*Official* Australia in England T20s and ODIs

[vic_orthdox]

Why don't England give that other South African dude Trott a go. Strikes me as a strokeplayer who could go well at ODI level.

Thoughts anyone?

Quite a few English posters have expressed a similar view throughout the thread.

 

[Zinzan]

Quite a few English posters have expressed a similar view throughout the thread.

Indeed, with him & Pietersen coming back, they'd have a good 3 & 4 IMO

 

[marc71178]

Why don't England give that other South African dude Trott a go. Strikes me as a strokeplayer who could go well at ODI level.

Thoughts anyone?

Because quite clearly Shah's a better bet!

Seriously I'd have Davies in for Prior and Trott for Shah / Bopara.

When KP (and Fred) then come back for Shah / Bopara and Wright that's a decent side.

 

[Zinzan]

Because quite clearly Shah's a better bet!

Seriously I'd have Davies in for Prior and Trott for Shah / Bopara.

When KP (and Fred) then come back for Shah / Bopara and Wright that's a decent side.

Yep, KP & AF would make a massive difference to any side.

Whatever happened to Ed Joyce (think its Ed)? I thought he looked the goods in the short version of the game back in Oz a couple of years ago. Injury or loss of form ?

 

[Redbacks]

Oh well if we want to catch SA we have to beat their reserve team first

 

[BoyBrumby]

Why don't England give that other South African dude Trott a go. Strikes me as a strokeplayer who could go well at ODI level.

Thoughts anyone?

Only that the selectors are morons. Trott's the only English qualified batsman outside of Pietersen to have a List A average over 40, but obviously one duck against Ireland negates all those years he's spent cultivating that figure.

Yep, KP & AF would make a massive difference to any side.

Whatever happened to Ed Joyce (think its Ed)? I thought he looked the goods in the short version of the game back in Oz a couple of years ago. Injury or loss of form ?

Three List A tons & more domestic limited overs runs than anyone else this year. So obviously not in the team.

It's surely not brain-surgery to pick blokes in form rather than sticking with guys like Bopara who're patently in horrible nick and whose credentials haven't yet been established anyway. Colly's been in poor touch too, but his ODI record probably grants him a little latitude, but Ravi? Not so much. Averages under 30 with an S/R of about 70.

 

[marc71178]

Only that the selectors are morons. Trott's the only English qualified batsman outside of Pietersen to have a List A average over 40, but obviously one duck against Ireland negates all those years he's spent cultivating that figure.

TBF he was only in the squad for the Ireland game (covering for Strauss) - but what I don't get is why he then played if he was in theory only cover? To play him then remove him from the squad suggests some gap in logic.

 

[Matt79]

Got to say these were two of the worst ODIs I can remember seeing - if these are to be examples of the breed, then maybe extinction is a good thing. I'm not becoming a fan of T20 by any means, but finding it harder to argue the merits of ODIs as a format over them. A good ODI is better than a good T20, but there's a lower chance of getting a T20 match that's as painful to watch as a bad ODI.

 

[Uppercut]

What the?

Regardless of when you use it, batsmen can be dismissed during the PP.

The point is to use it when it is most likely to be maximised - that is, when your gun bats are at the crease or when you're on a roll. Instead, teams (like this morning) are predetermining when to use it (usually at the 45 over mark). And as a consequence, tailenders are being stuck with it, rather than it being timed to coincide with your best batsmen being at the crease.

It's a totally inflexible approach at present.

Personally I disagree. I think both sides have got the use of the powerplay almost right. At worst they're using it five overs or so too late.

Using it before the 35th over is a waste. Keep wickets in hand and attack in the last fifteen. If you've still got 8-10 wickets in hand at that stage, use it straight away and attack like mad for the last 15. Otherwise, use it at about 40 overs so the bowling side have to make a big decision on when to use their death bowlers.

Taking advantage of the early powerplays, taking the singles on offer in the middle and slogging like crazy at the end when wickets are worthless is a perfectly good way of building an ODI innings. No need to screw with the system by throwing in a little slog in the middle. If you **** up by losing wickets during the middle overs it's bad batting, not bad tactics.

 

[pup11]

I haven't read through the last few pages, but I don't think England did too many things wrong yesterday other then dropping Rashid.

To start with, I think we batted pretty woefully yesterday, and it seems Clarke's not the only bloke in the team who needs to look to up the tempo of their batting when they bat next time around, though with the ball we were fantastic, after the kind of start Engalnd got of to, it was a terrific comeback from us to win in the manner in which we eventually did.

A lot of people might say that England just screwed up to get bowled out for 210 after being 74-0, but I think it was some very good bowling, backed by some aggressive captaincy from Clarke that led to England losing the game yesterday.

