terrified to play their shots. If Yuvraj or Gayle was English, neither would play. They would be considered to flighty and inconsistent and would never have got in. Case in point: England struggle to hit boundaries in the last 5 overs while Mascerhenas and Napier warm the bench.
Should the weather ease, Rashid had better bowl like a demon!
Not only was it an odd decision to go with so many bowlers, to do so in a match almost certain to be reduced to fewer overs, thus encouraging more biffing... CRAZY!
I totally agree with you, Curio. I thought we were a batsman light even without five bowlers. That said, what a fantastic start for England, but one good over for the Windies would swing things back in their favour.
I don't understand why WI only need to score at 9 an over for 9 overs when England had to score at 8 an over for 20?
I thought DL upped the run rate considerably for shorter lengths?
Malc
I thought DL upped the run rate considerably for shorter lengths?
Malc
Malc wrote:
I don't understand why WI only need to score at 9 an over for 9 overs when England had to score at 8 an over for 20?
I thought DL upped the run rate considerably for shorter lengths?
Malc
I thought DL upped the run rate considerably for shorter lengths?
Malc
Here's an explanation http://static.cricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/RAIN_RULES/DUCKWORTH_LEWIS_2001.html but I have drunk beer and can't think through that table.
OH NOES
ENGLAND LOSE AT THEIR OWN GAME AGAIN!
ENGLAND LOSE AT THEIR OWN GAME AGAIN!
nickachu wrote:
OH NOES
ENGLAND LOSE AT THEIR OWN GAME AGAIN!
ENGLAND LOSE AT THEIR OWN GAME AGAIN!
Oh yes. Us hardened, long term fans are well used to going out with a whimper after flattering to deceive.
I can't wait to lose narrowly to the worst Aussie side to come and defend the Ashes in years.
Malc wrote:
I don't understand why WI only need to score at 9 an over for 9 overs when England had to score at 8 an over for 20?
I thought DL upped the run rate considerably for shorter lengths?
Malc
I thought DL upped the run rate considerably for shorter lengths?
Malc
To be honest, most of the cricketing websites are agreeing. The D/L method works for 50 over cricket a lot better than it does for T20. The West Indies only needed one decent partnership for about 3/4 overs. They got it at the 5th attempt. They made a fair old hash of it, but still made it with plenty of time to spare.
We lost of team selection as much as anything though. Rashid bowls one over for 11, costs runs via a misfield, and is in ahead of a batsman.
Poor Napier. Brought into the squad and doesn't even get to play a warm-up game. Why's he there? Ditto Key and Morgan - one game each, Key played woefully out of position.
*sigh*
I hope the wins over India and Pakistan don't make the authorities believe that their team selection was anything other than bobbins.
Curiosity wrote:
Malc wrote:
I don't understand why WI only need to score at 9 an over for 9 overs when England had to score at 8 an over for 20?
I thought DL upped the run rate considerably for shorter lengths?
Malc
I thought DL upped the run rate considerably for shorter lengths?
Malc
To be honest, most of the cricketing websites are agreeing. The D/L method works for 50 over cricket a lot better than it does for T20. The West Indies only needed one decent partnership for about 3/4 overs. They got it at the 5th attempt. They made a fair old hash of it, but still made it with plenty of time to spare.
We lost of team selection as much as anything though. Rashid bowls one over for 11, costs runs via a misfield, and is in ahead of a batsman.
Poor Napier. Brought into the squad and doesn't even get to play a warm-up game. Why's he there? Ditto Key and Morgan - one game each, Key played woefully out of position.
*sigh*
I hope the wins over India and Pakistan don't make the authorities believe that their team selection was anything other than bobbins.
Maybe it needs rethinking. Are you telling me that if the WI were 81 for 0 after 11 overs they would have only got 161? I don't think so. It seems to me that getting 80 of 9 is much easier than getting 162 of 20.
Ah well, this is the English way.
Malc
Malc wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
Malc wrote:
I don't understand why WI only need to score at 9 an over for 9 overs when England had to score at 8 an over for 20?
I thought DL upped the run rate considerably for shorter lengths?
Malc
I thought DL upped the run rate considerably for shorter lengths?
Malc
To be honest, most of the cricketing websites are agreeing. The D/L method works for 50 over cricket a lot better than it does for T20. The West Indies only needed one decent partnership for about 3/4 overs. They got it at the 5th attempt. They made a fair old hash of it, but still made it with plenty of time to spare.
We lost of team selection as much as anything though. Rashid bowls one over for 11, costs runs via a misfield, and is in ahead of a batsman.
Poor Napier. Brought into the squad and doesn't even get to play a warm-up game. Why's he there? Ditto Key and Morgan - one game each, Key played woefully out of position.
*sigh*
I hope the wins over India and Pakistan don't make the authorities believe that their team selection was anything other than bobbins.
Maybe it needs rethinking. Are you telling me that if the WI were 81 for 0 after 11 overs they would have only got 161? I don't think so. It seems to me that getting 80 of 9 is much easier than getting 162 of 20.
Ah well, this is the English way.
Malc
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm agreeing that 80 off 9 is easier than 162 off 20, as you don't have to worry about wickets lost.
I reckon if they'd hat to bat 15 or 20 overs, they would've been bowled out anyway.
WE WUZ ROBBED, INNIT!
WE WUZ ROBBED, INNIT!
We've won the toss and are having a bat!
