Eng v Zim, T20 WC, Cape Town, 13th September

12:00 GMT

So poor Zimbees have to play today and tomorrow?

The way the Zimbos played this evening, not the gimmie many thought it would be perhaps?

filosofee wrote:So poor Zimbees have to play today and tomorrow?

Yes, 80 overs of cricket in two days! I'm sure nobody's ever done that before...

England will realise they've got a contest coming up after this performance. And if the unthinkable happens and Zimbabwe win this evening, only beating Aus will guarantee England go through...

Although thwacking Zim by a big score would more or less do it.

JKLever wrote:The way the Zimbos played this evening, not the gimmie many thought it would be perhaps?

Especially with England choosing to handicap themselves by selecting Chris Schofield. And Darren Maddy. And Ian Ward. And David Ward. And Alan Igglesden.

Dello wrote:

JKLever wrote:The way the Zimbos played this evening, not the gimmie many thought it would be perhaps?

Especially with England choosing to handicap themselves by selecting Chris Schofield. And Darren Maddy. And Ian Ward. And David Ward. And Alan Igglesden.

Well, at least we haven't handicapped ourselves by not playing any meaningful international cricket since April...

beamer wrote:

filosofee wrote:So poor Zimbees have to play today and tomorrow?

Yes, 80 overs of cricket in two days! I'm sure nobody's ever done that before...

England will realise they've got a contest coming up after this performance. And if the unthinkable happens and Zimbabwe win this evening, only beating Aus will guarantee England go through...

The unthinkable happened.

beamer wrote:

Dello wrote:

JKLever wrote:The way the Zimbos played this evening, not the gimmie many thought it would be perhaps?

Especially with England choosing to handicap themselves by selecting Chris Schofield. And Darren Maddy. And Ian Ward. And David Ward. And Alan Igglesden.

Well, at least we haven't handicapped ourselves by not playing any meaningful international cricket since April...

We was rusty.

JKLever wrote:Although thwacking Zim by a big score would more or less do it.

I'm finding this confusing, if Eng do thrash the Zimbots won't their NRR drop, than if Aus beat Eng comfortably they will go through?

Makaveli wrote:

JKLever wrote:Although thwacking Zim by a big score would more or less do it.

I'm finding this confusing, if Eng do thrash the Zimbots won't their NRR drop, than if Aus beat Eng comfortably they will go through?

It would come down to run rate to see which 2 of 3 go through

They would all have won 1 game.

England would play Aus last so its quite likely both teams will know the r/r scenario to qualify.

So yes, if Eng beat Zim. Aus could still qualify by a comfortable win over Eng.

Though my response was to beamer about Englands prospects.

LOL, we got beat

How gay

Ok cool, so the bad news is Aus still have a good chance of going through.

With the defeat being so narrow, if Aus do beat England they'll almost certainly be through. But it is a must win game for them.

During the rain break tonight, Ian Blackwell and Ian Harvey - Sky's 'experts' for the match indulged in what I can only describe as the most inept punditry in the history of the world.

Asked to narrow down England's squad to a starting XI for tomorrow's game, they settled on Solanki and Maddy opening, Pietersen at three, Collingwood at four...

And then the wheels came off. They totally forgot about number five, jumped straight into number six, looked surprised that they'd got through the entire batting line-up and hadn't picked Flintoff - so he's "got to be" at six. Prior at seven.

"No place for Shah or Wright?" they were asked. You can't play everyone - the balance of the side comes first. This is a side with no-one batting at five, remember.

They then reeled off a list of bowlers who've "got to be" in the side: Anderson, Broad, "perhaps Kirtley - he's good at the death", "Flintoff, obviously", before agreeing that there was no need for a spinner - and then suggesting that, if there were a need for a spinner, they should pick one of the spinners. Snape of Schofield, "got to be" in the XI.

Has no-one mentioned Mascarenhas? Five sixes in an over - he's got be in, hasn't he? "Got to be".

