Boycott's bombshell

[luckyeddie]

Just shows what a good poster Jono is.

Just shows I had him on my ignore list

(no, not true).

 

[Tom Halsey]

Only lost to Australia because of the SuperSub? You do realise don't you that all three games in the NWC were incredibly one sided, and the SuperSub had no significant impact on them at all?

In the second NWC game, Australia subbed on Brad Haddin who did not bat, bowl or take a catch.

In the third NWC game, Australia subbed on Simon Katich who (wait for it... wait for it...) did not bat, bowl or take a catch.

Yeah, they decided the game alright. This gets my award for the oddest excuse for a loss for the month.

My bad, I seem to have a memory of them bowling first bthen subbing off McGrath for batsmen, and the batsman winning it - maybe not.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

My bad, I seem to have a memory of them bowling first bthen subbing off McGrath for batsmen, and the batsman winning it - maybe not.

They did yeah. Both games, Australia bowled and McGrath was subbed off for a batsman, but they weren't needed either time as Australia won by 7 and 8 wickets respectively, with 10+ overs in hand.

 

[PY]

LOL. Nah I'm just a cricket fan, and I think England winning the Ashes did a lot of good for cricket. In Australia, England and worldwide.

I was kidding, I knew you were an Indian follower but saw chance for some light-hearted banter and couldn't resist.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Jim Baxter doesn't play cricket?

Not lately, no.

 

[marc71178]

Lmao.. New Zealand is anything but on a decline SP..we have just lost a few tight games to S.A.. and with the return of bond.. and our batting clicking together things can only get better..

The question over Bond is if he's as effective as he was...

 

[vic_orthdox]

The question over Bond is if he's as effective as he was...

Just wait till he plays Australia...

 

[Top_Cat]

I saw Bond bowl against South Africa and must say, he was looking very, very dangerous with the new-ball. Pace and zip were there but his line wasn't quite there.

That said, I think we're going to see another injury because for mine, his action looks to be worse, putting more strain on his shoulders and still on his back.

 

[Slow Love™]

I'll call England the best side in the world when the beat Australia in Australia.

I don't think I'll call England the best side in the world ever. I just don't think I'll have to - if things should go pear-shaped, there will always be some straw to clutch.

 

[Jono]

The question over Bond is if he's as effective as he was...

Even if he is half as effective as he was 2-3 years ago, it'd still be an improvement from the NZ bowling line-up that was here in Australia last year.

 

[thierry henry]

Even if he is half as effective as he was 2-3 years ago, it'd still be an improvement from the NZ bowling line-up that was here in Australia last year.

The line-up that won the first game and almost won the second?

Apart from death bowling there is nothing wrong with the NZ ODI bowling unit.

As for England being clear 2nd favourites for an ODI world cup, that is absolutely hilarious. It's amazing how many people still don't realise that ODI cricket and test cricket MUST be analyzed separately.

 

[Jono]

I was talking about tests, but I realised that Marc was probably referring to ODIs.

Like I've said, I rate the NZ bowling line-up in ODIs quite highly.

 

[marc71178]

Bit of both really, although in this thread the distinction seems ot have been very blurred by a few people, especially those rating England as 2nd favourites.

The only reason any book-maker would do that would be if it were an English book-maker, because they're then taking into account the "patriotic pound" where fans blindly support their home nation, regardless of actual ability. An example of such patriotic pound:

If World Cup came along tomorrow Australia would be favourites and England would be second favourites, comfortably ahead of the 3rd favourite.

 

[Scaly piscine]

An example of a muppet who has conveniently forgotten England's last one-day final with Australia and their performance in the CT with a young side, minus KP that will only have gotten better:

Bit of both really, although in this thread the distinction seems ot have been very blurred by a few people, especially those rating England as 2nd favourites.

The only reason any book-maker would do that would be if it were an English book-maker, because they're then taking into account the "patriotic pound" where fans blindly support their home nation, regardless of actual ability. An example of such patriotic pound:

 

[marc71178]

So England being 6th in the rankings (soon to be 7th) with 6 wins and 7 losses in 2005 (3 of the wins being against Bangladesh) - makes them the 2nd best team in the world then?

No, it makes them one of the many sides in the middle (and one of the poorer ones at that) - the only reason that they're 2nd favourites is because of the patriotic pound effect.

 

[Zinzan]

An example of a muppet who has conveniently forgotten England's last one-day final with Australia and their performance in the CT with a young side, minus KP that will only have gotten better:

England are far too inconsistent a Oneday side to be rated anywhere near no 2 at the moment.......Thats a real wisecrack

 

[Scaly piscine]

So England being 6th in the rankings (soon to be 7th) with 6 wins and 7 losses in 2005 (3 of the wins being against Bangladesh) - makes them the 2nd best team in the world then?

No, it makes them one of the many sides in the middle (and one of the poorer ones at that) - the only reason that they're 2nd favourites is because of the patriotic pound effect.

It makes them one of the sides in the middle when it's a meaningless ODI, when it's a pressure situation (ie World Cup) they're 2nd favourites. England have shown that they can handle the pressure and perform well enough to match anyone - something the other teams (except Australia obviously) haven't done - India and SA choke, NZ don't have anything extra when it comes to the WC, SL are rubbish away from home, Pakistan at least have the potential with one of the best coaches around, WI aren't very good but they're at home and have a genius player that can be enough to help them beat anyone.

 

[Zinzan]

It makes them one of the sides in the middle when it's a meaningless ODI, when it's a pressure situation (ie World Cup) they're 2nd favourites. England have shown that they can handle the pressure and perform well enough to match anyone - something the other teams.

Handle the pressure??....Like the ICC final last year, where they choked against a no 8 and 9 west indian batsmen. Or do u mean the series they lost the Australia recently or perhaps the Natwest series against W.I and NZ last year?? Or are you referring to the convincing wins against Bangladesh

 

[Dasa]

It makes them one of the sides in the middle when it's a meaningless ODI, when it's a pressure situation (ie World Cup) they're 2nd favourites. England have shown that they can handle the pressure and perform well enough to match anyone - something the other teams (except Australia obviously) haven't done - India and SA choke, NZ don't have anything extra when it comes to the WC, SL are rubbish away from home, Pakistan at least have the potential with one of the best coaches around, WI aren't very good but they're at home and have a genius player that can be enough to help them beat anyone.

How exactly have they shown that they do better in pressure situations? Your premise seems to be based around 2 matches, the CT semi-final (didn't they choke in the final there ) and the Natwest final tie against Australia where they were lucky to get the tie due to GJones and Collingwood after the top-order had collapsed (or choked?) against the Lee and McGrath.
No matter what you've deluded yourself into thinking, England are a middle-of-the-road ODI side, nothing more.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'd say we're a pretty poor ODI team & have been for some time. We haven't got out of the group stage in a WC since 1996 & that was due to us beating the cricketing heavyweights of Holland & UAE.

I think it's partly due to us seeing ODIs as something of a testing ground for the real thing. Strauss is an example, he has done pretty well in ODIs but he was selected for our one day team because he looked like a player with test potential rather than one who excelled at the shorter form. His domestic OD form was pretty ordinary.