***Official*** NatWest Series/Challenge

[marc71178]

He won't read it TC, so no point really!

Strangely the official threads, which talk about proper cricket tend to be ignored by him, wonder if it's because they always show his theories to be wrong?

 

[Crazy Sam]

I very much doubt it - the 12 man rule isn't in till next week.

wouldn't have thought so given how long solanki was out in the field :O


symonds again showed how great he is it's a shame one of his brain explosions cost him a century, he was batting beautifully. and to think it was barely six months ago people were calling for his head....

 

[social]

Once again two Aussie batsmen fall to well-excuted plans (Gilchrist and Martyn) and got out exactly the same way; in your face, Richard.

Gilchrist' dismissal was planned.

Martyn simply had a slog and happened to be caught at third-man. In reality, the ball could have gone anywhere.

 

[Scallywag]

Vaughan screwed up big time in the field last night.

Pulled the slip out in the fourth over and Hayden puts one through for another four. Then he calls Giles to come straighter at mid off and Hayden puts the next ball right where Giles was standing for four.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Gilchrist' dismissal was planned.

Martyn simply had a slog and happened to be caught at third-man. In reality, the ball could have gone anywhere.

When it happens twice that England set one of their safest and most mobile catchers at third man, you start to think it's more than coincedence.

 

[Top_Cat]

Martyn simply had a slog and happened to be caught at third-man. In reality, the ball could have gone anywhere.

Oh come on, it's well known that Martyn likes to play that shot and he's now been out to it twice in three games. Yes technically it can go anywhere but Martyn plays it so well that if a fielder is placed there, he can predict where it's like to go. It's a strength of Martyn's but it also gets him out. As Neil pointed out, why else would England place it's second-best fielder down there for the catch AGAIN?

 

[social]

I dont think that Australia would be all that thrilled with their performance today - they should really have scored another 20 - 40 runs.

That being said, the odds of an Aus victory were no worse than 50/50 and I have a feeling that 260 would have been a hard target on that wicket.

However, their batting performance led to thinking about the team lineup and below is what I consider to be a logical alternative.

1. Gilchrist - starting to hit the ball well and a big score is just around the corner.

2. Clarke - ridiculous having him bat at 7. He needs work against the seamers and here is the place to get it, not test matches. Has already had success in this position and is the long-term solution anyway.

He should replace Hayden, who IMO, should be test match only.

Hayden seems to have forgotten how to build an innings in ODIs and this has started to carry over into the test match arena. Make him focus on the latter just like Langer.

3. Ponting - as for Gilchrist.

4. Hogg (Vic batsman) - should be gaining experience in ODIs whilst competing for a test spot (if it has been good enough for everyone else, why not him?). Has a great recent record in one-day domestic cricket and is a high quality player.

He can also bowl off-spin and is a brilliant field.

Martyn is a fantastic batsman but a bit one-paced for ODIs at the moment. He not only got himself out last night but was the major contributor to Ponting's dismissal as he had not scored off the previous 11 balls. Like Hayden, leave him for tests.

5. Symonds

6. Hussey

7. Watson - needs exposure at the top level and plenty more of it. Aus desperately needs him to improve his bowling and he wont do it in the shed.

8. Hogg (WA bowler)

9. Lee

10. Tait - as for Hogg.

Why on earth would they select him for a tour where he is unlikely to play more than one or two tour games. He should be gaining experience in ODIs. Plus he is seriously quick and could be leathal at the "death". He is also a much better fieldsman than Gillespie.

11. McGrath

It was noticeable last night that the English are far more athletic in the field than Aus. The above team goes a long way to rectifying that problem.

It provides far more bowling options.

It provides exposure for younger players.

It provides separation between the test and ODi squads.

 

[social]

Oh come on, it's well known that Martyn likes to play that shot and he's now been out to it twice in three games. Yes technically it can go anywhere but Martyn plays it so well that if a fielder is placed there, he can predict where it's like to go. It's a strength of Martyn's but it also gets him out. As Neil pointed out, why else would England place it's second-best fielder down there for the catch AGAIN?

Unlike Bristol, he did not mean to hit the ball anywhere near third man. He backed away, tried to smack it over cover, and got a top edge.

BTW, England had their best fieldsman down there because Martyn scores so many runs behind point that you need a very mobile fieldsman down there.

