• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** India and England in Australia ODI Tri-Series 2015

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Hard to see Bopara's role in the team if he's not going to bowl. There are better batsmen.
Yeah, I've thought this for a long time, but the guys who might've been suited to #6 haven't been tried, and you don't want to be debuting players in a World Cup. Once the balance of the team changed to mean he wasn't going to bowl much/at all it was too late.

I don't think it'd be a great fit for Ballance but maybe Hales could have a go there.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
It's funny, because 220 vs 200 is basically my idea of a perfect ODI
Nah, **** that. It's either 150 vs 130 or 320 vs 300 for me. 270 is par score.

220 is a waste of time. How can people sit through that ****? There is absolutely no basis for the claim that a rpo of 4.4 is balance between bat and ball.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nah, **** that. It's either 150 vs 130 or 320 vs 300 for me. 270 is par score.

220 is a waste of time. How can people sit through that ****? There is absolutely no basis for the claim that a rpo of 4.4 is balance between bat and ball.
How on earth is 150 v 130 a balance between bat and ball?
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Nah, **** that. It's either 150 vs 130 or 320 vs 300 for me. 270 is par score.

220 is a waste of time. How can people sit through that ****? There is absolutely no basis for the claim that a rpo of 4.4 is balance between bat and ball.
I actually really like the balance between just playing at a natural rate and the run rate pressure that a score like 270 provides. I think that's what ODIs are meant to be about; that absorbing pressure, the batting challenge of building a substantial innings at a good rate without just going at it, and how the bowlers can use that against them. You're never going to lose a chase of 200-220 due to run rate pressure, and I do think that's an important part of one day cricket. I don't think there's enough nous in the really high scoring games though; it becomes purely skill based and I think that takes a lot away from it.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
I actually really like the balance between just playing at a natural rate and the run rate pressure that a score like 270 provides. I think that's what ODIs are meant to be about; that absorbing pressure, the batting challenge of building a substantial innings at a good rate without just going at it, and how the bowlers can use that against them. You're never going to lose a chase of 200-220 due to run rate pressure, and I do think that's an important part of one day cricket. I don't think there's enough nous in the really high scoring games though; it becomes purely skill based and I think that takes a lot away from it.
Yeah, good points. I was going off plain intuition from my experience watching ODIs, but I agree with your reasoning. I like 320 vs 300 because I reckon it's the modern day equivalent of 270 in the 90s.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Funniest thing I've heard today Think both Australia and India will love some minnow-bashing here. Indian fringe players (like Binny, Akshar, Rayudu) will pray to get selected for England games only.
 
Last edited:

Top