Australia v West Indies, Group B, World T20 2012, Colombo

Watson steers Australia into Super Eights

The Report by Brydon Coverdale

September 22, 2012

Comments: 151 | Text size: A | A

Australia 100 for 1 (Watson 41*) beat West Indies 191 for 8 (Gayle 54, Samuels 50, Starc 3-35) by 17 runs (D/L method)
Scorecard and ball-by-ball details


Shane Watson slog-sweeps a delivery, Australia v West Indies, World Twenty20 2012, Group B, Colombo, September 22, 2012
Shane Watson was Man of the Match for his 41 not out and 2 for 29 © Getty Images
Enlarge
Related Links

Another fine all-round effort from Shane Watson steered Australia into the Super Eights as they claimed a Duckworth-Lewis victory over West Indies in Colombo. Chris Gayle and Marlon Samuels both scored quick half-centuries to put up a hefty score of 191 but a strong start from Australia, who reached 100 for 1, was enough to ensure they were ahead when the rain started bucketing down in the tenth over of the chase.

On a day when South Africa and Sri Lanka's match was reduced to an absurd seven-over-a-side battle, this game had all the ingredients for a thriller until the weather intervened. Australia were pursuing what would have been the fifth-highest successful run chase in T20 international history, while West Indies at the halfway mark appeared well-placed to open their campaign with a victory. They must now defeat Ireland on Monday to join Australia in the next stage.

The second over of Australia's innings set them on the path to victory as David Warner took 22 off Ravi Rampaul, including sixes from an upper cut and a pull, as well as two fours. Warner fell in the next over for 28, unhappy to be given out caught behind driving at Fidel Edwards, but he had given Australia the lightning start they needed in such a big chase. Michael Hussey came to the crease and crunched Darren Sammy over wide long-on for six, and then Watson took control.

He was eased in thanks to a free-hit against Sunil Narine, which was duly slog-swept for six, and Marlon Samuels also felt the brunt of Watson's force in an over that cost 22. It included consecutive sixes - the second a flat pull that fizzed through the hands of Dwayne Smith at deep midwicket and lobbed over the boundary, which could have turned out to be a costly drop. As it was, Watson moved on to 41 not out and Hussey was on 28 when the rain came, and Australia were well ahead on Duckworth-Lewis.

It was a shame for West Indies that they didn't get the full opportunity to defend their strong score, set up by Gayle and Samuels. But both men fell soon after reaching their half-centuries and Australia's bowlers did just enough to keep their side in the match. Watson (2 for 29) picked up the key wicket of Gayle for 54, having dropped him on 4, and he also removed Kieron Pollard to help slow West Indies' momentum towards the end of their innings.

Things started well for Australia as Mitchell Starc struck in the second over, bowling Dwayne Smith for 2 with a wonderful inswinger that took the top of off stump. The next over was a maiden from Pat Cummins as Johnson Charles looked all at sea and struggled to lay bat on the swinging ball, and at 11 for 1 from three overs Australia were thrilled with the opening.

But their plans started to fall apart in the fourth over when Gayle, who was yet to score a boundary, tried to launch Starc down the ground and succeeded only in skying a leading edge to third man, where Watson ran in and dropped a difficult chance while diving forward. Charles pummelled the next ball for six over wide long-on and Gayle wasn't far behind him.

Gayle found the boundary for the first time with a slice over point for four off Cummins and he took 18 off the over, with a couple more fours and a six pulled over square leg. In typical Gayle fashion he had allowed himself a few overs to acclimatise and then swiftly moved into top gear. He lost his partner Charles for 16 when Daniel Christian gained some extra bounce and the ball ricocheted off the glove and onto the stumps.

But the runs kept coming for Gayle, who lifted Brad Hogg over long-on for six with a nonchalant push and then greeted the offspinner Glenn Maxwell with another six over long-on from his first ball. Seventeen came off that Maxwell over, the last four from an inside edge that whizzed past the leg stump and the wicketkeeper for four and gave Gayle his half-century from 26 balls.

He eventually fell for 54 when a short of good length delivery from Watson seamed away and Gayle's leading edge was caught by the bowler running into the off side. For a couple of overs the runs slowed, until Samuels found his touch. He launched a couple of sixes, one impressively over the off side from the bowling of Christian, and then cleared the boundary twice in two balls against Watson.

Samuels' half-century came from 31 balls but he didn't add to his score, caught at long-on for 50 from the bowling of Hogg. Watson picked up Pollard for 10 and Bravo was bowled by Cummins for 27 but West Indies had enough depth to keep the runs coming, albeit not quite as quickly as they had earlier. Starc picked up two late wickets, including Sammy for 11, to finish with 3 for 35.

In the end, the weather meant West Indies' efforts were in vain. They entered the tournament as one of the favourites, and must now see off Ireland in order to progress to the Super Eights.

Readers in the USA, Caribbean and South America can watch highlights of the match here.

Innings Dot balls 4s 6s Powerplay (0-6) 16-20 overs NB/Wides
West Indies 51 15 11 53-2 53-5 1/2
Australia 17 8 6 62-1 NA 2/1

Brydon Coverdale is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

RSS Feeds: Brydon Coverdale

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by JG2704 on (September 24, 2012, 11:21 GMT)

@Naresh Pitamber on (September 23 2012, 16:31 PM GMT) Stats actually show that although Sammy bowled just 2 overs he had the best economy rate of all the WI bowlers and despite only scoring 12 - it was as a lower order batsman to help finish the innings in style and guess what - his SR was THEE best of all the WI batsmen. Seems the guy can't do any right in some people's eyes

Posted by JG2704 on (September 24, 2012, 11:16 GMT)

@Rally_Windies on (September 23 2012, 12:34 PM GMT) It's a difficult one to judge. I suppose they allowed for the fact that they were only 1 wicket down. Had they been 2 or 3 wickets down I guess they would be nearer to the 94 you said about. If we were going by the exact runrate WI scored at then 86-87 would be about right at 9.55 rpo after 9.1 overs so 84 is not far off that and having lost just the 1 wicket and therefore having 9 wickets in hand 84 seemed just about fair enough. Anyway Aus were way in front of that RR and provided you beat Ireland you should qualify comfortably enough and being how the qualification works this Aus result will not matter at all

Posted by   on (September 24, 2012, 10:14 GMT)

Same old story with the Windies, got a potentially explosive batting line-up, but are incapable of defending a competitive total against the established countries. They might get away with it against the minnows, but are found wanting otherwise. The West Indies should stick to their strengths and put the opposition in, if they win the toss and back themselves to chase whatever total is presented to them. And they have to play two fulltime spinners (Narine and Badree) for a little more control. Playing both Edwards or Rampaul is too much of a liability, they lack the discipline required and end up bowling too many boundry-balls. If they bowl they way they did against Australia, then Ireland could pull off a upset. England in 2011 and Pakistan in 2007 will testify to that.

