Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

The unknown factor for NZ and WI is how they'll respond to not having the best use of the conditions.

New Zealand have out played every side they've faced, it will be very interesting to see if the slow low pitches they have thrived on will continue if India go out today.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:The unknown factor for NZ and WI is how they'll respond to not having the best use of the conditions.

I have my concerns about the Windies batting...it seems to depend too heavily on Gayle. Fletcher made runs, but will he be fit on Thursday? Samuels can be relied upon to grind out an innings on a difficult pitch, but with Pollard and Simmons injured, and Dwayne Smith curiously bypassed, the batting looks a bit inconsistent.

New Zealand have been underestimated all along this comp. If they bat first, they have shown themselves to be very good at defending mediocre totals.

for mine, it will be a NZ/Ind final. India will need Kholi to continue to fire though.

I cant see how literally everyone around has NZ as strong favourites. They are great at defending mediocre totals is hardly recipe for success against the competitions biggest run scorer.

Well, I haven't seen England play during this comp, so I can't have been impressed by them - and you have to agree, England have a very good history of stuffing up when it matters.

GarlicJam wrote:England have a very good history of stuffing up when it matters.

An important point considering New Zealand's notorious reputation for getting things done under pressure.

Obviously New Zealand have the historical upper hand, they have after all never won a knockout game in a T20 finals, got massacred in a recent World Cup final when under pressure, and have an impressive 25% win ratio against England.

Hey, all I have done is put forward my opinion on who I think will win.

It isn't fact. Have a look at how I go in tipping competitions. Mid-table mediocrity is an achiement for me.


Don't take it personally that I have picked against your team. I don't think that that will affect their chances.

GarlicJam wrote:Hey, all I have done is put forward my opinion on who I think will win.

It isn't fact. Have a look at how I go in tipping competitions. Mid-table mediocrity is an achiement for me.


Don't take it personally that I have picked against your team. I don't think that that will affect their chances.

Maybe some dual frustration after reading two days worth of England football fans saying they cant do anything at the Euro's because they lost penalty shootouts 25 years ago

I hate the history argument. Its about what you are doing now.

I think England should fancy themselves..... but my prediction ability is similar to yours.

It's ignoring the historic argument (25%/WCT20 record) and focusing on who is playing well that makes the Kiwis so backable.

I don't see why defending small totals and being able to squeeze the opposition batters aren't great reasons why they should be fancied.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:I don't see why defending small totals and being able to squeeze the opposition batters aren't great reasons why they should be fancied.

Its a simple case of capacity. New Zealand's team especially in the middle to low order is brittle and pretty weak at this level of a competition, so if plan A doesn't completely work, they don't strike me as a team that has the quality to chase much over 150-160. I think if England set them over 160 New Zealand would really struggle to get up much past anything over this. Obviously if New Zealand bowl England out for 70, then they win.

England have bowling problems of their own, but run capacity is the weaker lack of capacity to have.... England v South Africa proved it, South Africa crushed England's bowlers but then caved in to some incredible batting.

If England bowl badly, they have proved they can still chase 230!!! If New Zealand bowl badly, can they chase high scores? I dont think they do

sussexpob wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:I don't see why defending small totals and being able to squeeze the opposition batters aren't great reasons why they should be fancied.

Its a simple case of capacity. New Zealand's team especially in the middle to low order is brittle and pretty weak at this level of a competition, so if plan A doesn't completely work, they don't strike me as a team that has the quality to chase much over 150-160. I think if England set them over 160 New Zealand would really struggle to get up much past anything over this. Obviously if New Zealand bowl England out for 70, then they win.

England have bowling problems of their own, but run capacity is the weaker lack of capacity to have.... England v South Africa proved it, South Africa crushed England's bowlers but then caved in to some incredible batting.

If England bowl badly, they have proved they can still chase 230!!! If New Zealand bowl badly, can they chase high scores? I dont think they do

Have New Zealand actually played a game on pitches that allow such scored to be set or made? From what I've seen of them, they've played sensible cricket rather than going for broke and being bowled out.

Making_Splinters wrote: Have New Zealand actually played a game on pitches that allow such scored to be set or made? From what I've seen of them, they've played sensible cricket rather than going for broke and being bowled out.

Well if you acknowledge that, then winning the toss on such pitches and being able to dictate the par score has held their bowling attack to look much better than it is.

sussexpob wrote:

Making_Splinters wrote: Have New Zealand actually played a game on pitches that allow such scored to be set or made? From what I've seen of them, they've played sensible cricket rather than going for broke and being bowled out.

Well if you acknowledge that, then winning the toss on such pitches and being able to dictate the par score has held their bowling attack to look much better than it is.

My point is more, that I don't feel New Zealand have had a crack on a pitch where you'd say 190 is what you need to win. If you look at their batting line up they certainly have the players to get up in that region with Guptill, Munro, Anderson, Taylor and Ronchi who have all in the past turned it on on the international stage.

If they end up on a flat deck against us, it will be a new situation for them, but it is not as if they don't have the seamers to adapt to quicker wickets is it?

Arthur Crabtree wrote:It's ignoring the historic argument (25%/WCT20 record) and focusing on who is playing well that makes the Kiwis so backable.

I don't see why defending small totals and being able to squeeze the opposition batters aren't great reasons why they should be fancied.

Defending modest totals is a strong asset to have in knockout cricket, more WT20 knockout games have been won by this than chasing a huge total. I would back Mitch McClenaghan at the death than Chris Jordan or Ben Stokes.

New Zealand's batsmen might not have had the luxury of smoking it all parts of India, but they have faced better bowlers in their group and England's bowling in T20 is nothing to write home about. England's batsmen have had the luxury of facing some average bowling attacks combined with favourable wickets, lets see how they fare against the team who have taken the most wickets.

Rightly so New Zealand are favourites, topping their group with a 100% win record in alien conditions is no mean feat and are more than dark horses to win the tournament.