Group C - Kenya, New Zealand, Sri Lanka

[Gilly Fan]

First wicket falls. Vincent goes for 27.

 

[irottev]

No perfect win. He looked a bit scratchy actually. Apart from the pull shot.

 

[harishankar]

Hm... I hope the next game is more of a contest than this one...

 

[ZexyZahid]

This was a quicky.

Kenya 73 (16.5/20 ov)
New Zealand 74/1 (7.4/20 ov)

New Zealand won by 9 wickets (with 74 balls remaining)

 

[angryangy]

Well, i watched it out of curiosity but it looks like I'll be following your advice if mismatches continue to be the trend.



It's more like a lottery in my opinion. True, if the teams are perfectly matched, but even then the team batting second has a big advantage.



The problem is that in T20 you hardly have time to get "set". Playing 4-5 overs to get 20-30 runs still condemns your side to a relatively low score. And as I said, you haven't addressed my point that lower scores are virtually undefendable in this format. The team batting second can avoid so many risks that the team batting first has to necessarily take to set a target. And that seems quite unfair to me.

Losing 4 early wickets is not the cause of the problem as you suggest in this case, it's the effect of playing T20. In ODIs, after losing two wickets, the team batting first can actually close shop for a while and accumulate runs rather than continue playing stupidly.



I think I've seen enough... :

You've based your opinion and apparently your final judgement on a very small sample size. I know in Australia's domestic T20 tournament the chasing side has only won three times in twenty matches. In T20Is up to right now, the record for teams batting first is 9-1-10. That's a lot more even than you portray it.

One thing I'd like to note about taking time to get set is the correspondence of a shot with the field. In Test cricket, the captain will set a slips cordon that pressures the batsman to play accurate drives. Conventionally, he must take his time to build his innings. In limited overs, this does not happen so much. The captain must balance economy with wickets. He is interested in pressuring the batsman by making it more difficult to score. The batsman gets away with more snicks and can easily turn good length balls to the area behind point to bolster his scoring rate.

Secondly I have to query what amounts to a low score that should be defensible. In ODIs, scores less than 150 have only been defended a scant number of times. By comparison, I would expect scores under 100 to rarely be defended in T20.

Now, exactly as you described, in this current match, Pakistan lost some early wickets and shut up shop, even conceding a maiden. However, from their position at 3/67 after 10 overs, then 4/81 after 12 overs, they may not be set to score 200, but 180 is definitely on the cards.

 

[Animator!]

Having just watched the New Zealand - Kenya performance on Sky +, The New Zealanders looks a very professional outfit. I though Vettori captained it very well, considering he's new into the role and it's such a difficult game to captain. McCullum yet again looked excellent with the gloves, he's really starting to become a member of the NZ Backbone with his consistantly excellent performances behind the stumps, and with his batting improving all the time, I really rate him. Bond looked very good also.

 

[harishankar]

You've based your opinion and apparently your final judgement on a very small sample size. I know in Australia's domestic T20 tournament the chasing side has only won three times in twenty matches. In T20Is up to right now, the record for teams batting first is 9-1-10. That's a lot more even than you portray it.

Even so, I still think that the T20 game gets over too quickly leaving teams with too little time to recover. I think we'll have more one-sided T20 games than ODIs or Tests.

Still, it's what people watch and enjoy so I've no quarrels. But I prefer the longer form of the game, definitely. Continuous fours, sixes and wickets aren't my cup of tea...

Secondly I have to query what amounts to a low score that should be defensible. In ODIs, scores less than 150 have only been defended a scant number of times. By comparison, I would expect scores under 100 to rarely be defended in T20.

Well, I think any score less than 150 in T20 is too low. Obviously the two teams should be fairly decent in batting...

Now, exactly as you described, in this current match, Pakistan lost some early wickets and shut up shop, even conceding a maiden. However, from their position at 3/67 after 10 overs, then 4/81 after 12 overs, they may not be set to score 200, but 180 is definitely on the cards.

But Pakistan were playing Scotland. And it illustrates my point perfectly. teams batting first will always be under that much extra pressure to score runs quickly. Even Pakistan struggled against a team like Scotland, but Pakistan got away with it because Scotland ain't such a great batting side. But against a stronger team, they will still find it difficult to defend. 170 odd is just par... and the team batting second can pace their innings as they know exactly how much to get.

 

[irottev]

HILLARIOUS, 2 Kenyans just collided. One ended up getting hurt.

They're so pathetic.

Kanishkaa Balachandran says that when Steve Waugh and Gillespie collided at Kandy, in Sri Lanka, in 1999, Mahela Jayawardene was the batsman. The collision happened at the same deep square leg region. Voodoo?!

LOL

 

[Eddie]

this is what's known as "making hay while the sun shines"

 

[ZexyZahid]

Jayasuriya and Jayawardene also simply destroying Kenya.

They're already on 211-4 after 17 overs.

 

[Gilly Fan]

Wow, the highest score is going to be passed. Formerly 221 by AUSTRALIA (:happy) again England earlier this year.

 

[ZexyZahid]

Mubarak with three sixes in a row and then he hits a four! And another six! And that only in one over. And gets a single of the last over to keep strike for the next over. 29 runs of the over.

What a hitting. And by that Sri Lanka has reached 244-6 and they've yet one over to bat.

 

[angryangy]

Well, I think any score less than 150 in T20 is too low. Obviously the two teams should be fairly decent in batting...

My 1.4 theory agrees, it would translate 150 to about a 210 score in 50 overs. Very rarely are scores like that defensible in this day. What I think we will see is that there is room for growth in tactics in this format and such a score will become more acceptable. Initially in ODIs, chasing was many times more successful than batting first, but teams learned through the world cup and subsequent experiences that a vast total could seal a game.

For Sri Lanka right now, their score is going to be equivalent to a 300+ score in 50 overs. If they get to 280 (they'd probably have to hit several sixes; like right now), they would be on the cusp of a 400 equivalent.

 

[King Pietersen]

Mubarak is going for it abit. 29 off the last over and a 4 off the first ball of this one. Mubarak ftw.

 

[ZexyZahid]

Mubarak missed out on the quickest Twenty20. Last ball was a slower ball. 46 runs of 13 balls.

Sri Lanka 260/6 (19.6/20 ov)
Sri Lanka RR 13.10
Last 5 ovs 77/3 RR 15.40

Check out the runrate!