***Official*** NatWest Series/Challenge

[luckyeddie]

You don't agree the pitch was doing a hell of a lot more in the first 10-15 overs of Australia's innings than it was before?

Under the circumstances, I think all the Australian's aside from Hayden batted quite well. Obviously you could also include Martyn since he didn't make many runs. Ponting looked uncomfortable but managed to survive the tough period, and Gilchrist, Clarke and Symonds all played very well indeed.

I really haven't a clue - I'm actually doing what I accuse many others on here of doing all the time - watching the game on teletext.

All I know is, two weeks ago it would have been inconceivable that Australia would have any trouble whatsoever in disposing of Bangladesh - and even last week, people were saying 'fluke'. Now, what seem like excuses to explain a really close game are forthcoming.

Perhaps Bangladesh just BOWLED better in the first 15 overs? In which case, credit where credit's due.

On the other hand, you might be right.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I really haven't a clue - I'm actually doing what I accuse many others on here of doing all the time - watching the game on teletext.

All I know is, two weeks ago it would have been inconceivable that Australia would have any trouble whatsoever in disposing of Bangladesh - and even last week, people were saying 'fluke'. Now, what seem like excuses to explain a really close game are forthcoming.

Perhaps Bangladesh just BOWLED better in the first 15 overs? In which case, credit where credit's due.

On the other hand, you might be right.

Yeah, Bangladesh bowled very well inside the first 15 overs indeed, particularly Mortaza. Anyway, I'm not trying to make excuses, I'm just saying that I don't think Australia batted badly, as some were suggesting. The pitch was doing a lot (and I do mean a lot... easily the most seam movement Australia would have seen since Darwin last year), Bangladesh bowled well, and there was a touch of bad luck like Gilchrist's bizarre dismissal. If anything, it's a credit to Bangladesh to say that Australia were undone (or at least held back) by good play rather than poor batting from the Austalians.

As far as Bangladesh just bowling better inside the first 15... I don't know. Lee and Gillespie bowled quite well and got a bit of movement, but the rain before and during the interval seemed to coincide with the pitch livening up a great deal, and for what it's worth all the English commentators (albeit including muppets like Botham) said the same.

Either way, it was the second very, very good performance from Bangladesh in the series. It took some excellent play from Ponting and Clarke to keep Australia from being in danger of a second loss to them.

 

[Pratters]

Now, what seem like excuses to explain a really close game are forthcoming.

I dont think it was a close game. After losing the early wickets, Australia restrained from taking risks. Bangladesh played well and yes its unfair to not give discredit to Bangladesh by giving 'excuses' but he did say 'bangladesh played wonderfully' in that post you quoted from him.

I thought Australia planned it well after the freak Gilchrist dismissal and the good delivery which got Hayden and Martyn out after looking good again.

Yes Australia needs to tighten things up but it was abnormal to lose Gilchrist the way they did and after losing Martyn it would be stupid to take risks early on.

Bangladesh was very good with the bat and the ball and all credit to them for sure.

 

[Jono]

I think rather than the Australian batting, which was witheld by the pitch AND some great Bangladesh bowling, the main worry from this match would be the bowling, more particularly the death bowling. Bangladesh were 5-75, and were able to get to 250. Even after 44 overs Bangladesh were only on about 200. The death bowling needs to improve for Saturday's game, and McGrath in the team will obviously aid that.

 

[crickmate]

Shahriar Nafees became MOM

 

[Slow Love™]

In the end, Australia won this more comfortably than it looked, but I wouldn't say we played well. The opposition has to be taken into account - it's Bangladesh, for chrissakes. Yes, good on them for providing a contest, etc, etc, but I still feel like we are playing at around 60% capacity. And the bowling in particular is still a fair way below par. I can't tell if it's just a case of struggling to adapt to the conditions, or just a slump, but I really doubt that Buchanan and Ponting and co were very happy with the way the match progressed - not only with the ball but with the bat as well. When Khaled Mahmud is looking vaguely threatening, things can't be all right.

Boy, there sure were a lot of LBW shouts in Australia's innings - I was in the kitchen for some of them and they were so frequent I wondered if the Bangladeshis were over-appealing, but my wife seemed to think they were OK shouts. From what I saw, Aleem Dar did a really great job on the calls. It's a pity that performances like that can't be immediately commemorated in some way after the game.

 

[viktor]

Boy, there sure were a lot of LBW shouts in Australia's innings - I was in the kitchen for some of them and they were so frequent I wondered if the Bangladeshis were over-appealing, but my wife seemed to think they were OK shouts. From what I saw, Aleem Dar did a really great job on the calls. It's a pity that performances like that can't be immediately commemorated in some way after the game.

