***Official*** Australia in New Zealand

[aussie]

But Clark played better in the last ODI series Australia played in.

am no... Clark wasn't better.one game and was hit all over the place & got 2 wickets when the when the game was well won by Australia. Bracken wasn't great but he was surely better than Clark added to the fact that Bracken has a very impressive ODI record to date, come on...

 

[social]

England sans Jones are different, that's for sure (see the Oval for evidence of that)

However to see certain players who had weaknesses mentioned on here pre-series and then those weaknesses to be exposed does say something...

I said it with a bit of tongue in cheek actually.

Harmy and Flintoff are fine bowlers whilst Jones is extremely promising.

Hoggard does a job and, whilst nothing flash, complements the other well.

Spinners are poor.

As a unit, the performed excellently in the Ashes and maintained great pressure.

Certain Aus players' techniques were definitley exposed and, as a result, have either been discarded or improved their game. Hayden, for one, looks a totally different player but bashing the Windies, as you say, is a bit different.

However, there is little doubt that the current line-up looks vastly more threatening than that which played in the Ashes but SA will provide a better guide.

 

[cameeel]

am no... Clark wasn't better.one game and was hit all over the place & got 2 wickets when the when the game was well won by Australia. Bracken wasn't great but he was surely better than Clark added to the fact that Bracken has a very impressive ODI record to date, come on...

Fair enough. My memory of the 2nd game is clouded by Gichrist's ton anyway..

 

[parttimer]

I said it with a bit of tongue in cheek actually.

Harmy and Flintoff are fine bowlers whilst Jones is extremely promising.

Hoggard does a job and, whilst nothing flash, complements the other well.

Spinners are poor.

As a unit, the performed excellently in the Ashes and maintained great pressure.

Certain Aus players' techniques were definitley exposed and, as a result, have either been discarded or improved their game. Hayden, for one, looks a totally different player but bashing the Windies, as you say, is a bit different.

However, there is little doubt that the current line-up looks vastly more threatening than that which played in the Ashes but SA will provide a better guide.

I'd be cautious about saying Hayden's a totally different player. Lets not forget that he's now playing on wickets where theres much less swing, like the Oval, and he can hit thru the line again, rather than having to wait for the ball to swing and play it late. IMO theres been no evidence to suggest he'd have success in England being in the form that he's currently in.

Proof of this was evident IMO during the morning session as Hayden attempted to open his bullish shoulders. What happened? Lets say he found air as often he did the ropes, on an even paced pitch offering only minor lateral movement and some good bounce. He'd have probably come unstuck facing Flintoff and Hoggy..

If the Ashes were replayed now, i'd stack alot on him doing a repeat performance..

However I am in support of Hayden remaining in the team providing he plays well against SA, primarily because we're playing the next Ashes at home. OTOH I'll be fascinated to see how he copes on tour in SA's more swing friendly conditions, particularly since his nemesis Hoggard's done well there..

 

[Pratters]

England sans Jones are different, that's for sure (see the Oval for evidence of that)

Like an Australia sans McGrath?

Really missing players happens and you have to take that into stride to be a great team.

 

[Pratters]

So how come it came unstuck in such circumstances as facing a good attack then?

India in India wouldnt be considered a good attack?

 

[Darrin]

McCullum has shown he can play long innings if given the opportunity instead of coming in with 10 overs to go. In Tests he has shown the technqiue and application to craft out a big score, and it's time he opened again in ODIs because his talents are being wasted down the order.

We need to take advantage of the relatively inexperienced Australian opening bowlers. Lee is still erratic, and without McGrath at the other end, he will gift 4-ball opportunities.

Im sorry i still disagree. I agree he very talented but opening is another proposition again. I'll be surprised if he does open.

Why can't we open with vincent and let him attack in those opening overs? he is a very clean striker of the ball.

 

[Lyell_Chris]

Im sorry i still disagree. I agree he very talented but opening is another proposition again. I'll be surprised if he does open.

Why can't we open with vincent and let him attack in those opening overs? he is a very clean striker of the ball.

Vincent doesn't want to open

 

[Macka]

Vincent doesn't want to open

I know Vincent has said he doesn't want to open in Tests, but has he said that for ODIs?

 

[social]

I'd be cautious about saying Hayden's a totally different player. Lets not forget that he's now playing on wickets where theres much less swing, like the Oval, and he can hit thru the line again, rather than having to wait for the ball to swing and play it late. IMO theres been no evidence to suggest he'd have success in England being in the form that he's currently in.

