***Official*** Australia in England 2018

[cnerd123]

And trolling Burgey.

that's just me doing the forum a favor tbh

 

[TheJediBrah]

my reason for posting is to pomote HK, BD and associate cricket, spin bowling, turning pitches and to defend umpires everywhere (apart from when they're being lazy about calling no-balls)

Yeah but you're a "special" case

choose to interpret that however you wish

 

[91Jmay]

I've yet to see them really play on anything other than a road (maybe Adelaide last year where they were 5/8, which showed the top order was susceptible to early movement). Maybe they'd still be the best, but it doesn't matter anyway.



They wouldn't be overwhelming favourites in Asia, or even favourites IMO.

The decks in Bangladesh weren't roads in any way, neither was NZ on the whole. Plenty of bowler assistance.

 

[Flem274*]

bangladesh pitches are slow mud heaps. the english would have been right at home given spring time ground conditions in britain.

 

[social]

lots of salty Aussies bemoaning the game here due to their country playing an antiquated version of limited overs cricket.

Evolve or die.

Since when does saying we’re **** and we know it = being salty

 

[Gnske]

that's just me doing the forum a favor tbh

Tell that to the mods, good god I hope they get paid.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Since when does saying we’re **** and we know it = being salty

Yeah I don't know where he got that from. I've been surprised about the lack of saltiness tbh

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Yeah I don't know where he got that from. I've been surprised about the lack of saltiness tbh

The whole Steve Smith and Starc with Haze will change things had hints of a salty taste like saline solution to be honest.

But more Australians are beginning to realize their cricket team is in the dark ages while England is playing ODI cricket in the formula of the Renaissance. (Which is how most of us played it in the backyard I imagine minus the one hand one bounce rule).

 

[cnerd123]

I don't see the point in criticizing Australia's ODI approach when it's abundantly clear they lack the players to implement any approach properly to begin with.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I don't see the point in criticizing Australia's ODI approach when it's abundantly clear they lack the players to implement any approach properly to begin with.

Harsh but fair as Smudge would cliche I mean say as original material.

 

[Jack1]

Stokes possibly isn't good enough to get in the England team. Particularly in T20Is, but now in ODIs too. He is good enough to play in tests, but I can't see anywhere to put him in the England side unless they drop Root in ODIs. No one else is really droppable in the roles or positions he could play (unless they drop Wood and reshuffle the batting line up).

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Stokes possibly isn't good enough to get in the England team. Particularly in T20Is, but now in ODIs too. He is good enough to play in tests, but I can't see anywhere to put him in the England side unless they drop Root in ODIs. No one else is really droppable in the roles or positions he could play.

Stokes is a shoo-in due to his bowling. Bairstow, Hales, Morgan and Roy are fighting for 3 spots. And Morgan is safe for now 'cos while you can beat an egg, you can't beat a Root.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The whole Steve Smith and Starc with Haze will change things had hints of a salty taste like saline solution to be honest.

But more Australians are beginning to realize their cricket team is in the dark ages while England is playing ODI cricket in the formula of the Renaissance. (Which is how most of us played it in the backyard I imagine minus the one hand one bounce rule).

Are you telling me people actually had the gall to suggest that a team having it's best players back might make it better? Unbelievable. Such saltiness.

Stokes possibly isn't good enough to get in the England team. Particularly in T20Is, but now in ODIs too. He is good enough to play in tests, but I can't see anywhere to put him in the England side unless they drop Root in ODIs. No one else is really droppable in the roles or positions he could play.

Hey friend

 

[Jack1]

Stokes is a shoo-in due to his bowling. Bairstow, Hales, Morgan and Roy are fighting for 2 spots. And Morgan is safe for now 'cos while you can beat an egg, you can't beat a Root.

The problem is his bowling hasn't been great in limited overs and he seems more reluctant (and injury prone) than ever to bowl. He's a much better bowler in tests. His batting is very strong though in ODI cricket (he has struggled with the bat in t20i but that's irrelevant to ODIs of course)

For me Roy, Bairstow and Hales are the first three names on the team sheet followed by Ali, Buttler and Morgan. That doesn't leave much room for Root when I would prefer Stokes in there. But will England dare drop Root to bring in Stokes? I don't know. They may drop a bowler to get Stokes in the side assuming he is capable of bowling 10 overs.

Thinking about this it makes sense for England to drop Wood to Stokes balance wise. However, I'm not sure if Root's 86 strike rate is good enough for this England side. I suppose he could be in there as a fall back if England lost 2 or 3 wickets quickly. In which case Root becomes a floating batsman (potentially not batting or batting very low like yesterday) and Wood gets dropped.

Leaving:

1. Roy
2. Bairstow
3. Hales
4. Root (may not bat) 6
5. Morgan
6. Buttler (wk)
7. Stokes 3
8. Ali 5
9. Willey/Woakes 2
10. Plunkett. 1
11. Rashid 4

5 bowlers there and part-timer in Root. Root provides some balance there with his bowling option too to be fair to him. Another argument is to drop Root and play a bowler instead in my team, there's a lot of batting there for a rebuild without Root. This only works if Stokes is capable of bowling 10 overs and I'm a bit concerned of his career economy being over 6 an over and average almost 40

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Are you telling me people actually had the gall to suggest that a team having it's best players back might make it better? Unbelievable. Such saltiness.

