Topic: ODI cricket and general cricketing discussion [self - mod] - page 844. (Read 171179 times)

I think it's India bowling that the job yesterday. They restricted England to 227 in 50 overs and that made the job easy for the batting lineup. Smriti Mandhana was player of the match for his 91 runs innings on 99 balls. There are still 2 more ODIs to come , India definitely are much relax for upcoming game.

Sriti Mandhana is performing very well in India women team. If you look at her performance the matter becomes clear. She did not perform very well in the first match of the T20 series where she was able to score 23 runs of 20 balls. Later in the 2nd match she was able to big score of 79 runs of 53 balls. She couldn't perform well again in the 3rd match. Again in the first match of the ODI series, she keep a good performance where she managed to score 91 runs of 99 balls. Overall she is doing well.

Except Shefali Verma and Deol every one else batted well yesterday. Yastika Bhatia is a very aggressive opener and Mandana did the right thing to allow her to bat more in the early overs. The Indian women teams commitment on the field was also good if compared to the last T20 match. The pitch was completely flat for spinners and Indian spinners did the right thing to ball straight.

Smriti Mandhana is a very important player for the Indian women's team. She is also a very stable performer. She is also the most consistent player in the current Indian squad in my opinion. Really sad to see her not getting the century. But anyway India had a really good outing in the first ODI against England women. It was a really easy win for them. Only one more win would do it for India-W

Yes Sriti Mandhana is giving big role for Indian women team not only just today it was also seen on previous t20 match specially in 2nd match  she missed century for a few runs . And if I talk about the bowling side then most of Indian female bowlers did well performance except Pooja Vastrakar. I think if she had done well England team could have been restricted to less runs, but anyway the win today was due to Indian women and I want to congratulate them.

26 runs in 10 overs and 7 wickets in hands. Really feel for Smriti Mandhana who was out on 91 runs. Have to admit that both there batting and bowling is too good today. First they restricted England to 227 and then batted superbly to chase this target.

This is going to be an easy win for India as I expected. Right now Indian women need only 30 runs in 78 balls and they have 7 wickets in hand. No way India is going to love this one from here on, right?  There has to be some kind of miracle done in favor of England women for them to win this match. The third wicket partnership was really big for India,  and even though that partnership was broken right now, I don't think India is going to lose.

It should be noted that if these countries do need to give citizenship to the players, they will at least have something to worry about. My opinion is that at least there will be something at stake in this situation. It is true that there is nothing at stake at the moment, and these countries are just keeping the players to play for them as a full-time job at the moment.

Imagine, if they give citizenship to these players and they don't do well on the field, the country will have to take responsibility for their failure to perform. And I really don't like the idea of playing players from other countries in the team without anything at stake. Just because they have money doesn't mean they can do anything.

India Women need 95 runs in 25 overs and most favorable thing for them is they have 8 wickets in hand. Opener Smriti Mandhana is not out on 60 runs. India women team is improving day by day and if they keep moving like this they will meet big 3 of women cricket.

England Women team gave India a target of 227 runs which I didn't consider reliable for winning. The India Women team has shown prudence. They batted only 20 overs and managed to score 105 runs with losing 2 wickets. India women team can easily win this match.

Yes India is playing very nice game we can see.  If India can play this match like this then they will have no problem winning this match.  India's Shafali Verma was dismissed for 1 run off 6 balls.  This match has been heavily favored so far.  Let's see what happens next.  Till then we have to watch the whole match.  Who will win this match today?

England women versus Indian women ODI match is going on right now. England batted first and posted a total of 227/7 in 50 overs. I really don't think this is going to be enough for England to defend. India is currently batting and they have scored 45/1 in 8 overs. If India can keep wickets in hand they will be able to win this match easily in my opinion. I think India is on the right course till now in this match.

England Women vs India Women, 1st ODI ICC Championship Match
 India Women won the toss and decided to bat.  England Women are now batting they have lost 5 wickets so far. England Women scored 118 runs in 33 overs.  Danielle Wyatt has scored 43 off 48 balls so far.  Looks like he will play very well in this match. Let's see what happens.

If Sergiu Toma represented Moldova in 2012 Olympics and you claim that within an year he got an Emirati Citizenship, the players in the Cricket team are playing for a long time in the team which means they are settled their for years and it is not that they are taking different players for every series they play, if giving them a citizenship will make a drastic change then what is the logic of all these debates.

Lets say hypothetically if ICC comes up with a stipulation that every player need to have citizenship to be in the team, do you really think that it will be hard for those GCC Kings to give everyone that are playing a citizenship  .

LOL dude.. you are comparing apples with oranges.

In the Olympic games (and in 99% of the other sports), not even a single non-citizen is allowed in to the playing XI. And in any sport other than cricket, they don't allow a team to be comprised 100% of foreigners.

Sergiu Toma became a naturalized Emirati citizen in 2013, and won the medal in 2016. That is not the case with their cricket players. None of them have Emirati citizenship.


5 maybe a good limit, that is acceptable to all. But if you ask me, I would say that a national team should be comprised only of citizens. And the ICC should also stop giving preferential treatment for these mercenary teams in terms of fund allocation. They are making rich teams richer, and poor teams even more poorer.

I have no problems with teams having 4 or 5 players that are not native. Nevertheless, I have a problem when the teams do not even have two or three native players on the team. I think there should be a number. It would be a good decision to restrict the number of ex-pats to a maximum of five. In other words, just because a team has money does not mean that they can build a good team without having any actual players from the country. A lot of poor countries that actually have some talent are being held back by these rich countries, so they are unable to make a mark in the cricket world despite the fact that they have some talent.

A country will pick the players according to the level of standard they can perform and if teams like Oman, UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain is complying with the selection procedure made by ICC and hence allowed to play the matches, then what is the issue with everyone else as it is just a sport and view them like that. Since you mentioned that it is against Olympic committee rules, UAE and the above said nations participates in the Olympic games as well and Sergiu Toma won them a medal in 2016 representing UAE while in the earlier Olympic games he was representing Moldova. So what happened to that rule you mentioned then  .

Life is not a fair game after all, UAE and other Arab nations you mentioned have grass roots in Cricket and if you know the history of the region you will understand as the British took the game to those regions well before the 19th century and they were playing the game.

All these mentioned regions were not as wealthy as they are now 50 years ago and now they have wealth due to the resources available and you cannot expect the elite rich to come out and play Cricket and that was not the situation before that historically.

Cricket is not even the national game of India and how many matches do you follow in Hockey as it is the national sport . India participates in many sporting events and tournaments globally and only Cricket is getting the publicity which is not fair for other sports and talents.

This is exactly what I was saying. In football, volleyball, field hockey.etc, only citizens are allowed to represent a country. An argument can be made that cricket is not very popular and therefore some relaxation needs to be made. OK. Then let's have a maximum of 3-4 foreigners in the playing XI, along with the native players. But that is not the case now. 11 out of the 11 players are foreigners, in case of 80% of the associate nations. How can they claim that these teams represent the corresponding countries? A perfect example here. The "Czech Republic" "national" cricket team:



And worse still, the biased ICC fund distribution system means that a lion's share of funds end up with such teams rather than native sides such as Nepal and Namibia.

Agree with you, first of all cricket is a gentleman's game. Each national team represents their country around the world. Every nation's cricket team is associated with emotions of all the people of the country. If the cricket team wins, the country wins. If the cricket team loses, the country also has to face various criticisms.

I will not disagree with you, I also agree that a country can gain recognition and reputation in the world through winning by  game like Cricket any any others games. But if a country's team plays badly during the match then it becomes a shame for that country . Which we see many times in the game of cricket.