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

[Prince EWS]

Not enough runs = bad batting.

They only didn't have enough runs because of their bowling attack though. This = bad bowling.

 

[Fiery]

They only didn't have enough runs because of their bowling attack though. This = bad bowling.

OK, you win, I'm tired....so very, very tired

 

[Matt79]

Boys boys boys. Both the batting and bowling sucked, ok? Peace out!

 

[Fiery]

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.

Agreed that it wasn't a bad total for England but it could have been more had Bell and Collingwood rotated the strike more and Pietersen batted to the end. Not enough on a flat, hard pitch like that

 

[Prince EWS]

Boys boys boys. Both the batting and bowling sucked, ok? Peace out!

Lies! All lies!

 

[Nate]

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.



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.

1) You`re being fussy, but IMO, England didn`t bat well enough in consideration to their weak bowling AND they didn`t bat well enough full stop.

2) Collingwood still batted too slowly for mine. Give it uuuuup.

 

[_Ed_]

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

4 of the last 6 games between the two have gone down to the last over.

And one of the other two I went to with my 6.6% win percentage of games I attend, so that can be excluded.

 

[Prince EWS]

2) Collingwood still batted too slowly for mine. Give it uuuuup.

Never!

You didn't give up on Nathan Bracken when he got dropped from the one day side, and I'm not going to give up on this argument.

Seriously, people whinging about batsmen scoring slowly when they clearly had a role to play for the good of the team as a whole - and achieve it - is my pet hate. So sometimes I lay into people about it even when the criticisms are apt. I'm still adament that 242 was a good total though.. nothing great, and not good enough given the English attack, but with all other things equal, I think England batted well.

 

[_Ed_]

4 of the last 6 games between the two have gone down to the last over.

And one of the other two I went to with my 6.6% win percentage of games I attend, so that can be excluded.

Oops, I forgot the dire 5-match home series here a couple of years ago.

5 out of the last 11 then.

Not so good...but we had Jeff Wilson, Lance Hamilton and Tama Canning!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Seriously, people whinging about batsmen scoring slowly when they clearly had a role to play for the good of the team as a whole - and achieve it - is my pet hate. So sometimes I lay into people about it even when the criticisms are apt. I'm still adament that 242 was a good total though.. nothing great, and not good enough given the English attack, but with all other things equal, I think England batted well.

It's something that annoys me as well, and sometimes the criticisms are totally unwarranted. Some of the attacks on Katich last year were annoying for precisely that reason. But seriously, ODIs are a format where scoring quickly is important, and there comes a point in the innings where attempting to score quickly and possibly getting out is a better option than continuing along at a sedate pace, and England missed that point today IMO. There were other contributing factors to the low score, like Pietersen's injury and subsequent dismissal, but Collingwood's not free of blame.

 

[Johnners]

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.

No it's not every batsman's role to blaze away, but it's no batsman's role to score at a Strike-rate of 60 and not turn the strike over regularly either. Also, whilst he may have laid a platform etc. etc. blah blah. he could've done a whole lot more by not playing as stupid a shot as he did to get out, when he was quite clearly struggling to score. Instead, he should've been looking to turn the strike over more

 

[Fiery]

Any good international side would have expected to score 280-300 on that pitch against most quality bowling attacks. The aim of the game is to score more runs than the opposition. The fact that they didn't, means they batted badly and were left having to bowl very well...which they didn't.

 

[Prince EWS]

No it's not every batsman's role to blaze away, but it's no batsman's role to score at a Strike-rate of 60 and not turn the strike over regularly either. Also, whilst he may have laid a platform etc. etc. blah blah. he could've done a whole lot more by not playing as stupid a shot as he did to get out, when he was quite clearly struggling to score. Instead, he should've been looking to turn the strike over more

It was time to go when he played that shot. The platform had been set and it was really time to hit or get out. The fact that the result of him doing such is his wicket is a perfect advertisment for why didn't push hard earlier.

And scoring at a SR of 60, given the situation and batting tactics for the innings, can be quite acceptable. Obviously it isn't ideal in every situation, but given the start England had and the opportunity to give the likes of Flintoff free licence to play shots when they clearly more effected and suited, I thought it was the right thing to do.

 

[McKanga]

.....Didn't the Australians learn their listen with ....

I can't believe you even write with a NZ accent.

 

[Prince EWS]

Any good international side would have expected to score 280-300 on that pitch against most quality bowling attacks.

That's complete trash IMO. The pitch was good for batting but it had a bit of bounce and pace for the quicks and there was some turn for Panesar and Dalrymple in the second innings. Considering Dalrymple managed 1/38 off 10 overs against an aggressive Australian batting lineup, to say 280-300 would be par in the first innings is way off the mark.

 

[Matt79]

4 of the last 6 games between the two have gone down to the last over.

And one of the other two I went to with my 6.6% win percentage of games I attend, so that can be excluded.

I'm not knocking NZ - I'm saying the fallacy that they can only get themselves up to play "big brother" is inaccurate, and when you think about it, a bit insulting to the Black Caps professionalism...

 

[Prince EWS]

aim of the game is to score more runs than the opposition. The fact that they didn't, means they batted badly

Wouldn't that logic mean that every time a team has lost an ODI, they batted badly?

 

[Fiery]

It was time to go when he played that shot. The platform had been set and it was really time to hit or get out. The fact that the result of him doing such is his wicket is a perfect advertisment for why didn't push hard earlier.

And scoring at a SR of 60, given the situation and batting tactics for the innings, can be quite acceptable. Obviously it isn't ideal in every situation, but given the start England had and the opportunity to give the likes of Flintoff free licence to play shots when they clearly more effected and suited, I thought it was the right thing to do.

He wasted Flintoff's talent by taking up too many balls, leaving him with too few to face. Flintoff ended up not having enough balls or time to make a big score and influence the game. He should have flicked the switch earlier

 

[Fiery]

That's complete trash IMO. The pitch was good for batting but it had a bit of bounce and pace for the quicks and there was some turn for Panesar and Dalrymple in the second innings. Considering Dalrymple managed 1/38 off 10 overs against an aggressive Australian batting lineup, to say 280-300 would be par in the first innings is way off the mark.

You're wrong and obviously settle for mediocrity

 

[Great Birtannia]

Clark out, Hilfenhaus in for Hobart? I hope so.