***Official*** Commonwealth Bank Tri-Series

[Fiery]

Considering you just stated that three former Australian captains and various other former test cricketers didn't know much about cricket, I highly doubt your experience playing D Grade in Auckland would count for much either.

Sarcasm not your strongest suit?

I play business house Division 1. Much worse than D grade. The highpoint of my playing career was a trial for Thames Valley Under 16s

 

[SquidAU]

That would be why they've won so many matches against us??? One of the most repeated fallacies in world cricket, IMO.

Well, in recent times they have played well. Especially last time they were in Oz for the VB series in 2001/02. Kicked the crap out of the Aussies then.

And most of those losses would have occurred because the Kiwis were simply crap early on in ODIs....

 

[Matt79]

Surely I'm not alone in seeing this irony.

I see its a ****house argument that's been going on for a couple of pages too many tbh...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

England's batting was fine. They set the platform well and then accelerated at the end of the innings to score what was a par chase for a decent attack to defend. They bowled pies and came up against a good batting lineup, but if they can improve their bowling, I think their batting has the structure and combination that it needs at this stage to develop into the makings of a good side.

England's batting wasn't a horrible wreck like their effort in the field, but I don't think it was "fine" either. The early wickets were to blame more than the guys who actually made runs, but IMO Collingwood should have made more of an effort to up the run rate in the middle overs. Stabilising the innings was important, but England left their push a little too late, and from being just above 120 at the 30 over mark they were never going to set a seriously threatening target on that surface. 242 would have been reasonably defendable with a top class bowling attack, but certainly England should have been aiming higher than that, and a lot of the work between the wickets and the urgency with the scoring through the 4th wicket stand left plenty to be desired.

Obviously though, England have a hell of a lot of problems with their ODI team, far more than their test team, and at this stage the batting is the less worrying part, particularly in this match.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well, in recent times they have played well. Especially last time they were in Oz for the VB series in 2001/02. Kicked the crap out of the Aussies then.

And most of those losses would have occurred because the Kiwis were simply crap early on in ODIs....

I think we've won 16 of the last 18 games...sorry

 

[Fiery]

Have you ever considered that he might be like Richard and read a lot of books?

That's just mean

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

He said something similar to what the commentators said, so I suggested he join them. Then he claimed they didn't know much about cricket, and yet thought that his experience playing and watching the game proved that he did. Surely I'm not alone in seeing this irony.

Right then. Another missed point, it would seem.

 

[Son Of Coco]

That's just mean

 

[Matt79]

Well, in recent times they have played well. Especially last time they were in Oz for the VB series in 2001/02. Kicked the crap out of the Aussies then.

And most of those losses would have occurred because the Kiwis were simply crap early on in ODIs....

I'd prefer people just say, NZ are a reasonable team and at times are capable of producing solid performances to upset their more fancied opposition. This whole, "Kiwis always play out of their skin against Australia" smacks of Bill Lawry trying to keep people interested enough to tune into the game ...

 

[Prince EWS]

Did you listen to the ABC commentary?

Clearly I didn't considering I had an extended whinge about the Nine commentary team. I can't listen to both at once, can I?

Did you listen to the ABC commentary? I heard some of it on the way home and they weren't exactly complimentary either. I think there'd only be a few people thinking England's attempt to set a decent total was 'satisfactory'. It's obviously easy to say in hindsight, because England lost. But at the halfway mark I think the general consensus on the ABC was that England would have to bowl exceptionally well as there wasn't a lot in the wicket and thus 240 wasn't enough. seeing Pietersen bat in tests, I don't think the platform was that necessary for him to start hitting sixes. More singles builds an innings around the attacking batsman. There didn't seem to be anything different in this match to any other during the summer - a couple of decent performances surrounded by an inevitability regarding the end result.

I disagree really. Clearly they were going to be under the pump with that score considering their bowling attack and Australia's batting lineup... but if they actually bowled to a satisfactory standard, I'm sure the game would have been a very close one. All other things equal, 240 was about a par score to chase on that pitch as far as I'm concerned. Chasing over 250 on any pitch is not easy.. I thought the batting as a whole was good, regardless of what the Nine commentary team or the ABC commentary team for that matter said about it.

 

[PY]

There's some slaps being thrown in here, settling down with my cocoa and slippers to see who'll win the unwinnable argument about who knows more about cricket.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Clearly I didn't considering I had an extended whinge about the Nine commentary team. I can't listen to both at once, can I?



I disagree really. Clearly they were going to be under the pump with that score considering their bowling attack and Australia's batting lineup... but if they actually bowled to a satisfactory standard, I'm sure the game would have been a very close one. All other things equal, 240 was about a par score to chase on that pitch as far as I'm concerned. Chasing over 250 on any pitch is not easy.. I thought the batting as a whole was good, regardless of what the Nine commentary team or the ABC commentary team for that matter said about it.

