***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[Swervy]

You have time to craft an innings in an ODI. 50 overs is a fair amount of time to bat... there's varying tactical approaches in the game. You can bat for a while and get yourself set, you can slog, whatever. There's varying roles for the players, with some batsmen specialising in devastating hitting, some in building an innings, some in nudging ones and twos, and so on. It's true that wickets are of lesser value in ODIs compared to tests, but they are still of SOME value. A bowler can get a decent spell in and have an extended battle with a single batsman. There is a chance for batsmen who are not big hitters to play match-turning innings (a player like Michael Bevan would never have existed in 20 over cricket, for example). None of these things are true of 20/20.

Collingwood isnt a big hitter in the way as THE big hitters are..there is a place for the players who can get a run a ball and the odd four.

 

[PY]

I can't remember whether or not Lee was bowling bouncers to Tudor before the one which hit him (he probably was), but Tudor completely ducked into the one that did hit him, to be fair. Brett Lee does have a habit of bowling bouncers to tailenders though, and i'm not his biggest fan anyway. I don't really have a problem with Flintoff bowling bouncers, all of the Australian tail (except McGrath) are capable enough of defending themselves.

He was bowling bouncers at Tudor before he got hit because he was being booed before by the Barmy Army as a small point.

Guess it's fair cop as Tudor does know how to hold the bat but I just don't like people bowling consistent bouncers at tailenders purely because they're much more likely to get them out by pitching it up so the only reason to bowl consistent bouncers is to scar the bowlers in some way.

 

[Jamee999]

This match is a farce. The ICC administrators should be shot for allowing Australia to play the highest form of the game, Twenty20, simply on the basis of a few wins in other, minor forms of the game. Australia's very participation in this game denigrates the statistical integrity of Twenty20 cricket. They should be immediately relegated until they can at least beat Namibia and Kenya with something approaching regularity.

Hehe. Top post.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Full credit to England

Can't disagree with you there. England played far, far better.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Err, of course it will be, but it doesn't make 20/20 a legitimate international format! That's like suggesting that when the first ever ODI was played in the early 70s it was of equal worth to the Ashes series in the same year!

It's not like suggesting that at all. This format is played internationally and is legitimate (I'm not sure how it would 'illegitimate' really), sure you can suggest it's a new format which might be forgotten and die out in a few years, but it certainly is a legitimate international format.

 

[Swervy]

Its been a long time since England looked like a professional outfit and Australia didnt in the same game.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It's not like suggesting that at all. This format is played internationally and is legitimate (I'm not sure how it would 'illegitimate' really), sure you can suggest it's a new format which might be forgotten and die out in a few years, but it certainly is a legitimate international format.

It's not played internationally... which is just the point. There have been TWO 20/20 games internationally, ever. Both of them have been a carnival hit out to kick off a series. The first involved wigs. It is not in any way shape or form a legitimate, established form of international cricket. It's just like it was when the first one-off ODI was played between Australia and England in the early 70s...

 

[Swervy]

It's not played internationally... which is just the point. There have been TWO 20/20 games internationally, ever. Both of them have been a carnival hit out to kick off a series. The first involved wigs. It is not in any way shape or form a legitimate, established form of international cricket. It's just like it was when the first one-off ODI was played between Australia and England in the early 70s...

but the point is look where the 50 over game is now...when that first ODI game happened in Australia in 70/71, no-one could have dreamt of the possibility that within 4 and a half years there would be a 'World Cup' (I dont think it was officially called a world cup at the time)....and change is faster these days. I would say that within 2 years Twenty20 will be a regular fixture in most tours.

The Champions Trophy thing may well turn into a 2020 tournament I think.

Time for people to start taking it seriously, because this will be a major source of income for the game

 

[Jamee999]

I'd just like to point out- I'm not boasting in any way(I am really)

That England have beaten Australia in their last meeting in Tests, ODI's and Twenty 20.

There's no way we can keep that up all summer, is there?

 

[Adamc]

He was bowling bouncers at Tudor before he got hit because he was being booed before by the Barmy Army as a small point.

Guess it's fair cop as Tudor does know how to hold the bat but I just don't like people bowling consistent bouncers at tailenders purely because they're much more likely to get them out by pitching it up so the only reason to bowl consistent bouncers is to scar the bowlers in some way.

Yes, fair enough, I find it much more enjoyable watching bowlers who attack the stumps, rather than the batsman.

 

[Scaly piscine]

It's not played internationally... which is just the point. There have been TWO 20/20 games internationally, ever. Both of them have been a carnival hit out to kick off a series. The first involved wigs. It is not in any way shape or form a legitimate, established form of international cricket. It's just like it was when the first one-off ODI was played between Australia and England in the early 70s...

A game played between two countries is an international and ICC recognised the game so it is legitimate, authentic, lawful etc. You seem to be mixing up legitimate with established.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

but the point is look where the 50 over game is now...when that first ODI game happened in Australia in 70/71, no-one could have dreamt of the possibility that within 4 and a half years there would be a 'World Cup' (I dont think it was officially called a world cup at the time)....and change is faster these days. I would say that within 2 years Twenty20 will be a regular fixture in most tours.

The Champions Trophy thing may well turn into a 2020 tournament I think.

Time for people to start taking it seriously, because this will be a major source of income for the game

No, I agree with you about ODIs. The point I was making was that 20/20 is not a legitimate, established international format NOW, just like in 71 ODIs weren't, and as such it is of minimal significance. It may very well be in the future.

 

[Adamc]

I'd just like to point out- I'm not boasting in any way(I am really)

That England have beaten Australia in their last meeting in Tests, ODI's and Twenty 20.

There's no way we can keep that up all summer, is there?

Haha, well spotted. Something Australia has never achieved.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

no, i just don't much like it. for one, wickets don't matter that much, because the batsmen are just gonna keep slogging. in an ODI or test, when a batsmen's out, there's a big change to innings, or even game. here, its just 'so what'

Wickets don't matter? Was it just me that noticed England stopping and settling in after they lost three on the trot to Symonds or Clarke? OK, so it was only for an over, but had England lost another wicket in the 13th over, I think we'd have seen an entirely different ball game.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

A game played between two countries is an international and ICC recognised the game so it is legitimate, authentic, lawful etc. You seem to be mixing up legitimate with established.

Legitimate: Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.

I am not using the word in the lawful sense, I am aware that the ICC sanctions the match - although I'm not sure if there has been any official categorisation of the format in terms of statistical record.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I forgot to mention that Pietersen getting the man of the match was... dubious. Seems Joe Public will vote for anyone, next they'll vote in Tony Bliar for the third time... oh dear.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

The Champions Trophy thing may well turn into a 2020 tournament I think.

Which would be okay IMO - at the moment it's trying to be a World Cup but isn't...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah. Collingwood deserved MotM. It should be selected by the match referee or a panel of experts or something, not the TV audience.

 

[superkingdave]

So, anyone else think the ICC Match Fixing commision will be sniffing around this game?

 

[Swervy]

No, I agree with you about ODIs. The point I was making was that 20/20 is not a legitimate, established international format NOW, just like in 71 ODIs weren't, and as such it is of minimal significance. It may very well be in the future.

fair enough

However I do think that Twenty20 is probably of more significance to a player than ODI's were when they first started, simply because of the money involved.

This form of the game will evolve, i think we will start to see in the next 5 years a new type of player emerging, new tactics will develop and new skills will be required, I think its very exciting for the game as a whole...and that includes test cricket