Posted by everfaithful77 on (September 24, 2012, 8:43 GMT)

Windies fans are UNHAPPY about this loss. However there's alot the team as a whole and individual players can learn from it.1st although Gayle and Samuels batted superbly neither of them CARRIED ON which would've likely led to a score well in excess of 200. I feel they could've become more CIRCUMSPECT especially after reaching their 50's and look to bat DEEPER into the inns by applying more shot selection. Also boundary hitting seemed to be the order of the day for all with little STRIKE ROTATION. The end result was despite the slug-fest wickets kept falling and Narine had to come out at # 10 to play the last ball. Isn't that a FAMILIAR STORY with West Indies ? At least they batted out the 20 overs but it kept Australia in the game. Bowling wise Rampaul's 1st over was ATROCIOUS with balls pitching all over the place. His 1st ball was short and wide outside off & helped over point for 6, the next was also short but on leg & pulled for 6. Australia never looked back. OVER TO U COACH!!

Posted by   on (September 23, 2012, 18:21 GMT)

When the WI squad was announced I begged the question, who will take the wks? Well that question still stands. Who will take the wks? Sunil can only bowl 4 ovs. So far the spinners have dominated the bowling dept in the tournament. Why should WI post 190 in a t20 match and lose it? Somebody is not doing their homework. And yes our attack was tailor made for the Aussies batting line up. No Benn, not even Deonarine, 2 late shall be the cry. Better luck agst Ireland.

Posted by   on (September 23, 2012, 17:04 GMT)

This competition is developing to be a west Inies tornament! the pitches are becoming a spinner turf. West Indies have the top spinner Narine and Badree who is also decent plus back up from Gayle and Samuel. You have to be able to clear the boundary if you attact, There is Gayle, Pollard, Samuel, Bravo and Sammy....West Indies also have decent feilders currently.The game agaisnt Australia Was an example of what is to come.....Shri Lanka, Australia, india and West indies will be progress from the Super 8

Posted by miz29 on (September 23, 2012, 16:40 GMT)

you see what Harbhajan Singh and Piyush Chawla doing to england.....come on west indies we have narine mystery and badree economic rate....you dont have to be a genius to bowl them together..

Posted by   on (September 23, 2012, 16:31 GMT)

Sorry to say but having Sammy in the 11 keep a valuable player like Russel out on the 11. I respect Sammy but sometimes it might have been better if he is the 12th player. WI batted well and is still a team to look at.

Posted by   on (September 23, 2012, 15:22 GMT)

i went to see yaaaaaaaa hoooooooo

Posted by   on (September 23, 2012, 15:06 GMT)

West Indies remain doomed to fail because of flawed selection. How could Badree be left out against a team like Australia who are weak in the handling of spin. Again we continue to omit a player like Andre Russel. Darren Bravo must be a better option than Johnson Charles for no. 3. Why do we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot?

Posted by   on (September 23, 2012, 14:16 GMT)

Russle shld play instead of Rampaul...

Posted by   on (September 23, 2012, 14:01 GMT)

Ryan Smith. The ONLY sensible comment so far. All the others seem to be using a crystal ball to know what was going to happen if it did not rain. By the way could someone check their crystal ball and give me the lotto numbers for next week??

Posted by 777aditya on (September 23, 2012, 12:41 GMT)

Where is Jerome Taylor?! And pretty please tell me when is WICB going to realize that Andre Russell is a gifted player, a reliable bowler, an outstanding fielder, and a talented batsman - he could have played instead of Rampaul yesterday. Even if he is picked in a match, for some odd reason he bats below Sammy. Even Samuel Badree playing instead of Charles Johnson could have been better. Anyways, let's just say Australia were the better team in the conditions. That WI gave two 22-run overs via Rampual and Samuels did not help either.

Posted by Rally_Windies on (September 23, 2012, 12:34 GMT)

something is really wrong with duck-worth Lewis in 20/20 ... I think Austrailia won .....

but 84 runs after 9.1 overs is MUCH easier than 191 of 20 .....

it should have been closer to 94 of 9.1 (but Australia should have still won)

Posted by JG2704 on (September 23, 2012, 11:56 GMT)

Re DL - as Landl has already touched upon - on this occasion- was in no way a controversial judgment. Australia were way ahead of the game and had only lost 1 wicket. Having said that in this format if WI had taken a wicket or 2 - esp that of Watson - it could have all changed around. Anyway as I posted before ,at least this match was just a group match which actually (the way the qualification works) counts for nothing but momentum and confidence.

Posted by JG2704 on (September 23, 2012, 11:56 GMT)

@Chris_P on (September 22 2012, 22:55 PM GMT) As predicted he has since posted to give team Australia full respect - oh no. The thing with T20 is regardless of how good the whole team is (and I'm not saying Aus don't have a good team) you only need one or 2 players to fire to make a difference. As I put in my pre tournament comms all the teams have at least 2 or 3 players who can turn a game.

Posted by   on (September 23, 2012, 11:52 GMT)

russell should have played but was a great game to watch so sorry the rain came

Posted by one-eyed-but-keepinitreal on (September 23, 2012, 10:20 GMT)

@RyanSmith, well argued. @Willie Komene...you still don't get it. using you're historical argument - how many sides have failed to chase 191, on a belter against a popgun attack, after being 1/100 in the ninth? Given the history of that particular match, Australia were, correctly judged to be the dominant team under D/L. Even the margin was not unrealistic. Australia were more than three overs ahead, with two more wickets in hand, so the difference could have been judged to be closer to 30. Should the Ireland/WI match be washed out, Ireland may rue the fact that Australia weren't provided the opportunity to win inside 15 overs....

Posted by whatawicket on (September 23, 2012, 10:18 GMT)

WI get over it you won the toss and with a batting line up u have should have bowled. you should if your good enough bat any total down. its a system like it or not to get a result. play an extra day , i dont think so, we all know what the rules are before the contest started

Posted by Meety on (September 23, 2012, 10:03 GMT)

@Willie Komene - D/L love it or loathe it, takes many factors into account when it comes up with par scores. My only concern with D/L in a T20 game is, that any one wicket, 6 off any ball can change a match significantly. That being said, whether you like the result of this match or not, at the time the rain came, Oz were in the better position. As was said earlier (JG2704), Sammy could of bowled Narine's 4 overs out (if he thought Rain was coming). He didn't, & given that there was enuff overs to determine a winner, Oz were in the best position. IF, the WIndies had taken more wickets or held catches - they MAY of squeezed ahead, but that is cricket.

Posted by   on (September 23, 2012, 9:55 GMT)

why sammy choosed rampal ahead of russel .

Posted by Aussie_Cricket on (September 23, 2012, 9:34 GMT)

Be a great story for Ireland if they beat the Windies and made Super 8's.

Posted by OneEyedAussie on (September 23, 2012, 9:19 GMT)

Alot of Aussie fans seems to be trying to dispel the "Australia is a sub-par team" myth. I think we should stop doing that. Let's go along with the "fact" that White, Maxwell, Christian and Wade are terrible players. Let's make sure these players are underestimated and not taken seriously.

Posted by P.Ghosh on (September 23, 2012, 8:56 GMT)

Australia showed why they're always the favourites. Whah! chasing down to 191 and they made their nerves strong and made 100 in 9.1 overs. I think they came to make a revenge against WI for the 2009 T20 WC. and I believe rain saved WI from a huge loss and shyness.

Posted by RyanSmith on (September 23, 2012, 8:22 GMT)

What is the point of playing (or watching) the tournament when we obviously have people who can just tell us what would have happened anyway?

