Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Cricket World Cup Thread


  • Please log in to reply
3815 replies to this topic

#441 puzzledude

puzzledude

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 12 March 2003 - 01:39 PM

Kenya have been the biggest improvers,
but who would they replace?
who was the most dissapointing?
I nominate England ;)
  • 0

#442 puzzledude

puzzledude

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 12 March 2003 - 01:42 PM

*Ducking from zxb & Gospel*
  • 0

#443 traveller

traveller

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 620 posts

Posted 12 March 2003 - 02:27 PM

Kenya look home.
Replacements? Probably their neighbors whom the're playing now!
  • 0

#444 Agnostic

Agnostic

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9978 posts

Posted 12 March 2003 - 02:27 PM

Puz,
Didnt know about 'VB.' Will ask my pals to get it next time a ship comes to the harbour. Personally, I prefer German beer, or good ol' English ale. My cousins had to drag me from the pubs when I last visited Blighty.:D
Kenya needs about 10 runs to wrap up the match with 7 wickets in hand. Seems to be a record of sorts for a non-Test playing country.
  • 0

#445 Agnostic

Agnostic

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9978 posts

Posted 12 March 2003 - 02:29 PM

England ought to have sent the Yorkshire team instead.;)
  • 0

#446 Gospel

Gospel

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 12 March 2003 - 03:12 PM

Hmmmm, how can you conclude that England were the most diappointing? What prey do you
make of the hosts - South Africa's performance?

England lost a day / nighter to the 'sure-to-be-finalists; India. And should've
beaten the Aussies in their last game - we also
were denied a definate 4 pointer with the
Harare debacle and ICC ***-kissing vis a vis
Mugabe.

Also you should give a care to Pakistan - who
were thumped by England and 'Sachened' to
boot.

Puzzledude is confused methinks.
  • 0

#447 puzzledude

puzzledude

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 12 March 2003 - 03:19 PM

ehehe I just cant help stirring the Poms when it comes to cricket,
It's kind of an addiction :D
  • 0

#448 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 12 March 2003 - 03:21 PM

Great performance from the Kenyans. :):):)

I would nominate Bangladesh and the most dissapointing. Not a single match won. Lost against the minnows. If they were a official minnow themselves, I wouldn't nominate them, but as a test playing nation, they should have put up a better show than they did.
  • 0

#449 Agnostic

Agnostic

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9978 posts

Posted 12 March 2003 - 04:05 PM

England were okay. But South Africa were the most disappointing.
Anyway, this is the craziest world cup I've ever seen and I've seen them all.
Gosp is right. For starters, the goddam ICC had no business arranging matches in Mugabeland.
  • 0

#450 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 12 March 2003 - 04:20 PM

Well, looks as if S Africa was the most dissapointing then. :)

Now, on a more positive note, who do you think was the most impressive? Try to take into account individual abilities and expectations, meaning don't all chose Australia because they haven't been beaten yet. ;)

I think Kenya perhaps? 1st minnow into the super sixes, and then into the semis. Very good going by them. :D
  • 0

#451 Gospel

Gospel

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 13 March 2003 - 11:51 AM

Kenya?

Other than a fine performance against a woeful Sri Lanka - their place in the super sixes was at the behest of the 4 free points after NZ no show in Nairobi... they didn't even have to win a game to qualify for the semis.. thanks to this absurd points system. Beating Zimbabwe was hugely enjoyable .. but again suspect, due to Zim also benefiting from a 4 point ICC gift.

Could Kenya beat England..NO, Pakistan..NO.
They got hammered by South Africa, would've
got hammered by New Zealand.

It kinda reminds of the Football World Cup
where South Korea were 'refereed' to the
Semis.

Great for Kenya; cutting a positive image on the World stage.. the prize money will greatly help the games development at home.. and the profile raised - enticing more youngsters there to play the game.

However the WC is about the very
best teams fighting it out. But thanks to
woeful planning and idiotic points allocations
the integrity of this event has been seriously
damaged.
  • 0

#452 Agnostic

Agnostic

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9978 posts

Posted 13 March 2003 - 12:46 PM

Some Indians would like to attribute the Kenyan "prowess," if one may call it that, to their coach, Sandeep Patil, the former India Test star, more famous for hitting Bob Willis for 6 consecutive fours in a Test match, but I am inclined to say that the stupid points system is to blame. After all the Windies hammered the Kenyans, didn't they? They are in the Super Sixes more because their opponents forfeited their respective matches. I would like to see Kenya play Sri Lanka in a best-of-three series. I am willing to wager that the Lankans would crush them.
  • 0

#453 Agnostic

Agnostic

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9978 posts

Posted 13 March 2003 - 01:01 PM

You blokes ought to take a dekko at this:

Kenya can enter finals: Odumbe


Bloemfontein (Mar 12): Kenya's Maurice Odumbe celebrated his team's magical passage to the semi-finals of the World Cup here and then set his sights on reaching the final.