Not just better. But contenders. Seemingly outrageous - I know. I share your humiliation as an Antipodean (well kind of - I have a UK passport along with my NZ one - but I get your point, almost). Steve Smith's ability to block the new ball would totally chase down 482 in one day in a million. Where were Marsh and Lillee's bets at yesterday? That's what I what I still wonder.

 

[Flem274*]

please continue thinking stokes isn't a walk in you stupid english bastards

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The problem is his bowling hasn't been great in limited overs and he seems more reluctant (and injury prone) than ever to bowl. He's a much better bowler in tests. His batting is very strong though in ODI cricket (he has struggled with the bat in t20i but that's irrelevant to ODIs of course)

For me Roy, Bairstow and Hales are the first three names on the team sheet followed by Ali, Buttler and Morgan. That doesn't leave much room for Root when I would prefer Stokes in there. But will England dare drop Root to bring in Stokes? I don't know. They may drop a bowler to get Stokes in the side assuming he is capable of bowling 10 overs.

Thinking about this it makes sense for England to drop Wood to Stokes balance wise. However, I'm not sure if Root's 86 strike rate is good enough for this England side. I suppose he could be in there as a fall back if England lost 2 or 3 wickets quickly. In which case Root becomes a floating batsman (potentially not batting or batting very low like yesterday) and Wood gets dropped.

Leaving:

1. Roy
2. Bairstow
3. Hales
4. Root (may not bat) 6
5. Morgan
6. Buttler (wk)
7. Stokes 3
8. Ali 5
9. Willey/Woakes 2
10. Plunkett. 1
11. Rashid 4

5 bowlers there and part-timer in Root. Root provides some balance there with his bowling option too to be fair to him. Another argument is to drop Root and play a bowler instead in my team, there's a lot of batting there for a rebuild without Root. This only works if Stokes is capable of bowling 10 overs and I'm a bit concerned of his career economy being over 6 an over and average almost 40

Root is your KW and VK 50 over bail out policy.

Seriously.

Root is not droppable to maximise wins, even if Hales, Roy and Bairstow beat him on flat pitch days.


And Woakes is the best #8 in the world- let alone England.
Morgan is droppable though. Seriously. Even as captain.

1 Bairstow
2 Roy/Hales
3 Root/Hales
4 Morgan/Root
5 Stokes 6
6 Buttler +
7 Ali 5
8 Woakes 1
9 Willey 2
10 Plunkett 3
1 Rashid 4

This is the best Eng team above. Root plays before Morgan who right now plays before Hales. Right now.

 

[Jack1]

Not just better. But contenders. Seemingly outrageous - I know. I share your humiliation as an Antipodean (well kind of - I have a UK passport along with my NZ one - but I get your point, almost). Steve Smith's ability to block the new ball would totally chase down 482 in one day in a million. Where were Marsh and Lillee's bets at yesterday? That's what I what I still wonder.

Smith and Root are what I consider good test bats that have too much of a run and average focus in ODIs. Root gave away yesterday that his average is in his mind every time he bats (that was obvious to me already, but due to the obscenity of the scoreboard it made it glaringly obvious) He practically blocked the first ball he faced which was ridiculous considering the scoreboard and got booed, that prompted him to slog to avoid more boos. However, with so many wickets in hand he didn't come back for a probable three in the final over. No doubt because he was scared of his average being hit by a possible run out. He should have been running and trying to get an extra run on the board for the team. Especially as he couldn't find the middle of the bat anyway and would have probably been better off out. This could have been important in a low scoring game. No matter the scoreboard I think it's disrespectful to the team and fans not to be trying to maximise the team score because of worrying about personal batting average.

Smith and Root both lack power, but also lack the mindset of a faster SR player (that recognises average isn't really king in ODIs, batting for the team and high SR throughout the side is king). Both are arguably only useful to rebuild innings and create a platform for a late slog now.

If I'm Australia's coach then I'm putting Maxwell and Finch as openers trying to get off to a flier and working down from there. Nathan Lyon would be the first bowler in the team for me (with Starc when fit).

 

[Jack1]

Root is your KW and VK 50 over bail out policy.

Seriously.

Root is not droppable to maximise wins, even if Hales, Roy and Bairstow beat him on flat pitch days.


And Woakes is the best #8 in the world- let alone England.
Morgan is droppable though. Seriously. Even as captain.

1 Bairstow
2 Roy/Hales
3 Root/Hales
4 Morgan/Root
5 Stokes 6
6 Buttler +
7 Ali 5
8 Woakes 1
9 Willey 2
10 Plunkett 3
1 Rashid 4

This is the best Eng team above. Root plays before Morgan who right now plays before Hales. Right now.

When I reshuffled I dropped Wood to bring in Stokes. Root isn't actually that bad a bowler at all, so he can be 6th bowler. I seriously couldn't drop Roy, Bairstow and Hales. They score too many runs at too fast of a rate. Morgan after that innings becomes undroppable for now too. And he's the captain and has a positive impact on the culture and attitude in the team in my view. I certainly wouldn't drop the captain when he can bat well.

 

[Jack1]

Root is your KW and VK 50 over bail out policy.

Kohli scores quicker than Root. NZ have a weaker team and therefore need to rebuild more often. England have so much batting throughout the team there's an argument Root isn't needed for a rebuild. England possibly have enough batting to keep pushing and pushing even if they lose 2 wickets early.

Root gives an extra bowling option however and becomes much more useful if the pitch isn't flat (or if there is a big collapse). Therefore you can see my side has Root and Stokes both in it.