The result of the match is NOT determined by what 'would have happened' if there was no rain. It is determined by what DID happen. On the balance of the play we got, Australia were judged to be the better team and it is hard to argue that that is not a fair call! The rain robbed us of the opportunity to get more play, but the only fair decision can be based on what did happen not on what some one feels 'would have happened' since none of us actually know that!

To get a different result than the one we got, West Indies would have had to play better than they were and Australia would have had to play worse than they were. That is a fact! On that basis, it seems like a fair result to me.

Posted by cooljack_143 on (September 23, 2012, 7:44 GMT)

WI NO TEAM WITHOUT GAYLE..Team like this cannot win the tournament just like RCB..

Posted by cooljack_143 on (September 23, 2012, 7:43 GMT)

It WILL BE REAL SHAME IF NONE OF THE SUBCONTINENT TEAMS WIN THIS TOURN PLAYED IN SUBCONTINENT,THE BLAME SHOULD BE ON THE SL GROUNDSMEN who are preparing BOUNCY PITCHES rather than traditional SPIN FRIENDLY pitches..SL TO LOOSE HERE..Moreover HISTORY SAYS NO HOME SIDE HAD WON THE TOURNAMENT TILL NOW.I bet on SA/NZ/AUS to win this time.WI are no team WITHOUT GAYLE.

Posted by   on (September 23, 2012, 7:23 GMT)

D/L has no place in T20 yet, if ever. The odds don't stack up. It's a completely different game and so few games have been played you cannot possibly permutate what a team might get. Because it is virtually block-bash, the only stat even mildly close to reliable is a team's history from a given position, and how many teams have reached the total in the past IMO. But that only tells you the odds. Historically, only four teams had run down 190+.The odds should have been with WI, but D/L decided otherwise.one thing we should have learned from T20 is that the game can change quite easily (and often does) in the space of a 6 balls.Wickets in hand mean little unless you are 8 or 9 down early. It's momentum that counts. If Watson got out at any stage, the momentum could have been slowed for a few balls as the new batsman has to adjust pretty quickly. Then if the other 'in' batsman gets out straight after your momentum dies. Congrats to Aussie for the win, but the system really has no right.

Posted by Sinhaya on (September 23, 2012, 6:56 GMT)

Even if it did not rain, Aussies were bound to win. I as a Lankan was supporting Windies but they fielded and bowled badly. Aussies proved they are fighters always no matter they may not be the best. They got the hunger to win.

Posted by   on (September 23, 2012, 6:51 GMT)

The big three from the old days are back: Australia, England and South Africa. Semifinals for this tourney looks like these three and one of either West Indies or Pakistan. All the rest have some major gaps and/or inconsistent.

Posted by one-eyed-but-keepinitreal on (September 23, 2012, 6:27 GMT)

@Al Minidodo Warming, not on that wicket, with that attack, in Australia's position, and with the batsmen remaining. Read @Saurav Giri for a quaint appraisal of the match situation. Yes a supporter and a fanatic are two different things, but, there is no fanaticism in suggesting that Australia were cruising to a win. They were well ahead of the game on a belter. I would suggest a fantastic pesimism, to the level of fanaticism, if you claimed to be a supporter and then claimed that an Australia had no chance of winning that match.

Posted by coolindianfan on (September 23, 2012, 6:20 GMT)

for any 1 whom says that weather helped Australia plz get a life they made 100 in 9 overs 91 in 11 overs at that pace wouldn`t have taken much doing especially with 9 wickets in hand and watto steamrolling the bowling

Posted by coolindianfan on (September 23, 2012, 6:15 GMT)

yippiie great performance by watson my favourite aussie player ( now a days ) looking forward for more such fireworks

Posted by maddy20 on (September 23, 2012, 5:59 GMT)

@MattyP You are kidding right? Aus was 100/1 in 9 overs and they have to score 92 from the next 11 at 8.36 runs per over and have 9 wickets in hand. They would have made it easily. England on the other hand are in for some serious fun today.

Posted by jonesy2 on (September 23, 2012, 5:35 GMT)

was lost for words at pat cummins' first over, 6 balls that should have taken 6 wickets, unbelievable. oh and watto is obviously the worlds best player we already knew that though. great win and well deserved.

Posted by landl47 on (September 23, 2012, 5:29 GMT)

The only problem as far as D/L is concerned, that when the game resumes the side batting second still has all its wickets in hand even though the target is reduced, didn't apply today. Aus won fair and square- they had to bat with the assumption that the game would go the full 20 overs and they were still way ahead of the scoring rate. All those carping about D/L, what would you do instead? Abandon every game with a weather break as a draw? How would that have helped the WI? They'd still have had to beat Ireland. Aus have looked competitive so far and they'll do well as long as Watson, Warner and Hussey make runs. If they happen to fail, then Aus might have a problem. WI look as if they might be a good side if they can put it all together. The trouble is, they don't put it all together very often.

Posted by ajayrcs on (September 23, 2012, 4:34 GMT)

Why everyone is crying only about D/L what about DRS? Warner was not out. We missed another thunder knock because of Rauf bad umpiring.

Posted by heathrf1974 on (September 23, 2012, 4:23 GMT)

Australia got a bit lucky, but it was a good knock by Watson and Warner to tick over the run rate and only lose one wicket. The Windies bowling let them down. They may have some all-rounders but they are not quality ones (except Bravo).

Posted by jmcilhinney on (September 23, 2012, 3:43 GMT)

Maybe slightly unlucky for WI because another wicket or two could have swung things in their favour, but you've got to hand it to the Australian top order for making mincemeat of what should have been a tough chase. Watson and Hussey in particular are looking very ominous so it's obviously imperative to get them relatively early if you want to keep Australia to a reasonable score. Warner's cameo showed that he's an important wicket too. With the pitches favouring spin less than you'd expect in SL, Australia are looking a better bet than many first thought. Their shaky middle order is obviously their weak spot, but you have to get to it first. I think WI are in a similar situation to India in that they have a strong batting lineup but, while they have plenty of bowling options, they lack penetration. That said, Ravi Rampaul could be expected to be one of the more dangerous members of the attack and he went for 22 in an over.

Posted by Ramansilva on (September 23, 2012, 3:30 GMT)

Windies like Indies have a strong batting line-up, but both teams lack striking bowlers that Saffas have. I think this is the year for Saffas. It is hard to think that any asian team will feature in the last four.

Posted by Cpt.Meanster on (September 23, 2012, 3:25 GMT)

Well WI are looking A LOT like India. Their batting is SOLID but their bowling is average. Australia would have won even if it had not rained. The WI bowling lacked planning, focus and discipline. Except Narine, every bowler went over 6 R.P.O and got smashed out of the park by Watson and co. The WI now must beat Ireland to stay alive. Ireland are not muppets and will come hard at the Caribbean boys. Good luck and rally around the WI !!

Posted by MattyP1979 on (September 23, 2012, 3:24 GMT)

Well done Aus, the overall goals have been achieved. Firstly to reclaim the number 9 spot from Irl, and secondly albeit rain assisted to beat a good team. When they bow out they can hold their heads up high my congrats.

Posted by RandyOZ on (September 23, 2012, 3:17 GMT)

Once again Australia dominant when it matters. The greatest cricketing nation of all time for a reason.

Posted by thebarmyarmy on (September 23, 2012, 3:15 GMT)

When the Aussies loose a T20 they say they aint bothered by the format. When they win (thanks to rain) they seem to care.