It depends, if you've got a radio in the same room you can. I managed to listen to JJJ and Channel 9 for the 20/20, and I don't consider myself some sort of genius.

I think that's what this is all about really, so it's pointless talking about it.

 

[SquidAU]

I'd prefer people just say, NZ are a reasonable team and at times are capable of producing solid performances to upset their more fancied opposition. This whole, "Kiwis always play out of their skin against Australia" smacks of Bill Lawry trying to keep people interested enough to tune into the game ...

So, the long way of saying "The Kiwis play well against Australia?"

 

[Nate]

Don`t agree that England batted well enough at all really. Collingwood was extremely one-paced, and the top-order was miserable. Especially when their bowling is so, so weak, they needed around 280+ IMO.

Bracken was great, and McGrath perhaps a bit too short with the new-ball, but good thereafter. Jonners gunned it and got some steepling bounce. Clark came back okay, but white worried me. He bowled some top balls, but some awful rank ones. Surprised Symonds didn`t get a bowl.

Pietersen out means England losing every match in this series for mine. I seriously think that`s how much England need him in their ODI team.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Except they don't. If anything, the Kiwis play well against everyone except Australia. It's been what, two ODI wins since the last world cup?

Mind you, they could beat Australia at some point in this series, as they are a good side. As a comment on past results though, it's simply wrong.

 

[Fiery]

Clearly I didn't considering I had an extended whinge about the Nine commentary team. I can't listen to both at once, can I?



I disagree really. Clearly they were going to be under the pump with that score considering their bowling attack and Australia's batting lineup... but if they actually bowled to a satisfactory standard, I'm sure the game would have been a very close one. All other things equal, 240 was about a par score to chase on that pitch as far as I'm concerned. Chasing over 250 on any pitch is not easy.. I thought the batting as a whole was good, regardless of what the Nine commentary team or the ABC commentary team for that matter said about it.

Not enough runs = bad batting.

 

[Matt79]

So, the long way of saying "The Kiwis play well against Australia?"

Not really - they play well against a variety of opposition without consistently having the better of anyone outside the minnows. They've at various times troubled India and Pakistan, England and Australia.

The results don't indicate that NZ are any better against Australia than they are against anyone else. Its a bit hard to tell, because they could play at a level that is, in absolute terms, much better than normal against Australia and still look worse than when they play weaker opponents, but I just don't think its an accurate comment.

They're a team that rarely gets humiliated, even when they lose, they're busy and make something of a game of it. If doing that, while never actually threatening to win a game is "playing well", then I guess they do play well against Australia, amongst many others.

 

[Prince EWS]

Don`t agree that England batted well enough at all really. Collingwood was extremely one-paced, and the top-order was miserable. Especially when their bowling is so, so weak, they needed around 280+ IMO.

See, I think that's where it becomes a bit rough to then whinge about the batting. Did they bat well enough to win the game given the context of the rest of their side? No. But given all other things equal, the batsmen did do their job. If England had Australia's attack, for example, a 240 chase for the Australians would have been very hard work.

England didn't score enough runs to seriously threaten winning the game, but putting it like that really blames the batting side for the poor bowling lineup that England have.

Collingwood was extremely one-paced

As I said, not every batsman's role is to blaze away and score at a run per ball. Collingwood helped England build a platform from which Pietersen and Flintoff then launched from. It was a well-paced batting innings as a whole from the English IMO.

 

[PY]

Not enough runs = bad batting.

Have you been watching England in ODIs recently? That's pretty good for us.

I'm relatively happy with the batting with KP there (not so without obviously) but the bowling is where we've been let down all winter with the odd hiccup with the bat.

One thing is for certain, I think Dalrymple should be kept in to give the length of batting line-up. Like Hogg perhaps in the future.

 

[Matt79]

Chasing over 250 on any pitch is not easy.. I thought the batting as a whole was good, regardless of what the Nine commentary team or the ABC commentary team for that matter said about it.

Don't actually think that's the case as much as it was even three or four years ago. Teams much more regularly exceed scores of 300 these days, and I'd think it would have to be a significantly tougher track than we saw tonight for 250 to seem a decent score.

I think players have evolved their tactics (probably developed confidence to go harder from 20/20 in some cases), and the extra 5 overs of restricted fields have moved the goal posts in terms of whats a defendable score.

I thought aside from Pietersen, England's batting was mediocre - Vaughan and Flintoff were ok, but certainly not brilliant and the rest were woeful. Collingwood doesn't rotate strike well enough, based on what I've seen this summer, and took too long to get going, only to give away his wicket in the manner he did.