***Official*** Australia in England 2018

[Borges]

lose to a team that peaks at the right time.

World Cups are usually won by teams that peak at the right time. Starting with 1983.

 

[stephen]

Aus need to start taking bilateral ODIs more seriously. They seem to "rest" players more than anyone else. If the new ODI championship thing goes through it should help.

No point getting your full strength team together for a WC if they've never played together as a team.

Aus is not going to take ODIs seriously at all any more outside the WC since nobody will be watching them.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I seem to remember a year out from the last World Cup that Australia was looking awful. This is the time to be preparing for the only ODI tournament that matters. And despite England playing at home and having a decent ODI side for the first time in forever I just can't see them winning next year. They'll have a repeat of the Champion's Trophy and lose to a team that peaks at the right time.

Aus weren't looking awful, they lost in India but were going punch for punch and unveiled Faulkner as the Finisher.

SA did 'em over, but SA were contenders at the last world cup but rain and an ex-pat spoiled their party in the semi final vs NZ.

Aus was looking damn strong before that World Cup.

Right now before this one, it seems more like it did before the 2011 World Cup.

 

[Borges]

No one should take ODIs, including World Cups, seriously. By far, the most tedious form of cricket ever invented.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Did you even watch what happened earlier this year?

Steve Smith basically was on the field for the entire Ashes series making 183353 runs. He was exhausted by the time that the ODIs came around and checked out. If you think he will be checked out next year the same way then you're dreaming. He'll be back with bloody minded vengeance on his mind and be playing to restore his reputation. Bowling attacks watch out.

Yes I did watch. I saw a guy who struggled to keep up with the SR of the English team. I saw him choke and splutter in the IPL as well last year and take games deep only to lose.

Steve Smith has a SR problem on flat pitches in limited overs cricket. I don't doubt he is a magnificent batting talent with the ability to make huge scores and lots of them. But speed of scoring, that is SR, is a problem for him when things are easy it would appear.

Now he might get you past Pakistan's fearsome bowling attack and weak batting for a win. But what is he going to do when Eng, Ind, SA or even lil old NZ get lucky with a Munro/Guptill bashathon?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't see a problem for Smith in ODIs at all. He'd still be one of the best bats in the world.

Miyagi's been anti-Smith probably since before he was blocky.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I don't see a problem for Smith in ODIs at all. He'd still be one of the best bats in the world.

Miyagi's been anti-Smith probably since before he was blocky.

You may not see a problem for him.

And individually he is not a problem.

But the Australian batting SR is a problem for Australia has been for a couple of years now.

Steve Smith may not be the problem, but he is far from the solution to the problem.

Australia is scoring too slow in good batting conditions; this is the problem for them. What is the solution?

Because if you think it is Steve Smith - there's plenty of past games that suggest otherwise.

Steve Smith by his own reckoning when losing this summer to England said he wanted the Joe Root anchor and accumulator role, so he doesn't want the blazing responsibility. Root is nestled in between Bairstow and Roy with Stokes, Buttler and Morgan to follow (Morgan does a dual role).

So who gets it then? Leaving everything to Maxwell and Stoinis is a gamble, especially if batting shallow and having them bat low.

It is limited to 50 overs cricket.

270 is not enough:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...gland-2nd-odi-eng-tour-of-aus-and-nz-2017-18/

Heck 300 is not enough:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...gland-1st-odi-eng-tour-of-aus-and-nz-2017-18/

 

[TheJediBrah]

IMO they just haven't been good enough in general. It's not like they were 4/270 with batsmen in the shed. They were bowled out in 47 overs last game. How much more aggressive do you want them to be?

I do think you have a point though in regard to the post-Ashes home series against England. They routinely took too long to get to 2-150 and left too much to do at the end of the innings. I don't blame Smith though, as stephen said he was coming off a ridiculous Ashes series batting-wise.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

IMO they just haven't been good enough in general. It's not like they were 4/270 with batsmen in the shed. They were bowled out in 47 overs last game. How much more aggressive do you want them to be?

I do think you have a point though in regard to the post-Ashes home series against England. They routinely took too long to get to 2-150 and left too much to do at the end of the innings. I don't blame Smith though, as stephen said he was coming off a ridiculous Ashes series batting-wise.

I don't blame Smith neither. But he isn't the solution. If SR is the problem, some awesomely talented accumulator does not solve things. His benefit to a solution is wicket preservation, which doesn't matter if Paine is just going to block at the death anyway.

Read what I wrote - Finch looks fast until England bat. Finch isn't the problem neither. But somehow, somewhere, Aus needs to find runs faster. Because Stoinis and Maxwell are not enough by themselves. It will take more. Some very good batsman at some point may have to miss out for an inferior hitter, or a better bowler for an allrounder - that is how cricket is going now. Or - if Australia don't like those options, a accumulators scores faster, preferably two or more of them.

Look at the first odi - if Finch 107(119) is not the problem then M Marsh 50(68) is besides Paine's painful 27(31). Because Wood, Woakes, Ali, Plunkett and Rashid are not the ATG bowlers.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...gland-1st-odi-eng-tour-of-aus-and-nz-2017-18/

 

[Daemon]

Warner
Finch
Smith
Stoinis

are fine in terms of SR.