Posted by nthuq on (September 23, 2012, 2:30 GMT)

In a near dead rubber as this, I do wish our middle order had gotten some time in the field. I feel as though against sides with proper bowling attacks like England and South Africa, the top order will wilt and it will be the middle order that wins or loses us the match. For now, looking forward to England beating India to give us a match against India in the Super 8s.

Posted by   on (September 23, 2012, 1:55 GMT)

Anyone who thinks Australia would have won this match willing to take on abet for the next Windies Australia meet? And they will meet again! I say West Indies will maul them. Your views that Aus would have won the match if it had gone all the way is based on a number of assumptions: that the West Indies bowlers would continue to gift the Aussies balls to dispatch with ease; that somehow magically the Aussies already have the measure of the man who has previously mesmerized then - Sunil Narine; that the Windies would have continued to field poorly throughout the match; that the Aussies had a slew of power hitters to come - not so; and that the Aussies did not have a soft middle order - they do!

Posted by noplay on (September 23, 2012, 1:48 GMT)

Folks WI won the toss and elected to bat. Rain and D/L did not rob them of anything, their poor bowling did. They are banking heavily on the hard hitting batsmen. Well hear this, other teams have hard hitting batsmen too, or didn't Darren Sammy know that?

Posted by disco_bob on (September 23, 2012, 1:29 GMT)

@Swingit "The game turned on Smith drop of Watto had he taken that then its a different ball game by the next over..." Sir, what a ridiculous thing to say considering that Watto dropped Gale on 1. Had Watson taken that then there'd have been no ball game at all!

Posted by Badgerofdoom on (September 23, 2012, 1:19 GMT)

The rains a shame but Aus were ahead of the run rate with 9 wickets in hand. Only one possible result from D/L in that case.

Posted by BeCalmAndSupportEngland on (September 23, 2012, 0:56 GMT)

is this windies team similar to 2007 windies t20 team?Batting looks stronger and stronger,but can't defend 250 runs. why don't they give chance to Andre Russel?he is far better than ravi rampaul.watch out for Ireland, this may be a replay of 2007 t20 world cup for windies.

Posted by   on (September 23, 2012, 0:30 GMT)

Ravi went 4 a pounding today

Posted by Marcio on (September 23, 2012, 0:21 GMT)

In the end it was an excellent win, and the D/L method certainly got it right. Those saying AUS have nothing in the middle order seem to be mistaking media mumblings (just like all those stiries about Ireland having a higher ranking) for reality. Who do you think is batting there? Stevie Wonder? Clearly you didn't watch Maxwell and even Bailey slamming sixes in the UAE vs PAK recently. There are big hittters right down to number 10. Not sure what White is doing in the team, but he must have been itching to get out there on that batsman's paradise to gobble some of the pies that were being served up. Narine was less effective for two reasons. 1) There wasn't that much spin and the ball was coming onto the bat nicely. 2) Australia just faced 210 overs of mostly vicious spin in the UAE on slow, turning wickets. In comparison, facing Narine here was a walk in the park. SMART preparation!

Posted by   on (September 23, 2012, 0:20 GMT)

Pakistan are yet to play their first match , and you have few minnows already out of the tournament , its a ridiculous format .

Posted by Inspector_Clouseau on (September 23, 2012, 0:14 GMT)

@Moppa, My comment was on D/L in general. Agreed that in this case Aus was mostly likely going to win the match. But when an ongoing match is interrupted and overs are reduced, all captains prefer to bat second. Whether it is because they can plan their innings better or whatever the reason is, it clearly means that D/L isn't fair. There need be an additional element of difficulty added to the team batting second. No matter how statistically beautiful it is, it doesn't quantify the human experience and intuition. When you know the system isn't working in one case, it doesn't give you confidence wherever it is used.

Posted by Jedi029 on (September 22, 2012, 23:53 GMT)

Well done Australia, West Indies didn't make it easy though. As for those D/L wingers, suck it up cause everyone gets caught out with D/L every now and again and unluckily WI did tonight. Rain does suck in the sport of cricket but D/L supports the target chasing side only if they have wickets in hand when the rain stops play. If Australia had lost another 1 or 2 wickets the result could have gone the other way. Let's hope the rest of the games this tournament aren't rained out as badly as the SA vs SL game recently

Posted by Mikecricket on (September 22, 2012, 23:22 GMT)

the people who think the windies were going to win even though the aussies were up 100/1 AUSSIES GREAT WIN GREAT STUFF WATTO AND HUSSEY

Posted by CreamIce on (September 22, 2012, 23:21 GMT)

@Swingit: White, Maxwell, Wade, Christian can all also be match winners in their day and they have done it before. Even if Watson or Hussey got out they could have seen the Aussies home if they had a good day. This sort of what could have happened arguments works both way.

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 23:09 GMT)

I would have gone with Badree and Russell In place of Rampaul and possibly Charles.. Rampaul has a tendency to leak at least one big over in the shorter formats.. Badree has one of the most economic figures for any T20 bowler and often used to open the bowling in this format.. that said i know the seamers have been doing well so far in the competition so that could have been the thinking but there are seamers in Sammy, Smith, Bravo and pollard.. hopefully WI will get the combination right for the next game..

Posted by kennev on (September 22, 2012, 23:02 GMT)

get real people, the ogre in all this is not D/L but the damn rain. The most unsatisfactory thing about D/L or all the previous means of determining rain effected matches is when the second batting side starts to bat and then resumes their innings after rain. They have the advantage of knowing exactly what to score and in almost every case are chasing a smaller target and can take the risks to get in front. In this game Australia were well in front before the rain came. All the waffle about what could have or would have happened is pointless. D/L did not rob the fans of what was a wonderful contest that was evenly poised, THE RAIN DID! By the way Watson would have finished the game with a six to bring up his ton in the 16th over and he and Hussey would have enjoyed a bear hug mid pitch to celebrate a fantastic chase! Thats probably as good a guess as " 110 for 5 by the 13th over and its trouble" Rain people, rain is the problem, not D/L!

Posted by Chris_P on (September 22, 2012, 22:55 GMT)

@JG2704. You mean SIRSOBERS didn't retract all his statements about your team earlier this year? I guess I won't hold my breath either.

Posted by Chris_P on (September 22, 2012, 22:54 GMT)

@MattyP1979 Australia saved by the weather? To which game were you referring to? Ah yes, next generation of players, you mean like the recent U19 WC where Australia reached the final beating you know who along the way? Got it.

Posted by OzWally on (September 22, 2012, 22:51 GMT)

Can't believe how many people think Australia stole this through the D/L method. They needed 91 in almost 11 full overs - barely 8 an over, with 9 wickets in hand. They could have done that without taking barely a risk. Or put another way, in whose shoes would you rather have been? Give me the team sitting 1/100 in 9.1 overs any day of the week.

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 22:41 GMT)

I'll laugh so much if Ireland can pull of a shock against West Indies especially when people rate this team as favourites. But whatever happens sorry guys Australia will win this hands down infact it would be best if you just hand us this cup so we don't waste time and move on to our series. See even T20 specialist spin bowler Narine got hammered today and unless these wickets do not offer turn then you're more likely to see these teams in the semi-finals - Australia, England, South Africa and New Zealand all non-asians. Yes I'm aware of teams like Pakistan winning in England etc but there's so much tough competition today as compared to those teams. People like Dale Steyn etc are much better bowlers then what they were back in 07,08 09 or whatever.

