I must confess that when this tournament started I had little interest in the outcome. That is probably because the expectations for England were so low. But the format of this shin-dig is good – three group games, a semi and a final, and the ICC are to be commended for this and the World 20/20. Do you think they will get the message for the Cricket World Cup?
I will go more into England’s win(s) a bit later if time permits, but read this article…
It obsesses more over whether we should have given a big bloke with a limp, a man who will probably admit that he’s plays it as tough as anybody, a runner than it does on commenting on one of the best cameo innings you are likely to see from Eoin Morgan, or two superb knocks from Shah and Collingwood.
This is all on England’s batting..
“Man of the match Owais Shah, who struck 98, and Eoin Morgan hit 11 of the England record 12 sixes in an impressive 323 for eight, their sixth-biggest score in 50 over cricket.”
Collingwood doesn’t even merit a mention. Nor did the excellent bowling of Jimmy Anderson. We have bigger fish to fry.
Over half the article is dedicated to Strauss’s decision not to let Smith have a runner (who incidentally, he nominated as AB De Villiers. Why didn’t he give Usain Bolt temporary citizenship or get Caster Semenya out for the afternoon?). We English are a funny mob.
Bumble wouldn’t have; Insane would. Anderson was brilliant. Collingwood rather good as well…life after Prior!
Comment by Sir Peter — September 28, 2009 @ 11:45 am
Bumble was spot on, Insane was his usual self – but fair enough, actually. If Shah had wandered off for being terminally useless, then….
You will see my full offerings on yesterday… including how I thought Albie Morkel was the greatest one day player that ever lived on the recommendation of Kepler Wessels.
Comment by Dmitri Old — September 28, 2009 @ 12:58 pm