Arthur Crabtree wrote:The unknown factor for NZ and WI is how they'll respond to not having the best use of the conditions.
GarlicJam wrote:England have a very good history of stuffing up when it matters.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Return to Live Cricket Matches
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests