England v New Zealand, Champions Trophy, Group A, Cardiff June 16, 2013

Cook, bowlers see England through to semi-final

167

England 169 (Cook 64, Mills 4-30, McClenaghan 3-36) beat New Zealand 159 for 8 (Williamson 67, Anderson 3-32) by 10 runs
Scorecard and ball-by-ball details

England do not make life easy for themselves in knockout tournaments, but they secured their passage to the Champions Trophy semi-finals through a collectively impressive performance from the bowlers which followed a brisk innings from Alastair Cook after the weather had threatened to leave their hopes in Australia's hands.

But even as England were heaping pressure on New Zealand's top order as they chased 170 in 24 overs, the weather still loomed. Rain, which had caused a five-hour delay after the toss, was creeping over the Bristol Channel and although the chase was behind the rate, if the match had been abandoned before 20 overs New Zealand would have gone through and England would have needed a favour from Australia on Monday.

The 20th over, sent down by the peerless James Anderson, itself included more drama when Corey Anderson, who was added to New Zealand's squad on the morning of the match as a replacement for Grant Elliott, appeared to injure his calf after aborting a run and spent several minutes receiving treatment which did not impress Ashley Giles and David Saker on the England balcony.

Still, even after Anderson had completed the over there could have been another twist. Tim Bresnan conceded 19 in the next over as Kane Williamson, who made a brave 67 off 54 balls, and Anderson took their partnership to 73 before Williamson skied to cover off Stuart Broad whose heel was ruled, by the third umpire, to be fractionally behind the line. It was a mighty tight call.

England's new-ball bowling had soon made the chase appear far more daunting than some envisaged after their last seven wickets fell for 28 in 34 balls. Anderson set the tone with a three-over opening spell of testing pace and movement which accounted for the hapless Luke Ronchi and Martin Guptill in the space of three balls in the fourth over.

When Ross Taylor was pinned lbw by Bresnan - his use of DRS did not save him - New Zealand were 27 for 3 and their hopes rested on Brendon McCullum. But none of the batsmen could get hold of England's attack.

Ravi Bopara, proving almost impossible to score off, was able to hustle through five overs for 26 and when McCullum pulled him to deep square-leg, where Joe Root held a brilliant low catch, New Zealand's chances of winning had taken an almost terminal hit. For a short while it appeared they were playing for rain, and the abandonment, with the new batsmen not exactly speeding to the wicket until Williamson and Anderson gave it one, final, forlorn effort.

New Zealand had appeared to claim a significant advantage when they won the toss, but the fact that the match was completed to the adjusted length without further interruption, and therefore the need for Duckworth-Lewis was erased, meant England did not suffer in the way that can be the case when run chases are reduced after further rain.

But it was still tricky to assess what a matchwinning total would be batting first. That England had solid progress for 18 overs was down to their captain. The one format Cook does not play for England is Twenty20, but that does not mean he doesn't want to and he showed what a complete all-round batsman he has become with 64 off 47 balls

Quite extraordinarily, he was dropped three times and all three chances were shelled by Nathan McCullum. There were two misses at midwicket when Cook has 14 and 37 and, the simplest, at backward point on 45. McCullum eventually held a return catch off the England captain which heralded an upturned in his fortunes. He ended the innings having held four chances.

For the first time in an ODI innings Cook hit more than one six. But England could not finish with a flourish as Kyle Mills, who became the leading wicket-taker in Champions Trophy history, and Mitchell McClenaghan shared seven wickets.

Ian Bell and Jonathan Trott, who remained at No. 3 despite the shortened match, fell inside the first four overs, but Root was immediately busy at the crease, using his wrists to find that gaps (a skill not natural to all England's batsmen) and provided the first six over the innings when he pulled Daniel Vettori over deep midwicket.

Brendon McCullum switched his bowlers around regularly and it was the return of James Franklin that saw Cook, who reached his fifty from 39 balls, move up a gear when he straight drove his first delivery into the sightscreen at the River End. Just to show he can play "out-of-the-box" he followed that with a scoop over short fine-leg before his second life at midwicket by Nathan McCullum and he later lofted Williamson over wide long-off.

Once again England's power hitters - Eoin Morgan and Jos Buttler - could not make a major impact and neither could Bopara match his recent onslaughts. But this time the bowlers did not fail in their task.

Andrew McGlashan is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • JG2704 on June 16, 2013, 20:41 GMT

    The one NEW positive I personally take out of this game is that our top 3 proved they can make faster starts - and this in overcast conditions. Ok 2 of the 3 got out early but I hope that at least Cook will now have the confidence to go harder at the start. Depending on conditions - I wouldn't be against seeing Swann come in as a 2nd spinner. I think SA would prefer more pace on the ball. As for the Broad no ball. Well it was really tight.Maybe there was just a smidgeon of heal behind the line. Obviously SA - both formwise and stylistically - are a better side for Eng to play but there is always the chance (strawclutching) India will get complacent in the semis or final. As for the comm (and inevitable comms to follow) about this being the much weaker group. That may well be the case but weren't many saying the same about England's group in the T20 WC and which group did the 2 finallists come from

  • Shan156 on June 16, 2013, 19:40 GMT

    So, finally we are in the semis. Still not convinced with the batting and, more importantly, bowling. Bresnan has looked very ordinary, Broad unthreatening for the most part, and only Anderson and Tredwell have looked the part. Tredwell looks like a lucky mascot for England. I hope he plays the next game (and, hopefully, the next:-)) in this tournament giving Swann a good rest. Perhaps it is best we try some other bowler instead of Bresnan. Unfortunately, Finn is unavailable for whatever reason and Woakes is worse than Bresnan. So, I guess we are stuck. More than likely we will finish at the top of the group. I really wish NZ progress to the semis. If that scenario pans out, we will play SA in the semis and it would be a tough game but great preparation for the finals against India. Let's face it, whoever plays India in the semis is going to get clobbered. If we manage to make it to the finals, we can only hope that we have a great day and India have a bad day.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on June 18, 2013, 18:27 GMT

    England have been outstanding in this tournament and are the deserved champions of the group. Their main focus is on the Ashes, but this CT sideshow still shows they haven't taken their foot off the gas, and they just keep on accelerating.

  • on June 18, 2013, 7:53 GMT

    its gonna be an interesting semi final because even though Eng back themselves to win against any side, they don't think they are better than SA because of the mauling they received from them the last test series they played, on the other hand i think SA is not as good as everybody think they are in odi's . so looking forward to it

  • Harmony111 on June 17, 2013, 16:14 GMT

    @jmcilhinney: You do have a point. Thanks for pointing out the exact law. We have been used to hearing that some part of the foot must land behind the line and 'land' signifies contact with the wicket. With this clarification, it merely becomes a case of umpire's perception vs ours and he had a right to go as per his perception.

  • cric_J on June 17, 2013, 15:59 GMT

    @shan156 : Sorry mate , my comment to you was actually meant for @cktfan4ever and to all others who believe England didn't deserve a place in the semis. Silly mistake on my part to mistype your name instead. Apoligies.

    Cricinfo: plz do publish so that I don't end up annoying one of the most sensible and non biased English fans here.

  • Shan156 on June 17, 2013, 15:50 GMT

    @cric_J, Please re-read my entire post:-)

  • JG2704 on June 17, 2013, 15:29 GMT

    @samincolumbia on (June 17, 2013, 3:42 GMT) Probably because they had also won a 50 over game too. Who deserves it more from the group and why?

  • JG2704 on June 17, 2013, 15:28 GMT

    @Trevor_WI on (June 17, 2013, 1:03 GMT) Maybe Ramdin was a bit harshly dealt with but re Buttler , it kind of happened so quickly he possibly didn't know whether it had hit the stumps before or after it went through to him? Also (and I know a good thing shouldn't override a bad thing) but Buttler walked vs SL when he got the thinnest of nicks which even the commentators didn't pick up

  • 2.14istherunrate on June 17, 2013, 15:17 GMT

    What was the deal with having completed 20 overs and thus making it a game, Bresnan all but gave the game back to NZ with his 0-27 off two overs after that. Anderson too bowled a silly over at the end,so that we won by a slim margin not a big one. Maybe Bresnan is somewhere else in his head. Fair do,but should he play with that going on? Clutching defeat from the jaws of victory is not required. So we won and that is a relief,biut we must play much harder at critical moments to beat SA. I heartily agree with the comment about the colour of the strip. I am a blue man-it seems much more us,less garish and we play much better. the Kiwis are the blackcaps not the dark blues. Please in future let us be ourselves.

  • JG2704 on June 16, 2013, 20:41 GMT

    The one NEW positive I personally take out of this game is that our top 3 proved they can make faster starts - and this in overcast conditions. Ok 2 of the 3 got out early but I hope that at least Cook will now have the confidence to go harder at the start. Depending on conditions - I wouldn't be against seeing Swann come in as a 2nd spinner. I think SA would prefer more pace on the ball. As for the Broad no ball. Well it was really tight.Maybe there was just a smidgeon of heal behind the line. Obviously SA - both formwise and stylistically - are a better side for Eng to play but there is always the chance (strawclutching) India will get complacent in the semis or final. As for the comm (and inevitable comms to follow) about this being the much weaker group. That may well be the case but weren't many saying the same about England's group in the T20 WC and which group did the 2 finallists come from

  • Shan156 on June 16, 2013, 19:40 GMT

    So, finally we are in the semis. Still not convinced with the batting and, more importantly, bowling. Bresnan has looked very ordinary, Broad unthreatening for the most part, and only Anderson and Tredwell have looked the part. Tredwell looks like a lucky mascot for England. I hope he plays the next game (and, hopefully, the next:-)) in this tournament giving Swann a good rest. Perhaps it is best we try some other bowler instead of Bresnan. Unfortunately, Finn is unavailable for whatever reason and Woakes is worse than Bresnan. So, I guess we are stuck. More than likely we will finish at the top of the group. I really wish NZ progress to the semis. If that scenario pans out, we will play SA in the semis and it would be a tough game but great preparation for the finals against India. Let's face it, whoever plays India in the semis is going to get clobbered. If we manage to make it to the finals, we can only hope that we have a great day and India have a bad day.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on June 18, 2013, 18:27 GMT

    England have been outstanding in this tournament and are the deserved champions of the group. Their main focus is on the Ashes, but this CT sideshow still shows they haven't taken their foot off the gas, and they just keep on accelerating.

