Australia's ODI overhaul in the leadup to the 2019 WC

[TheJediBrah]

I think you still someone to fill the latter role in the event of a collapse, but that player needs to go a run a ball when the going is good. Agree tpc’s form was very poor this series. Warner too.

It was literally the difference between the sides. If Warner and Smith perform just at their average levels Australia win that series.

The other guys, Finch, Stoinis even Marsh were all very good.

 

[quincywagstaff]

It was literally the difference between the sides. If Warner and Smith perform just at their average levels Australia win that series.

Partially disagree as England's batting in the first three matches was excellent.

Australia may have not got as many as they could've in the MCG match but it was still over 300 and a record run chase at the ground and England did it easily.

Australia certainly didn't score enough runs in Brisbane but they were pretty much doomed by their awful team selection anyway.

England getting over 300 at Sydney with the only time in the series Australia had their full-strength attack was a superb effort, especially as Australia had their measure most of the innings.

Perth can definitely be put down to a poor Australian batting performance (and some fine bowling by Curran); was a very gettable target and should've done it pretty easily.

 

[stephen]

The first three matches could have seen an extra 30 runs on the board if Smith/Warner had have batted for the number of balls that Paine batted. Paine at 7 really hurt our late overs run rate.

 

[Spark]

Sydney was definitely gettable too IMO.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Partially disagree as England's batting in the first three matches was excellent.

Australia may have not got as many as they could've in the MCG match but it was still over 300 and a record run chase at the ground and England did it easily.

Australia certainly didn't score enough runs in Brisbane but they were pretty much doomed by their awful team selection anyway.

England getting over 300 at Sydney with the only time in the series Australia had their full-strength attack was a superb effort, especially as Australia had their measure most of the innings.

Perth can definitely be put down to a poor Australian batting performance (and some fine bowling by Curran); was a very gettable target and should've done it pretty easily.

If Warner and Smith get their averages in Perth and Sydney, Australia win. Oversimplified of course (for several reasons) but essentially accurate. That's the series won there already.

I'm not saying that was the only problem Australia had, just pointing out the irony of all the doom and gloom "what are we going to do with our team???" talk when the rest of the team has been pretty much fine and the difference between winning and losing the series can literally be put down to the failure of 2 guys whose place in the team isn't even in question.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Warner and Smith underperforming is a bit of an if my aunt had balls proposition.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Warner and Smith underperforming is a bit of an if my aunt had balls proposition.

That's entirely irrelevant to my point

 

[stephen]

Yeah I don't think that there's too much wrong with the players we're picking (Paine aside). They just don't seem to be gelling well at the moment and our late overs hitting is poor.

This is what it's usually like two years out from a world cup though.

 

[Spark]

Warner and Smith underperforming is a bit of an if my aunt had balls proposition.

Eh, Warner and Smith performing is one of those things you should be able to count on.

 

[Adders]

Isnt it pretty normal for Aus too to place a very low priority on ODI cricket outside of WC's? 12 months out of the big one it will become a focus for them and they'll rock up with a team with some form behind them, and be a top rated side.

 

[stephen]

Isnt it pretty normal for Aus too to place a very low priority on ODI cricket outside of WC's? 12 months out of the big one it will become a focus for them and they'll rock up with a team with some form behind them, and be a top rated side.

Yep. Often we lose home ODI series to England after our home Ashes tests.

Though in the 90s I remember the tri series being almost as important as the World Cup since we would always get at least one team that was world class each summer (except the one where they fielded an Australia vs Australia A side and the Aus A side almost won).

 

[morgieb]

Yep. Often we lose home ODI series to England after our home Ashes tests.

Though in the 90s I remember the tri series being almost as important as the World Cup since we would always get at least one team that was world class each summer (except the one where they fielded an Australia vs Australia A side and the Aus A side almost won).

Yeah I think ODI's were on a similar level to Tests in terms of importance in the 20th Century, but started to fade away in significance during the mid 2000's.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Isnt it pretty normal for Aus too to place a very low priority on ODI cricket outside of WC's? 12 months out of the big one it will become a focus for them and they'll rock up with a team with some form behind them, and be a top rated side.

Well the last couple series are the first time in like a year that they've gone in without literally half the side "rested", I'll let you draw your own conclusions

 

[S.Kennedy]

Eh, Warner and Smith performing is one of those things you should be able to count on.

But they under-performed and Australia lost. You would've thought Root would have tonned up, or Cook, Broad and Ali performed, during the Ashes but they didn't and England were thumped. It is silly switching the performances of players to produce hypothetical outcomes.

 

[morgieb]

But they under-performed and Australia lost. You would've thought Root would have tonned up, or Cook, Broad and Ali performed, during the Ashes but they didn't and England were thumped. It is silly switching the performances of players to produce hypothetical outcomes.

Disagree (other than Broad). Root has made the cute 70-odd his bag for ages, Cook apart from 2010-11 has never done all that well against Australia and Moeen's style was always going to be toxic in Australia.

 

[TheJediBrah]

But they under-performed and Australia lost. You would've thought Root would have tonned up, or Cook, Broad and Ali performed, during the Ashes but they didn't and England were thumped. It is silly switching the performances of players to produce hypothetical outcomes.

You're still completely missing the point. No one's saying "Australia were just as good as England because if Warner and Smith made runs like they usually do they would have won", which is what it seems like you've imagined people are saying.

 

[Spark]

Right, it's just saying that when your two key batsman don't make any (meaningful) runs, it's pretty hard to win games of cricket.

 

[Daemon]

TJB's post was that if the pair of them performed to their averages, Australia take the series. That's basically the definition of the aunty/bollocks quip.

However he only made that post as part of a broader point, which appears to have flown past some peoples heads.

 

[TheJediBrah]

TJB's post was that if the pair of them performed to their averages, Australia take the series. That's basically the definition of the aunty/bollocks quip.

Not really, because I was in no way implying that Australia could/should have won the series. Obviously Warner and Smith failing is was an integral part of Australia's performance in the series and you can't just say "yeah but if they hadn't then Australia are good", which would be "the definition of the aunty/bollocks quip".

However he only made that post as part of a broader point, which appears to have flown past some peoples heads.

This is true though

 

[quincywagstaff]

Yep. Often we lose home ODI series to England after our home Ashes tests.

Not really. Apart from 2006/07 where England won the triseries, the last time England defeated Australia in a ODI series in Australia (regardless of how many teams involved) was 1986/87.