World Cup Super Six (1 Viewer)

[Lew Crippen]

The first round is over, with the field being reduced from 14 teams to six (three from each pool). Qualifying for this ‘Super Six’ are (points carried over from the first round noted):

·Australia (Pool A—12 points)
·Kenya (B—10)
·India (A—8)
·Sri Lanka (B—7.5)
·New Zealand (B—4)
·Zimbabwe (A—3.5)

Each team will play against all of the teams from the other pool (three games), adding to their carryover total, four points for a win and 2 for a tie or no result. The teams with the top four point totals advance to the semifinals.

As always in tournaments, there have been some surprises:

·Canada beating Bangladesh was a major upset
·Kenya’s win over Sri Lanka was also a major surprise, but at least Kenya plays one-day cricket against the big boys on a regular basis, unlike Canada who don’t play much at all.
·Zimbabwe managed to advance by beating only Nambia (won no games) and Holland (only beat Nambia). They got a default win, when England refused to play them in Harare and their match against Pakistan was rained out. They pretty much have to win all three matches to advance. Big task.
·New Zealand went through even though they forfeited to Kenya, rather than play in that country. Still they beat the Windies and South Africa, as well as the weaker sides. They still needed some luck (tie between South Africa and Sri Lanka) to advance. They must win two, probably all three to advance.
·Sir Lanka moved on despite being upset by Kenya.. Managed to beat everyone else, other than South Africa. They are in a reasonably good position and might only need to win one to advance. Defiantly will go on with two wins.
·India is looking good. After losing to Australia (no disgrace), they won all of their other matches. Perhaps the hottest team in the tournament. If they win two (which they should) they will move on. And might qualify with only one win.
·Kenya advanced by upsetting Sri Lanka, beating the patsies and getting the points for the New Zealand forfeit. Don’t be fooled—they won’t win another, unless it is against Zimbabwe. But if they do they would go on.
·Australia set a plethora of team and individual records as they won all their games, including one where England was in command the whole way, but either choked at the end or Bevan was just too good as the Aussies came from behind to win one with only two balls remaining. Australia only needs to win one to move on—and they get to play Kenya. Their only question is losing yet another quality bowler, as Gillespie returns to Oz with an injury.
·England paid the price for not playing in Zimbabwe and also for failing to maintain their advantage when they had the Aussies on the ropes. On the other hand, that is why Australia is favored—they always seem to find a way to win.
·South Africa had some bad luck, but they really have only themselves to blame, as they failed to understand how many runs they needed in order to win in a complex situation. Losses to New Zealand and West Indies also hurt. Basically they did not beat any of the quality teams in their pool. The major disappointment so far.
·Pakistan was also disappointing as they needed to beat either India or England and lost to both. By the time their match against Zimbabwe was rained out, they had only a miniscule, statistical chance of advancing.

Australia is well and truly on top, but must watch out for India, who really seem to have hit their stride.

 

[Chris_Morris]

Is this cricket?

 

[Jonathan White]

With England being knocked out, I will now be supporting Kenya. I just love underdogs getting one over world class teams.

I really think they should be given test match status, if South Africa and Zimbabwe refuse to tour England next year then invite Kenya.

As much as it pains me to admit it though I think the Aussies are unbeatable.

 

[Lew Crippen]

As much as it pains me to admit it though I think the Aussies are unbeatable.

Now here is a possibility (supplied to me from one of my mates from down-under):

1.The Aussies beat both Sri Lanka (go to 16 points)
2.Then the beat New Zealand (20 points)
3.If everything goes to form, the Aussies can forfeit to Kenya moving Kenya to fourth.
4.Australia now has a free pass to the finals.

Now there is an outcome.

 

[Jonathan White]

I think the only time the Aussies will drop points is if it rains.

A couple of quick questions if you don't mind Lew.

How much coverage is the cricket world cup getting in the USA?

Also do the USA have a cricket team?

Thanks

 

[Lew Crippen]

Also do the USA have a cricket team?

Yes, but as you might expect we are not much good. Not even as good as our Rugby team (and you may recall what happened to that team in the Rugby World Cup on your side of the pond).

I read a piece in CricInfo that said that the ICC was sponsoring four regional tournaments in 2004. One of the sites to be in the States.

Of course so long as we have baseball, our team will come from the immigrants population.

You might be interested to know that the Aussies used a lot of baseball techniques in sharpening their fielding drills. Ponting, especially has noted that he has applied some baseball techniques in his fielding.

 

[Joe Wong]

Allan Border used to play some baseball before he became a full-time cricketer. I still remember his amazing flat trajectory throws from the boundary back to the keeper.

Lew,

Do you prefer cricket or baseball?

Joe

 

[Yee-Ming]

I wonder why it's 4 points for a win, 2 for a tie/no result. sounds like points inflation to me, since 2 and 1 would work equally well, unless there's a result that results in 3 points (or 1) being awarded -- I would've guessed that "no result" might be worth less (i.e. 1) but that does not seem to be the case.

or is there a bonus point for a big win (i.e. 5), e.g. where someone wins with 10 overs to spare or by a big margin of say 50+ runs?

I take it that at the end of the Super Six, 1st plays 4th, 2nd plays 3rd in the two semis, and winners go to the final? I can see how Australia might want to engineer a Kenyan 4th placing then, rather than a Sri Lanka or Indian 4th placing...

 

[Lew Crippen]

Do you prefer cricket or baseball?

Baseball—but I really like both. With both games a lot of the appeal is in what does not happen. For example a decision to move the infield in to cut off a run (if it works), just results in what appears to be a routine ground out—but the aficionado knows the increased risk of a hit with that defensive placement.

Same type of thing happens all the time in cricket. And there are many other examples.

Mostly because you always get a result. Plus you don’t get into one of those situations where everyone knows by the second or third day that it will likely be a draw.

And of course I played baseball—never cricket.

 

[Joe Wong]

Lew,

I admire the skill in both forms of the game, but there is an aesthetic quality in a beautifully timed cover drive or an effortless flick off the pads in cricket that is lacking in baseball (which I find tends to be more brute force).

There is the sore point in that cricket matches can often lead to a draw (same thing in soccer, but that hasn't stopped it from being the true world game). It may just be that American sports tend to favour or require a result - witness the overtimes in NBA, NHL, and extra innings in baseball.

And of course I played cricket - never baseball.

Cheers,

Joe

 

[Jonathan White]

I don't think too many Americans would understand playing a test match for five days and the game ending in a draw, come to think of it, it is a bit daft.

Well the aussies walked past Sri Lanka by 96 runs and India beat Kenya by 6 wickets, although for a time it did look like Kenya could have won.

Games left -

Mar 8 Zimbabwe v New Zealand, Bloemfontein, 0800 GMT
Mar 10 India v Sri Lanka, Johannesburg, 0800 GMT
Mar 11 Australia v New Zealand, Port Elizabeth, 0800 GMT
Mar 12 Zimbabwe v Kenya, Bloemfontein, 0800 GMT
Mar 14 India v New Zealand, Centurion, 0800 GMT
Mar 15 Zimbabwe v Sri Lanka, East London, 0800 GMT
Mar 15 Australia v Kenya, Durban, 1230 GMT

And then onto the semi finals.......

Come on Kenya