  • on June 18, 2013, 7:53 GMT

    its gonna be an interesting semi final because even though Eng back themselves to win against any side, they don't think they are better than SA because of the mauling they received from them the last test series they played, on the other hand i think SA is not as good as everybody think they are in odi's . so looking forward to it

  • Harmony111 on June 17, 2013, 16:14 GMT

    @jmcilhinney: You do have a point. Thanks for pointing out the exact law. We have been used to hearing that some part of the foot must land behind the line and 'land' signifies contact with the wicket. With this clarification, it merely becomes a case of umpire's perception vs ours and he had a right to go as per his perception.

  • cric_J on June 17, 2013, 15:59 GMT

    @shan156 : Sorry mate , my comment to you was actually meant for @cktfan4ever and to all others who believe England didn't deserve a place in the semis. Silly mistake on my part to mistype your name instead. Apoligies.

    Cricinfo: plz do publish so that I don't end up annoying one of the most sensible and non biased English fans here.

  • Shan156 on June 17, 2013, 15:50 GMT

    @cric_J, Please re-read my entire post:-)

  • JG2704 on June 17, 2013, 15:29 GMT

    @samincolumbia on (June 17, 2013, 3:42 GMT) Probably because they had also won a 50 over game too. Who deserves it more from the group and why?

  • JG2704 on June 17, 2013, 15:28 GMT

    @Trevor_WI on (June 17, 2013, 1:03 GMT) Maybe Ramdin was a bit harshly dealt with but re Buttler , it kind of happened so quickly he possibly didn't know whether it had hit the stumps before or after it went through to him? Also (and I know a good thing shouldn't override a bad thing) but Buttler walked vs SL when he got the thinnest of nicks which even the commentators didn't pick up

  • 2.14istherunrate on June 17, 2013, 15:17 GMT

    What was the deal with having completed 20 overs and thus making it a game, Bresnan all but gave the game back to NZ with his 0-27 off two overs after that. Anderson too bowled a silly over at the end,so that we won by a slim margin not a big one. Maybe Bresnan is somewhere else in his head. Fair do,but should he play with that going on? Clutching defeat from the jaws of victory is not required. So we won and that is a relief,biut we must play much harder at critical moments to beat SA. I heartily agree with the comment about the colour of the strip. I am a blue man-it seems much more us,less garish and we play much better. the Kiwis are the blackcaps not the dark blues. Please in future let us be ourselves.

  • on June 17, 2013, 14:08 GMT

    what is it with the new english cricket team uniform? they need to bring back the blue !

  • shane-oh on June 17, 2013, 13:57 GMT

    @ jmcilhinney - how can you claim a no-ball isn't part of a dismissal? The delivery is a core part of any dismissal. In fact, without a delivery, there is no dismissal. The principle of 'benefit of the doubt' is a longstanding one, and the umpire made a mistake in this case. As we know, if no part of Broad's foot was behind the line, it's a no-ball. There was no evidence it was. Also, batsmen are commonly being called back when a no-ball is discovered after the event. In fact, it is inevitable that the third umpire will eventually be required to immediately check the front foot whenever a batsman is dismissed. Anyway, I'm left praying for either rain in London (unlikely looking out the window), or a tight victory for Australia. Funny old game.

    @YorkshirePudding - Lol, got ya champ, it's end of story (END OF STORY!!!) because you say so. No worries mate.

  • jmcilhinney on June 17, 2013, 13:36 GMT

    @Harmony111 on (June 17, 2013, 13:00 GMT), you are incorrect in your analysis. The front foot rule specifies that some part of the front foot must be behind the line when the foot is first grounded. It DOES NOT specify that that part of the front foot must be grounded. In fact, it specifically states that the part of the foot that is behind the line DOES NOT have to be grounded. If part of Broad's shoe was behind the line but in the air when his foot was first grounded then, according to the law, that is NOT a no-ball.

  • cric_J on June 17, 2013, 13:23 GMT

    @Shan156 : Although I agree with most of your posts , I certainly don't do so with the one where you claim that "Eng probably don't desrve to progress ". Why don't they ? And if they don't who does deserve it from Group A in place of them ?

    NZ huffed and puffed to 139 , then luckily had a washed out game against Aus and lost the final one to England. Their batting was poor in all 3 matches. Do they deserve it more than England ?Surely not !!

    SL were hopeless with the bat in the first one and poor with the ball in the next and as I write this are 35/2 in this one.Do they deserve it more than England ? Not yet atleast.

    England COMPLETED all their 3 matches. If you divide these in 6 innings , they have only one really poor performance ,that is the one against SL with the ball. They have definitely looked the better team on the other 5 occasions.Isn't that enough to deserve a place in the semis when only 8 teams are playing ?

    Agreed they haven't been perfect ,but certainly good enough.

  • jmcilhinney on June 17, 2013, 13:10 GMT

    @shane-oh on (June 17, 2013, 12:16 GMT), I wouldn't have been too upset if it was called a no-ball because it was so close but what you say is a crock. There is no precedent to giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman on a front-foot no-ball because a front-foot no-ball has nothing to do with the batsman. The no-ball is not part of the dismissal. The no-ball determines whether it is a legitimate delivery or not. Only if it is a legitimate delivery in the first place can there then be a legitimate appeal and then giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman comes into play. If giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman on a front-foot no-ball was a real thing then we'd be seeing lots of false positives. Any time the umpire thought the bowler might have overstepped they would call no-ball to give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman, which doesn't happen. In the case of a front-foot no-ball, if there is doubt then it's not called, i.e. benefit of the doubt to the bowler.

  • cric_J on June 17, 2013, 13:08 GMT

    (cont...) If you followed the IPL this time ,you would know that quite a few decisions were given in favour of the fielding side , be it runouts or front foot no balls.

    What I mean to say is that the umpires are well within their rights to call the decision in the fielding teams favour and there is nothing biased about it. There is no RULE as such against it. It is just that they have been doing so more often at present than they did before which makes you feel it was not right. However , it's high time that a definite rule for such cases is put in place by the ICC.

    I agree that it was UNFORTUNATE that the decision went against Williamson but surely not UNFAIR.

  • Harmony111 on June 17, 2013, 13:00 GMT

    I finally saw the Williamson footage and it does look that the umpire erred there. A casual observer would look at it and declare it to be a no ball straight away while if a thorough one would realize that there is no way one can be sure that there was any part of the boot behind the line. The only thing that could have been behind the line was the tiniest part of the back part of Broad's soul when his foot landed. Now keep in mind that the shoes that we wear do not have completely flat soles. The middle portion is flat but the margins, esp the back ones are curved upwards. One can look at ANY sport shoe sole and check this fact. Some shoes have sharp curves going up while some have less clear ones but the shoe surface does curve up. Hence it should have been a no ball. Note that NZ lost by 10 runs only.

    @JG2704: Finally my reply to you was published in the SA-WI match article. Phew. Pls check.

  • cric_J on June 17, 2013, 12:57 GMT

    @Shane_oh : It was a close decision. We can't say it was a no ball and neither can we say it wasn't. Broad's foot (his heel that is) was ON the line when he landed it first and not AHEAD of it. His foot slid ahead AFTER he had delivered the bowl. Now according to the rules , the LINE BELONGS TO THE UMPIRE. The "benefit of doubt is given to the batsman " is NOT A RULE but a sort of custom that has been accepted on MOST accasions but NOT on ALL occasions.

    I don't remember properly now , but a similar decision was given in the favour of the bowler in the recent Eng/NZ ODI series.If I remember correctly that bowler was one of Broad or Finn.

    A similar "batsman given the benefit of doubt" decision is accepted for run outs as well. But I remember pretty well that in the Nagpur test of the Ind/Eng test series in 2012 , MS Dhoni was given out on 99 even when his bat had touched the line. That is , it was on the line but not behind it. (cont...)

  • YorkshirePudding on June 17, 2013, 12:46 GMT

    @shane-oh, why are cooks comments giving the game away, all that means is that it could have gone either way, if it had gone against England then all you do is shrug your shoulders and move on. Which is seems some fans cant do, the delivery was judged to be a legitimate delivery by an independant 3rd umpire watching reviews, END OF STORY.

  • spiritwithin on June 17, 2013, 12:23 GMT

    @Shan156..u r being too humble here,though india is looking good but they r not looking very dangerous either(with ball),and england is a quality side,not much of a difference b/w these sides,i say SA,Eng,SL all looks better on their given day..as an indian fan though i like to see my team india to win after so many defeats ij recent time :P...

  • shane-oh on June 17, 2013, 12:16 GMT

    @ jmcilhinney - clearly the truth has hit a nerve with you. Alistair Cook gave the game away with his comment that they wouldn't have had a complaint if it was given not out. I'm very much aware of the rules and I am very much aware of what happened in this game - and the Kiwis were robbed. Of course, it was as tight a call as you will ever see, so fair play to the umpires - but this is the first time I have ever heard of this concept of 'benefit of doubt to the bowler'. Pardon? I don't need to say with 100% surety that his foot was in front of the line, because a long-standing principle of the game is benefit of the doubt to the batsman. When did that change?

    It's just disappointing when huge moments in massive matches are destroyed by poor officiating. The game may have gone down to the wire (or may not have - we simply will never know what should have happened). I can forgive erros by the on field umpires, but if a 3rd umpire can't get that right, he is in the wrong job.

  • Yevghenny on June 17, 2013, 12:12 GMT

    Really so Butlers appeal was a non issue and Ramdin appeal who for few seconds had a clean catch is against the spirit of the game? ==== The two incidents are completely unrelated. Do you think Buttler hoped the 3rd umpire wouldn't spot what happened? The reason they asked for 3rd umpire is because they didn't know what happened! Ramdin KNEW he dropped it - he also KNOWS the laws of the game - you must be in control of the ball when claiming the catch, once ramdin hit the deck he lost the ball.