Though despite being ahead by 2-0, we have hardly hit our straps in this series yet, and our batting performances so far have been shoddy to say the very least, but still Callum Ferguson has been a class above the rest, and as I said during the South African series, he really reminds me of the way Clarke used to bat prior to 2008, and hopefully he can maintain this form and cement his place in the side.

 

[pup11]

Personally I disagree. I think both sides have got the use of the powerplay almost right. At worst they're using it five overs or so too late.

Using it before the 35th over is a waste. Keep wickets in hand and attack in the last fifteen. If you've still got 8-10 wickets in hand at that stage, use it straight away and attack like mad for the last 15. Otherwise, use it at about 40 overs so the bowling side have to make a big decision on when to use their death bowlers.

Taking advantage of the early powerplays, taking the singles on offer in the middle and slogging like crazy at the end when wickets are worthless is a perfectly good way of building an ODI innings. No need to screw with the system by throwing in a little slog in the middle. If you **** up by losing wickets during the middle overs it's bad batting, not bad tactics.

Yup, couldn't agree more with this, I think people tend to forget that batting power-play is bit of a double edged sword and you need to have some wickets in the bag to make full use of it, and as a team you need to asses the situation before employing the batting PP, because if you get things wrong, you could just end up helping the bowling side.

So the last 15 overs are definitely the best possible time to take the batting PP, you have new harder ball to play with, due to which reverse swing is not much of factor and if you have wickets in hand you can make life pretty difficult for the opposition bowlers and captain.

I also don't buy into the theory that, "why take a batting PP in the last 10 overs of the innings, when you are anyhow going to be throwing the bat at anything and everything".

Its true that you have a license to hit out in the last 10 overs, but during that period won't having just 3 fielders instead of the usual 5 outside the ring prove to be more productive when you going hell for leather as a batting unit.

 

[Redbacks]

In domestic cricket teams have been able to take the powerplay around the 38-43 over mark and if they get it right the momentum allows them to score at 10 an over after anyway. The aim should be 100 in the last 10 overs if you manage your wickets well.

 

[Furball]

Taking the batting powerplay between overs 25-35 will often throw a huge spanner in the fielding side's bowling plans though.

While there's nothing wrong with waiting until the end to take it, I don't think batting sides are flexible enough in their approach to taking the powerplay.

 

[Redbacks]

breaking up middle overs where the spinners do their work could be worthwhile when playing a team with 2-3 good spinners.

Problem just recently for Australia was that Botha would come on for SA during our power plays and we couldn't hit him off the square.

 

[Uppercut]

Taking the batting powerplay between overs 25-35 will often throw a huge spanner in the fielding side's bowling plans though.

While there's nothing wrong with waiting until the end to take it, I don't think batting sides are flexible enough in their approach to taking the powerplay.

I don't think it'll screw them up at all. When it was the fielding captain's choice he always took it early, so about three years of bowling plans have been built around having a third powerplay early in the innings. They'll not exactly be baffled.

Unless you think the opposing captain hasn't left his strike/death bowlers enough overs. In those circumstances, it's maybe a good idea. But that wasn't the case in either of the ODIs played so far.

 

[Furball]

I don't think it'll screw them up at all. When it was the fielding captain's choice he always took it early, so about three years of bowling plans have been built around having a third powerplay early in the innings. They'll not exactly be baffled.

Unless you think the opposing captain hasn't left his strike/death bowlers enough overs. In those circumstances, it's maybe a good idea. But that wasn't the case in either of the ODIs played so far.

It's happened a couple of times with Australia recently against South Africa.

Watson in the side has definitely helped the balance of Australia's ODI side.

 

[Uppercut]

It's happened a couple of times with Australia recently against South Africa.

Watson in the side has definitely helped the balance of Australia's ODI side.

Yeah, that's true. Also Lee, who bowled no less than five of the last ten overs in the first ODI (three of which were in a batting powerplay), wasn't fit at the time so they were really struggling to get the big overs in anyway in that series. There are times when I think sides could have capitalised a bit better by taking an earlier powerplay, but usually it's by no more than five or six overs.

That's just indicative of ODI batting in general though, I'd say. It's too defensive. If you end your innings with less than eight wickets down you probably haven't started the death-slog early enough. It always makes me wonder when I see scores like Australia's 260/5 in the first ODI why they let all those lower-order hitters go to waste.

 

[LegionOfBrad]

Onions has been called up to the squad for the rest of the series and the CT squad.

As has been pointed out on Sky, its not exactly the bowling that has been the problem so far.

 

[Uppercut]

Haha, the English always do that. Batting is **** so they drop a bowler.

 

[grecian]

Onions has been called up to the squad for the rest of the series and the CT squad.

As has been pointed out on Sky, its not exactly the bowling that has been the problem so far.

Just amusing really. It's truly just getting farcical, we'll have these batsmen for the rest of this endless series, then get humiliated in the CT. Just glad I don't care that much about the 50-over stuff. Mind you it's the same selectors for the Tests, so shouldn't laugh too much