2015 World Cup – Game 15 – West Indies v Zimbabwe

Canberra is the scene for tonight’s game, starting in the wee small hours, between perennial ICC strugglers Zimbabwe, fresh off a win against UAE and a creditable performance against South Africa, and West Indies who have made 300 twice, and won once.

Comments for the game on here, please. Should be a fascinating contest.

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “2015 World Cup – Game 15 – West Indies v Zimbabwe

  1. ArushaTZ Feb 24, 2015 / 7:08 am

    Nobody else watching?

    Good start with the ball from Zimbabwe, bit of swing, good full length. Samuels very slow (s/r 50-60) until about over 30 then increased his scoring. Gayle should have been out on 0. Plumb lbw given not out, reviewed, umpires call. Hawkeye suggesting it would have clipped top of middle. Looked out live, should’ve been given. Gayle caught off a no-ball and then caught off subsequent free hit, can’t remember what score he was on. Over 100 I think.
    Gayle’s first 100 off about 100 deliveries. Once Gayle decided it was time to go, it was carnage. Zimbabwe had a lot of trouble working out what to bowl. They tried slower balls, short balls, then fuller, round the wicket. Bowled a lot of wides. Impossible to stop onslaught once it started.

    Records –
    Highest individual score in a World Cup
    First double hundred in a World Cup
    Highest ODI partnership for any wicket
    Most sixes in an individual ODI innings (equal)

    Like

    • ArushaTZ Feb 24, 2015 / 7:13 am

      *correction*
      207 runs off last 15 overs

      Like

  2. Rooto Feb 24, 2015 / 7:36 am

    So Gayle still hasn’t scored a century since summer 2013. There must be some ironic hashtag I can use at this point.

    Like

  3. Boz Feb 24, 2015 / 8:13 am

    “The innings distilled Gayle’s biggest strengths: his patience – he saw out 58 dot balls” – almost as bad as Ian Bell – rubbish – should have scored more!!

    Like

  4. Arron Wright Feb 24, 2015 / 8:20 am

    I’m with India on the predictive element of Hawkeye. But if only I were a sceptical cricket journalist, I could go to Hawkeye HQ for re-education and subsequently proclaim its infallibility everywhere I go.

    Like

  5. SimonH Feb 24, 2015 / 8:32 am

    Highest partnership for any wicket in ODIs (beating Tendulkar-Dravid in 1999).

    Picked the wrong night to catch up on some sleep.

    Like

    • d'Arthez Feb 24, 2015 / 8:45 am

      Shame the tight DRS call happened to Zimbabwe, and not to say Australia or New Zealand. Now it will be brushed under the carpet. The system is still biased: it is much harder for “lesser” teams to win such appeals, and that the bigger team has a massive advantage.

      Looks like West Indies are favorites now to make the quarters, against New Zealand or Australia. Though at this rate (and South Africa refusing to pick a better option that either Parnell or Behardien for #7), it could also be SA playing them.

      The last slot could for the quarters could end up being a three-way tussle between Ireland, Pakistan and Zimbabwe.

      Like

      • d'Arthez Feb 24, 2015 / 8:53 am

        “The system is still biased: it is much harder for “lesser” teams to win such appeals, and that means the bigger team has a massive advantage.”

        Lack of coffee in my system to blame for the missing “means” in the post above.

        Zim are now 46/3, after just 8 overs. Another competitive game between Full Members on the cards …

        Like

  6. d'Arthez Feb 24, 2015 / 9:41 am

    And now Brendan Taylor cops a howler courtesy of DRS. Original decision seems fine, no conclusive evidence to overturn anything, so let’s overturn it.

    Like

    • Arron Wright Feb 24, 2015 / 9:52 am

      I’m sorry, I’m way behind the times and a luddite and everything, but DRS as a process is incredibly unsatisfactory the way it stands, and I loathe the way cricket pats itself on the back for getting “more correct decisions”.

      Like

      • d'Arthez Feb 24, 2015 / 10:35 am

        I am more and more inclined to either do away with the umpires for decision making, or doing away with DRS altogether. If we’d go with the DRS option, I’d demand that the source code for decision making is made public, if only to make certain that allegations of built-in bias can be dealt with. Or are we going to use Indian software for the Ashes, Australian software for India – England and English software for Australia – India?

        The obvious problem is that we see a whole host of new errors being introduced, namely correct decisions being overturned on DRS. Smith, the West Indies opener suffered from one of those in the first Test against South Africa. Kallis suffered from one of those in England, 2012. And there are a fair number of others to whom that applies as well.

        We can argue indefinitely about the marginal calls being one way or the other. But you just want to get the impression that all marginal calls are dealt with uniformly, and even that is not happening. Since, the marginal call is too dependent on whatever the umpire thinks, and we have observed for many years that bias does creep in, though I would not suggest that that is intentional.

        I am not sure how they calculate the improvement in the quality of decision making, since a Test at most has about 10 reviews to begin with, and if the umpires are doing a reasonable job, that means you’d expect about 2 decisions to be overturned.

