***Official*** Australia in England 2018

[91Jmay]

It's a purple patch in suitable conditions against **** opposition

What the entire world against everyone?

We are miles away from the best ODI side ever. Not even in the conversation, but the best batting side ever they are building a really strong case.

 

[Cow]

Clark, McGrath etc would get destroyed. No team in history would beat the current England ODI side over a 5 match series.

Truth bomb.

 

[Borges]

No team in history would beat the current England ODI side over a 5 match series.

No team in history would play the current England ODI side; ODIs today are a completely different form of cricket than what they were years ago.
It may be fair to say that no current team would beat the current England ODI side over a 5 match series.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

No team in history would play the current England ODI side; ODIs today are a completely different form of cricket than what they were years ago.
It may be fair to say that no current team would beat the current England ODI side over a 5 match series.

Truth bomb

 

[srbhkshk]

No team in history would play the current England ODI side; ODIs today are a completely different form of cricket than what they were years ago.
It may be fair to say that no current team would beat the current England ODI side over a 5 match series.

India beat them in a 3 match series, the one game they lost was by 5-10 runs. I don't see why that can't happen over 5 matches. SA could also have done it if ABD was still there.

Scotland beats England 5-0 in a 5 match series right now.

 

[S.Kennedy]

England are certainly beatable - even beatable in favourable conditions (Scotland).

 

[Jack1]

England are certainly beatable - even beatable in favourable conditions (Scotland).

England are beatable, but look how many runs the batting line up got even in that loss. They are very difficult to beat and obviously the best team currently.

 

[smash84]

England are beatable, but look how many runs the batting line up got even in that loss. They are very difficult to beat and obviously the best team currently.

But England are really bad under pressure.

They are making the case for the best JAMODI batting side ever maybe. As soon as a knockout game comes along, they will be out.

 

[Burgey]

I love bagels. I'm all for it.

I'll have an Aus Coach mistake and cheese, with Ranch

Oh no Ranch - just mayonnaise with corned beef flavor is fine.

(I only expect Australians who are lawyers outside Vic to get this joke. I have a Jewish cousin who owns/ed a finance company. #Sue me.)

I wasn’t asking you.

 

[Burgey]

What the entire world against everyone?

We are miles away from the best ODI side ever. Not even in the conversation, but the best batting side ever they are building a really strong case.

You aren’t the best anything in odi cricket til you win a WC. It’s all about the WC.

 

[trundler]

England haven't been the best since the 1950s

 

[Burgey]

LOL. great spot. damn typo.

Hey mate, we’ve all done it.

 

[Burgey]

Mind you, Australia could do with the spirit of John Monash atm.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Australians soon will have to begin composing their revisionist explanatory rebuttals in the event of England actually succeeding (in winning the thing). You'll probably need something a little more innovative than ''flat wickets'' and ''dodgy umpiring''.

 

[trundler]

Australians soon will have to begin composing their revisionist explanatory rebuttals in the event of England actually succeeding (in winning the thing). You'll probably need something a little more innovative than ''flat wickets'' and ''dodgy umpiring''.

Nah, mate that's worked since the 56' test at Headingley, (or another variant of it thereof).

 

[S.Kennedy]

Assuming Australia get humiliated and knocked out of the competition early - and it needn't be by England - I could imagine an Australian composing some complicated piece on how, ''this is not the true Australian side'', and how, ''this Australia actually performed credibly'' (given the presence of second tier Shield players).

Some traditional excuses such as the wickets, balls, weather and umpiring would be thrown in also for good measure (alongside traditional counter-defensive pom-bashing, ''at least we weren't beaten in 1893 blah blah blah'').

A large complicated piece would be strung together basically absolving Australia from the indignity of losing and reasserting xenophobic pride.

You may as well start constructing these arguments now then, Aussies.

 

[trundler]

Assuming Australia get humiliated and knocked out of the competition early - and it needn't be by England - I could imagine an Australian composing some complicated piece on how, ''this is not the true Australian side'', and how, ''this Australia actually performed credibly'' (given the presence of second tier Shield players).

Some traditional excuses such as the wickets, balls, weather and umpiring would be thrown in also for good measure (alongside traditional counter-defensive pom-bashing, ''at least we weren't beaten in 1893 blah blah blah'').

A large complicated piece would be strung together basically absolving Australia from the indignity of losing and reasserting xenophobic pride.

You may as well start constructing these arguments now then, Aussies.

Actually that's a pretty poor example since England won in 1893....

 

[social]

'07 Aussies in a canter. McGrath would rip through the top and middle orders before you could say "moves it a bat's width". Hogg would spin out the tail.

Looking back over the last few World Cups.

'99 Warne ripped through South Africa in the semi-final and Pakistan in the final.

'03 McGrath dismisses Tendulkar in the first over of the Indian run chase and takes two more wickets in a thumping win.

'07 McGrath and Tait run through the SAffers in the semi final and restrict them to under 150, giving the batsmen an easy chase.

'11 Murali, Mendis and Malinga dismiss NZ cheaply to catapult themselves into the final. Indian bowlers each took 2 wickets to shut down the Pakistan chase to get themselves into the final.

'15 Starc takes the key NZ wicket in the first over. Faulkner, Johnson and Starc take a combined 8 wickets to dismiss NZ for under 200 and give their batsmen a big chase.

In every single world cup, key matches have been heavily influenced by bowlers. A world cup winning side needs to be good with both bat and ball and this England team really doesn't seem to have good bowlers (except against Australian batsmen, who are not very good). They also appear weak to high quality bowling, especially on a surface that gives the bowlers something. An ATG bowler or two would be able to put them on the back foot and cut the runs down significantly.

It's obviously the hottest of hot takes designed to stir some posters up but just imagine the current English lineup against the great WI attacks

English batsman:"I'm going to plonk on the front foot and swing for the bleachers."

English batsman a fraction of a second later: "Ouch"

 

[social]

Miyagi has the biggest inferiority complex I've ever seen when it comes to anything Australia. He's obsessed and tries to manipulate everything into ridiculous nationalistic arguments and it's ruining every ****ing thread.

That's "Mr Tye is one of the most exciting global developments on limited overs talent bowling going around Miyagi" to you

 

[S.Kennedy]

Well this beanpole bowler you have was bowling at 90mph by all accounts and Bairstow and co were sending him out of the ground!

It is not as if the West Indies in the pomp were an unbeatable machine either, case in point the 83 and 87 world cups. England beat them in 9/10 one-dayers between 1986 and 1988, in competitions like the Benson and Hedges and Texaco cups, and not many people regard England of that period as ''one of the great one-dayer sides''.