World T20 semis & final, March 30-April 3

[sussexpob]

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

South Africa's bowling attack includes 3 players ranked in the top ten playing at this tournament, another in the top 20 players at the tournament, and a 5th who hasnt played enough recently to maintain a rank, but is arguably the greatest seam bowler in history. In terms of ranking points pre-tournament, I believe South Africa's attack are rated the best available for the tournament. Is there another bowling attack that has two bowlers with econ rates as low as Steyn and Tahir in tandem?

And yes.... England hit that attack "halfway around India"!!!!

But I do like the fact that you are inferring Tahir and Steyn are average..... must be a LOT of average batsman around if thats the case.

[Arthur Crabtree]

NZ probably are going to want to bat first and squeeze the opposition in the field. England may want to bowl first and then chase. So maybe they won't need a coin.

A bonus for England is Liam Plunkett, who has been quite reliable since coming into the side. And Jordan's figures are improving as the games pass, which usually happens with him. A negative is that England don't have the nerve to trust their spinners in a tight corner, which KW has done. Like Smith yesterday, they revert to type. And will they have the nerve to pick Dawson, if conditions demand?

Even though England may have scored a lot of runs in the competition, they have often been unconvincing. Hales hasn't made a score. Morgan can glue the innings up. Stokes hasn't made runs. Roy doesn't always look comfortable at this level. They get little out of their lower order. Afghanistan made them sweat.

[Durhamfootman]

in his 2 matches, Plunkett has only gone at 4 an over, which is remarkable, but surely unsustainable. Jordan hit his yorkers -v- SL which is also surely unsustainable. Given that every Jordan over seemed to go at 20's in the first couple of matches, that he has pulled his econ down to just over 8 is to his credit, but can he maintain it?

I quite fancy England, actually (poor, hopelessly optimistic fool that I am). 3rd match on this pitch for England may make a difference. Perhaps an extra seamer and one less spinner for the SF?

[sussexpob]

Plunketts extra pace gives Englands attack an extra dimension

[backfootpunch]

the only reason plunkett has been so economical is that willey and jordan have taken early wickets in the two games he has played

the opposition batsmen havent been able to take any risks against him as they couldnt really afford to get out

[Dilbert]

I feel if Eng get a flat wicket, they have a better chance than if they get a wicket that was there in the Ind/NZ match.
NZ are playing like Ind played in the last WC... winning everything easily. We lost to Aus hopelessly in the semi's... which Eng are similarly capable of pulling off.

I wasnt backing them to go to the semi's but seeing their batting, i fancy them a 50% chance atleast for the final.

[Alviro Patterson]

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

South Africa's bowling attack includes 3 players ranked in the top ten playing at this tournament, another in the top 20 players at the tournament, and a 5th who hasnt played enough recently to maintain a rank, but is arguably the greatest seam bowler in history. In terms of ranking points pre-tournament, I believe South Africa's attack are rated the best available for the tournament. Is there another bowling attack that has two bowlers with econ rates as low as Steyn and Tahir in tandem?

And yes.... England hit that attack "halfway around India"!!!!

But I do like the fact that you are inferring Tahir and Steyn are average..... must be a LOT of average batsman around if thats the case.

Then there is the small matter of rating the West Indian, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan bowling attacks. Ironically it was the associate nation who caused England's batsmen the most trouble. England have avoided the likes of Mohammad Amir, Shane Watson, Ravi Jadeja, Shahid Afridi, James Faulkner et al.

If Tim Bresnan can smash Dale Steyn all over Bangladesh in the last World T20, then it shouldn't be a problem for England's young batsmen

Statistically speaking, Mitchell Santner and Ish Sodhi have better T20i economies than Tahir and Steyn. It's all good and well having two World Class bowlers in a bowling attack, but if Steyn has a poor campaign and the rest of the bowling attack don't turn up (except Kyle Abbott) then success becomes non-existent. Matches are won not by having the best players on paper, but which team performs as a unit and New Zealand have demonstrated just that. The Blackcaps might lack X Factor batting, but there is always someone in that team who will take the initiative.

[Dr Cricket]

TBH the bowling attacks in group 1 were awful.
Only Tahir and Willey actually bowled well in most of the games.

SA seam attack was awful, WI were ok not terrible and not great either.
England bowling attack is awful only Willey bowled well so far, Ali and Rashid have been ok.

Actually reckon in current form none of WI or England would have qualified from group 2.

[sussexpob]

Then there is the small matter of rating the West Indian, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan bowling attacks. Ironically it was the associate nation who caused England's batsmen the most trouble. England have avoided the likes of Mohammad Amir, Shane Watson, Ravi Jadeja, Shahid Afridi, James Faulkner et al

West Indies have bowled statistically better than India in the tournament, same amount of runs given away in 2 more overs bowled. Afghanistan and Sri Lanka have conceded less BD, AUS and Pakistan, despite playing the top two runs scorers in the tournament.

If we are to ignore Dale Steyns quality based on your point that rating of players should be based entirely "in tournament", then why are you then ignoring the comparative in tournament bowling accomplishment of group 1?

Seems you are tripping over your own argument here.

[sussexpob]

Statistically speaking, Mitchell Santner and Ish Sodhi have better T20i economies than Tahir and Steyn.

If you are telling me 4 games in one tournament makes Mitchell Santner a better player than Dale Steyn, who this board recently voted inside the best attack from 1965 to the current day, Im going to have to ask what you are smoking. The kiwi boys had played 8 T20s before going to India.... Steyn is a legend, and Tahir has a brilliant record over many matches in ODIs and T20....

If Sodhi and Santner in 10 years time are still doing it, then fair play.

[greyblazer]

Wrote this piece on Joe Root. http://cricfit.com/joe-root-exploring-n ... tsmanship/

[sussexpob]

In fact, it seems this argument is heavily in favour of NZ's bowlers.

England score 230 vs South Africa and its the BOWLERS who are terrible. New Zealand bowl out a team for 70 and its the BOWLERS who are brilliant.

Have you not consider the fact that England's BATSMAN may have played brilliantly against some very good bowlers on paper (as I say, 3 of those bowlers were ranked in the 10 best pre-tournament, and another was Dale Steyn who is the best seamer in T20 cricket since it became a big deal).

This is a batting format, it always has been. Good or batting wins more matches than bowling in ODIs nowadays. Seeing India take three wickets against BD with high full tosses is a brilliant example of that.

[greyblazer]

New Zealand tend to peak too early in World Cups. This is England's chance.

[Dr Cricket]

Then there is the small matter of rating the West Indian, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan bowling attacks. Ironically it was the associate nation who caused England's batsmen the most trouble. England have avoided the likes of Mohammad Amir, Shane Watson, Ravi Jadeja, Shahid Afridi, James Faulkner et al

West Indies have bowled statistically better than India in the tournament, same amount of runs given away in 2 more overs bowled. Afghanistan and Sri Lanka have conceded less BD, AUS and Pakistan, despite playing the top two runs scorers in the tournament.

If we are to ignore Dale Steyns quality based on your point that rating of players should be based entirely "in tournament", then why are you then ignoring the comparative in tournament bowling accomplishment of group 1?

Seems you are tripping over your own argument here.

personally thought WI bowled ok but barring england, the rest of the teams batted awfully against them.
WI didn't have to try hard to take wickets or be economical but at the same time they were not really pushed either.

Bowled well against England though, restricted England to 180 which was enough for them to chase down.

[sussexpob]

personally thought WI bowled ok but barring england, the rest of the teams batted awfully against them.

And you think any teams have batted that well against New Zealand? To bowl teams out for under 100 twice requires more than merely good bowling.