Thats an interesting point...do you mean something like an ump of the match??
could be useful, might make them take a few more decisions themselves.

 

[Slow Love™]

Thats an interesting point...do you mean something like an ump of the match??
could be useful, might make them take a few more decisions themselves.

I don't think you can really make it an Ump of the Match thing, 'cause you'd always have a 50% chance of winning it, no matter how badly you might have done on the day.

But it'd be good if an exemplary umpiring performance could be publicly recognised at the time. Umpires receive a lot of criticism (sometimes it's warranted - sometimes it isn't), and I think it'd be beneficial for the sport to publicly acknowledge the times they've been outstanding. They're performers on the field, like players are. In addition to introducing assisting technology and increasing the size of the international panel to raise standards, it'd be a good step in terms of public perception - unfortunately it's hard to figure out a good way to implement it. Maybe the only way it could be done is an "umpire of the month" award or something.

I think the way it works now is all pretty clandestine - the ICC reviews the umpires' performances, but it all happens behind closed doors and the umpires largely miss out on the public recognition when they perform particularly well.

 

[superkingdave]

RE Gilchrist's walking, i think this is a consequence of him making it known that he will walk if he gets an edge. In this instance he probably was not sure whether he had hit the ball because of hitting the ground , he was probably pretty sure he didn't but there was an element of doubt. Because he has this policy of not walking, if he had stood his ground, been given not out and then television replays had shown he had hit it this might have had a detremental effect on umpire's view of his stance - and he might have decided that it was not worth the chance in this game.

 

[Jamee999]

Umpire of the Natwest Series Award perhaps.

 

[aussie]

didn't get to see the Australia's chace but from what i heared at Old Trafford they struggled a bit. But it was nice to see Ponting & Clarke getting some runs & Watson getting some wickets. It all about saturday at Lord's now,it's going to be a cracker of a final, but i've got Australia to win, they have proven time and again that they know how to lift their game in big finals.

In reference to Bangladesh their performances in this ODI series would have gave them great confidence & gained them the respect of the world. Blokes like Ashraful, Mashrafe & Aftab have been revelations for Bangladesh.

 

[aussie]

I just say the replay of Australia's chase, somebody please tell me why did Gilchrist walk

 

[marc71178]

Oh come on.

I thought so as well - the difference in quality between the sides means that Australia cannot use the rain as an excuse.

 

[marc71178]

I dont think it was a close game.

Requiring 65 from the last 10 overs suggests otherwise.

A couple of wickets there and who knows?

 

[Pratters]

Requiring 65 from the last 10 overs suggests otherwise.

A couple of wickets there and who knows?

With 6 wickets left and Watson coming in at number 8, it was pretty much Australia in the driver's seat barring the its a funny game and any thing can happen lines.

But yes, as you said, Australia should never have the eventuality of a chance of losing if rain came it being Bangladesh.

They have to really alanyse how they let Bangladesh get away from the poor start even though Bangladesh did bat well.

Australia losing 3 early wickets can happen versus any team particularly with the way Gilly went. And they couldnt afford to take risks which is why it came down to 65 in 60 balls (as they thus ensured having 6 wickets in hand giving them the safety pad)

 

[shaka]

Maybe Gilchrist is fixated with walking so much that in his mind he thought he edged it. A batsman like him should know when the ball is moving off a footmark and not touch his bat. even punter is shocked.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I haven't seen the incident as of yet. Would/could have Gilchrist been given out if he didn't walk, or was it blatantly obvious from front on that he didn't hit it?

 

[Top_Cat]

I've seen a similar incident in a Test against Australia but can't remember who it involved. Basically, it just looked like a big edge and I would imagine the umpire may have given him out. Certainly from front-on, it would have been very difficult to tell and with the ball moving so much after pitching, the obvious conclusion would have been an edge.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I've seen a similar incident in a Test against Australia but can't remember who it involved. Basically, it just looked like a big edge and I would imagine the umpire may have given him out. Certainly from front-on, it would have been very difficult to tell and with the ball moving so much after pitching, the obvious conclusion would have been an edge.

Yeah, I do too, but I think it was a spinner (MacGill strikes a chord with me...)

 

[Crazy Sam]

australia's bowling was again very ordinary. it's like gillespie and lee only had two or three different balls they knew how to bowl and that was it ?!?!

tony, kerry, stuart very funny once again though. can't stand stuart as a player but they are very funny together.