Proof of this was evident IMO during the morning session as Hayden attempted to open his bullish shoulders. What happened? Lets say he found air as often he did the ropes, on an even paced pitch offering only minor lateral movement and some good bounce. He'd have probably come unstuck facing Flintoff and Hoggy..

If the Ashes were replayed now, i'd stack alot on him doing a repeat performance..

However I am in support of Hayden remaining in the team providing he plays well against SA, primarily because we're playing the next Ashes at home. OTOH I'll be fascinated to see how he copes on tour in SA's more swing friendly conditions, particularly since his nemesis Hoggard's done well there..

Ball swung appreciably at the Oval, difference was in the way he combatted it.

Major problem for Hayden was shot selection. Once he stopped trying to pummel the ball from an upright position and actually treated bowlers with respect, he started scoring runs again.

Funny how the sight of an axe looming over your neck makes you concentrate.

 

[aussie]

Ball swung appreciably at the Oval, difference was in the way he combatted it.

Major problem for Hayden was shot selection. Once he stopped trying to pummel the ball from an upright position and actually treated bowlers with respect, he started scoring runs again.

Funny how the sight of an axe looming over your neck makes you concentrate.

yea exactly, the ball was definately moving around at the Oval & even a bit in the super test, he scored 2 centuries againts top attacks & even the way he played againts WI the new tactics that he adopted at the Oval were evident.

 

[parttimer]

I think Hayden was part of the reason we drew at the Oval, among other reasons eg Warne's drop, unncessarily coming off for bad light etc. His innings was SO SLOW in comparison to Langers, it was obvious that he was WASTING a good batting track. Sure, he was trying to find form by playing more carefully, but it was just NOT the test to spend some time in the middle and regain your form. The selectors hence are also to blame for this.

I am surprised everyone thort it was such a great innings. He still deserved to be dropped IMO. Still does, for the SHEER STUPIDITY he played with during that whole series. By that i mean, why did he wait until the oval to change his attitude and technique? After the previous matches he'd said there was nothing wrong with this technique and attitude, claiming he didn't need to adjust. Only during or after the 5th test did he mention anything about changing his technique. Bunchanon should have fixed his problem earlier too so he is not exempt from blame either. Did he forget that he failed miserably in Eng in 2001, and might be forced to play more circumspectly? Why'd it take him so long???

Even then, armed with his new style he was a failture. Have a look at the scorecard - the difference in scoring rate between he and Langer is alarming.

Batsman Runs Balls 4s 6s
JL Langer b Harmison 105 146 11 2
ML Hayden lbw b Flintoff 138 303 18 -

Surely if he had not wasted those 15 or so overs, or if Ponting had come in earlier, we wouldn't have ran out of time! Despite what ur saying, the Oval was pretty much a perfect track for batting. Both openers scored centuries, doesn't that make it obvious?

 

[Burpey]

I think Hayden was part of the reason we drew at the Oval, among other reasons eg Warne's drop, unncessarily coming off for bad light etc. His innings was SO SLOW in comparison to Langers, it was obvious that he was WASTING a good batting track. Sure, he was trying to find form by playing more carefully, but it was just NOT the test to spend some time in the middle and regain your form. The selectors hence are also to blame for this.

I am surprised everyone thort it was such a great innings. He still deserved to be dropped IMO. Still does, for the SHEER STUPIDITY he played with during that whole series. By that i mean, why did he wait until the oval to change his attitude and technique? After the previous matches he'd said there was nothing wrong with this technique and attitude, claiming he didn't need to adjust. Only during or after the 5th test did he mention anything about changing his technique. Bunchanon should have fixed his problem earlier too so he is not exempt from blame either. Did he forget that he failed miserably in Eng in 2001, and might be forced to play more circumspectly? Why'd it take him so long???

Even then, armed with his new style he was a failture. Have a look at the scorecard - the difference in scoring rate between he and Langer is alarming.

Batsman Runs Balls 4s 6s
JL Langer b Harmison 105 146 11 2
ML Hayden lbw b Flintoff 138 303 18 -

Surely if he had not wasted those 15 or so overs, or if Ponting had come in earlier, we wouldn't have ran out of time! Despite what ur saying, the Oval was pretty much a perfect track for batting. Both openers scored centuries, doesn't that make it obvious?