  • procleanaction on June 17, 2013, 11:50 GMT

    Was the difference only 10 runs? I believe there was a no ball that was not called - leading to the dismissal of Williamson and a wide that was not given (when a similar ball was called wide in the same last over) which led to the Kiwi loss. As for Butler appealing for Williamson's wicket - it is in the same mould as the reported circumstances requiring ball change against Sri Lanka.

  • Trevor_WI on June 17, 2013, 11:46 GMT

    Really so Butlers appeal was a non issue and Ramdin appeal who for few seconds had a clean catch is against the spirit of the game?

  • couchpundit on June 17, 2013, 11:09 GMT

    Its very simple...Kiwis dropped catches atleast 4 times which changed course of the game....its not better english bowling.

  • jmcilhinney on June 17, 2013, 10:21 GMT

    @shane-oh on (June 17, 2013, 9:10 GMT), the article doesn't gloss over anything because Williamson was not given out off a no-ball. To say that everyone was dumbfounded is just your own exaggeration. Have you listed to The Huddle on this site? Both Iain O'Brien, a New Zealander, and Russell Arnold said that they believed that it was a legitimate delivery. In fact, I O'B said that he thought that it was a no-ball at first but realised that it wasn't when he look more carefully. Could it be that many of those who believe it was a no-ball haven't actually taken the time to look more carefully themselves? Remember that the even a millimetre of the boot behind the line, grounded or not, at the first point of impact makes it a legitimate delivery. Can you say with 100% surety that that was not the case?

  • jmcilhinney on June 17, 2013, 10:14 GMT

    @sumanshre on (June 17, 2013, 9:12 GMT), if you would care to actually read the comments then you'd see that some people are talking about it. It just hasn't gained much traction because there was nothing wrong with it.

  • Yevghenny on June 17, 2013, 9:56 GMT

    Lots of people and commentators saying England wee excellent against NZ, but in reality they were just 2 hits away from defeat... ==

    You can't hit the ball twice with one delivery. NZ got close because they had some hitters lower down the order, it was England blowing away the top order that sealed the game - NZ never really in the chase

  • Yevghenny on June 17, 2013, 9:41 GMT

    I think it is clear though that Indian fans fear England and would have loved to see them exit

  • YorkshirePudding on June 17, 2013, 9:36 GMT

    @shane-oh, it was a marginal No-ball at best, AND as with the Johnson dismisal the bowler was given the benefit of the doubt. After much replay the NEUTRAL third umpire concluded enough of the boot was behind the line when it landed for it to be legal. END OF STORY.

    By all accounts his Broads Foot landed behind the line but slipped forward, thus it was a legitimate delivery.

  • trav29 on June 17, 2013, 9:21 GMT

    @yorkshirematt only problem with your theory is England don't have any control of what pitch is used or how it is prepared. this is an ICC tournament and they oversee those decisions not the ECB even though it is being held here.

  • sumanshre on June 17, 2013, 9:12 GMT

    Why no one talking about Butler appeal against williamson

  • shane-oh on June 17, 2013, 9:10 GMT

    Well, this article quickly glosses over the fact that Williamson was given out off a no-ball (and by the third umpire!). Everyone, TV commentators included, was dumbfounded by that decision. Glad that we aren't seeing McCullum and the team talking about it, but inside they must be absolutely seething!

  • yorkshirematt on June 17, 2013, 9:05 GMT

    @greatest game I knew someone would bring that up, but where is Tahir this time? If there is no tahir then Sa have no one to challenge Swann. I'm sure if you asked Swann if he wanted to bowl on a turning pitch i know what his answer would be whatever happened in the past. It could backfire of course that's why eng will take the safe option, but if you've read some of my posts you'd know i don't rate this England odi side and still don't after yesterday but i maintain this approach would give them their best chance

  • JG2704 on June 17, 2013, 9:04 GMT

    @Cpt.Meanster on (June 16, 2013, 19:30 GMT) re "but I am against one dimensional teams who struggle when their comfort zones are taken away"

    I presume we're purely talking shorter formats here?

  • soumyas on June 17, 2013, 9:00 GMT

    Lots of people and commentators saying England wee excellent against NZ, but in reality they were just 2 hits away from defeat...10 run win is not a convincing win. they just survived. Any other team with better hitters down the order like India or westindies at the the same situation England wud have endend on loosing side.

  • JG2704 on June 17, 2013, 8:57 GMT

    @Sadiq1952 on (June 16, 2013, 20:49 GMT) On what basis do you say that Australia and NZ are weaker than WI and Pak? NZ beat SL and Aus looked to have the better of NZ who had beaten SL. India look a class above everyone and as I've said before , we had these accusations that the group which Eng in was far worse than the other group in the T20WC and then the 2 finalists came from the supposed weaker group. At least today's game is likely to be completed so surely the loser (having lost 2 games) will have no complaints about going out. Aus are the only team (if they win today) who could realistically complain if they don't make it as they seemed to have the upper hand vs NZ

  • PathanRafi on June 17, 2013, 8:45 GMT

    The match between NZ and AUS had no result. Though, AUS looked for NZ's win in yesterday's match. And, NZ will look forward for AUS win in today's match. Funny combination. :)

  • on June 17, 2013, 8:42 GMT

    Venkat Sraman on (June 17,2013) It is quite true that England got through to semi-finals of CLT through sheer luck.

  • exiledtyke on June 17, 2013, 8:40 GMT

    Well, we got there. Just. Need to shake it up for the semis if we are going to progress further. The area that needs most attention is the much vaunted and over hyped middle order. Morgan and Buttler have delivered nothing so far (and not looked liked doing so). Bairstow deserves a chance in place of one of these two.

  • Yevghenny on June 17, 2013, 8:36 GMT

    What do you guys think about the Butler appeal ? Because the WI are out all is forgotten ? ==

    You mean where he didn't know what happened to the bail and asked the umpire to go to the video replay? What's wrong with that? It's laughable how much criticism England get for everything in comparison to anyone else. This is just comical, comparing a request to goto 3rd umpire over picking a ball up off the floor and hoping nobody noticed

  • Hammond on June 17, 2013, 8:05 GMT

    England haven't even started firing yet. If they get into the final they will romp it home. Let us hope that they are lucky again in the semi and don't peak until the final.

  • jmcilhinney on June 17, 2013, 8:03 GMT

    @sandy7823 on (June 17, 2013, 6:23 GMT), if a team can't catch the ball then they don;t deserve to win. I didn't see too many people crying fro England when they were dropping catches and it was costing them Test matches against SA and SL so England opponents don't deserve any more sympathy. Also, your assumption that other England batsmen would not have picked up the slack had Cook been dismissed earlier is just that: an assumption with no basis in actual fact. As for your assertion that Williamson was dismissed off a no-ball, that is also false. The fact that a lot of people who wanted to see England lose say it was a no-ball doesn't make it so. The fact that it was very, very close to being a no-ball doesn't make it a no-ball.

  • delboy on June 17, 2013, 7:54 GMT

    Having travel to from Wales on Friday I decline the offer to do so again on Sunday. This was mainly because I now knew that I would be more comfortable watching the match from the same place I planned to watch the remaining games and the ashes. However; when Kane Williamson was given out off a blatant noball bowled by Broad I switched off. As the same experts control all cricket results I will also not be watching any more televised cricket.

  • sjm5000 on June 17, 2013, 7:54 GMT

    While it's true that had the no ball call gone the other way NZ might well have pouched the win, but one can hardly describe dropping Cook three times as "playing great cricket". Neither were NZ in that great a position in the abandoned match v Australia. Conclusion: it's hard to see beyond a SA - India final, if the Saffers were at full strength they'd mash most teams and these two are by miles the best sides in the tournament.

  • YorkshirePudding on June 17, 2013, 7:39 GMT

    @jmcilhinney on (June 17, 2013, 4:18 GMT), Bob Wwillis is a bitter old man who is looking to keep himself in a job by being controversial. I would expect that if he had any serious evidence he would hand it over to the ICC and ECB, the fact he hasnt done this is no suprise as there is no evidence.

    It could also be that Anderson is closing in on knocking him off being Englands 2nd leading test bowler after Botham (around Late summer/Early winter) , and so naturally he wants to cast aspersions so he can still call himself Englands 2nd best test bowler.

    In regards to the allegations, surely if there was any evidence then the umpires (both neutrals) who inspect the ball every wicket, and at the end of every over, the Match Ref (a Neutral) and the ICC, would take action especially as there are a number of boards that would like to stick a few knives in (PCB especially after events in 2006 and 2010).

  • Meeker on June 17, 2013, 7:37 GMT

    England made use of the home condition and won the match against NZ.. eventhough they got a good competetive total, the game went down the wire.. Cook showed some blistering knocks during his half century.. Anderson's final over got England a spot in semi's.. Ross taylor's poor form continues.. NZ need some good opening partnership to win a game against such a better team.. Still waiting for B.Mcullums knock..

  • on June 17, 2013, 7:25 GMT

    cook played very good and lucky inning

  • heathrf1974 on June 17, 2013, 7:17 GMT

    Good match. England had the superior bowling and batting. New Zealand's run chase for the first 15 overs was disappointing.

  • yorkslanka on June 17, 2013, 7:12 GMT

    Well done to England for qualifying to the Semis and hopefully we an join you there!!

  • Greatest_Game on June 17, 2013, 6:54 GMT

    @ yorkshirematt suggested that "If it is sa at the Oval ...Play on a heavily used pitch and play swann (if fit) and tredwell with root turning his arm over as well."

    Matt, that's been tried, at the Oval, against SA. Failed horribly. Test number 2049, July 19, 2012.

    Replying to England's 385, on a track so dead Dhoni wanted to buy it for curator training, SA declared at tea day 4, on 637/2. Amla & Kallis were bored, & at tea demanded to field for a bit. Needed a change of pace they said. No one argues with Kallis, so Smith rang the bell.

    Swann was ok with that, after bowling 52 overs, conceding 151 runs, & taking zero wickets. He was so ok with it he sent them flowers, chocolates & Caribbean cruise tickets.

    SA scored 318.5 per wicket. Eng scored 31.25. The difference, 287.25 is the highest in a completed test.

