*Official* England in Australia (2 T20 & 7 ODIs)

[Ikki]

No, my argument is based on not caring how quickly they score (within reason obv) as long as the target is still manageable.

Would be great if Clarke could strike at 100 whilst doing that, but for me it's not important if he doesn't as long as he keeps his wicket.

Anyways, I'm done. Agree to disagree.

My point is that what is manageable can change in a matter of few overs. If we'd lost Watson right after Clarke and lost a couple a wicket or two later in the next 10 overs...Clarke's essentially ****ed us.

He can do what you're saying (shore up the batting line-up) but scoring in the 60s-low70s is just not necessary. You can solidify the line-up without batting that slowly. More to the point; he didn't need to do that at all today.

Clarke to be dropped for Hodge.

 

[_Ed_]

Oh, and it's difficult to claim that ODIs are/should be dead when matches like this are on offer.

Yep. Long live ODIs. Love 'em.

 

[Prince EWS]

Gutted I missed the whole match tbh.

 

[robinjr]

Why not open with Clarke and bat Haddin at #7?Clarke will play lot of dots but with the field's up he'll get a boundry whenever he find a gap and could end up with a 60 ball 50 which is a good result.If he bats at 4 and play in to the last ten we are properly screwed..

Played watson anyways..Only if this was a world cup qf/sf!

 

[MW1304]

Apart from Bresnan, the rest have hardly done anything of note in LO games to be really considered as handy lower order batsmen.

Yardy has a 50 batting from 7/8 already (and is a frontline opening batsman at county level), we've all seen Swann hit a quick 50 before and Shahzad has a handy county record.

But all that is beside the point, they didn't do it today and they shouldn't have had to do it anyway.

 

[Ausage]

Clarke to be dropped for Hodge.

Now that's just funny.

 

[Blaze 18]

Why not open with Clarke and bat Haddin at #7?Clarke will play lot of dots but with the field's up he'll get a boundry whenever he find a gap and could end up with a 60 ball 50 which is a good result.If he bats at 4 and play in to the last ten we are properly screwed..

Played watson anyways..Only if this was a world cup qf/sf!

That is certainly an idea, one worth trying. Michael Clarke would be the perfect foil for Shane Watson at the top, and Brad Haddin could be used as a floater.

As for Clarke's innings today, I don't think it was that bad. He was a tad slow, yes, but it didn't cost Australia. I feel people are being fairly harsh on him here, poor guy was so obviously trying his level best (really unfortunate that he got booed by the crowd).

 

[andyc]

That is certainly an idea, one worth trying. Michael Clarke would be the perfect foil for Shane Watson at the top, and Brad Haddin could be used as a floater.

As for Clarke's innings today, I don't think it was that bad. He was a tad slow, yes, but it didn't cost Australia. I feel people are being fairly harsh on him here, poor guy was so obviously trying his level best (really unfortunate that he got booed by the crowd).

I'd be trying my best out there if I got picked for Australia too, but it doesn't mean much.

 

[Spikey]

I don't see much point in moving Haddin down to 6-7 tbh. he does average like 40 odd opening since he took over from Gilchrist. Don't mess with it imo.

 

[Blaze 18]

I'd be trying my best out there if I got picked for Australia too, but it doesn't mean much.

Point taken, but we all know what he is capable of. Every player goes through a lean run, Michael Clarke is no different.

 

[Johnners]

Very much agree with m00phy. Clarke's done his job, we've won the match, and comfortably at that, so it's really not that much of an issue. It amuses me that despite all the criticism he's received, about how he could have potentially cost us games etc. and yet Australia has still maintained it's no.1 ODI ranking. The team wins more often than not, so it's obviously not affecting the team as much as some would like to make out.

 

[social]

This game had the feel of the WACA test all over it - Oz winning comfortably on the back of a brilliant individual performance which may mask glaring problems with the team

Johnston was woeful and Haddin was worse

Dougeh has regressed to being the **** kicker he was 4 years ago

Doherty is not international standard

Dussey is undoubtedly a lovely bloke but not in Hodge's class with bat, in the field and probably not much better with the ball

Clarke is a very fine TEST player but he's not needed as a batsman or captain

 

[smash84]

This game had the feel of the WACA test all over it - Oz winning comfortably on the back of a brilliant individual performance which may mask glaring problems with the team

Johnston was woeful and Haddin was worse

Dougeh has regressed to being the **** kicker he was 4 years ago

Doherty is not international standard

Dussey is undoubtedly a lovely bloke but not in Hodge's class with bat, in the field and probably not much better with the ball

Clarke is a very fine TEST player but he's not needed as a batsman or captain

very harsh I should say.

 

[Ikki]

Very much agree with m00phy. Clarke's done his job, we've won the match, and comfortably at that, so it's really not that much of an issue. It amuses me that despite all the criticism he's received, about how he could have potentially cost us games etc. and yet Australia has still maintained it's no.1 ODI ranking. The team wins more often than not, so it's obviously not affecting the team as much as some would like to make out.

Come on...the team might be able to carry Clarke but it doesn't mean he deserves his spot.

 

[Bun]

This game had the feel of the WACA test all over it - Oz winning comfortably on the back of a brilliant individual performance which may mask glaring problems with the team

Johnston was woeful and Haddin was worse

Dougeh has regressed to being the **** kicker he was 4 years ago

Doherty is not international standard

Dussey is undoubtedly a lovely bloke but not in Hodge's class with bat, in the field and probably not much better with the ball

Clarke is a very fine TEST player but he's not needed as a batsman or captain

Yeah I agree.

I can't understand why Australian board cannot understand a simple philosophy. "Select your best XI to play, and make one of them the captain". They carried Clarke in the T20 team for an embarassingly long time. They are now repeating with Ponting in the test team, and Clarke is largely a liability in ODIs too.

Just because the team finally won, it is no justification for turning a blind eye towards some insipid performances.

 

[social]

very harsh I should say.

It's fair

Johnson CANNOT hit the side of the pitch he is bowling at atm - for his sake (let alone Australia's), he needs to be dropped now

Haddin was the sole reason England made 200 and then played an absolutely disgraceful shot to get out

Bollinger - horrible, inaccurate, medium-fast (with an emphasis on the "medium) paced tosh

Dussey - Victoria's best cricketer is Hodge then {lightyears} then .... It's becoming so friggin' obvious that even Ian Healy is saying it

However, I cant really make my mind up about Clarke

Quality player but where do you bat him when he cant accelerate the scoring?

If forced to make a choice - punt him, pick Hodge, make White captain and let Clarke concentrate on tests

Never happen but here's hoping

 

[Furball]

Can't for the life of me understand the "we won, so let's just ignore the one glaring weakness in the batting lineup" mentality.

 

[Teja.]

Can't for the life of me understand the "we won, so let's just ignore the one glaring weakness in the batting lineup" mentality.

Yeah, It's the most annoying selection trend across the world. The reason why Ishant Sharma is playing test cricket atm.

 

[Teja.]

I've always felt Johnson was a terrible, terrible LO bowler who should only play tests. Dunno why they keep picking him.

 

[robelinda]

Think I love this 'social' bloke. Agree 100% mate.