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

[kapurprem]

All Aussie fans should be happy..atleast there is some competetive..the last summer was so one sided

and one thing i absolutely dont get is why Warner and Hodge arent in the one day side..that Hodge guy must've committed some serios sins in his past life

 

[stephen]

All Aussie fans should be happy..atleast there is some competetive..the last summer was so one sided

and one thing i absolutely dont get is why Warner and Hodge arent in the one day side..that Hodge guy must've committed some serios sins in his past life

We tried Warner a couple of seasons ago and he just couldn't build the scores that he was posting in the T20. He might be better now though.

Hodge obviously slept with Hilditch's wife. Many times. And his daughter too.

 

[Prince EWS]

We tried Warner a couple of seasons ago and he just couldn't build the scores that he was posting in the T20. He might be better now though.

Hodge obviously slept with Hilditch's wife. Many times. And his daughter too.

Warner was better a couple of years ago than he is now. He was on a massive hot streak performing in both forms of limited overs cricket for NSW. The last two seasons - not so much.

 

[howardj]

Watto

WAG

 

[Spark]

You already have wickets in hand in the middle-overs unless there is a giant collapse. What makes you think the tail is going to be better at taking advantage of that buffer than the middle-order batsmen themselves?

I think your argument is basing too much on batting slowly = keeping your wicket. Many of our players can score the same amount of runs as Clarke and do it faster - meaning the risk you are talking about isn't real.

Furthermore, if you take a look at the last few years where Clarke has batted slowly it has in turn made him score less runs. Meaning he does neither thing well - score runs or do it at an acceptable rate. If he had scored a ****load of runs at a slower SR that'd be something.

Except last year, you mean, where he both A. many runs and B. scored them at an OK rate because he was there at the end a few times.

If it's a choice between a 60 ball 40 leaving the team in a strong position and a 25 ball 25 (ie Bell's innings) trying to push the tempo when not needed I'll take the former, thanks.

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.

7 RPO in the last 12 overs ffs. If we can't chase that down easily then we have bigger problems than Clarke. If it was 8-9+RPO then yeah, maybe, but it wasn't.

 

[Burgey]

You mean Ponting and all the other batsmen. Andrew Symonds, Callum Ferguson, Mike Hussey, Cameron White.

It's not surprising that they want to stick with the tactics that saw them win three consecutive World Cups but the game's changed, there's no room for a player like Clarke, especially in India where even if he scores an unbeaten century and Cameron White goes bat**** crazy at the other end Kohli and Raina will merrily knock the runs off without too much bother.

Was more referring to the number three spot, and keeping momentum going after a fast start.

Re. what other teams will do, experience suggests otherwise tbh. Was it last year or 09 that Australia played a one day series against India with a lot of established guys out and did ok?

These series all come around so fast they tend to blur into one!

 

[Spark]

09. Had Ponting, Hussey, Watson, Johnson, Hauritz, White and basically an A side for the rest because everyone kept getting injured.

 

[Burgey]

09. Had Ponting, Hussey, Watson, Johnson, Hauritz, White and basically an A side for the rest because everyone kept getting injured.

Cheers. Well, the injury theme keeps recurring, that's for certain.

 

[Burgey]

If, when watching an international cricket match, you like seeing Yardy bowl legside darts with that awful round arm action, than fair play.

I however do not.

It's not just Yardy though, and tbf he's effective in the role he's given with the ball.

For me it''s just watching a lot of these blokes like him, Dave Hussey etc., who you look at an know they'd be really ineffective in longer form cricket. I mean, I know it's a different format and they're good at that job, it's the fact that the job exists which kind of irks me, and I don't know why.

 

[Spark]

We had a stupid amount of injuries for that series though. Clarke, Bracken, Haddin, Paine, Siddle, Lee, Tait, Johnson for a few...

 

[TumTum]

We had a stupid amount of injuries for that series though. Clarke, Bracken, Haddin, Paine, Siddle, Lee, Tait, Johnson for a few...

and Ferguson.

 

[Spark]

Ah yeah thought I'd missed at least one.

 

[Ikki]

Except last year, you mean, where he both A. many runs and B. scored them at an OK rate because he was there at the end a few times.

If it's a choice between a 60 ball 40 leaving the team in a strong position and a 25 ball 25 (ie Bell's innings) trying to push the tempo when not needed I'll take the former, thanks.

Look at his record in the last few years...I think that says enough.

With the batting line-up we have Australia are not going to run out of wickets very often. Having him score a 25 off 25 and having the tail add another 15 giving us more balls left over is far more desirable.

More to the point...who says someone like Hodge can't come in and score a similar amount of runs as Clarke and at a faster rate? Again, the fallacy is thinking Clarke is scoring runs others can't and at a rate that is necessary. Neither are true.

7 RPO in the last 12 overs ffs. If we can't chase that down easily then we have bigger problems than Clarke. If it was 8-9+RPO then yeah, maybe, but it wasn't.

It was 7 RPO because of Watson. Clarke made it more difficult. He didn't do his job.

 

[Tom 1972]

Observations from the 'G last night.