Posted by Meety on (September 22, 2012, 22:14 GMT)

@Chris_P on (September 22 2012, 21:55 PM GMT) - the Saffa v SL game was a joke. This match was ashame it ended the way it did, Oz were well placed they really could of just played Narine for singles off his remaining 2 overs & still had plenty of overs to get the rest. == == == Good win for Oz, on paper I thought the WIndies were specials, that was until I belatedly found out they didn't bring Roach. Big mistake IMO.

Posted by Chris_P on (September 22, 2012, 21:55 GMT)

I will add though that to have reduced games in an already reduced format doesn't really sit well with me. Surely we can get reserve days.

Posted by BG4cricket on (September 22, 2012, 21:54 GMT)

Lots of people here seemed to just be annoyed that Australia did well. Chasing the WI target to the end would still be tough but we were positioned well for it. Despite the short nature, the match would concern fans of both teams in terms of title chances. For the WI it is undoubtedly that the bowling is a real wink link - apart from Narine the rest look barely capable of taking a wicket or conceding less than 8 - however the batting list is long and powerful so they will have plenty of runs to defend which ironically I think is heir best hope with scoreboard pressure. For the Aussies they just look way too reliant on just 3 players - Watson, Warner and Starc who have all been very good, especially Watson. If they don't come up the cupboard is pretty bare apart from the Hussey brothers. Cummins looks a bit out of sorts which is concerning as ultimately it is the bowlers that give Australia the best chance and we need at least 1 other to step up and help Watto and Starc

Posted by The_bowlers_Holding on (September 22, 2012, 21:52 GMT)

I watched the match and Australia were walking it, anyone who thinks D/L benefited them is wrong.

Posted by Chris_P on (September 22, 2012, 21:52 GMT)

@SIRSOBERS. BTW lad, when you bowl tripe like that, you don't need power. I do love paybacks!...LOL

Posted by Chris_P on (September 22, 2012, 21:50 GMT)

@bouncedout, & Raahim Maroof & SIRSOBERS. Oh dear lads. Your already lack of credibility has taken a total hammering. Enjoying your sour grapes? We got a little saying here, wait till the full-time whistle before celebrating wins...

Posted by Moppa on (September 22, 2012, 21:49 GMT)

@Vijay Phanidhar, D/L does normally favour the team batting second, because the team is given a reduced target off a reduced number of overs, making it easier to pace their chase. That did not happen in this case, where Australia were batting expecting 20 overs. You can only say that Australia were well-placed to make the full chase when the rain hit. An international cricketer (can't remember who, sorry) the other day was saying that he uses the D/L target as a guide to pace the chase, so whilst it is artificial and unsatisfying for fans, it can hardly be grossly unfair in circumstances like this where rain cuts off the end of a game.

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 21:42 GMT)

@one-eyed-but-keepinitreal: being a supporter and being a fanatic are 2 different things. Scoring 191 in T20i is much more difficult than scoring 100 in 10overs. Wichets don't matter in T20 as much as in ODI as even the 9th guy can belt a few boundaries. D/L relies on number of lost resources and towards the beginning of innings all batting resources are available and mostly bowling resources (overs) are lost.... I agress that this probably would've been a very close win for Aussie in reality... but with D/L, WI lost by 17 - which will affect their NRR...... Overall I don't think anything less than a 15+15over match can be faithfully simulated on D/L, which is still using old ODI data to model T20 matches.

Posted by lee_man on (September 22, 2012, 21:40 GMT)

All this talk about who should have won and whether the D/L system is skewed or not is a bit silly. The game still had more than half the overs to be bowled and a sizeable 91 to get, we all know that cricket is a game of glorious uncertainties, so any result was possible from there. Unfortunately the rains had the final say, leaving us to contend with D/L.

Posted by Swingit on (September 22, 2012, 21:39 GMT)

All these people saying that Aussies would have win comfy have no concept of 20/20 cricket where one wicket or one 3-run over can turn the game on its head. Fact is Aussies are top heavy and have NO middle order so the wicket of Hussey or Watto would have practically expose the tail of the Ozzies. Warner Watto or Hussey negotiating Narine's guile or Edwards' pace is one thing but Baily who? and the rest? not a chance. The game turned on Smith drop of Watto had he taken that then its a different ball game by the next over, Warner's blistering knock notwithstanding. True Hussey and Watto could have gone on for the next 6 overs and completely obliterated the Windies but again Windies could have taken a wicket in Rampaul's over (god know he needed to make amends) and all of a sudden Ozzies could have been 110 for 5 by the 13th over and its trouble. The point I am making is D/L ultimately robs the fans of a real contest since we will never really know how this game would have ended.2 bad.

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 21:35 GMT)

Was not available to watch the match , but SMITH, RAMPAUL , RAMDIN and EDWARDS must be replaced for the next match . Surely not a lover of the D/L system .

Posted by Rooboy on (September 22, 2012, 21:20 GMT)

@TropicPleasure - 'Two or three quick wickets and the game changes' - yes, and another 22 run over and Aus coast to victory. So ummm ... what's your point? @ Brannavan Ramachandran - do you think stating that you're an Australian supporter, when you're clearly not, gives your comments more credibility? It doesn't. So why do it? @sirsobers - actually, looks like there was a second option.

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 20:53 GMT)

I don't understand why Pakistani team is playing with 4 openers(Hafeez,Imran Nazir,K,Akmal,Nasir Jamshed), because in first 10 overs Hafiz,jamshed and malik hardly score runs at the rate of 6 runs/over as compare to other teams scorring about 9/10 runs/over in first 10 overs. Asad Shafiq,Shoib Malik,Nasir Jamshed,Hafeez don't justify thier position as T20 Batsmen.Kamran Akmal,U,Akmal,Afridi,Razak should play maximum overs.There are also rumours about the grouping in the Pakistani team, If you will keep playing with same batting order 1.Imran Nazir2.Hafeez3.Jamshed 4.Kamran 5.Malik 6.U Akmal .Afridi 7. Razzak,then I will just say Good Luck Team Pakistan.Also I wonder why U.Akmal and Shoib Malik are given so much chances(Of Course Malik has got a PARCHI).In the Preseence of 1.Kamran Akmal2.Imran Nazir3.U.Akmal4.Afridi 5.Razzak,Hafeez,Asad shafiq,Malik and Nasir Jamshed do not justify thier position as T20 batsmen.

Posted by MattyP1979 on (September 22, 2012, 20:39 GMT)

I thought that WI would be a very good side in this WC and still might turn out to be. But this brand of cricket is so unpredictable. Good win for Aus and it may do their confidence some good. Still anybodies WC I suppose and I hope for some real nail chompers later to come.

Posted by JG2704 on (September 22, 2012, 20:37 GMT)

I didn't see the game but it seems a shame that this was ruined by rain. Australia were obviously well ahead of the rate and deserved the win but a wicket or 2 (esp of Watson) may have turned the game. I'm wondering if this match was always doomed to the weather gods? If so I'm wondering in WI could have taken a gamble and bowled out their top bowler Narine. I'm pretty sure WI will still qualify. In essence these games (unless a minnow wins) are just warm up matches anyway the way the qualification works as you gain nothing but momentum and confidence by winning these games. Well done Australia who are written off by many of my fellow fans and other fans and are proving my theory that any one of the 8 major teams can be reckoned with

Posted by Regulator on (September 22, 2012, 20:36 GMT)

Congrats to the Aussies. Good fight Windies. Dwayne Smith and Ravi should ake way for Russel and Badree.

