What do you think - lucky for Australia or too early to tell?
6
thoughts on this post:
Howe zat
said...
I'm told that if Aus were given the minimum of 20 overs for their chase, they'd be chasing 155, which is almost exactly the average T20 chase. So we can fairly sum up SL's position as "entirely average".
So too early to tell. The match was pretty interestingly poised, which is why it was a shame the rain came down. Could have been really close.
Australia would have managed the chase of 155 pretty easily in 20 overs.
For one, Sri Lanka's spin based attack would have had a lot of problems gripping the ball.
And two, the ball remains quite hard over 20 overs, so easier to hit. In a way, Australians would have ridden themselves of the middle overs with softer ball.
However, while I write all that, I think Sri Lanka would have been the stronger side had the match gone all the way to 50 overs!
That's what I thought, but wasn't sure if I was being all biased! Someone on FB had it worked out pretty quick to - I think - 148 if we had to bat 20 overs, which we should have done easily. They did look like they were starting to settle some, but I do stress easily over these things.
I don't know, mate, I was freaking out (see post below) - I am quite happy the rain stepped in. If it were any other team, though, I'd be right there with you.
Feeling a little happier now that England have beaten SA and held India to a tie. Maybe we will do ok after all.
6 thoughts on this post:
I'm told that if Aus were given the minimum of 20 overs for their chase, they'd be chasing 155, which is almost exactly the average T20 chase. So we can fairly sum up SL's position as "entirely average".
So too early to tell. The match was pretty interestingly poised, which is why it was a shame the rain came down. Could have been really close.
Australia would have managed the chase of 155 pretty easily in 20 overs.
For one, Sri Lanka's spin based attack would have had a lot of problems gripping the ball.
And two, the ball remains quite hard over 20 overs, so easier to hit. In a way, Australians would have ridden themselves of the middle overs with softer ball.
However, while I write all that, I think Sri Lanka would have been the stronger side had the match gone all the way to 50 overs!
Australia wasn't lucky to escape, the match was pretty even, if Sangakara got out, Sri Lanka wold have struggled.
That's what I thought, but wasn't sure if I was being all biased! Someone on FB had it worked out pretty quick to - I think - 148 if we had to bat 20 overs, which we should have done easily. They did look like they were starting to settle some, but I do stress easily over these things.
Great photo that, huh?
As usual it hinged entirely on Sangakkara.
If he batted on and got Sri Lanka to 250+, I think that would have been defendable with the three man spin attack and Malinga.
Too bad the rain came now and not Canada vs Zimbabwe.
I don't know, mate, I was freaking out (see post below) - I am quite happy the rain stepped in. If it were any other team, though, I'd be right there with you.
Feeling a little happier now that England have beaten SA and held India to a tie. Maybe we will do ok after all.
Post a Comment