16 thoughts on “2015 World Cup – Game 18 – Sri Lanka v Bangladesh”

  1. d'Arthez's avatar d'Arthez Feb 26, 2015 / 8:26 am

    This just begs the question: why is the qualifier for the next World Cup in Bangladesh? It is not like the conditions there will be reasonably similar to the conditions in England …

    BD have lost two wickets in 6 overs. That makes it 3 wickets in 56 overs of bowling.

    In terms of wickets taken, this was the worst effort ever in a World Cup match in the first innings.

    Previous record was two. Between full member teams we have:
    Pakistan vs WI 220/2 (1992 – Pakistan went on to lose that game by ten wickets – still a record for least wickets falling in an entire WC match that was not rained off).
    Australia vs India 359/2 (2003 – competitive final, Richardson style)
    West Indies vs Zimbabwe 372/2 (just a few days ago)

    Like

    Reply
    • d'Arthez's avatar d'Arthez Feb 26, 2015 / 8:31 am

      And DRS under the spotlight again, at the 6.1 over mark. Snicko not available, and hence the decision is not overruled, even though there is evidence of the involvement of the bat.

      Next ball Mominul Haque goes, so the damage to Sri Lanka was minor. It appears that Jeff Crowe, match referee on duty, decided to give Sri Lanka the review back on the basis of the absence of Snicko.

      Like

      Reply
      • Arron Wright's avatar Arron Wright Feb 26, 2015 / 9:02 am

        “Jeff Crowe, match referee on duty”

        Those six words in themselves illustrate the incompetence of the ICC. The man who did not know the rules at the 2007 final, and was on duty again with James Taylor and the dead ball farce in this tournament.

        Like

        Reply
  2. SimonH's avatar SimonH Feb 26, 2015 / 9:56 am

    Like

    Reply
    • Arron Wright's avatar Arron Wright Feb 26, 2015 / 11:05 am

      I can’t take any award seriously that has Martin Samuel one notch behind Hugh McIlvanney. Or one which puts Newman and Berry (both of whom produced one of my three worst pieces of 2014) ahead of Hopps or Dobell. Not bad otherwise, I *suppose*.

      My most fervent hope is that the Guardian doesn’t win sports website, because the fall-off in the last 2-3 years has been disastrous.

      (BTW, how on earth is cricinfo not in the specialist sports website list???)

      Like

      Reply
      • d'Arthez's avatar d'Arthez Feb 26, 2015 / 11:07 am

        Because they’re legally foreign based? Pretty sure that applies to some of the papers as well though.

        Like

        Reply
    • LordCanisLupus's avatar LordCanisLupus Feb 26, 2015 / 11:10 am

      Paul Newman? There’s a line akin to Henry Kissinger winning the Nobel peace prize there.

      The cricket list does not have George Dobell. That speaks volumes.

      Like

      Reply
    • SimonH's avatar SimonH Feb 26, 2015 / 1:27 pm

      Twenty-four hours after the un-nominated Cricinfo broke the story the nominated BBC website still has no report on the proposals to reform English cricket (except a tiny piece about Finn welcoming a franchise system).

      I’d assumed Cricinfo (and George Dobell) were excluded like D’Arthez said because they didn’t qualify as British – but how then is Jarrod Kimber included? Does he write for a British publication somewhere?

      Like

      Reply
  5. SimonH's avatar SimonH Feb 26, 2015 / 2:07 pm

    FFS the Guardian has a second article with no comments about the ECB proposals that reads like someone has just attached a headline to an ECB press-release full of bland reassurances that “of course nothing is decided etc etc”.

    Instead there are comments on a Selvey piece about Finn that asserts yet again it wasn’t “England” that tampered with his bowling action without any substantiation of who it was.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment