***Official*** NatWest Series/Challenge

[Scallywag]

Because Warne's retired and there's nobody else available.

So much for "strength in depth"

Well Hogg being a class above your first spinner Giles shows some of the Australian depth.

But still you have Batty.

**************************************************************************************************


Quote:
Originally Posted by tooextracool
australia may have had the worser of the conditions to bat on, the ball moved off the seam for the first 15 overs, but surely thats no excuse for losing to bangladesh.

Especially when you look at who won the toss.

So who won the toss last night Marc?

 

[King_Ponting]

yours on 10???
We are 7 and foxtel but same feed.......

i think he means 10 news mate

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

yours on 10???
We are 7 and foxtel but same feed.......

Ten news.

Non stop.

Cricket's bloody bad boy.

 

[marc71178]

Also no comments from prominent Bangladesh bashers like Richard and Langeveldt on their great win over Australia.

Well, fortunately we don't see RIchard in official threads.

Pity really as all his One Day theories are being blown out the water in this series (as they are in any series)

 

[marc71178]

So who won the toss last night Marc?

Unless you'd noticed, it wasn't our regular captain.

I believe the score is still Vaughan 3 Ponting 0.

 

[age_master]

Because of course Pietersen's is terrible

its not that his is bad, his is quite good too, but Hussey's is even better.

 

[age_master]

Unless you'd noticed, it wasn't our regular captain.

I believe the score is still Vaughan 3 Ponting 0.

i would say Vaughan had more to do with sending Australia in than Tresco. im pretty sure Vaughan and Fletcher would have made that call.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Sorry, that's complete nonsense.

England desperately needed someone to play 'proper cricket' - and Solanki played that role pretty well under the circumstances, better than anyone else in the side by a long chalk. The early batters were 'pressured' out, strangled by as good an opening eight overs you will see in ODI's.

If he'd needed to have played 'proper cricket' for 69 balls then 1 run every 2 balls would be fine. But all the top quality bowlers were off 1/3 of the way through his innings. Gillespie (who was somewhat lucky to get away with 1-36 off 9), Watson, Symonds and Hogg were all there to be scored off, somewhat worrying that England were so useless against Hogg again.

In response to those that say England didn't bat that badly, look at who top scored for England...

 

[Top_Cat]

Gillespie (who was somewhat lucky to get away with 1-36 off 9), Watson, Symonds and Hogg were all there to be scored off, somewhat worrying that England were so useless against Hogg again.

Why? Just about everyone else has struggled to pick him. I think that's one of his greatest weapons, in fact - everyone thinks he sucks.................until they face him.

 

[Scallywag]

Unless you'd noticed, it wasn't our regular captain.

I believe the score is still Vaughan 3 Ponting 0.

Unless you didnt noticed I never mentioned Vaughan.

You made the call that it was a mistake for Ponting to bat first, do you think it was a mistake for england to ask Australia to bat first.

 

[Scallywag]

i would say Vaughan had more to do with sending Australia in than Tresco. im pretty sure Vaughan and Fletcher would have made that call.

Maybe marc thinks they actually wait until the toss before deciding what to do.

The aussies know before the toss what they will do if they win, I suppose it is possible england wait for the toss then the captain quickly makes his mind up o the spot.

 

[tooextracool]

I beg to differ, for the time symonds was at the crease he seemed to time the ball alrite.

i wouldnt say that, i thought he struggled to get the ball away for a part of his inning, and he wasnt anywhere near as destructive as he usually is. nonetheless, i would say that symonds and pietersen(and maybe flintoff to an extent), were the only people who looked quite comfortable scoring on that wicket.

 

[Top_Cat]

i wouldnt say that, i thought he struggled to get the ball away for a part of his inning, and he wasnt anywhere near as destructive as he usually is. nonetheless, i would say that symonds and pietersen(and maybe flintoff to an extent), were the only people who looked quite comfortable scoring on that wicket.

I thought Ponting looked really good until he got out. Didn't see the English innings.

 

[King_Ponting]

i wouldnt say that, i thought he struggled to get the ball away for a part of his inning, and he wasnt anywhere near as destructive as he usually is. nonetheless, i would say that symonds and pietersen(and maybe flintoff to an extent), were the only people who looked quite comfortable scoring on that wicket.

What about goughie???? he seemed pretty comfortable scoring on that deck.

 

[tooextracool]

Pretty encouraging to hear that from you, actually. I've been saying for a few months now that he is a very different bowler now than he was 18 months ago - the way be bowled yesterday, and in the ODIs in New Zealand, and in most of the VB series this summer, would lead him to have significant success in test cricket.

well to be honest, i havent watched too many of his performances in ODIs recently, actually i havent watched too many ODIs either. there have been occasions though in ODIs in the past where hes bowled just as well as he did yesterday, only to bowl miserably in the test series after that. nonetheless there isnt much doubt that if he continues to bowl the way he bowled yesterday for the rest of the series, and kaspa and/or gillespie(i'd probably favour kaspa over gillespie) continue to be miserable that he deserves to start ahead of them in the ashes series.

 

[tooextracool]

What about goughie???? he seemed pretty comfortable scoring on that deck.

well i missed gough's innings, just gave up after pietersen got out.

 

[tooextracool]

I thought Ponting looked really good until he got out. Didn't see the English innings.

to an extent, although i thought he looked uncertain against harmison.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Why? Just about everyone else has struggled to pick him. I think that's one of his greatest weapons, in fact - everyone thinks he sucks.................until they face him.

Well so far he's taken 5-61 off 16 overs against England in this series, England should be doing far better than that against him.

 

[shaka]

Butcher may be out of action till August!
http://content.cricinfo.com/engvaus/content/story/211795.html

 

[tooextracool]

The shot wasn't great and he kind of hung the bat out at it a bit, but the ball was quite good, it angled across him and moved away. It wasn't as simply as him playing a poor shot..

well i think a good batsman wouldnt have a problem with that. it was a good ball given that it was bowled to expose his weakness, but otherwise it was just a ball outside the off stump that hit the seam. mcgrath bowled quite a few better balls in that spell, and was largely unplayable, and thats precisely why i've been suggesting that england shouldnt be preparing seaming wickets for the ashes, because they simply wont stand a chance.

I agree with you there, but the point I was trying to make is that England did not play particularly badly with the bat yesterday. Flintoff and Solanki were quite good and were removed by some good bowling, and the top three ran into a fantastic spell from both ends, and the fact that they might have had technical flaws exploited doesn't mean that they batted poorly.

i'd say that players who were exposed by technical flaws did bat poorly, and really strauss and tresco didnt look like scoring in any of the balls that they batted, you could see the wicket coming. theres no doubt that there was some good bowling there too, but it was a combination of good bowling and poor batting and by the time they were 6-3 after 6 overs, the chances of victory were already very slim.