        Part of the improvement will undoubtedly be due to “Umpire’s Calls” decisions, in which basically the standing umpires can’t make an error (since either decision is correct). With the way the protocol is set up now, the same applies to all the tricky decisions, where it is impossible to tell whether the ball hit bat or pad first.

        The only advantage that DRS now offers is that “minnows” don’t suffer blatant umpiring bias, provided they have reviews left. But even then, getting “marginal” lbws (involving one umpire’s call or “worse”) is significantly easier for the big teams than it is for the smaller ones. But since the big boys do their best to eliminate every game against such minnows, it becomes nothing more but a farce.

        Like

      • BoerinAustria Feb 24, 2015 / 10:38 am

        Zimbabwe seems to be playing againts DRS. Maybe at the next WC they could have a DRS team playing …

        Like

      • SimonH Feb 24, 2015 / 10:51 am

        The projected bounce part of DRS LBWs has always been the part of the process I’ve had most doubts about.

        However when DRS gets something right it often doesn’t get reported. For example, in the Sri Lanka/Afghanistan match Jeevan Mendis was given out caught behind – on review there was no noise and he clearly missed the ball. The umpire had just turned down another close decision and was perhaps subconsciously ‘evening up’. It may well have changed the result of the match.

        Selvey wrote a piece about DRS based on a private trial and about four examples. That was obviously drivel. However if the process is flawed make it better – don’t chuck it out. The alternative isn’t perfection but the more flawed reality of an umpire’s judgment.

        Like

      • Arron Wright Feb 24, 2015 / 11:02 am

        One of my favourites from DRS: The Early Years was Ian Bell reviewing after Aleem Dar gave him out caught behind at Sydney. He got away with it because HotSpot showed nothing, and then Snicko (which they couldn’t use in the process due to slow loading speed) confirmed the edge.

        Dar was, at the time, the best umpire in the world by far. MS used to say he was better than any technology. Two and a half years later he was missing Broad’s massive edge at Trent Bridge. I really think the process has undermined umpires’ confidence, encouraged dissent, and it’s been wildly inconsistent, e.g. Bell and Shane Watson received different decisions to what was to all intents and purposes the same ball at Trent Bridge. Presumably one decision would have been marked up as “correct” and the other “incorrect”, even though I reckon Dickie Bird and 95% of umpires over the previous hundred or so years would have felt perfectly comfortable giving the same decision to both batsmen (as they did on the field). Oh, and then there was Trott’s inside edge being missed by the third umpire in the same match, Khawaja being given out Brendan Taylor style later in the series, etc.

        Like

      • SimonH Feb 24, 2015 / 11:29 am

        Using Hotspot without Snicko in the 2013 Ashes was a recipe for disaster. The solution was to speed up Snicko which they’ve done.

        Aleem Dar was a brilliant umpire for several years and his decline has been sad to see. Perhaps it is DRS? Perhaps umpires burn out? Steve Bucknor was a superb umpire early on but he made some bad errors later on (like Damien Martyn’s LBW in 2005 when he had an huge inside edge).

        I don’t see how it was sustainable for everyone in the ground to know there was an error and everyone watching on TV to know there was an error – and for the umpires not to have access to the same information.

        Like

  7. @pktroll Feb 24, 2015 / 11:15 am

    Perhaps the number of dodgy DRS reviews by the TV umpire is a BCCI conspiracy. The Akmal decision in the Pak-India game was dodgy and now the Taylor one!

    Like

  8. SimonH Feb 24, 2015 / 11:37 am

    West Indies versus South Africa on Friday just got seriously interesting.

    Chris Gayle will get all the headlines and fair enough – but Jerome Taylor finding some form in the last two matches is also crucial. Very pleased for him because he seemed poorly treated by the WI selectors. Good excuse to revisit this:

    Like

  9. SimonH Feb 24, 2015 / 1:21 pm

    Like

  10. metatone Feb 24, 2015 / 2:12 pm

    If Gayle could do this to Zimbabwe, imagine what he could do to the England “attack.”

    Like

  11. volkerelle Feb 24, 2015 / 2:31 pm

    Amongst all the well-deserved plaudits heading West Indies and particularly Gayle’s way, I want to applaud Zimbabwe for scoring 289 in 44 and a half overs. That is serious batting, suggesting they could chase down 300 to 320 on a good day. There are some sides in this tournament for which one would struggle to claim that.

    Like

  12. geoffboycottsgrandmother Feb 24, 2015 / 3:10 pm

    “I really think the process has undermined umpires’ confidence, encouraged dissent, and it’s been wildly inconsistent”

    I couldn’t disagree more.

    Umpires are now far more willing to give lbws – particularly on the front foot and to spinners. This has evened up the game by encouraging bowlers and spin bowlers in particular.

    How has it discouraged dissent? Instead of standing arms aloft in disbelief at the decision and imploring the umpire to change his mind, players confer amongst themselves and more often than not decide between themselves that it wasn’t out. Batsmen can’t just stand at the crease looking at their bat before slowly trudging off – they have to refer it or shut up.

    What still bugs me is that the same delivery can produce two different results turning only on the umpire’s call, but overall the results have been far more consistent. As mistakes become rarer they become more noticeable and memorable.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s