Lovely day served up by Melbourne - 28 degrees celcius, 35000 was a disappointing crowd but there was a reasonable amount of noise.
$6.50 for a cup of mid-strength beer is highway robbery, $9.50 for a cup of midstrength bourbon and coke is worse.
Most of the bars were shut or understaffed and you can only buy 2 drinks at a time.
Aussies 14 wides was absolutely sub-standard (England bowled 3 by comparison).
Compared with our other "quicks", Brett Lee bowled fast and aggressively topping 150 several times. He should be first picked bowler for the World Cup.
Clarke was painful to watch with the bat - refused to hit in the air (is this a pro or con?) , however the booing from the Aussie supporters was a disgrace. I didn't cheer but breathed a sigh of relief when he got out.
I thought Shahzat was the pick of the English bowlers (notwithstanding a couple of big sixes from Watson) - plenty of promise there.
Haddin's 'keeping is a liability, Smith's role in the side is confused - he's a VERY poor man's Andrew Symonds and has shown no glimpse of matchwinning abilities.
Strauss hit the ball as sweetly as I've seen. Some lovely cricket shots. Davies was uglier (IMHO) and quite lucky really but quite effective in the end.
KP treated our spinners with utter distain, was unlucky to get runout the way he did - he looked a sure thing for a ton - watch out in the remaining games. He was fun in the field - at long off he interacted with the crowd and signed his share of autographs.

Watson - a blend of lovely cricket shots, powerful slogs and a bit of luck. If I was to criticise him, his running between wickets is just OK. But a seriously great innings.

When England were approx 3/170 off 30 I thought they were going to score 320-330 and said to a mate that Watson will need to score 140 of 'em for us to get close. I think that Pietersen getting out at the start of the powerplay was the key reason we kept Poms under 300.

All in all, a very good day out.

 

[Spark]

Look at his record in the last few years...I think that says enough.

year 2010
19 19 5 777 111* 55.50 979 79.36 1 5 1 45 4


I know he was dreadful in 08/09 though. Those numbers however are comparable to his numbers in 06/07.

With the batting line-up we have Australia are not going to run out of wickets very often. Having him score a 25 off 25 and having the tail add another 15 giving us more balls left over is far more desirable.

England's lineup is almost equally as strong yet they flopped horribly in the last 20 overs of their innings... because they played silly shots trying to go for boundaries that simply weren't there. After 30 overs they were, what, 3/175? With Bell and Pietersen both looking comfortable? They should've gotten at least 320-330, but didn't get close.

More to the point...who says someone like Hodge can't come in and score a similar amount of runs as Clarke and at a faster rate? Again, the fallacy is thinking Clarke is scoring runs others can't and at a rate that is necessary. Neither are true.

Fair enough but Hodge ain't gonna get picked, is he?

It was 7 RPO because of Watson. Clarke made it more difficult. He didn't do his job.

So what are you saying, Clarke should've tried to hit more boundaries? DWTA totally in that case. His job was to get off strike, simple as that. He did that... adequately in the last half of his innings. It was still a very mediocre innings but it's not like he lost us the match, not even close. That's the kind of tone people are striking here though.

 

[Top_Cat]

So what are you saying, Clarke should've tried to hit more boundaries? DWTA totally in that case. His job was to get off strike, simple as that. He did that... adequately in the last half of his innings. It was still a very mediocre innings but it's not like he lost us the match, not even close. That's the kind of tone people are striking here though.

Neither was it 'perfectly timed' like others have said. Certainly not the first half of it anyway. If only there was a term to metaphorically describe the territory between two extreme opinions on a subject.

 

[Uppercut]

year 2010
19 19 5 777 111* 55.50 979 79.36 1 5 1 45 4

Funnily, that 111* was a dreadful innings. Really sticks out as one of the worst Clarke facepalm ODI moments.

Played a really good one in a dead rubber against England though.

 

[Burgey]

year 2010
19 19 5 777 111* 55.50 979 79.36 1 5 1 45 4


I know he was dreadful in 08/09 though. Those numbers however are comparable to his numbers in 06/07.

England's lineup is almost equally as strong yet they flopped horribly in the last 20 overs of their innings... because they played silly shots trying to go for boundaries that simply weren't there. After 30 overs they were, what, 3/175? With Bell and Pietersen both looking comfortable? They should've gotten at least 320-330, but didn't get close.

Fair enough but Hodge ain't gonna get picked, is he?

So what are you saying, Clarke should've tried to hit more boundaries? DWTA totally in that case. His job was to get off strike, simple as that. He did that... adequately in the last half of his innings. It was still a very mediocre innings but it's not like he lost us the match, not even close. That's the kind of tone people are striking here though.

FMD that 777 must have been a good knock

 

[Spark]

Neither was it 'perfectly timed' like others have said. Certainly not the first half of it anyway. If only there was a term to metaphorically describe the territory between two extreme opinions on a subject.

Yeah the first half was dreadful, no two ways about it. Just couldn't make head or tail of Shazhad.

The second half though was... OK.

Funnily, that 111* was a dreadful innings. Really sticks out as one of the worst Clarke facepalm ODI moments.

Played a really good one in a dead rubber against England though.

Did accelerate towards the end tbf. The 99* was a very good knock, yes.

 

[Ausage]

FMD that 777 must have been a good knock

I dunno, the 79.36 and 55.50 are the standout innings for me.