How can you call a century a bad innings? Would you rather he got a duck? Just because it was an old-fashioned knock, not the run-a-ball stuff we are spoilt with today, doesn't not make it a bad innings. If he had got a duck we may well have lost the Test, who knows.

 

[Jono]

I think Hayden was part of the reason we drew at the Oval, among other reasons eg Warne's drop, unncessarily coming off for bad light etc. His innings was SO SLOW in comparison to Langers, it was obvious that he was WASTING a good batting track. Sure, he was trying to find form by playing more carefully, but it was just NOT the test to spend some time in the middle and regain your form. The selectors hence are also to blame for this.

I am surprised everyone thort it was such a great innings. He still deserved to be dropped IMO. Still does, for the SHEER STUPIDITY he played with during that whole series. By that i mean, why did he wait until the oval to change his attitude and technique? After the previous matches he'd said there was nothing wrong with this technique and attitude, claiming he didn't need to adjust. Only during or after the 5th test did he mention anything about changing his technique. Bunchanon should have fixed his problem earlier too so he is not exempt from blame either. Did he forget that he failed miserably in Eng in 2001, and might be forced to play more circumspectly? Why'd it take him so long???

Even then, armed with his new style he was a failture. Have a look at the scorecard - the difference in scoring rate between he and Langer is alarming.

Batsman Runs Balls 4s 6s
JL Langer b Harmison 105 146 11 2
ML Hayden lbw b Flintoff 138 303 18 -

Surely if he had not wasted those 15 or so overs, or if Ponting had come in earlier, we wouldn't have ran out of time! Despite what ur saying, the Oval was pretty much a perfect track for batting. Both openers scored centuries, doesn't that make it obvious?

LOL! I can understand your frustration with Hayden throughout the innings, but blaming him for the draw is a bit silly. The main reason Australia drew the 5th test was the fact that they went from 0-185 to 3-323 to all out for 367. Flintoff and Hoggard ripped through the middle order with reverse swing. Don't blame Hayden, blame the rest of the batting because had Australia posted 500+, the game and hence series may have been different. Time wouldn't have been that big a factor then.

 

[age_master]

My Australian team for the 1st game:

Gilchrist
Katich
Ponting
Hodge
Symonds
Clarke
Hussey
White
Lee
Bracken
Lewis

Hogg - super-sub

for the life of me i hope Clark does not play.

if Hodge plays (which hopefully he wont) he will bat below the other batsmen i would think. Symonds startd down there, than Clarke was down there, Hussey is down there now.

 

[age_master]

How can you call a century a bad innings? Would you rather he got a duck? Just because it was an old-fashioned knock, not the run-a-ball stuff we are spoilt with today, doesn't not make it a bad innings.

exactly

 

[aussie]

LOL! I can understand your frustration with Hayden throughout the innings, but blaming him for the draw is a bit silly. The main reason Australia drew the 5th test was the fact that they went from 0-185 to 3-323 to all out for 367. Flintoff and Hoggard ripped through the middle order with reverse swing. Don't blame Hayden, blame the rest of the batting because had Australia posted 500+, the game and hence series may have been different. Time wouldn't have been that big a factor then.

exactly, dont get where the bloke is going with that argument..

 

[vic_orthdox]

Bracewell has believed that the way to beat Australia is to battle out of the first 15 overs and then graft out a good score with wickets in hand. I disagree. I think you've got to go at the bowlers straight away otherwise they'll just get on top of you and from there it's all downhill.

I don't really mind if we lose 3-0 as long as we're actually showing a willingness to have a go. We simply won't win by trying to slow the game down.

Sounds a little too similar to his "Must take the game into the 5th day" theory for my liking.

 

[AndrewM]

Sounds a little too similar to his "Must take the game into the 5th day" theory for my liking.

Game five of the last home series in New Zealand we got off to a flyer, with both Astle and Fleming scoring at 6 an over. I agree, we must challenge the Australian attack.

Like i said in my preview, this Australian attack is very short on international experience. Clark and Lewis? Either Vincent or Astle must have a dash. Grafting away for the first 15 is flawed.. pressure equals wickets. Put the pressure back on the opposition.

There is talk that Vincent will partner Astle. Marshall should reclaim his number 3 spot. The rest of the line-up picks itself.

 

[marc71178]

India in India wouldnt be considered a good attack?

Not really, because it's still got a minimum of 2 seamers in it (unless Ganguly does his bowling all-rounder thing)