    Perhaps you should give Swanny a call & ask his opinion about your plan? Tahir took 3 for 63 in Eng's 2nd inns. Remind him of that too, & I reckon he'll offer an opinion!

  • dariuscorny on June 17, 2013, 6:30 GMT

    IND has to play their best game to win the SF of CT2013,then no hurdles for Indians to have their hands on CT2013 trophy............keep ur cool IND,you can do it .....yes..

  • warneshane on June 17, 2013, 6:23 GMT

    Shan156 on (June 17, 2013, 2:37 GMT)

    Eng deserves to progress further. They beat NZ yesterday. Cook batted beautifully than some Indian batters and made 64 for 3. Broad bowled extremely well and took crucial wicket of Williamson on no-ball courtesy to Steve Davis. Ravi Bopara, new star of ENG bowling. ENG deserve to be champion but they need 3 dropped chances in batting and wickets on no-ball with the support of 3rd umpire.

    cktfan4ever, you asked some serious and genuine questions but we don't want to reply them. Actually we don't have answers for them. We want to hear what we like. You never pointed out about SA but we want to prove you and your raised questions wrong. For this only we raise INDIA A, INDIA B, INDIA C, HONG KONG, BANGLADESH, etc etc.........

  • Rick_T on June 17, 2013, 6:22 GMT

    JG2704 - I think you will find that the people saying that Group A is the weaker group are from Pakistan. They are trying to find an excuse for their team's performance. If you look at the current ODI rankings and ratings, you will see that both groups are almost identical. If anything, Group A is the stronger group.

  • Lovetesh on June 17, 2013, 6:19 GMT

    Welcome to England. Watch T20 at the price of 50 overs match. It's a bargain offer only for limited period.

    Poor cricket all around in the worst weather possible for an international tournament. As a TV viewer you never know when will the game start and when it will end. Too many D/L scores updated after every rain break, wicket and so on. Not good for the game and the tournament.

  • cric_J on June 17, 2013, 6:19 GMT

    (cont..) I don't think we should go for both Swann and Tredwell as the 2 key SA batsmen , Amla and AB, are superb players of spin bowling.It will be difficult to choose one of Tredwell and Swann (or both).

    What I do know for sure is that the Oval WILL be a good batting surface ,overcast conditions or not , the ball swinging or not , the ball spinning or not, and that's because it has almost always been that way. So England must put a MINIMUM of 275 on the board to stand a chance and aim for a 300+ total from the first bowl.That doesn't mean Bell throws away his wicket like he has done recently but he must show intent along with caution. Cook should bat like he did yesterday and Trott the way he did vs SL.Bairstow must come in for Morgs and Jos needs to keep his head on his shoulders for the first 5-6 deliveries.

    Also if Broad and Bres/Finny bowl the way they did against SL and give away singles on platter , then no matter how well Jimmy bowls , Eng will find it extremely hard to win.

  • shad11 on June 17, 2013, 6:14 GMT

    good short match, i think cook showed that he can adapt but going into the semis middle order will be england's biggest problem morgan and buttler need to recognise that there place in the team is more than slogger. as far as bowling is concerned anderson again proved to be the best and broad made a nice comeback after an off game at oval, very pleased to see him getting back to his pace and hitting 90mph couple of times in the match

  • Harlequin. on June 17, 2013, 6:10 GMT

    I knew the anti-English would be out in force after this match but to be honest, I was expecting better stuff than the comments made here - you guys are losing your touch!

    Regarding the no-ball, it is a bit of a strange rule that the foot can slide forwards after landing but it's the easiest way to enforce it. I thought it was micrometers behind the line, and also @saptinyr88 - Davis may have been born in London but he is an Aussie, and it would have been easier for the Aussies to qualify had England lost.

    Regarding the weather, get over it! It's what makes cricket interesting in places like England and NZ - some days it will swing, some days it will be flat, and some days you end up playing cards in the dressing room! I think it has contributed to the intrigue of what has so far been a fascinating tournament - without the rain we wouldn't have seen the drama in the WI/SA, and we wouldn't have seen the apparently non-existent extra dimension to Cooks game. Silver linings!

  • SherjilIslam on June 17, 2013, 6:06 GMT

    England deserved to be the winner of this game, but have to say, anything could have happened if that Stuart broad dismissal of Williamson was called the no ball. Also, it's a shame that 3 of the 4 semifinalists of a marquee ICC event is being decided by the rain affected matches.

  • cric_J on June 17, 2013, 5:56 GMT

    So here we are. To the relief and delight of a few and to the opposite emotion of most others here , England have reached the semis after much ado.So Congrats to the lads.

    A gutsy knock by Cook once again under pressure. I have been pretty critical of his batting and captaincy over the past few weeks, but he was spot on yesterday. Jimmy and Ravi were brilliant with the ball. Broady was very good in his initial spell but not so impressive in his later spell.

    Although it was a more than reasonable win here for England , they need to raise the bar by quite a distance to reach the finals and, if they do the former, to win the trophy.

    For the semis, England would be playing SA (most probably) at the Oval. So they MUST get Finny back in for Bres who was horrifying against SL at the same ground. I said it before also that the Oval will offer some bounce which should help Finny along with his pace. (cont... )

  • Cricket_Allrounder on June 17, 2013, 5:50 GMT

    Lots of support for India :).. I always worry what if the team gets over confident?? But wait no way its gonna happen, We have captain cool in India!! MSD seems to be very matured, modest and humble.. Whatever the situation is, I always admire how MSD handles it!!

  • kiwicricketnut on June 17, 2013, 5:04 GMT

    @ crinklyoldbugger you wouldn't pick corey anderson on his stats, he's a young man who hasn't forefilled his potential yet and so his stats would proabably reflect that, but you would pick him on his potential and that little bit of x factor that very few nz players have, i didn't see us bowl last night and it looks like he only got one over anyway, what i do know is he could bowl at about 140 kms as a 16 year old kid when he first came on the scene, problem was bowling like that gave him too many injuries so he has probably dropped in pace to preserve the body a bit but i don't mind the allrounder bowling at 125km-130kms as long as he does a job for his captain, its the front line bowlers who should have the pace, he's allready a good batter and will only get better and was second top scorer for us last night, bucket loads more talent than franklin, elliot, munro, ellis, thats why they should pick him

  • on June 17, 2013, 4:47 GMT

    In Luke Ronchi's six odi's for NZ he has scored 0,2,22,7,14,2 Thats 47 runs in six odi's opening the batting he's averaging less than ten McCullum can keep DROP RONCHI

  • kiwicricketnut on June 17, 2013, 4:26 GMT

    shame a horrible no ball call rueined what would have been a close finish, how the mucked that up is anyones guess at no point was his foot behind the line and when the ball actually left his hand he was another 3-6 inches infront, a country mile in cricket, i think england would have still probably won but those balls where the new batsman needs to get started could of been balls williamson could be hitting to the fence so when you lose by 10 a bad call like that is alot more frustrating. still big brot

  • jmcilhinney on June 17, 2013, 4:18 GMT

    @G.Sri on (June 17, 2013, 3:25 GMT), maybe it would have been different if a subcontinent team were involved and maybe it wouldn't but I don't see why it's amazing that nobody is talking about it. Bob Willis brought it up with no actual evidence and everyone who is in any official capacity to do so has already said that their was no evidence of ball tampering and no accusation of ball tampering. What exactly do you want the ICC to do, call a press conference to vehemently repeat what they have already said, i.e. that nothing happened? It's worth remembering that the allegation of ball-tampering against Pakistan occurred when most people didn't even know that reverse swing existed, so it's not too surprising that people thought that there was skulduggery afoot when they saw the ball do things that they didn't believe that it should be able to. It's a different world now where reverse swing is concerned.

  • samincolumbia on June 17, 2013, 3:42 GMT

    How can a team be allowed to progress to semi-finals based on the results of a T20 game? It's supposed to a be 50 over match and if rain is the problem, England and ICC should have mandated a reserve day. We always hear from Tim May and his ilk about how BCCI is ruining the game. Deciding a game based on playing just 20 overs is unjust and ridiculous.

  • jmcilhinney on June 17, 2013, 3:39 GMT

    @saptinyr88 on (June 17, 2013, 2:41 GMT), I say that it was a mighty close call but that it's fair enough that the third umpire could not say for sure that there was no part of the foot behind the line. It's very big of you to not use the word "incorrect", which is a claim that you might be able to produce some evidence to support, yet you will use the word "bias" when you have no actual evidence for that other than your own bias.

  • Harmony111 on June 17, 2013, 3:37 GMT

    @Shan156: Ishant is my biggest worry with Yadav being next. I am deeply worried that Ishant will cost us a game some day. I hope it is some bilateral series match and not the SF or F. Yadav at least takes wickets but even he needs to learn how to have control. As long as Ishant is in the team, even 380 is not enough, he can go for any no of runs. The biggest problem is that he is hit for a 4 or 6 and he seems not to realize why. He bowled an atrocious ball to the limping Morkel vs SA and he bowled a shocking short and wide ball to Pak's #10 in the last match.

    A system can fail due to one bad component. A tyre can go off due to one loose bolt. Ishant is that useless nut that MSD somehow loves to use. I have no idea why Irfan is not playing instead of Ishant.

    If it rains or is humid, I think Bhuvi will bowl even better & Yadav will get some swing too but spinners/Ishant will struggle. Thus, balance is a slight issue for me as is practice for middle order. Raina/MS are light on runs.

  • jmcilhinney on June 17, 2013, 3:32 GMT

    @Otuwa on (June 17, 2013, 2:50 GMT), wow, you're seriously bitter. If England really are over-hyped then why do you even have to hope that they get knocked out? Surely an over-hyped team would just be knocked out as a matter of course. If England aren't knocked out then how can you say that they're over-hyped? You seem to be implying that the game was somehow unfair to NZ but didn't England have to play in the same weather?

  • Srini_Indian on June 17, 2013, 3:25 GMT

    It was a good game of cricket. Its always good when a host team qualifies for SF. As an Indian fan, I'd be watching the next match with interest as the winner might play India in semis. But what amazes me is that nobody is talking anything about ball tampering incident and ICC is very silent about it. I'm sure if it was against any SC team, the reactions would be very different.

