[BhoysFC1995]

yeah i know, wishful thinking.



USA fell to NZ today-
New Zealand 347 for (Astle 145*, Styris 75, McMillan 64*) beat USA 137 (Lambert 39, Oram 5-36) by 210 runs

USA enjoying their Outing

from UScricket

report fro cricinfo from stuff (nz site) NZ thumps USA (cricket 365)

Kiwi's Hammer USA

NZ smash States (FSW)

[BhoysFC1995]

this article puts cricket and life into perspective

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...s_040909001705

its in regards to the USA captain and Sept. 11

[Bluto11]

the US got spanked, but i wasn't expecting anything less. i recently just started following cricket and i really want to go to a live match. I almost went to day 5 of the 1st test between England and NZ at Lords but I did not have time.

[jshecket]

About USA-Australia: The Christians had a better chance against the Lions. If the USA go in to bat first, this will be the shortest ODI ever. And how much are tickets? £25 (US$44.90) Expect another sparse crowd.

[Eric B]

Considering that other associate member nations have not been able to break three digits against Test nations, this result wasn't that embarrassing. Not to mention that we actually beat Zimbabwe in a warm-up match, I'd say the trip has to be considered more a success than failure. Yeah, the Aussies are going to go real medieval on our collective asses, but there's all but about four nations that they do that to now, anyway.

As for the match, I would think Australia would bat first anyway, so they could try and better the Black Caps run rate from the previous match. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would be the group decider if the Oz-NZ match were to be rained out, correct? I don't know how they'd break such a tie if the US were to bat first, get bowled out 27, and then Australia beat us by ten wickets.

This would all be immaterial if the final match of the group doesn't get rained out, however.

[BhoysFC1995]

Originally Posted by Eric B

As for the match, I would think Australia would bat first anyway, so they could try and better the Black Caps run rate from the previous match. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would be the group decider if the Oz-NZ match were to be rained out, correct? I don't know how they'd break such a tie if the US were to bat first, get bowled out 27, and then Australia beat us by ten wickets.

This would all be immaterial if the final match of the group doesn't get rained out, however.

good point, that i never thought of. i don't know how they tie-break it if it gets rained out. they way the scheduled the first round though is there's an off day in between games to play/complete the match as in englands first match.

australia actually choose to bat first today vs USA,adn the dream...urr nightmare is over. USA all out for 65 in 31 overs.

Ponting questions inclusion of crappy teams

brings up a good point but then again, there aren't any really minnow tournys so they have no alternative.

USA loses very close match

[ScouseCat]

Kasprowicz blitz sinks hapless USA

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004/OD..._13SEP2004.html

In a woefully one-sided match, Australia bowled out USA for 65 and then knocked off the runs in 7.5 overs. The entire game was done and dusted in just 31.5 overs.



-------------------------

I know these matches have to be played, but it was hardly worth the effort of getting out of bed and wondering down to the ground to beat the USA. At least it gave our bowlers some practise out in the middle, rather then in the nets.

Looking forward to Australia vs New Zealand on Thursday, with the winner to advance into the semis.

Originally Posted by jshecket

About USA-Australia: If the USA go in to bat first, this will be the shortest ODI ever.

You were close, it was the 7th shortest ODI ever. Just consider yourselves lucky the world's greatest ever leg-spinner, Shane Warne wasn't playing!

[Eric B]

Originally Posted by BhoysFC1995

good point, that i never thought of. i don't know how they tie-break it if it gets rained out. they way the scheduled the first round though is there's an off day in between games to play/complete the match as in englands first match.

I'm pretty sure Run Rate is the first tie-breaker, I was just wondering how they would break a tie in this example, where NZ beat us by 210 runs, yet Australia beat us by nine wickets. There must be a formula for that. Any of you Aussies know?

australia actually choose to bat first today vs USA,adn the dream...urr nightmare is over. USA all out for 65 in 31 overs.

I think you meant they chose to bat second. I don't think this scoreline suprsises anyone. I doubt the Netherlands, Scotland, Canada, the UAE, or Ireland would have done much better.

Ponting questions inclusion of crappy teams
brings up a good point but then again, there aren't any really minnow tournys so they have no alternative.

Technically there are. There's the ICC Trophy, which serves as a World Cup Qualifying tournament, and the ICC Intercontinental Cup, a Test cricket event for non-test nations.

Still, I see no reason to not include at least one non-ODI country in this thing. Sure we got our asses kicked, but so will Kenya, Bengladesh, and Zimbabwe. I think Ponting's just setting himself up with excuses in case Oz fail to win this thing again.

[ScouseCat]

Originally Posted by Eric B

I'm pretty sure Run Rate is the first tie-breaker, I was just wondering how they would break a tie in this example, where NZ beat us by 210 runs, yet Australia beat us by nine wickets. There must be a formula for that. Any of you Aussies know?

It's all based on Net Run Rate, which is your run rate minus your opponent's run rate, thus the reason Australia chose to bowl first.

After New Zealand's victory over the USA, their Net Run Rate was 4.20, so Australia needed to make sure their run rate was at least 4.22 better then the USA's run rate in our game, to go ahead of New Zealand on the table.

USA - 65 all out = run rate of 1.30
(its calculated on the full 50 overs which is why most teams try to bat out the whole 50 overs when batting first)
Australia - 1 for 66 off 7.5 overs = run rate of 8.43

Australia's Net Run Rate: 8.43 - 1.30 = 7.13

It's definitely much easier to get a higher Net Run Rate when you bat second and win, because it's only calculated on the overs you face, not on the whole 50 overs which happens to the team who bats first.

To put things into perspective... for Australia to achieve the same Net Run Rate batting first, we'd have to win by 357 runs, (7.14) which would mean scoring over 400.

Hope that makes sense.

[ScouseCat]

Originally Posted by Eric B

I think Ponting's just setting himself up with excuses in case Oz fail to win this thing again.

Well we've won the last two World Cups, and that's the pinnacle of this sport at the ODI level.