Batting order needs some more imagination. Mt take is this. The skipper nedds to do some pinch hitting at 3. 1. Gayle 2. Charles 3. Sammy. 4. Samuels. 5. Pollard 6. Russel 7. Bravo 8. Ramdim 9. Narine 10. Badree. 11. Fidel.

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 20:36 GMT)

Give me Afghanistan's bowlers any day compared to that west indies bowling attack.

Posted by one-eyed-but-keepinitreal on (September 22, 2012, 20:27 GMT)

@Discobob, good point about D/L. It is often a big disadvantage if it is invoked after the chase has begun. But this is less of a problem in 20/20 matches, especially on a belter, as there should be no innings building period - top gear from go. Australia were doing it easy and can bat to eleven. The bigger problem with D/L is that it treats all remaining batsmen the same regardless of their batting ability. Making a stronger tail worthless.

Posted by JG2704 on (September 22, 2012, 20:23 GMT)

@SIRSOBERS on (September 22 2012, 16:02 PM GMT) Looks like you spoke too soon there LOL . Still I'm sure you'll be dignified as always in defeat

Posted by fast_gun on (September 22, 2012, 20:22 GMT)

australia look in great form! and would have won quite a difficult chase quite easily! they were helped by some poor west indies bowling though. I think Australia and South Africa are very clinical and need to be careful not to peak too soon! or suffer the fate of a sf defeat

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 20:21 GMT)

Well Done Aus.WI players perform very well as individual but when it comes to team as a whole,they usually fail.I don't think so INDIA and WI despite of the fact that they have got very good batting lineup, are going to even defend 200++against sides like AUS.WI players will struggle on turning wicket against good spin attack.To me AUS,INDIA,SA,ENG/PAK are favorites to make for finals.

Posted by rickyvoncanterbury on (September 22, 2012, 20:18 GMT)

@ArmyJim yeah mate the windies did have a blinder, the only problem was that they were the second best team.

Posted by Inspector_Clouseau on (September 22, 2012, 20:17 GMT)

Such a high maintenance game cricket is.. one spit from the heavens and it's curtains. Having some pea brains in the administration that fix tourneys during monsoon season, and stick with a farcical method called D/L doesn't help either. Whole world knows D/L favors team batting second. Harsh on fans.

Posted by PACERONE on (September 22, 2012, 20:13 GMT)

Most teams have a balanced attack W.I never does.Part time bowlers fill the bill for them.Bravo, Rampaul, Pollard,Sammy and Samuels will never scare good top line batsmen.They will drop one of them and play a similar bowler.The selectors were given a two year contract to continue picking unbalanced teams.I have been saying for the longest time that Benn is our best spin bowler...tall,spins the ball and is accurate.he can bowl.Johnson might be our next best fast bowler to Roach.These two players will give batsmen a different look and take wickets.Good win for Aussies.W.I again in familiar position.

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 19:59 GMT)

These D/L rules DO NOT WORK for T20 games. It's ridiculous and stupid to have such a system that does not take into account the different tactics of the very short form game. Narine could have easily struck big time in the last ten overs. THEY NEED TO CHANGE THE RULES!

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 19:58 GMT)

the wi batted well but as usual when the batting clicks then the bowling fails.I still dont understand how these guys can┬┤t bowl a constant line and length. If you saw the Australian fielding effort, you can see that they were jaded because they were clearly bowling well and the Wi were getting the better of them. but the WI bowling just gifted the match to Austrailia. F edwards bowls too many gift deliveries every over and is Rampaul trying to bowl too fast?these first overs set the tone for any innings. Just the basics guys! Anyway they (WI) should win the last match against Ireland but the bowling has to improve. I doubt Australia will get such gift bowling though in the super 8s.Everyany team will take 191 batting first.

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 19:56 GMT)

The amount of nonsense people are spouting with claims of weather saving Australia...they were going at basically 11 run per over for the loss of 1 wicket. They got 100 in 9.1 overs and had basically 11 (10.5) overs to get 92 runs....with NINE wickets in hand....Do the maths people...and the windies bowlers were bowling rubbish and fielding was average. It was a flat wicket where the ball basically stood up and you got carted no matter what you bowled. Even Narine went for 8 runs per over and AUs norm struggles against him. Furthermore nobody barring Dwayne Smith really failed with the bat which shows how flat the surface was.. so is it really feasible that the remaining 9 aus batsman couldnt get the runs at 8.5 runs per over when they were already going at close to 11 if the match wasn't rained out.

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 19:51 GMT)

At last W.Indies have a good day with bat, that is enough or super 8 because nothing can disturb the ranking of super 8.

Posted by aclarity on (September 22, 2012, 19:49 GMT)

In order to understand the WI problems one has to take a look at the 15man squad selected. Let's select 11. 1st we select the 4 best batsmen: Gayle, Samuels, Daren Bravo and Pollard. 2nd select the 4 best bowlers: Narine, Sammy, Badre and Russell. There are 3 selections left: an opener - Charles, a keeper Ramdin and one place among Dwayne Bravo, Rampaul, Edwards, Smith etc. Are these our best bowlers? Where is Johnson, Benn, Roach? They are not in the 15. This panel of selectors have just been given a 2 year extension to 2014. Good Luck guys.

Posted by PFEL on (September 22, 2012, 19:49 GMT)

I find it confusing that some people consider DL to be wrong in this instance. From what i can see Australia were WAAAAAYYYY ahead and would mist likely have won the game at a canter if rain hadn't come.

Posted by one-eyed-but-keepinitreal on (September 22, 2012, 19:38 GMT)

@Brannavan Rammachandran, I would severely question you perspective or support, as Australia were more than three overs ahead (and a wicket) of the WI. If anything D/L flattered the WI. On that wicket, against an attack which would not feature in many domestic sides, Australia still had the players in the shed, to chase a score of 210 plus.

Posted by disco_bob on (September 22, 2012, 19:36 GMT)

I can't believe all the comments saying Australia was saved by the rain and D/L was not fair. Not only was it an easy D/L win but in most D/L's it's easier to chase a score from the outset knowing what the target is, but in this case Australia were playing without knowing it would be a D/L match. This tournament is a disaster for T20, opening matches have no atmosphere with empty stadiums and when we have a blinder the monsoon weather ends it early.

Posted by jb633 on (September 22, 2012, 19:35 GMT)

@MattyP- tbh i am English and thought the Aussies looked a class act today. Ok they leaked a few runs but that will happen to any side if you give Gayle a chance. i thought despite going for a few Starc and Cummings look like they will be class. i think Starc has to be a shoe in for the next ashes over here. The swing back into the right handers is always a great threat. I think Watson has turned himself into one of the world's best cricketers and his ability to hit sixes is quality. Well played to Oz today and worrying signs for the WI.