  • Shan156 on June 17, 2013, 2:57 GMT

    @Harmony111, England have never been comfortable wearing the favorites tag but India seem to do OK with it. India were the favorites to win the 2011 WC and they did it in style. So, was the case in the 2002 CT. I personally feel that the 2011 WC winning squad was India's best ever but this team is very good too. The new crop of youngsters have done their country proud and have shown that there is life in Indian cricket after all even after the retirement (and fading away) of many yesteryear greats. I think Dhawan is an excellent player and will do very well in the long term. Kohli, Raina, Rohit, and Karthik make an excellent and exciting batting line-up. Jadeja has been awesome and Ashwin is very good. And, above all, they are well led by one of the best ODI players in the world, Dhoni. The seam bowling dept is a slight worry but Umesh and Bhuvanesh have done reasonably well. The only weak link is Ishant but even he did OK the other day.

  • Otuwa on June 17, 2013, 2:50 GMT

    It's a very unfair to players playing this kind of weather with lot of over restrictions.It's a huge pressure for each and every player.NZ are very very very unlucky.NZ are far far far better team than this over hyped England team.But what can we do with this terrible weather.According to lot of English commentators this tournament is well organized and wonderful tournament.But honestly this is a most boring and unfair tournament i have ever seen.I hope over hyped England team will knocked out in semis by India or SA hands.

  • saptinyr88 on June 17, 2013, 2:41 GMT

    To all of you watched the match yesterday, what do you say to Steve Davis's call? I won't use the word incorrect but to me it was a biased call. And it is in human nature that when your country is up against it no matter how professional you are you would always want your nation to win. On that note, I think it should be mandated by the ICC to have officiating personnel of a different nationality that those on the field playing. Something the ICC should ponder about.

  • Shan156 on June 17, 2013, 2:37 GMT

    @cktfan4ever, I agree with you. Eng. do not deserve to progress. Neither do SA. Only India, Pak, SL, and India A deserve to play the semifinals. The other 4 teams in this tournament should be Bangladesh, Hong Kong, India B and the winner of the second tier competition that will be played between the rest of the world - SA, Eng, Aus, NZ, et al. Would that make you happy?

  • jmcilhinney on June 17, 2013, 2:28 GMT

    @Trevor_WI on (June 17, 2013, 1:03 GMT), I think that there's no evidence of wrong-doing on Buttler's part. I'm not making any specific judgements on Ramdin but we know that he knew that he had dropped the ball and didn't bring it to anyone's attention. In Buttler's case, firstly we don't know whether he was appealing for bowled or stumped. Secondly, even if he was appealing for bowled, there's no evidence that he knew that the ball had not hit the bail. The ball deflected off the top of his gloves so it was obviously higher than he expected so there's every chance that he thought that the ball had hit the bail and bounced up.

  • Rick_T on June 17, 2013, 2:13 GMT

    Continued …

    Sometimes the seedings for a tournament may be many months beforehand and in the interim, the countries in one Group may all improve while the teams in the other group lose form and you get a qualifier going through from the poorer performing group while a better team in the better group misses out.

    However, that is not the case here. If you look at the current rankings or ranking points, both Groups are identical (ranking points) or Group A is better (current rankings).

    ENG, NZ, SRI, SAF & WI (prior to today's game) are roughly in the same ballpark. Your comment that PAK is better than AUS is laughable. On what evidence? AUS has played 1 game and lost. PAK has had 3 opportunities to post a win and lost them all. And 2 of them (against IND & SAF) were heavy defeats. Unless SRI beats AUS by 150 runs or 10 wickets, I think it is pretty clear who has been the worst team in the tournament.

  • on June 17, 2013, 2:12 GMT

    last match ball tampering now unfair decision, it wont last long, now match referee are not good it was a no bal in a crucial stage of the match they must double checked that then only decision have to be given ok no matter England used their home advantage in this things ,hope new zealand qualify for the semis

  • krishna_IND on June 17, 2013, 2:11 GMT

    @Captain_Tuk_Tuk as a pakistani fan, you are out of your mind after their terrible performance. Does any one even think ENG as a better side than SA even in any conditions. And the next one more ridiculous do you think NZ better than IND that too in these conditions where they are favouring IND and having in form players.

  • Rick_T on June 17, 2013, 2:07 GMT

    Sadiq1952 - Wow. Clearly, logic plays no part in your world. Firstly, let's take Group B. India won 3 out of 3 so clearly the best team in the group. SAF won 1 out of 2 (beat PAK) and WI won 1 out of 2 (beat PAK). Pakistan played 3 games and lost all of them. So to any logical person on the planet it is pretty clear that IND was best in the group, SAF & WI about the same and PAK clearly the worst.

    Looking at Group A, you say that NZ & AUS are the worst teams in the tournament. AUS have only played 1 game so far so your judgment seems to be completely biased. As far as NZ is concerned, the round-robin between NZ, SRI & ENG resulted in 1 win each. So you can't say any of those teams is better than the other.

    Although ENG has won 2 games, NZ did not have the opportunity to play AUS & SRI have not played them yet. If AUS beats SRI, what is your evidence that WI & PAK (who lost 3 out of 3) are still better than AUS?

    Continued …

  • Harmony111 on June 17, 2013, 1:44 GMT

    A few guys here & elsewhere, Indians as well as others, are saying that Ind are the hot favourites and bound to win the SF and reach the Finals. As an Ind fan it is definitely pleasing to see India doing reasonably well but this is Cricket after all. More importantly it is LOI & we are playing in England where the conditions keep on changing each time you down a beer. Don't forget that 2 time WC WI couldn't chase mere 183 runs in 1983 vs a team that was till then hopeless in ODIs. If that can happen then anything can happen. India have definitely played well and have won 3/3 but we did lose to NZ in CT00 & to Eng in WC87 when least expected.

    Honestly, the tag of being favourites really unnerves me. Maybe its cos this the 1st time ever India have been tagged thus. Maybe its the realization of the pressure & the myriad possibilities.

    I would be ecstatic if India do win the SF or CT but even if India lose the SF, Dracula won't return.

    Btw, I think Eng/SL have a good chance too.

  • samincolumbia on June 17, 2013, 1:34 GMT

    @Sadiq1952 - If Australia wins tomorrow, how will it be weaker than Pakistan, which did not win a single game and beaten comprehensively in all the 3 games it played? Care to explain?

  • deadite11 on June 17, 2013, 1:33 GMT

    It was kiwis who deserved to be in semis spot. England just won with help of rain who spoils most of the team's chances. With this rain im not sure the team will go through the finals without playing. Rain should be given MOM.

  • bobbo2 on June 17, 2013, 1:20 GMT

    To me it looked like only half the NZ team actually turned up to play. The other half looked like they thought the game was definitely rained off and were never in the game.

    Again Franklin was bad. Apart from the great throw and runout (after a mistake) his bowling got carted as per usual and he did nothing with the bat. I have always liked Franklin but he has simply not done any sort of job with the bat or ball for NZ and he is not getting any younger.

    Anderson looked good on debut and Williamson was excellent.

    If one of Guptill, Taylor, McCullum or Franklin made a quick 30 we had a real chance.

    Ronchi looked awful but I think NZ should persist with him for a while longer. I think Ronchi will come good though and if he does he will add a great deal of firepower to NZ.

    Hope NZ progresses to the semi because out best cricket is far better than what we saw last night.

  • Trevor_WI on June 17, 2013, 1:03 GMT

    What do you guys think about the Butler appeal ? Because the WI are out all is forgotten ?

  • cktfan4ever on June 17, 2013, 0:58 GMT

    This is supposed to be the second largest tournament after the world cup but the organizers have made a mockery of this by having it in England at the worst possible time of the year. They should rename this tournament as T20+. Two key matches reduced to 24 and 31 overs, one match washed out and with team playing each other only once it is imperative that we see a full 50 over game between every team. Now we are going to have England in the semis which honestly they don't deserve. I am appalled that no one from the ICC or the umpiring committee have stepped up to explain why the ball was misshapen in the previous game. If the team happened to be Pak, Ind or SL;guaranteed they would have been docked penalty runs and pts but ENG seems to get away scot free. There have been enough incidents in the past where the rules seem to be different for different teams. Kiwis great game mates, tough luck. Give the cup to ENG, they desperately want to win a tournament hook or by crook.

  • on June 17, 2013, 0:47 GMT

    Hey Sadiq1952 you mean the weak link Kiwis who beat Sri Lanka in this competition & England in a series just before?

  • dalboy12 on June 17, 2013, 0:24 GMT

    Well NZ's luck run out a bit, we got a few decisions go our way against SL and the weather helped us against Aussie, but the luck ran out here. Again the bowlers must be sitting looking at the batsman thinking "you let us down again". 170 was a getable total but our big three Guptill, Taylor, McCullum went cheaply. McCullum's lack of runs is beginning to be a worry. And sorry but the Ronchi experiment has failed (why Hamish Rutherford is not in the squad - who knows), he a fine keeper, but he is not an opening batsman. He looked terrible batting this time around. Anderson batted aright, but I wonder if we need to shore up the bowling in the future. Maybe try Butler, who is more a bowling allrounder than having Franklin and Anderson who are batting allrounders. The worst thing about all of this is that now as a Kiwi, I have to say something that I normally NEVER say when it comes to cricket --- Go Aussie! - even cheering for a close Aussie win just seems so wrong.

  • Nampally on June 16, 2013, 22:58 GMT

    NZ lost the match because of their poor catching + their top batting order except for Williamson, showed least ability to score or rotate strike. The worst culprit was the opener Roach who scored 2 runs in 12 balls! England batted aggressively right from the start & deserved to win just because they had the Will to Win. NZ played like losers & Lost. Luck favours the Brave. The Williamson out off Broad was an example in point. Broad's heel landed on the line but with slippage was at least 3" over the line. The third Umpire gave that a fair ball instead of a No-Ball. That was the real turning point of the Match. But on the whole a better & adventurous team won & deservedly so. Congrats England- but the England bowling still has a weak link in Bresnan. An alternate seamer- Finn, Onions, Tremlet or a spinner like Panesar will be an ideal replacement. Bresnan nearly lost the match for England with a 19 run over today!