 

[shaka]

Symonds is improving each game now, nice to see, Gilchrist is nearing his best and England should be worried when the Ashes come around, Hayden has looked good al series, Ponting improving with every game and is not looking confident.

would Giles make it into the team under the substitution rule that might be implemented, as his ground fielding is poor, and he is not as quick to chase the ball as the rest of the team.

 

[vic_orthdox]

4. Hogg (Vic batsman) - should be gaining experience in ODIs whilst competing for a test spot (if it has been good enough for everyone else, why not him?). Has a great recent record in one-day domestic cricket and is a high quality player.

Is it really worth it? It's not as though he's not getting the chance to bat at the moment - as far as I know, he's not even in the ODI squad and is currently playing County cricket. Btw, it's Hodge, not Hogg.

And also, are you saying that should become the permanent batting line-up, or just for the next few matches?

 

[vic_orthdox]

as far as I know, he's not even in the ODI squad

Same as Tait...

 

[social]

Is it really worth it? It's not as though he's not getting the chance to bat at the moment - as far as I know, he's not even in the ODI squad and is currently playing County cricket. Btw, it's Hodge, not Hogg.

And also, are you saying that should become the permanent batting line-up, or just for the next few matches?

It should become the basis for the permanent team.

BTW, I know that neither Hodge (sorry) or Tait are in the ODI squad and I think it's ludicrous.

Tait will come to England with no match practice in 5 months and be expected to bowl with rhythm straight away and possibly make his test debut shortly thereafter. I hope people dont write him off should he bowl poorly because the selectors arent giving him the best opportunity to perform.

In the meantime, Hodge has been plying his trade in the back-blocks of England whilst Hussey has been taking all before him in the ODIs. At the very least, BOTH should be in the ODI squad AND the Test squad.

But knowing our genius selectors, they'll send an in-form batsman (Hussey) back to where-ever and expect Hodge to immediately graduate to the top level from a much lower level of cricket.

 

[vic_orthdox]

BTW, I know that neither Hodge (sorry) or Tait are in the ODI squad and I think it's ludicrous.

Can't disagree with you there.

I don't think that your team looks all that bad, but I'd be implementing it in a few months and not now. Looking towards this series, I think that the Aussies would have seen the ODIs as very important to the Test hopes, because if they managed to dominate the series (which thus far they have far from done) then they would see that as opening up old wounds.

You don't plan to dominate by bringing in an upheaval just as the series starts. Even now, if Aus win the next 4 matches they play against England in the ODIs (or vice - versa) it will have a massive effect on the result of the Test series. Now isn't the time for experimentation, I would have thought.

 

[Top_Cat]

I dont think that Australia would be all that thrilled with their performance today - they should really have scored another 20 - 40 runs.

England bowled really well and the Aussies had to play well to get as good a score. I would think they would have been pretty happy with 260 considering the pitch was a little uneven.

Martyn is a fantastic batsman but a bit one-paced for ODIs at the moment. He not only got himself out last night but was the major contributor to Ponting's dismissal as he had not scored off the previous 11 balls. Like Hayden, leave him for tests.

This aside from the fact that Martyn has been Australia's most consistent batsman this tournament and unlike Hayden, Ponting and Gilchrist, when he was tied down, DIDN'T get out? A major contributor to Ponting's dismissal? Puh-lease. Ponting's wild swish to a decent ball was the major contributor to his dismissal. It was still early in the innings so it's not as if Martyn not scoring for 11 balls meant much. Ponting was undone by really good bowling a pretty ordinary shot. Blaming Martyn for that and saying he should be out of the side, despite being one of Australia's best ODI batsmen for the past year at least, is suggestive of a personal bias. Check out his stats for the last year and a bit;

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

10 50's in 30 matches is pretty impressive. His ODI strike rate is actually increased of late to almost 80 and that's despite being the player to come in and build the innings on quite a few occasions in the last couple of years when the top-order have missed out early. He's more than done his job.

Unlike Bristol, he did not mean to hit the ball anywhere near third man. He backed away, tried to smack it over cover, and got a top edge.

BTW, England had their best fieldsman down there because Martyn scores so many runs behind point that you need a very mobile fieldsman down there.

This is now way diminishes the fact that it was a planned move by England and it worked again.