Posted by TropicPleasure on (September 22, 2012, 19:32 GMT)

I'm afraid I'll never understand, nor accept, that a team batting second can win by runs, as opposed to wickets. But then, I'll never accept that a cricket match should be settled by computer. Cricket, of all sports, is the most unpredictable. Two or three quick wickets and the game changes. Therefore, call me old fashion, but my opposition to D/L will remain until the end. Plus, this seven a side nonsense we saw between SA and SL further damages my faith in the ICC Having said that, I think it's time West Indies realise that it's only a 20 over game so they ought to pick their five top batsmen, their five top bowlers, a keeper who can also bat and one so-called all rounder. The problem with the West Indies is we have no true all rounder. If you five top batsmen can't bat thru 20 overs, then get out of the sport.

Posted by one-eyed-but-keepinitreal on (September 22, 2012, 19:28 GMT)

@ArmyJim - don't know which game you were watching, but, the Aussies were more than 3 overs ahead of the WI blinder! (100 off 9.1 v 100 off 12.2). They had also lost fewer wickets. In this case D/L was a true indication of the game's inevitable path.

Posted by Cleon on (September 22, 2012, 19:18 GMT)

for all those who are questioning D/L and the aussie win, you most be one ignorant individual. 100 runs off 9.1overs, if not for that umpiring debacle the game would have ended in 15 overs with warner and watto batting through. there is no-one in the W.I team that could take a wicket, narine is a good young bowler but when attacked the only mystery is how far will it land. this win was totally deserved by the aussies, the bowling was of the bowling but the batting was brilliant.

Posted by disco_bob on (September 22, 2012, 19:06 GMT)

Go Watto, great bowling, terrific batting and a world class dropped catch, he's got it all.

Posted by Rikkard2 on (September 22, 2012, 19:03 GMT)

Badree should have played.

Posted by ArmyJim on (September 22, 2012, 19:01 GMT)

I can't be the only one who is not happy with that result! Sometimes I think D/L is really skewed. I thought the Windies played a blinder myself.

Posted by one-eyed-but-keepinitreal on (September 22, 2012, 18:49 GMT)

@Sirsobers, it appears that the non option has occurred. 100 runs scored, with only 1 (questionable) wicket lost, more than 3 overs prior to the powerful? WI (100 in 12.2). You only need to be able to reach the boundary to hit a six or four and, given that Samuels was able to hit 2 sixes in 2 balls, reaching the boundary wasn't that hard. 200 plus, was par on that wicket. This Australian side has six hitters all the way down to Cummins and Starc. In 20/20 favouritism counts for nought and you now see yourself in a sudden death match with Ireland - don't take them too lightly. It seems that you are still a bit too reliant on Gayle's performance ( which was good, without being great, on that wicket).

Posted by MattyP1979 on (September 22, 2012, 18:49 GMT)

Weather saving the Aussies once again. Good to see both teams in action here makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about Englands chances. Aus seem to have alot of very ripe players and since 20/20 for many is a chance to see the next generation one wonders is there one for Aus?

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 18:48 GMT)

Duckworth Lewis method failed in this instance. No chance Aussies would have chased 191. Very unfair. T20 should not be decided unless both sides bat at least 15 overs. this is coming from the perspective of an Australian supporter

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 18:44 GMT)

wa g wa aus win i love it

Posted by Smithie on (September 22, 2012, 18:41 GMT)

Interesting comparative figure between Hogg and Narine ?

Posted by aclarity on (September 22, 2012, 18:41 GMT)

Today was the worst bowling display by any team in the T20 competition. Who should take the blame - the bowlers, the bowling coach or the selectors? All!! Rampaul and Edwards bowled less than 5% of the balls at the wicket, mostly short and wide. Smith is on his 4th world tournament - each one more disappointing than the last. The selectors keep picking allrounders who can hardly bat or bowl. Smith, Pollard, Bravo, Sammy and Russell - we need only two of them. What a pity that Johnson, Roach and Benn were never selected in the 15 instead of these useless allrounders. When Charles is selected on a cricket team ahead of Daren Bravo then you know there is a serious imbalance.

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 18:40 GMT)

The rain was unbeleivable,it just didnt stop.The sri lankan crowd had a great time though,its hard to get the smiles off their faces whete cricket is involved. Conditions here suit swing and seam bowlers,forget the spinners. Australia or SA to win the cup. Just looked out the window and its still raining.

Posted by Narkovian on (September 22, 2012, 18:29 GMT)

So the first two games which anyone actually wanted to see. and they are ruined by rain! So its not only England where it rains all the time .

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 18:27 GMT)

west indies is not ready. bowling stinks and they selected a bad 11.

Posted by Rising_Edge1234 on (September 22, 2012, 18:13 GMT)

I'm tired of the mostly US sports trivia between overs and coming back to the cricket feed with 1 ball already bowled on ESPN 3. Show cricket during the overs so we can see field placement and crowd etc, ESPN3.! Show the cricket!

Posted by musa441 on (September 22, 2012, 18:10 GMT)

hahahaha lol too early comments from some over confident fans lol wait to comment untill match is over now see how ashamed u guys feeling now!! although rain interupted but aussies were going great guns and looked like winning it they were 100 for 1 in 9 overs westindies were 7 to 8 runs short at this stage and also with 2 more wickets down than aussies. aussies are very dangerous side dont underestimate them too early!!

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 18:07 GMT)

aus good luck dddddddddddddddddddddddd

Posted by Nehans on (September 22, 2012, 18:07 GMT)

finally got to see a good match that also hit by bad weather ...what a boring tournament

Posted by InsideHedge on (September 22, 2012, 18:07 GMT)

All Ireland have to do now is to hope for a rain interrupted game against WI next week. Hope it's reduced to a 5 over slog-fest, get Gayle out early and Ireland could be thru to the Super 8s. It's winner takes all.

Posted by Surajdon9 on (September 22, 2012, 18:06 GMT)

Well played watto.consecutives man of the match!!!!Keep it up...bad luck wi.

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 18:05 GMT)

The way WI bowled/fielded, most likely the Aussies would've still won if the match had gone the distance. I've said all along that the presence of Gayle and Narine, though making us formidable, doesn't guarantee victory. And so it proved today. Each member must pull his weight for the team to have a chance at success. The fielding wasn't the best but that miss by Smitty was a terrible thing for a WI fan to witness. Perhaps the background distorted his line of vision? I don't know, but it wasn't a pretty sight to see a man renowned for his fielding make such a mess of a catching opportunity. If I didn't know better, could see how he might be accused of selling out. Hindsight is 20/20 as we know. My view still is that Russell should've started instead of Johnson or even Smitty. Don't think it would've made a difference in terms of the outcome, but you never know. Fidel leaks too many runs too quickly to be effective in T20s. Rampaul is slowly losing it. Surely we can handle Ireland?

Posted by InsideHedge on (September 22, 2012, 18:05 GMT)

I wonder how many more matches will be ruined by the wet weather. Recall a triangular held in Lanka, by the geniuses in the Lanka Cricket Board, a few years back involving SL, India and SA, I believe 2 deliveries were sent down in the whole tournament. The folks who agreed to staging a World ICC event when it clearly clashes with the monsoon season should hang their heads in SHAME.

Posted by Midonoff on (September 22, 2012, 18:04 GMT)

Well played Australia but I know this match would have come down to the last couple of overs. West indies needs to get the bowling sorted out. Why Russell didn't play? WI should have gone with Russell and leave out Rampaul. Good match though.