  • Munkeymomo on June 16, 2013, 22:45 GMT

    @Sadiq: You trollin'? Incredibly disrespectful to NZ, they've always been a good ODI unit. Pakistan went out because they have worse batters than a roadside cafe, WIndies went out in incredibly unlucky circumstances, I thought they were better than SA in this tourny. India have been excellent, but the groups are even. Pakistan = Australia. NZ = SA. SL+Eng = India + Win (India have been better than SL/Eng but they've both been better than WIn).

    Not that it matters, sensible discussion left cricinfo years ago. This place is a ridiculous circlejerk/trollcave.

  • SirViv1973 on June 16, 2013, 22:40 GMT

    @Sadiq1952, I think your being a bit harsh on NZL. They did beat SRL & were right in this game.If your looking for the weakest team in the competition it's difficult to look beyond Pak, regardless of what happens in tomorrow's game. Their batting was atrocious & their much hyped bowling attack wasn't a whole lot better either. I thought they would do well in this competition but they proved to be very very disappointing.

  • Baundele on June 16, 2013, 22:21 GMT

    England can thank the third umpire for their semi final place. It is a shame that such a competitive match had to settle that way.

  • on June 16, 2013, 22:11 GMT

    Interesting that Sadiq1952 thinks that there is a group with 3 strong teams and another with 3 weak teams? Presumably he means the weak group is the one with South Africa being strong and the weak Indiians, Pakistanis and Windies? So out of the strong group who is the weak team? Not England, nor Sri Lanka or the Kiwis... so it must be the Aussies? Hmm...... The semis and final will reveal whos who... we shall see. Can't wait! COME ON ENGLAND!!!

  • mikriket on June 16, 2013, 21:56 GMT

    Taylor and Brendon McCullum are just so inconsistant that it is doubtful if they justify their positions inthe team. They both make a decent score only every 5th 6th innings. They are dead wood in the team

  • The_bowlers_Holding on June 16, 2013, 21:26 GMT

    Sadiq1952 on (June 16, 2013, 20:49 GMT) Based on the matches thus far in CT I am not sure how you rate Pakistan as better than NZ or Aus, bewildering as there top score has been 170 and they have lost all games by a margin. I have to say I expected the no ball decision to go the other way but felt England were the better side, but then again I am from Albion, losing the toss in this scenario is a big factor so well done on that score. Here's hoping for a rain shortened semi and then final with Chef winning the toss and England taking the trophy and thus being the eternal CT holders. Lets get this tourno over and get some Ashes real cricket on, hast a la vista!!

  • cloudmess on June 16, 2013, 20:53 GMT

    Yes, a 24-over hit out in wet conditions is anyone's game, really. I feel a bit sorry for NZ, they looked the better side in the recent ODI series.

  • Sadiq1952 on June 16, 2013, 20:49 GMT

    Solid performancee by Engand. The kiwis and the Aussies are the weakest links in this competition and it will be appropriate if there is a full game tomorrow and the Sri Lankan's win. If raingods intervene and force a point sharing that will be most unfortunate. If Aussie's win, well a team that is weaker than either the West Indies or Pakistan will go thru showing the ridiculous assignment of teams whereby the top three were put in one group and the bottom three in another group.

  • Crinklyoldbugger on June 16, 2013, 20:44 GMT

    those relying on stats to support Anderson's selection for NZ are deceived. His bowling is one dimensional and medium paced at best. He has no quicker ball and no slower ball...every time he tries to bowl a quicker ball he injures his shoulder and is gone for 6 months.Stats in the domestic NZ game can be very misleading and seductive. Credit to him though he does hit a good ball on his day. I would suggest his future is as a batsman...not an all rounder. What must Bracewell and Butler be thinking ...both are more capable than Anderson.

  • SirViv1973 on June 16, 2013, 20:20 GMT

    Well I really didn't think 169 was going to be enough, but thankfully it was. It looks like SAF on Weds at the oval now. Given what happened there against SRL I think we really need to look at getting Finn in to the side. I also think serious consideration needs to be given to Bairstow replacing Morgan. Since the start of the series against NZL we have been waiting for Morgan to spark in to life & it just hasn't happened.

  • jmcilhinney on June 16, 2013, 20:20 GMT

    There's a few people complaining about Kane Williamson's dismissal but it's worth noting that Ian O'Brien says in The Huddle that he doesn't think it was a no-ball. It was a mighty close thing and we all tend to come down on the side of our own team on these ones but I think that it's hard to say objectively that there definitely was no part of the foot behind the line when the foot first comes down. Those complaining about the rule may as well save their breath because the rule is not going to change and is not unfair anyway. If the bowler slides forward it is only by a short distance, unlike how they used to drag their back foot. If you want to use the position of the foot when the ball is actually delivered then you have the added difficulty of determining exactly when that is. Even in super slo-mo it would be hard to detect the exact moment that the ball leaves the bowler's hand so that change wouldn't improve the rule at all.

  • kc69 on June 16, 2013, 20:18 GMT

    First of all congrats to both teams on a close and intense game of cricket and England for qualifying cleanly. But we see a lot of talk regarding ODI cricket losing its existence due to T20 cricket but actually,I believe this Duckworth Lewis system is killing the fun of ODI cricket. A team winning toss and common awareness of weather conditions with common sense of not losing wickets can easily win any match as per D/L method. Hope to see at least a full 50 over match this upcoming week or else it can be named as a T20 tournament.

  • on June 16, 2013, 20:18 GMT

    @Captain tuk tuk Yes SA are a much better team than England and don't even compare India and NZ. and there is no signs of SL and Aus being better than WI and Pak. So your analysis is anything right. Any way we could find out which team is strong in the semis and its most likely to be a Ind SA clash no matter who joins England from Group B to play the semis.

  • on June 16, 2013, 20:12 GMT

    I hope this format of ODI field-restrictions are just experimental. They don't give the bowlers any chance. Hope one day, the ODIs will be played the right way: with no field restrictions.

  • cricketlover111 on June 16, 2013, 20:07 GMT

    Terrible weather in this tournament. NZ has only one 50 over match out of three which it won. While you can't do much about the weather, it is difficult to consider a team the best one day side when many of the games are shortened to T20 hitouts.

  • on June 16, 2013, 19:57 GMT

    well played England and the better team won.. the problem for newzealand is that they have only 3 world class one day batters and if they fail nz crumbles

  • yorkshirematt on June 16, 2013, 19:56 GMT

    If it is sa at the Oval how about this for leftfield thinking. Play on a heavily used pitch and play swann (if fit) and tredwell with root turning his arm over as well. England have this one advantage over sa. But it will never happen as its far too risky for England!

  • on June 16, 2013, 19:51 GMT

    What a ridiculous decision by the 3rd umpire not to give the No-ball that removed Kane. I always thought it is a no-ball if your foot is not in crease at the time of delivery of the ball. Why does it matter where it lands on the ground first time? It should be at the time of delivery.

    Despite the ridiculous rule, bowlers foot was still at the very best on the line. That decision changed the game.

  • on June 16, 2013, 19:40 GMT

    Phew...almost had a heart attack during that latter-stages bowling performance from England. Tim Bresnan should have more considerstion for his viewers rather than bowling leg-stump half-trackers all the time. Yorkers, boy, yorkers!

    We are not an exciting team to watch and not a consistent team either, but we got the job done today. Commiserations to NZ, tough opponents and well played Kane Williamson, lovely player to watch.

    Hope visitors are enjoying the lovely sunny UK!

  • Cpt.Meanster on June 16, 2013, 19:30 GMT

    Well well, give them swinging conditions and England look like world beaters. Take those elements away, and they struggle to make it. It could be tough for England from here on. I am not against England winning but I am against one dimensional teams who struggle when their comfort zones are taken away. England still don't know how to win against top quality batting sides on drier surfaces without any swing or lateral movement on offer. Their bowlers couldn't cope against SL and if history is to teach us anything, SA will be happy to play England at the Oval. Still, I thought England played very well against NZ, especially the bowling. Jimmy Anderson (his attitude aside) is a fantastic bowler. The rest of them complimented him very well. Bopara is proving that he could still have a future with England. NZ, well they don't deserve to go through. All SL need to do now is beat Australia to set up a mouth watering semifinal against India.

  • Captain_Tuk_Tuk on June 16, 2013, 19:29 GMT

    They said Group B was more difficult, lets compare than. Is South Africa Better than England? Is India better than New Zealand(in these conditions ofcorse)? Is Westendies better than Sri Lanka? Is Pakistan better than Australia? I don't think so, as I kept on saying from the start of the tournament group A is more difficult and the proof is that till last match of group A still 3 teams are fighting for there places in the semis at-least two of them and 3rd is relaying on tomorrows match so no dead rubber in strong group.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on June 16, 2013, 19:25 GMT

    Cook - When he's not scoring 700+ runs in a test series, he's playing T20 innings instead! A perfectly rounded cricketer and captain. He's simply continued his 'ominous form ahead of the Ashes' today.

  • THE_MIZ on June 16, 2013, 19:17 GMT

    Whilst it must be said that England were the better team, I agree with @coldcoffee123, it looked like a no-ball no doubt. Not only would that mean an extra two runs but also a free-hit AND most importantly Williamson (who was in great form) would still be there...They may just have snuck home. They may regret that if Sri Lanka wins tomorrow...Anyways congrats to England for qualifying and tough luck kiwis. Here's to hoping for a cracking semi-final!

  • rajcan on June 16, 2013, 19:09 GMT

    NZ becoming the worst cricketing unit who can chase small total. Right from the beginning there is no concern of raising run table. Brendon McCullum has done anything for the team since he became captain. Bredon wasted so many balls, well deserved lost.

    Lets hope Aus doesn't win against SL. If Aus win against SL, because of run rate, NZ still will be qualified for semi. As a fan, I dont like to watch NZ game, it becoming to the point, they dont know how to raise on big occasion.