"People said we shouldn't be in the Super Sixes and then they said we shouldn't be in the semi-final," said the former skipper who was unbeaten at the end on 38 as Kenya beat Zimbabwe by seven wickets.

"They will probably say that we shouldn't go to the final either, but who knows?

"Now we play India in the semi-final and anything can happen."

Kenya bowled out Zimbabwe for a paltry 133 and then knocked off the runs in 26 overs at Goodyear Park reaching 135-7 to canter to victory and set up a semi-final clash with Sourav Ganguly's India in Durban on March 20.

Thomas Odoyo was also unbeaten at the end with 43.

"It's a great feeling," said Odumbe.

"It isn't every day you reach the semi-finals of the World Cup especially when so many great teams have been knocked out.

"We have proved with our performances that we can play tough, good cricket and we will stay positive."

Kenyan captain Steve Tikolo was equally ecstatic.

"I am overjoyed that the boys have been playing good cricket and today was no exception," he said.

"We had spoken about our place in the Super Sixes and in the meetings reviewed our target for the semi-final and I am absolutely thrilled we have achieved that.

"I am happy for the team although I am not doing much with the bat but trying my best to chip in with the ball.

"It is a great reward for Kenyan cricket and the guys are more happy to get into the semi-finals. We've left all the monetary calculations to the manager."

Kenya take on reigning champions Australia in their last Super Sixes match on Saturday before clashing with India in the semi-final at Durban on March 20.

"Australia is a top team and we will just go out and play with the same attitude that has got us this far," Tikolo said.

"We will have nothing to lose."

Zimbabwe captain Heath Streak hid his disappointment to compliment the Kenyans.

"The credit must go to the Kenyans, they stuck to their discipline," Streak said.

"Our batters got out to some soft dismissals which put us out.

"We could not put up a decent total to make a fight out of it.

"When you got such a small total to defend you need to be positive when you bowl, we did that but again the Kenyans played well."

Seamer Martin Suji, who was named man of the match for 3-19 in Zimbabwe's innings, said he was not worried at facing the defending champions on Saturday.

"I am not worried about Australia, any team is alright with me," he said.

"Keeping a good length and line is all you need to do in one-day cricket. And that is what I will do against Australia

http://autofeed.msn....949BD5FF1A5.asp
  • 0

#454 traveller

traveller

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 620 posts

Posted 13 March 2003 - 02:43 PM

Now Now Ag: they need all the confidence they can get. I know you're just hanging out for the Oz v India match (please don't touch the beer 'til then). No need to sledge the Kenyans already.:)
  • 0

#455 Agnostic

Agnostic

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9978 posts

Posted 13 March 2003 - 03:56 PM

Top of the morning to you, mate.
Have you seen the French fries thread in the Politics forum?
  • 0

#456 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 13 March 2003 - 03:59 PM

Ag, we're not allowed to call them French Fires any more. Have to call 'em Freedom Fries now. ;):D;)
  • 0

#457 Agnostic

Agnostic

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9978 posts

Posted 13 March 2003 - 04:07 PM

I dont know why they call them French fries. We call them chips in India and the Brits in the family call them crisps.
  • 0

#458 traveller

traveller

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 620 posts

Posted 13 March 2003 - 04:24 PM

Hmm,
I thought crisps were what yanks call potato chips, and chips were what yanks call french fries. too bloody confusing! I have to lapse back into strine to understand it sometimes. Like talking to customers in tonnes and meters and celsius, then have to switch back to yankee in feet and tons. Go to England and have to be half and half plus Whitworth measures!!!!!!:confused:
  • 0

#459 tedward

tedward

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 147 posts

Posted 13 March 2003 - 05:54 PM

Having British Parents I was taught that crisps came in packets etc and chips were hot chips. Which always causes me confusion in australia as chips are crisps and chips hot chips. I thought crisps was a purely British word too.

Im strictly metric too but im pretty sure theres a difference between american and british pounds.

Is india Metric ag?
  • 0

#460 traveller

traveller

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 620 posts

Posted 13 March 2003 - 08:07 PM

Ted
British and american pounds are the same, but gallons, quarts and pints are different.
Imperials are larger.
Of course, imagine my surprise when I got to Oz. Went to the local pub and asked for a beer
Bartender: what kind?
Me: what do you have?
BT: Tooths, Tooheys new and old, Reschs.
Me: pointing at another drinker I'll have that
BT: tooheys new, what size?
Me: what do you have?
BT: seven, middy schooner pint.
Me: (pint the only thing familiar) Pint and he brings out an imperial pint. (about 4 oz more than an american)
Nezt round:
Me I'll have another, what sizes again?
BT: seven, middie schooner.
Me: (woosing out for tame expression) middie please. imagine surprise when small beer comes out.
Third round:
Me: got anything between these two?
BT: Schooner.
I felt like Goldielocks!

Also the farther north you go the smaller the glasses get, so the beer doesn't get warm. Got pissed as a newt in Queens land in a little town of 230 people (there were 4 pubs), drinking 5 oz XXXX beer!
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru