Toss won the game really batting 2nd is just a massive advantage.
Great game of cricket. The problem is that with Mills and Archer injured we only have Jordan as a specialist death bowler so if he has a bad day (and he really did) we are screwed because we are expecting the other end to go for a few.
Topley for Wood (as I suggested before the game) might have helped this.
All the talk seems to be Billings vs Willey depending on the pitch. Porbably fair enough given the others are all in possession but I would have Billings in anyway and the question should be Malan vs Willey. The other consideration of course is that its our death bowling that has struggled without Mills/Archer so perhaps Topley for Wood?
Perhaps I'm over thinking this.
I was not. Too many batsmen and not enough quicks.
Willey for Malan and Topley for Wood and we win that.
I knew it would be tight and wasn't overly confident batting first. But I thought we'd got enough runs to win the game, probably by 10 or a few less. I wasn't accounting for Jordan completely losing control and losing the game in one over.
I still think as @Addick Addict has said throughout the tournament. If we had won the toss and batted second we would have won the match
Too much in cricket can rely on winning the toss. Can think back to lots of series where it has had too big an impact such as previous Ashes. I think they need to do something to even things up - though not sure how it would work in a tournament
No hindsight from me. I do believe that I made the point a number of times in the summer when we were chasing tiny totals against Sri Lanka that we needed to bat first. As they say, if you do what you've always done, sometimes you might not be able to!
No hindsight from me. I do believe that I made the point a number of times in the summer when we were chasing tiny totals against Sri Lanka that we needed to bat first. As they say, if you do what you've always done, sometimes you might not be able to!
EVERYONE knows that under Morgan, England love to chase and are bloody good at it. Therefore, with the 50/50 nature of the coin toss, any sensible team will make England bat first.
I still think as @Addick Addict has said throughout the tournament. If we had won the toss and batted second we would have won the match
Too much in cricket can rely on winning the toss. Can think back to lots of series where it has had too big an impact such as previous Ashes. I think they need to do something to even things up - though not sure how it would work in a tournament
I agree, but in a test series it is more likely to even itself out than in a one off knockout match. Excepting of course that we have had some useless tossers as captains in the past.
Not that I begrudge New Zealand the win, they were pretty unlucky against us in the 50 over tournament.
Comments
17th over - 23
18th over - 14
19th over - 20
57 runs from 18 balls.
Not good enough.
A bad couple of days for Captain Morgans...
Hope NZ go on to win.
They say you should use all your allocated overs when you are 8 or 9 down.....but we were only 4 down at the end. Could have been more aggressive.
But our bowling in the death overs was shocking
Great game of cricket. The problem is that with Mills and Archer injured we only have Jordan as a specialist death bowler so if he has a bad day (and he really did) we are screwed because we are expecting the other end to go for a few.
Topley for Wood (as I suggested before the game) might have helped this.
Willey for Malan and Topley for Wood and we win that.
But I thought we'd got enough runs to win the game, probably by 10 or a few less.
I wasn't accounting for Jordan completely losing control and losing the game in one over.
EVERYONE knows that under Morgan, England love to chase and are bloody good at it. Therefore, with the 50/50 nature of the coin toss, any sensible team will make England bat first.
Not that I begrudge New Zealand the win, they were pretty unlucky against us in the 50 over tournament.