  • Captain_Tuk_Tuk on June 16, 2013, 19:08 GMT

    Cheers, finally they managed to reach the knockout stages and they are up against South Africa that won't be an easy task. I am a Pakistani but always a good cricket fan. I kept on saying from the start of tournament that England is my favorite and they proved it today why they are so good. I believe England will finish on the top of the group but again that is not good to play South Africa being an England fan thats not what I want ;)

  • coldcoffee123 on June 16, 2013, 18:54 GMT

    Broad's was a no ball. In general, I have no idea why a bowler is allowed to land 1 mm behind the crease and then drag the foot a good 6 inches forward. The bowlers these days are using this loop-hole to their advantage and basically bowling from 21.5 yards. The rule must be changed to "the front foot must be on or behind the line at the point of delivery."

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on June 16, 2013, 18:43 GMT

    @Glen Peters & TECHSAMAN: Finn was/is injured; why risk him for a game like this if he's genuinely hurt/recovering? There were some suggestions that England were simply 'hiding' him before the Ashes, but (surely!) this is ridiculous as Aus. have already faced Finn, and as I said on another thread, I think 'hiding' players in these days of so much technology is pointless anyway. Seem to be doing O.K. without him eh... (I'm surprised too!).

  • rajcan on June 16, 2013, 17:29 GMT

    New eland or England has not give any super performance to entertain viewers. Both have been playing very ordinary cricket. NZ with Srilanka bowled well and restricted Srilanka and shown poor batting display and almost lost the game.

    On the other hand England piled up runs against Srilanka and made to wonder they have no clue of bowling.

    I would like to see both of them get eliminated but that's not going to happen. Wish you to see teams show extra resilience to go for semi

  • on June 16, 2013, 17:23 GMT

    i think having williamson at 3 is hurting NZ, he is putting no pressure on the bowlers at all.. forward defences for the good length all day :D

  • A_Vacant_Slip on June 16, 2013, 17:22 GMT

    23/2 after 6 over. England have really put clamp on Kiwi. Will be magnificent effort if New Zealand win from here.

  • JG2704 on June 16, 2013, 17:09 GMT

    I hope Cook is braver as a captain and keeps the field squeezing if NZ look at all bogged down after the initial PP overs. Also , re any bowler who is effective - I'd say to keep them on for usual than normal as you never know if there will be further reductions in overs bowled

  • SirViv1973 on June 16, 2013, 16:58 GMT

    Not 2 b able 2 bat out 24 overs is completly unexceptable. Lookin at wot saf posted in 31 overs on the same pitch in similar conditions on Fri I thought about 190 would b a par score. Cook & Root looked 2 have put us well on the way 2 that but none of our finishers were able 2 actually finish! I don't see nzl having any problems reaching this target unless 1 of our bowlers does something incredible.

  • JG2704 on June 16, 2013, 16:50 GMT

    Probably not a great score after a decent platform built.

    Cook was very lucky to get away with his lives but was playing well towards the end and to be honest every batsman looked sctratchy.Buttler again went for the heroics a few overs out. 2-3 overs is a long time to bat in a 24 over game especially with just the bowlers to come. Vettori has shown once more what a class act he is in the shorter formats.

    I'm wondering whether England's batsmen's scratchiness is due to their bad or NZ's good or the pitch?

  • jmcilhinney on June 16, 2013, 16:48 GMT

    Some really good bowling at the end there by NZ. I think that Vettori's last over was decisive because, by dismissing Morgan, he left England without a set batsman at the crease. That meant that the new batsmen couldn't just knock a few singles to get themselves in while leaving the main scoring to the man at the other end. England never really recovered and noone managed to get a foothold against some good death bowling. None of the England batsmen managed to time the ball consistently so they'll be hoping that the pitch is a bit tricky and NZ have the same problem. Also, the boundaries here lend themselves to bowling on the shorter side so that should suit England too.

  • BustIPL on June 16, 2013, 15:46 GMT

    For cricket lovers only the strong teams should make it to the final four. Therefore SL and England will suit over there. NZ are good but they always make it to the final four but dont go through. Also, england should be winning this champions trophy but for that they have to beat India and SA.

  • The_bowlers_Holding on June 16, 2013, 15:41 GMT

    Winning the toss is an enormous advantage in this scenario, Cook seems to be an awful tosser in general losing far more than he wins. I am looking at the betting odds and England are 4/7, NZ 11/8 for me NZ surely must be faves with B Mc and Taylor.

  • Shan156 on June 16, 2013, 15:36 GMT

    I never thought I would live to see this day. An England player has managed to hit a 6 in the first half of their innings. Bravo Joe Root. Still, England are scoring at a rate just above run a ball after 10 overs. Don't see England finishing with a RR of 8. Anything less than 8 an over, and I don't see how England would win. McCullum is the luckiest captain ever. Hardly loses tosses especially in key games. Anyway, let's hope this triggers a change in our strategy. Hopefully Swann would be fit for the Ashes. He should have never been in the CT squad anyway.

  • JG2704 on June 16, 2013, 15:19 GMT

    @Durgesh Wagle on (June 16, 2013, 13:56 GMT) You either organise an ICC event in England or you don't. The 1st week in June (for most if not all the country) was the best of thr year and probably the better than any in 2012. Problem is that no one really knows when the rain is coming a week or 2 in advance - let alone a year or 2.

  • on June 16, 2013, 14:15 GMT

    As we all know if this match will be called off, Blackcaps will go through. Some will say they were lucky enough, Some will give credit to their destiny. But one thing we all should admire, the way they approach their cricket when playing Short version of this wonderful game. Quick running between the wickets, highly active in field, sharp catching and never say die attitude. As a die hard Indian and Cricket fan, i would like to say everybody appreciate good cricket. #AggresiveAproach

  • 2.14istherunrate on June 16, 2013, 13:58 GMT

    Why is it that organisers of these events know so much less than the ordinary cricket follower. Anyone would know that playing a tournament like this in June at Cardiff was always doomed. I suppose real practicalities are really not part of the bureaucrats sphere of knowledge, so they are the oines to decide these things. In any normal world the knowledge of the expert would prove useful, but in cases such as these the ignorance of the nonexpert is followed. If this tournament were played on the east side of UK in September it would have probably have thrived instead of turning into a meaningless tedious wet bore. I wonder how many logos the ICC made for this tournament. Logos are about their forte. I am surp-rised the rain dooes not come down in ICC logo formation. Shame on it!!

  • on June 16, 2013, 13:56 GMT

    That does it. I can't bear this rain any more. Big lesson for ICC, do not ever organize a big event like champions trophy in England in JUNE!!!!

  • on June 16, 2013, 13:54 GMT

    I think the match should be abandoned and just tough luck and both teams settle for 1 point. England have only themselves to blame for not scoring enough runs on a good batting wicket against Sri Lanka the other day and bowling too poorly.

  • on June 16, 2013, 13:42 GMT

    Is New Zealand playing with Two Wicket Keepers and no Captain?

  • BABashar on June 16, 2013, 13:36 GMT

    Cricket is really a funny game as has been proved by the ongoing champions trophy. All you need is a luck on a given day regardless of how potentially strong your team looks like. Despite of scoring a match winning total batting first, the team is still on the mercy of rain and D/L method. Batting second in a rain-hit match with regular intervals is an advantageous bonus. Having said, I dont mean to demoralise or taking the credit out of the potentially strong teams. Almost all the teams are having world class players to represent their respective countries. All know how to bat and bowl. It is the battle of nerves. If a team playing tension mindedly their defeat is always on the cards. I remember having played a single wicket championship during my youth era, my coach remarked "I am not shocked why you lost I am surprised why didn't you play to your potential, you should have played your natural game rather than concerned about the outcome of the match". All the best for all the teams.

  • chechong0114 on June 16, 2013, 13:35 GMT

    The ICC continues to display how brainless of an organisation it is when it comes to generating revenue, England needs to have at least 3 indoor cricket stadiums, but the issue that was highlihted in a past conversation is that the sport of cricket does not generate enough revenue for them to be able to maitain a stadium of that type and that why the game of cricket needs to be revolutionised with some sort of championship cuo series and other things that will make it more appealing to fans if not how long will cricket survive for in its current format. If the ICC focuses its attention more on marketing and takes its eyes of always trying to find ways to penalise players all teh cricketing nations and cricket as a whole will benefit better. They did it with Wimbeldob tennis they were able to cover the main stand and now if a game is forfeited due to rain all they do now is play in the covered stadium cricket is to prehistoric and has too many critics when any changes have to me made.

  • JG2704 on June 16, 2013, 13:30 GMT

    Re the weather Ctd

    I've already made points re how things could improve for the fans - inc CC matches having extended days play for when weather is forecast in advance and I think they are all doable. We had an example where Somerset were hosted by Unicorns in a YB40 game on Friday.The game started at 1.00 (I think) and the rain was always forecast for late afternoon. In this knowledge , I wonder why they could not have either started the game earlier or shortened the game in advance or combined both? Yes it could be unfair on those who travel to start the game earlier but then if you were in the position where you had the choice of missing part/much of the 1st inns but seeing a result or seeing the whole of the 1st inns but then only an over or 2 of the second and not seeing a result - which would you prefer? Shortening games in advance would not affect travelling fans either. Again I'm sure fans would prefer to see a full 25 over game than a 1 inns 40 over game

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on June 16, 2013, 13:20 GMT

    BORING!!! Any scientists out there invented weather-changing devices/strategies yet? (Sorry but a roof doesn't count here...)

  • JG2704 on June 16, 2013, 13:10 GMT

    plenty of comms re the weather.

    The ICC could refuse to sanction such events in England but Eng would say that would be grossly unfair.UK summer weather has become a worry - esp if you live here - but can anyone say for sure if things are going to get better or worse in years to come? I do feel our cricket organisation could be more pro active for the fans & pretty much all the below points apply to domestic cricket . I'd say 1st that reserve days should be in place.Yes it may mean that a team is denied a day's rest but they'd be playing no more cricket. 2nd - I'd say we should scrap day/night games - weather being the reason and have all games (wherever possible) to become day nighters if there is early weather. 3rd - If there is definite bad weather forecast - try and allow for it in advance and shorten the game in advance.EG if we have a 50 over game and rain is forecast for 2 hours before cut off , cut the game by 10-15 overs in advance.