And the way Martyn scores behind point, no 3rd man in the world would be of any use because they wouldn't get anywhere near the ball. That 3rd man was very fine SPECIFICALLY for the lofted shot by Martyn.

 

[social]

England bowled really well and the Aussies had to play well to get as good a score. I would think they would have been pretty happy with 260 considering the pitch was a little uneven.



This aside from the fact that Martyn has been Australia's most consistent batsman this tournament and unlike Hayden, Ponting and Gilchrist, when he was tied down, DIDN'T get out? A major contributor to Ponting's dismissal? Puh-lease. Ponting's wild swish to a decent ball was the major contributor to his dismissal. It was still early in the innings so it's not as if Martyn not scoring for 11 balls meant much. Ponting was undone by really good bowling a pretty ordinary shot. Blaming Martyn for that and saying he should be out of the side, despite being one of Australia's best ODI batsmen for the past year at least, is suggestive of a personal bias. Check out his stats for the last year and a bit;

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

10 50's in 30 matches is pretty impressive. His ODI strike rate is actually increased of late to almost 80 and that's despite being the player to come in and build the innings on quite a few occasions in the last couple of years when the top-order have missed out early. He's more than done his job.



This is now way diminishes the fact that it was a planned move by England and it worked again.

And the way Martyn scores behind point, no 3rd man in the world would be of any use because they wouldn't get anywhere near the ball. That 3rd man was very fine SPECIFICALLY for the lofted shot by Martyn.

When Aus got to 220-4, they should have scored at least 280 but unfortunately for them, Hussey caused a run-out when a second was never on (Symonds caused his own dismissal but the fact remains that they were both short of their ground) and then edged a wide. From that point on, England bowled really well at the remaining batsman.

To be honest, dropping Martyn is unfair and we would be better served with him at opener so that he could potentially bat the entire 50 overs at his own pace whilst people played the big shots at the other end (something that Hayden appears unwilling/unable to do at present).

To say that I am biased against Martyn is ridiculous as I consider him to be Aus' best Test player at present and, IMO, was the best Test batsman in the world last year.

However, the fact remains that as Hodge is our back-up batsman for Test cricket, a spot should be found for him in the ODI team for experience alone. Should the selectors not consider him good enough (it cant be because of shot-making ability because anyone that has seen him play knows differently), then Hussey should replace him in the Test squad as well.

As for Martyn's dismissal, dont be ridiculous. To claim that it was planned is like saying that Tresco is weak outside the off- stump, setting slips in position, getting him caught at slip off the glove whilst attemting to hook a bouncer, and then saying "I told you he was weak outside the off-stump."

 

[SpaceMonkey]

As for Martyn's dismissal, dont be ridiculous. To claim that it was planned is like saying that Tresco is weak outside the off- stump, setting slips in position, getting him caught at slip off the glove whilst attemting to hook a bouncer, and then saying "I told you he was weak outside the off-stump."

The field was set specially and the ball was bowled specifically to get him out in that way. Thats planned in anybodies language.

 

[vic_orthdox]

As for Martyn's dismissal, dont be ridiculous. To claim that it was planned is like saying that Tresco is weak outside the off- stump, setting slips in position, getting him caught at slip off the glove whilst attemting to hook a bouncer, and then saying "I told you he was weak outside the off-stump."

I would have thought it was more like "Tresco is weak on the off side, and tends to nick to the fuller length ball after bowling a lil short of a length", and then having him caught at slip playing one just short of a length before you get the chance to throw one full.

 

[social]

I would have thought it was more like "Tresco is weak on the off side, and tends to nick to the fuller length ball after bowling a lil short of a length", and then having him caught at slip playing one just short of a length before you get the chance to throw one full.

No.

England's plan to Martyn in Bristol was to bowl a short ball over off-stump and have Martyn caught at third-man as he flicked in the air over the slips cordon from a crampt position.

In this case, Martyn backed away, received a ball just short of a length and wide of the off-stump, tried to smack it over cover but only succeded in top-edging it to short third-man.

Chalk and cheese.

 

[shaka]

bowling two identical deliveries in a row to Gilchrist outside off stump while bowling around the wicket suggests a plan was implemented, and proved to be very successful.

 

[social]

bowling two identical deliveries in a row to Gilchrist outside off stump while bowling around the wicket suggests a plan was implemented, and proved to be very successful.

I dont have a problem with that dismissal - good planning followed by good bowling.