ICC Champions Trophy

lee_arama

Given that NZ have defied the odds to get here, and that Australia haven't really shown all that they have, I am of the opinion that the Kiwi's can win this.

I'm just sorry now that I had my money on them before the morning price changes. 2.75 out to 3.40... Lost some value there.

Beasty

25/1 after 11. With no Vettori, and a slow start, my prediction is definitely for Australia now (hopefully I am wrong again)

kryogen

the bowling change and introduction of Guptill has made a difference though, runs are coming easier and the have reached 54 off 16 overs. Its been a good performance from Australa so far and New Zealand look like they are just starting to wake up now! when was the last time you saw Mcullum dismissed for a duck after 14 balls :eek:, excellent bowling from Lee and Siddle to start with and Johnson and Watson just need to get a little more control on their lines, partnership for New Zealand up to 49 runs

Good game so far

oh Johnson should have a wicket but the umpire got the decision wrong somehow

Dinarius

Don't really care who wins. Pakistan have style and passion and you really felt that it meant more to them than it did to New Zealand. Was sorry to see them lose in the semi.

Have to say that I find the strategy of playing Brendon McCullum as opener perplexing, to say the least - and I'm being polite. This guy is a taverners-style slogger who should be batting when the bowlers are a bit tired and a power play is imminent. To have him opening is crazy.

Surprised this hasn't been commented on, but maybe I'm the only one who thinks this way.

D.

kryogen

Haurtiz has struck twice since the last update, the scrore is now 78-3 after 22.3 overs

Dinarius

81/4 Squeaky bum time for NZ now!

D.

kryogen

New Zealand down another dangerous batsman, Taylor goes by Johnsen, 81-4 now

ASTRACLUB

Dinarius wrote: »

Pakistan have style and passion

110% disagree, their batting was less than average. bowling was poor too but OK. they won on the base of bowling but overall format of the tournmanet was different. They won 1 match and direct in semifinal????
wow, thats something wrong with ICC.
I think Australia deserve this tournament purely based on the performance within the tournament

kryogen

Lee has bowled very well in this over yet it has gone for 9 somehow! overthrow cost 5 and then a lucky boundary

Dinarius

ASTRACLUB wrote: »

110% disagree, their batting was less than average. bowling was poor too but OK. they won on the base of bowling but overall format of the tournmanet was different. They won 1 match and direct in semifinal????
wow, thats something wrong with ICC.

I meant style and flair in terms of their overall approach. NZ are like a bunch of seminarians!

Agree that it's odd they qualified on the basis of one match. But, what would you do? The last tournament went on forever and people lost interest.

But, heck this is the ICC we're talking about. After all, the final is being held on a Monday. Dumb and dumber! :eek:

D.

Dozen Wicked Words

I'm not really sure this has been a very good tournament. A lot of the games have seemed to rely too much on who won the toss, whilst it plays a part in all/most games, England Sri Lanka and England New Zealand are two examples where the winning of the toss effectively won the game. Fair to Poor attendances, substandard WIndies. Just all very Meh

The tournament itself would benefit from trying a different format to differentiate it from the World Cup. Maybe the Tendulkar suggestion of two innings of 25 overs would breath life into a tournament which looks a bit out of place and of dubious merit in an increasingly busy cricket calender.

Dinarius

Maybe the Tendulkar suggestion of two innings of 25 overs would breath life into a tournament which looks a bit out of place and of dubious merit in an increasingly busy cricket calender.[/QUOTE]

I think that this is the best suggestion anyone has made about this game in a long time and it may just be the saving of the ODI.

Would be great to see it introduced in UK league cricket too. The 40 over game is neither fish nor fowl.

D.

Beasty

125-5 after 35. It looks like they will struggle to get to 200, even if they manage to bat through the full 50 overs

kyp_durron

Dinarius wrote: »

Don't really care who wins. Pakistan have style and passion and you really felt that it meant more to them than it did to New Zealand. Was sorry to see them lose in the semi.

Have to say that I find the strategy of playing Brendon McCullum as opener perplexing, to say the least - and I'm being polite. This guy is a taverners-style slogger who should be batting when the bowlers are a bit tired and a power play is imminent. To have him opening is crazy.

Surprised this hasn't been commented on, but maybe I'm the only one who thinks this way.

D.

I agree with your thoughts on McCullum opening. When it works it can get them off to a flyer, but when it fails, like today, it looks horrible.

New Zealand well and truely outplayed Pakistan on Saturday. Do you think it meant nothing to them? I can't understand where you are coming from saying that.

Anyway, it's looking grim for them today. Unless Bond or Mills get a few early wickets, this one will be over pretty quickly.

Beasty

200-9 at the end of their innings

KevIRL

2 early wickets for the New Zealanders

Aus 11-2

Beasty

Aussies win by 6 wickets, with 28 balls to spare

Watson, 105no, becomes the tournament's top scorer

kryogen

Beasty wrote: »

Aussies win by 6 wickets, with 28 balls to spare

Watson, 105no, becomes the tournament's top scorer

eh, Ponting is still the tournaments top scorer!

Dinarius

Kyle Mills was outstanding for NZ. Bond was good. The rest were rubbish. NZ missed Vettori badly.

Well done Oz.

D.