So, that's an XI of:

1: Solanki
2: Maddy
3: Pietersen
4: Collingwood
5:
6: Flintoff
7: Prior
8: Mascarenhas
9: Snape or Schofield
10: Flintoff the bowler
11: Broad
12: Anderson
13: Kirtley

Genius.

In Blackwell's defence, up to two-thirds of his conscious brain is always thinking about food, about the preparation of food, the eating of the food, the quest for more food - so it's understandable that he's a moron.

Harvey and Blackwell were both wearing exactly the same outfits too: open necked black shirt, black slacks. You could only tell them apart by the fact that Harvey had raided his mum's jewelry box for a festive necklace, while Blackwell was struggling to get much return from the supposed slimming effect of his all-black uniform.

PMSL, Harvey definitely seems to be functioning off 1 brain cell right now.

Definitely staring into space recently.

Dello wrote:

So, that's an XI of:

1: Solanki
2: Maddy
3: Pietersen
4: Collingwood
5:
6: Flintoff
7: Prior
8: Mascarenhas
9: Snape or Schofield
10: Flintoff the bowler
11: Broad
12: Anderson
13: Kirtley

Genius.

Flintoff at 10, that's a strong line-up. Maybe if they put Shah, Wright and Robin Smith all at number 5 we'd have a chance of winning.

Dello wrote:During the rain break tonight, Ian Blackwell and Ian Harvey - Sky's 'experts' for the match indulged in what I can only describe as the most inept punditry in the history of the world.

Asked to narrow down England's squad to a starting XI for tomorrow's game, they settled on Solanki and Maddy opening, Pietersen at three, Collingwood at four...

And then the wheels came off. They totally forgot about number five, jumped straight into number six, looked surprised that they'd got through the entire batting line-up and hadn't picked Flintoff - so he's "got to be" at six. Prior at seven.

"No place for Shah or Wright?" they were asked. You can't play everyone - the balance of the side comes first. This is a side with no-one batting at five, remember.

They then reeled off a list of bowlers who've "got to be" in the side: Anderson, Broad, "perhaps Kirtley - he's good at the death", "Flintoff, obviously", before agreeing that there was no need for a spinner - and then suggesting that, if there were a need for a spinner, they should pick one of the spinners. Snape of Schofield, "got to be" in the XI.

Has no-one mentioned Mascarenhas? Five sixes in an over - he's got be in, hasn't he? "Got to be".

So, that's an XI of:

1: Solanki
2: Maddy
3: Pietersen
4: Collingwood
5:
6: Flintoff
7: Prior
8: Mascarenhas
9: Snape or Schofield
10: Flintoff the bowler
11: Broad
12: Anderson
13: Kirtley

Genius.

In Blackwell's defence, up to two-thirds of his conscious brain is always thinking about food, about the preparation of food, the eating of the food, the quest for more food - so it's understandable that he's a moron.

Harvey and Blackwell were both wearing exactly the same outfits too: open necked black shirt, black slacks. You could only tell them apart by the fact that Harvey had raided his mum's jewelry box for a festive necklace, while Blackwell was struggling to get much return from the supposed slimming effect of his all-black uniform.

High, or should it be Low comedy.

Dello wrote:During the rain break tonight, Ian Blackwell and Ian Harvey - Sky's 'experts' for the match indulged in what I can only describe as the most inept punditry in the history of the world.

Asked to narrow down England's squad to a starting XI for tomorrow's game, they settled on Solanki and Maddy opening, Pietersen at three, Collingwood at four...

And then the wheels came off. They totally forgot about number five, jumped straight into number six, looked surprised that they'd got through the entire batting line-up and hadn't picked Flintoff - so he's "got to be" at six. Prior at seven.

"No place for Shah or Wright?" they were asked. You can't play everyone - the balance of the side comes first. This is a side with no-one batting at five, remember.

They then reeled off a list of bowlers who've "got to be" in the side: Anderson, Broad, "perhaps Kirtley - he's good at the death", "Flintoff, obviously", before agreeing that there was no need for a spinner - and then suggesting that, if there were a need for a spinner, they should pick one of the spinners. Snape of Schofield, "got to be" in the XI.