Pakistan won the CT with just one quick scoring batsman at the top in Fakhar, SR is not always everything. Don't forget they have Starc bowling as well so they may not always be facing 300+.

Nobody is saying a full strength Aus is as good as a full strength England or India, no amount of chopping and changing will get them to that level.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Warner
Finch
Smith
Stoinis

are fine in terms of SR.

Pakistan won the CT with just one quick scoring batsman at the top in Fakhar, SR is not always everything. Don't forget they have Starc bowling as well.

Nobody is saying a full strength Aus is as good as a full strength England or India, no amount of chopping and changing will solve that.

Australians expect to be the best at sports. Especially cricket as their sport. But in any sport in which they participate. I don't expect you to understand this. They don't settle. Not even for the All Blacks. They even put expectations on their basketball team, let alone Soccer, (where they are disadvantaged as minor sports) but Rugby League, Rugby Union, Sailing, Netball, Swimming, Cyclist, Tennis et al - not at all and it goes on and on and all this despite AFL being huge there and limited only to Australia.

But Australia has lost ODI series repeatedly to India, SA, NZ and Eng now. They expect to be contenders at the World Cup. But right now, I don't see it.

So - Australia has a SR problem to remedy this - what is their solution? Because I am not saying Finch, Warner, Smith and Stoinis are awful cricketers. But they're not making enough runs in 50 overs to compete despite their all star seam bowling with amazing depth.

What I am thinking, is at some point, they have to swap superior cricketers with inferiors ones either in the batting or bowling both, who have higher batting SR. But that is just my opinion. Because on flat pitches, which England will likely serve in the World Cup at least for their own games, SR matters.

 

[Spikey]

Not sure I agree with this......that is exactly England's approach to the team makeup and it seems to be working OK for them atm.

Time will tell if it will win Eng a home WC, but it seems to me they are content to field a **** bowling attack so long as the batting lineup can pile on enough runs to win most games.

England has a game changing wicket keeper who earns a place in the middle order on batting merit alone. This frees England to pick someone else at 7. Australia doesn't have that. (I'm sure Arun Finch is willing to try batting 5 and keeping though)

 

[Mr Miyagi]

England has a game changing wicket keeper who earns a place in the middle order on batting merit alone. This frees England to pick someone else at 7. Australia doesn't have that. (I'm sure Arun Finch is willing to try batting 5 and keeping though)

Ali would be seven regardless. Woakes is their king pin at 8 when fit.

Buttler is definitely part of their plan though. He is a very good limited overs cricketer.

But Australia has Carey who may be on the same caliber, or near enough.

Who else scores fast in Australia, regardless of batting order, either at the top, middle or end.

Besides that Brisbane Heat medium pacer from the IPL.

 

[Spikey]

I'm also pretty sceptical England's bowling attack will do the trick in a WC

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I'm also pretty sceptical England's bowling attack will do the trick in a WC

Their attack is not to bowl sides out. It is to contain to them to less than they score themselves.

Ali, Woakes, Stokes, Willey even Rashid and Plunkett - they bat. It is deliberate.

Even Jordan is reserve is half decent at finding the boundary.

The only difference between England 2015 home summer on and sides before them, is that they're telling everyone what they're doing and not trying to keep it a secret while going from outside the top 8 at the WC to #1.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Especially cricket as their sport

Not sure what you mean here. Cricket isn't exactly the biggest sport in the country.

You're right about the expectations of Australians though. I bet there were plenty who were disappointed that Aus didn't beat France in the soccer, even though that would have been like Norway winning a cricket match against India.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Not sure what you mean here. Cricket isn't exactly the biggest sport in the country.

You're right about the expectations of Australians though. I bet there were plenty who were disappointed that Aus didn't beat France in the soccer, even though that would have been like Norway winning a cricket match against India.

Only cricket had the Bradman test on your citizenship exam (gone now). While Rugby League and AFL may churn over more dollars each year and get more spectators through the gates, despite the Aussie Open as a grand slam tennis event, cricket is your country wide unifying sport and unrivaled overall through summer, but I happily concede that AFL and Rugby League are bigger in financial terms.

In NZ cricket has to compete with sailing, basketball (seriously it is on the rise at school level) and rowing in summer (yes rowing is huge here - we like Olympic golds and I am totally discrediting canoeing) and of course rugby union as a given but even rugby league are bigger in the off season. Then there's that 7's stuff as well.

 

[Daemon]

Their attack is not to bowl sides out. It is to contain to them to less than they score themselves.

Ali, Woakes, Stokes, Willey even Rashid and Plunkett - they bat. It is deliberate.

Even Jordan is reserve is half decent at finding the boundary.

The only difference between England 2015 home summer on and sides before them, is that they're telling everyone what they're doing and not trying to keep it a secret while going from outside the top 8 at the WC to #1.

Yeah it's all about damage control at times. Dhoni was excellent with that back when we didn't have the Kuldeeps and Bumrahs to actually take wickets.

 

[Spikey]

gotta wonder why england appeal for wickets if their goal isn't to bowl sides out

 

[Mr Miyagi]

gotta wonder why england appeal for wickets if their goal isn't to bowl sides out

Don't be daft. If England wanted to bowl sides out foremost, Broad and Anderson would play with 3 slips and a gully. They don't.

It is different strategies and priorities, but of course they will take wickets when available to them.