One sided games
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 4:36 amIs anyone else a bit disenchanted by how one-sided most of the games so far this WC have been, even between supposedly good teams?
By my reckoning, of 14 completed games 11 were basically over by the halfway mark of the second team innings - 2 of those (Scotland v NZ and ENgland v NZ) were effectively over halfway through the first team innings. We've seen no fewer than 8 games where the team batting first has scored 300+ and the chasing team has never looked like chasing it down. These new fielding restrictions, bigger bats and flat pitches are certainly allowing big scores, but usually only for one team.
Damningly (sp?) for the ICC and their contention that associates are involved in one sided games, the most even and exciting games of the tournament so far have involved associates - Ireland v WI, UAE v Zimbabwe and Afghanistan v Sri Lanka. Those are the only three games where the result was still in doubt at the 40 over mark of the second team innings (and even then, Ireland basically cruised to the WI chase, with late wickets making it look closer than it was).
It's also noteworthy that not a single game has lasted 100 overs - i.e. at least one team has been bowled out in every game.
I guess what we're seeing is high risk, high reward cricket. Teams are getting out by slogging trying to force the pace, either to try and keep up with the asking rate for a huge chase or feeling pressure on themselves to set a big total. The days of fighting your way to 230 on a tricky pitch and defending it with good bowling to win by 10 runs are gone. It's either get 300 or 150.
I'm sure a lot of people are enjoying the glut of boundaries and wickets, but personally I preferred it when things were a bit more even.
By my reckoning, of 14 completed games 11 were basically over by the halfway mark of the second team innings - 2 of those (Scotland v NZ and ENgland v NZ) were effectively over halfway through the first team innings. We've seen no fewer than 8 games where the team batting first has scored 300+ and the chasing team has never looked like chasing it down. These new fielding restrictions, bigger bats and flat pitches are certainly allowing big scores, but usually only for one team.
Damningly (sp?) for the ICC and their contention that associates are involved in one sided games, the most even and exciting games of the tournament so far have involved associates - Ireland v WI, UAE v Zimbabwe and Afghanistan v Sri Lanka. Those are the only three games where the result was still in doubt at the 40 over mark of the second team innings (and even then, Ireland basically cruised to the WI chase, with late wickets making it look closer than it was).
It's also noteworthy that not a single game has lasted 100 overs - i.e. at least one team has been bowled out in every game.
I guess what we're seeing is high risk, high reward cricket. Teams are getting out by slogging trying to force the pace, either to try and keep up with the asking rate for a huge chase or feeling pressure on themselves to set a big total. The days of fighting your way to 230 on a tricky pitch and defending it with good bowling to win by 10 runs are gone. It's either get 300 or 150.
I'm sure a lot of people are enjoying the glut of boundaries and wickets, but personally I preferred it when things were a bit more even.