Has no-one mentioned Mascarenhas? Five sixes in an over - he's got be in, hasn't he? "Got to be".

So, that's an XI of:

1: Solanki
2: Maddy
3: Pietersen
4: Collingwood
5:
6: Flintoff
7: Prior
8: Mascarenhas
9: Snape or Schofield
10: Flintoff the bowler
11: Broad
12: Anderson
13: Kirtley

Genius.

In Blackwell's defence, up to two-thirds of his conscious brain is always thinking about food, about the preparation of food, the eating of the food, the quest for more food - so it's understandable that he's a moron.

Harvey and Blackwell were both wearing exactly the same outfits too: open necked black shirt, black slacks. You could only tell them apart by the fact that Harvey had raided his mum's jewelry box for a festive necklace, while Blackwell was struggling to get much return from the supposed slimming effect of his all-black uniform.

Roflmao! Omg i thought i was the only one who saw that simply hilarious and they are getting paid for it!

Ok so we know how dim Blackwell and Harvey are - that's news?!!

Anyway, with a deep breath, I'm suggesting that Fred opens the batting. He's more likely to get a start with the ball coming on to him. As for the rest of the side - perm any 10 from the 14 remaining, it's that open.

The win by Zim tonight has reduced our chances of getting through to the next round.

If Aus had won, we would only have needed to beat Zim and we'd be through. But now, we need to beat Zim by a bigger margin than Aus will beat us on Friday.

Peregrine Periwinkle wrote:The win by Zim tonight has reduced our chances of getting through to the next round.

If Aus had won, we would only have needed to beat Zim and we'd be through. But now, we need to beat Zim by a bigger margin than Aus will beat us on Friday.

Oh FFS! Get a grip man! The Zimbos winning was a one off - we will despatch them tomorrow and give give the Aussies a damn good shoeing on Friday!

But now, we need to beat Zim by a bigger margin than Aus will beat us on Friday.

And if we float back down in to reality, we should give Zimbabwe a pretty sound thrashing tonight, provided we take the game seriously.

Dello wrote:During the rain break tonight, Ian Blackwell and Ian Harvey - Sky's 'experts' for the match indulged in what I can only describe as the most inept punditry in the history of the world.

Asked to narrow down England's squad to a starting XI for tomorrow's game, they settled on Solanki and Maddy opening, Pietersen at three, Collingwood at four...

And then the wheels came off. They totally forgot about number five, jumped straight into number six, looked surprised that they'd got through the entire batting line-up and hadn't picked Flintoff - so he's "got to be" at six. Prior at seven.

"No place for Shah or Wright?" they were asked. You can't play everyone - the balance of the side comes first. This is a side with no-one batting at five, remember.

They then reeled off a list of bowlers who've "got to be" in the side: Anderson, Broad, "perhaps Kirtley - he's good at the death", "Flintoff, obviously", before agreeing that there was no need for a spinner - and then suggesting that, if there were a need for a spinner, they should pick one of the spinners. Snape of Schofield, "got to be" in the XI.

Has no-one mentioned Mascarenhas? Five sixes in an over - he's got be in, hasn't he? "Got to be".

So, that's an XI of:

1: Solanki
2: Maddy
3: Pietersen
4: Collingwood
5:
6: Flintoff
7: Prior
8: Mascarenhas
9: Snape or Schofield
10: Flintoff the bowler
11: Broad
12: Anderson
13: Kirtley

Genius.

In Blackwell's defence, up to two-thirds of his conscious brain is always thinking about food, about the preparation of food, the eating of the food, the quest for more food - so it's understandable that he's a moron.

Harvey and Blackwell were both wearing exactly the same outfits too: open necked black shirt, black slacks. You could only tell them apart by the fact that Harvey had raided his mum's jewelry box for a festive necklace, while Blackwell was struggling to get much return from the supposed slimming effect of his all-black uniform.

Cracking post Dello. Post of the month.

Absolute forum gold!