  • on June 16, 2013, 12:43 GMT

    @charaka srilanka dont have the players to beat SA...and dont worry u guys will most probably face us if you qualify for semis...

  • JG2704 on June 16, 2013, 12:42 GMT

    @TECHSAMAN on (June 16, 2013, 10:39 GMT) I think Finn has been out of form in this format in the build up to this tournament. If that is the reason then I'm all for it. Just wish Eng would do the same accross the formats.

    @Jason Kelland on (June 16, 2013, 11:15 GMT) Can understand the frustration there but this tournament would have been pencilled in years ago. The English summer's have never been guaranteed good weather but seemed to have got alarmingly worse. Maybe the ICC should look at this problem and NOT schedule big events in Eng but I suppose they could then be accused of favouritism. It's a tough one to call

  • on June 16, 2013, 12:41 GMT

    "Dont understand the logic of hosting cricket tournaments in countries where the chances of rain are so high." The average rainfall in England for the month of June is 62 inches. That isn't a lot at all. Its certainly no reason to prevent the mother country of cricket from hosting a tournament, particuarly when matches are so well attended, and there is clearly so much interest.

  • Nuwas on June 16, 2013, 12:32 GMT

    Yet again someone's fate is on SL's hand. I don't know if I'm supposed to like this or not. Still we need a bright day tomorrow for cricket.

  • on June 16, 2013, 12:31 GMT

    yes true. . .bt there is no other gud place than england to play crickt. .weather is in the hands of Allah. .

  • Jayzuz on June 16, 2013, 12:23 GMT

    It's the wickets, @TECHSAMAN! Does anybody actually watch these games or take note of which bowlers are doing well and who is getting thrashed? Finn is not suited to bowling at Cardiff, nor most of the other tracks. They are flatter than Heathrow. Cardiff and Edgbaston are slower than slow. Ask the organisers why they have done this. Nobody else has a clue, least of all me.

  • TNAmarkFromIndia on June 16, 2013, 12:22 GMT

    Most people understood yesterday itself that today's match would most likely be a washout. It was an awful decision to have England host the tournament with this kind of weather. The ICC should have planned it better.

  • on June 16, 2013, 12:21 GMT

    charaka. iam a srilankan.1 100%agree with your comments

  • on June 16, 2013, 12:21 GMT

    Totally agree about Franklin. He has had so many games to prove that he deserves to be there but his statistics tell the disappointing story. What is more he must be one of the weakest fielders in the team and NZ is dependent on brilliant fielding to maintain their competitive edge. Please think about bringing in Rutherford and dropping Ronchi down the order.

  • EnglishCricket on June 16, 2013, 12:05 GMT

    There have been 2 very exciting matches or thrillers in this tournaments but overall including the weather, I think this has been the worst tournament ever. Just glad this is the last one.

  • on June 16, 2013, 11:45 GMT

    look forward to seeing a SA Vs SL final never saw a one would be an epic battle..

  • on June 16, 2013, 11:45 GMT

    This is the type of cricket where everything lies and just because of the rain God's none of the teams playing today as well as tomorrow are confirmed that they will play in the semi finals, this is crazy and quite interesting cricket where every thing is on

  • on June 16, 2013, 11:43 GMT

    I reckon NZ and SL deserve to be in Semis...

  • Bongz77 on June 16, 2013, 11:29 GMT

    Southee is a bigger loss to the Kiwis than Swann is for England. For New Zealand to step up with this current crop of players they have, they will need Tim Southee to lead their attack for the next 10 or so years. Another Shane Bond is the last thing they need now. They need to manage this guy carefully even if it means no limited overs cricket for a couple of years.

    Any way _____(insert English weather joke)

  • on June 16, 2013, 11:15 GMT

    I really do not understand the logic of hosting cricket tournaments in countries where the chances of rain are so high. It makes the whole tournament quite farcical, the results not accurate, and the fans frustrated! This icc tournament is a washout already

  • on June 16, 2013, 11:11 GMT

    I would ratherEngland won the next two Asheries series than the next 200 50/50 games

  • StevieS on June 16, 2013, 11:06 GMT

    Damian Esau not to forget that Cory Anderson also has a list A bowling average of 10.16 after 19 games and strikes it at 96 with a average of 25.66 which is OK for a middle/ lower order batsman who can bowl. Problem is when did he last play? Has he been playing club cricket of some sort in England?

  • on June 16, 2013, 10:46 GMT

    Why does Franklin keep getting picked,and at 5!

  • RednWhiteArmy on June 16, 2013, 10:40 GMT

    Looks increasingly likely that both games in group A will be washed out. IF that happens England will be lucky cos they only have to play india rather than South Africa.

  • TECHSAMAN on June 16, 2013, 10:39 GMT

    No Finn again. Perhaps England are protecting their only TOP 10 rated quick bowler for more important matches? Noone ever was rated higher in ODIs for England. With him England normally win - Without him England normally lose. Its a pity England dont have access to statistics & logic. England will go out.

  • on June 16, 2013, 10:30 GMT

    It's likely to be a washout as the forecast shows rain all day in Cardiff so Eng need Aus to win tomorrow but not by a huge margin

  • BustIPL on June 16, 2013, 10:25 GMT

    Looks like if the the weather remains like this, final will also be impacted the trophy might be shared between the final playing teams.

  • on June 16, 2013, 10:17 GMT

    Don't think bowlers could take much out of this pitch given the conditions. Anyways hope that New Zealand would win. Thumbs up for a great match! :)

  • on June 16, 2013, 10:09 GMT

    If Newzeland and England both go through from this group,, then there is every chance of INDIA beating all the top seven teams in England and show the world why they are at the Top of icc odi rankings #BharatArmy

  • kiwicricketnut on June 16, 2013, 10:07 GMT

    stoked to see corey anderson make the team, they have listed him at 8 but he's alot better than that, he should definately bat ahead of n.mccullum and j. franklin, very exciting selection, i only hope there is going to be some game time for him to show his stuff, either way i hope the selectors give this guy an extended run in the team because i believe he could be an odi and t20 star in the making and who knows after the way he demolished england in a four day match for NZA in queenstown while injured he may just have a test future as well. good luck corey heres hoping for a long carear as a black cap.

  • on June 16, 2013, 10:01 GMT

    Ahh I see, no wonder the Barmy Army are willing to travel so far overseas to watch the cricket. It's because half the games in Britain seem to be in the rain...

  • on June 16, 2013, 9:57 GMT

    Anderson has a first class economy of 3.41 and best figures of 5/22. I would call that a bowler

  • From_China on June 16, 2013, 9:54 GMT

    I agree with the other coments. Surelt expecting a D/L match one of the opening 3 would be replaced with a tonker and or a real 5th bowler to reduce NZ possible batting fire power. A 5th good bowler being an alternative to a 3 man steady start from Englands baters...

  • Crinklyoldbugger on June 16, 2013, 9:34 GMT

    Unbelievable that Anderson is in for either Bracewell or Butler...NZ are a bowler short...whose bright idea was this ?

  • bobmartin on June 16, 2013, 9:28 GMT

    I've said it before and I'll say it again... If England do their usual and meander through the first 25 or 30 overs, and the game gets reduced because of rain, England will be out..

  • JG2704 on June 16, 2013, 9:26 GMT

    I wonder if Swann is actually injured.

    Anyway , happy with Tredwell being the replacement.

    Probably a good toss for NZ to win.

    I'm wondering if Eng should gamble and try and get off to a faster start? It's a difficult one , but I'm thinking that if this game is rain affected a slow start could severely hamper the team's chances on DL

  • JG2704 on June 16, 2013, 9:26 GMT

    I wonder if Swann is actually injured.

    Anyway , happy with Tredwell being the replacement.

    Probably a good toss for NZ to win.

    I'm wondering if Eng should gamble and try and get off to a faster start? It's a difficult one , but I'm thinking that if this game is rain affected a slow start could severely hamper the team's chances on DL

  • bobmartin on June 16, 2013, 9:28 GMT

    I've said it before and I'll say it again... If England do their usual and meander through the first 25 or 30 overs, and the game gets reduced because of rain, England will be out..

  • Crinklyoldbugger on June 16, 2013, 9:34 GMT

    Unbelievable that Anderson is in for either Bracewell or Butler...NZ are a bowler short...whose bright idea was this ?

  • From_China on June 16, 2013, 9:54 GMT

    I agree with the other coments. Surelt expecting a D/L match one of the opening 3 would be replaced with a tonker and or a real 5th bowler to reduce NZ possible batting fire power. A 5th good bowler being an alternative to a 3 man steady start from Englands baters...

  • on June 16, 2013, 9:57 GMT

    Anderson has a first class economy of 3.41 and best figures of 5/22. I would call that a bowler

  • on June 16, 2013, 10:01 GMT

    Ahh I see, no wonder the Barmy Army are willing to travel so far overseas to watch the cricket. It's because half the games in Britain seem to be in the rain...

  • kiwicricketnut on June 16, 2013, 10:07 GMT

    stoked to see corey anderson make the team, they have listed him at 8 but he's alot better than that, he should definately bat ahead of n.mccullum and j. franklin, very exciting selection, i only hope there is going to be some game time for him to show his stuff, either way i hope the selectors give this guy an extended run in the team because i believe he could be an odi and t20 star in the making and who knows after the way he demolished england in a four day match for NZA in queenstown while injured he may just have a test future as well. good luck corey heres hoping for a long carear as a black cap.

  • on June 16, 2013, 10:09 GMT

    If Newzeland and England both go through from this group,, then there is every chance of INDIA beating all the top seven teams in England and show the world why they are at the Top of icc odi rankings #BharatArmy

  • on June 16, 2013, 10:17 GMT

    Don't think bowlers could take much out of this pitch given the conditions. Anyways hope that New Zealand would win. Thumbs up for a great match! :)

  • BustIPL on June 16, 2013, 10:25 GMT

    Looks like if the the weather remains like this, final will also be impacted the trophy might be shared between the final playing teams.