Posted by InsideHedge on (September 22, 2012, 18:03 GMT)

So, if Ireland beat WI, it's goodbye to the favourites lol

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 17:56 GMT)

go watto.....aus have gr8 chance to win d tournament....SA also hav good chance....lets c...

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 17:55 GMT)

shane watson is d best all rounder in circuit.

Posted by vpk23 on (September 22, 2012, 17:54 GMT)

A classy know from Marlon!!

Posted by Marcio on (September 22, 2012, 17:52 GMT)

Glad Australia won. They didn't bowl as badly as the score suggests. Some good hitting by the WI, but I have to say a lot of cowboy stuff as well. Heaps of runs off edges and misshits. But that's T20 crickey for ya. And who are these fools who kept going on about how Australia were certain to get thrashed? Since when are Australia easybeats in any major international tournament? I'm also afraid to say that the WI have been overhyped just as much as AUS have been underestimated. They have a limited attack, and that really showed on this batsman's paradise. Australia have weaknesses too, but it's like with the comments we have been reading everyone is talking about AUS' weaknesses only and the WI strengths only. AUS have a good team and chance of winning this WC, just as quite a few sides do. Any other analysis is simply irrational. Loved the arrogant posts at start, below. That's what I call a loss of face, :-)

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 17:44 GMT)

These pitches are truly incredible for this part of the world. SA and England must now be favourites, with Pak and WI just behind. India seem to have gone from firm favourites to dark horses, because they just don't have the seamers for these tracks, as well as not having a reliable 'death bolwer'.. The only team that remain where they started with regard to possibly winning this competition are Aus;who are still dark-horses. SL of course have home advantage, but similar problems to India without their batting power.Mind you, they have a certain guy called Ajantha. STILL completely open, but ALSO completely different solely because of these pitches.

Posted by SylhetiBangladeshiCricketExpert4u on (September 22, 2012, 17:39 GMT)

David Warners Blitz Made Australia win his 14 ball 28

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 17:39 GMT)

Bad Luck West Indies..... And Watson justified his mistake of dropping gayle by taking 2 wickets and match winning knock... Well Played both teams ...a great game

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 17:32 GMT)

Hosting the WC in SL seems like worst choice ever !... before there wasnt much spectator in the ground and now rain spoiling the all fun... they should have get more info about ranning season before hosting. sofar the worst tourney ever !

Posted by superstar100 on (September 22, 2012, 17:30 GMT)

now IRELAND have change to make it in super8 if they win agn WI !!!! any thing can happen oo dear thats y luv cricket !!!! if new zeland win agn PAK than Pak and Bangla Match will be more intresting that Asia cup final !!!!!

Posted by Kaze on (September 22, 2012, 17:29 GMT)

If WI bowl rubbish like this against Ireland they will be out the tournament :)

Posted by kc69 on (September 22, 2012, 17:20 GMT)

Windies have the most explosive batting but i still believe their bowling is not good enough.

Posted by seniorgators on (September 22, 2012, 17:19 GMT)

No other option than Aussies win forget it West Indies you don't have d power to test us LOL

Posted by seniorgators on (September 22, 2012, 17:17 GMT)

Oh dear, West Indies getting flayed all round the park. Shame.... Cannot believe bouncedout is commenting on international cricket.

Posted by R_U_4_REAL_NICK on (September 22, 2012, 17:15 GMT)

Looks like Aus. are going to get lucky and win by the weather. Yeah they got 100 already, but Gayle was about to come on and bowl and pick up 6 or 7 wickets. Plan didn't work WI... should've brought Gayle on earlier if you knew it was going to rain.

Posted by mark2011 on (September 22, 2012, 17:14 GMT)

Aus gonna win this, as per D/L rule they are ahead now. and even full quota ius played Aus gonna win the way WI is bowling and fielding not good as they batted...

Posted by australianfan on (September 22, 2012, 16:56 GMT)

Not even a gayle storm or this current storm could save WI

Posted by ScottStevo on (September 22, 2012, 16:55 GMT)

Australia are hammering the Windies now...The rain might just be their savour as they were getting drilled...of course, unless play can't continue and Australia take the win as they're way ahead of the par score and making this run chase look easy.

Posted by Cpt.Meanster on (September 22, 2012, 16:49 GMT)

Australia looking GOOD to WIN this one given the rain. The D/W Lewis requirement is 81/1 after 9 overs. Australia are WELL ahead of that rate. It would be a shame if the rain played spoilsport here. WI bowling looks pathetic for some odd reason. Hmm.. worrisome times for WI fans. Are they a team that favours slow and low pitches ????

Posted by Akshita29 on (September 22, 2012, 16:47 GMT)

Russel should get a go. Bowling of west indies looks very friendly .

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 16:45 GMT)

World Cup T20 playing in Sri-Lanka during the Monsoon Season ....not smart from the ICC.

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 16:29 GMT)

Its really amazing that a place like Sri Lanka does not offer anything for the spinners wherever you are even in this match at Colombo though there is very little but very little it is. Hope Australia win!

Posted by BRUTALANALYST on (September 22, 2012, 16:02 GMT)

No other option than W.I win forget it AUSSIES you don't have d power to test us LOL

Posted by banhire on (September 22, 2012, 15:58 GMT)

Gayle storm in sri lanka thats why i luv t20

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 15:56 GMT)

Thank You ESPN and Cricinfo.com for the live high quality streaming of the WT20. more series will be nice.

Posted by Master_Mihil on (September 22, 2012, 15:49 GMT)

Atleast keep our hopes up windies, Walkover over ausies is badly needed. We need atleast one other team except SA living upto the hype!

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 15:43 GMT)

So far so good West Indies. Now lets give a good show in the field. Good luck.

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 15:43 GMT)

windies for sure gonna win this match

Posted by bouncedout on (September 22, 2012, 15:16 GMT)

Oh dear, Aus getting flayed all round the park. Shame....

Cannot believe Christian is playing international cricket.

Posted by Mikecricket on (September 22, 2012, 14:11 GMT)

Go Watto and Starc lets win this

Posted by   on (September 22, 2012, 14:01 GMT)

waooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Brydon CoverdaleClose
Brydon Coverdale Assistant Editor Possibly the only person to win a headline-writing award for a title with the word "heifers" in it, Brydon decided agricultural journalism wasn't for him when he took up his position with ESPNcricinfo in Melbourne. His cricketing career peaked with an unbeaten 85 in the seconds for a small team in rural Victoria on a day when they could not scrounge up 11 players and Brydon, tragically, ran out of partners to help him reach his century. He is also a compulsive TV game-show contestant and has appeared on half a dozen shows in Australia.
Tournament Results
Sri Lanka v West Indies at Colombo (RPS) - Oct 7, 2012
West Indies won by 36 runs
Australia v West Indies at Colombo (RPS) - Oct 5, 2012
West Indies won by 74 runs
Sri Lanka v Pakistan at Colombo (RPS) - Oct 4, 2012
Sri Lanka won by 16 runs
India v South Africa at Colombo (RPS) - Oct 2, 2012
India won by 1 run
Australia v Pakistan at Colombo (RPS) - Oct 2, 2012
Pakistan won by 32 runs
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days