-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
**Official** Group A Discussion
- Thread starter Cabinet96
- Start date
England are basically playing their test bowling attack, and it's a pretty good one. It is good enough to bowl decent batting sides out (in tests) for sub 300 scores even on pretty flat wickets. So the challenge in ODIs is to think a bit more about bowling as a test match unit, trying to bowl the opposition out, than always focussing on the ODI approach of restricting the opposition scoring rate.
There was a period around the turn of the millenium when Australia's bowling attack was basically untouchable. There was a period of 2-3 years when an opposition (test) side rarely posted more than 250. Unsurprisingly they were unbeatable in ODIs as well. All they ever had to do was get some sort of score on the board and they were competitive. Even when the batting faltered the bowlers dug them out.
There was a period around the turn of the millenium when Australia's bowling attack was basically untouchable. There was a period of 2-3 years when an opposition (test) side rarely posted more than 250. Unsurprisingly they were unbeatable in ODIs as well. All they ever had to do was get some sort of score on the board and they were competitive. Even when the batting faltered the bowlers dug them out.
Jarquis
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Reckon 210/2 is a better one tbf which is kinda the point
uvelocity
International Coach
fix'd
very good point smiley.
like everyone else i'm off people slating the poms for their tactics. it's an obvious choice that they are going to play like that. not recognising it makes you look stupid. banging on about it constantly is frustrating to read. the tactic works for them, and remember up until the last couple of years the poms were routinely diabolical in ODI cricket, so it won't change. they've beaten every other team recently using this method, so it's what they are going to do. and just believing that the run rate can be increased over the first half without incurring more risk and consequently the chance of losing more wickets earlier is patently stupid.
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
I'm surprised you still have your avatar. Not even the A team could bang up Scotland proper in their 2nd dig.
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
I know what you mean. If they can just get through our weak top order it'll expose our weak middle order.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
The one thing I will say about England's batting is that I still think there's too many dot balls and they could score a few more boundaries.
But I'll repeat, if before the game you said that you wanted to score at least 300, then being 180/2 at the end of 36 is almost ideal in terms of getting 300 minimum. Yes, Bell and Trott could and should have pushed on to bigger scores but in terms of why England scored only 269, I'm looking primarily at the guys at 4,5 and 7 who scored **** all. And saying "oh, the top order put pressure on them by scoring slowly" is absolute bull**** as well, the guys in the middle order were put in a position where it was almost impossible to **** up and they nearly managed.
People also need to realise that there's 50 overs worth of cricket in an ODI innings and that if batsman aren't coming out and blasting it from ball one, that's ok. Particularly with 2 new balls and fielding restrictions.
But I'll repeat, if before the game you said that you wanted to score at least 300, then being 180/2 at the end of 36 is almost ideal in terms of getting 300 minimum. Yes, Bell and Trott could and should have pushed on to bigger scores but in terms of why England scored only 269, I'm looking primarily at the guys at 4,5 and 7 who scored **** all. And saying "oh, the top order put pressure on them by scoring slowly" is absolute bull**** as well, the guys in the middle order were put in a position where it was almost impossible to **** up and they nearly managed.
People also need to realise that there's 50 overs worth of cricket in an ODI innings and that if batsman aren't coming out and blasting it from ball one, that's ok. Particularly with 2 new balls and fielding restrictions.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
210 is better but Australia didn't serve up the pies that South Africa did. India didn't score quicker initially because they batted more positively, they scored quicker because South Africa's bowling was gash.
180/2 isn't a bad ****ing position to be in by any stretch of the imagination.
Jarquis
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I don't think people were saying that they need to come out and blast from ball one or manufacture shots and boundaries with high-risk shots. It's just the fact that Australia got away with bowling some genuine gash and we didn't take the runs that were there to be had.
Edit : Freaakkkyy
Edit : Freaakkkyy
Last edited:
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
Yes; yes he should. It'd be nice to see one Englishman get beaten.
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
You know they aren't really. Some have potential most could just be over rated when compared to our batsmen. Thought a 5 nil loss in Eng was always on. Now that's almost a given unless there's rain. Seeing a whitewash repeat in Oz too. We just can't bat. Simple as that. Even if our bowlers turn out to be good.
grecian
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yep this annoys me more than anything else, everyone know I love Jos, and I think Eoin is great, but they both ****ed up it was set up for them, no pressure at all, pressure would have been 80-4, or 100-5. It was set up perfectly and it didn't happen for them, but they're both great and hopefully we'll get it in the rest of the tournament.
Cabinet96
Hall of Fame Member
The Buttler dismissal in particular makes a mockery of the whole "too much pressure on them" argument. He was trying to push it into the off side for a single. If he was trying to smash it out the park second ball then maybe they'll have a point, but to some how imply that Trott and Bell helped cause his dismissal is bizzare.
Also, the commentators made lots of comments about how they can't always be relying on Morgan and Buttler to get big runs at the end. Well I'd be tempted to look at it this way; if you can't rely on them to always get you runs, it's even more important to lay a solid foundation and not lose early wickets.
Also, the commentators made lots of comments about how they can't always be relying on Morgan and Buttler to get big runs at the end. Well I'd be tempted to look at it this way; if you can't rely on them to always get you runs, it's even more important to lay a solid foundation and not lose early wickets.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
this.
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
At the end of the day you've just got to find a tactic that works best with what you're given. England have incredibly boring LO players at the top of the order (except KP, but he hasn't played an ODI in ages), so this method works best for them. India has such terrible bowling and they know it it all comes down to damage control, which is why the entire batting order has to be aggressive. That's what works for them. If these two teams swapped tactics they'd be winning a lot less.
Of course this isn't true for every match, but it's a pattern that you see with the two sides more often than not.
*Haven't read the thread or watched the match, just going along with what's being said in this last page
Of course this isn't true for every match, but it's a pattern that you see with the two sides more often than not.
*Haven't read the thread or watched the match, just going along with what's being said in this last page
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
Don't make me go into my saved images folder ah screw it.
I wouldn't get rid of Boon so easily.
Flem274*
123/5
Preview for NZ/SL up tonight. I suggest calm and composed kiwis don't read it unless you want to punch Mr Purohit (did he change his last name for the IPL?) in the face.
Ferrer v Murray, in cricket | Cricket News | ICC Champions Trophy | ESPN Cricinfo
That article should be nailed to the dressing room wall.
Ferrer v Murray, in cricket | Cricket News | ICC Champions Trophy | ESPN Cricinfo
That article should be nailed to the dressing room wall.
Last edited:
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, I couldn't read on after the 2nd sentance. Truly awful writing. Anger-inducingly lazy and terrible.