***Official*** NatWest Series/Challenge

[luckyeddie]

strange though that giles was bowling till the 46th over, which was easily the stupidest thing that i've ever seen vaughan do in any form of the game, and in the end probably cost us the game. it took pure genius to not bowl flintoff for his entire quota, especially with the way he was bowling today.

If you say so, it must be right.

Only he was taken off after the 44th, which incidentally went for just 5 runs. The 42nd, Giles's penultimate over, went for ... wait for it.... 2. The one before that went for ... 4.

You really haven't got a clue what you are talking about, have you?

 

[tooextracool]

Andrew "Gavin Larsen" Symonds goes for 23 from his 10. Can't complain about that.

i'm pretty sure larsen would be offended by that.

 

[tooextracool]

If you say so, it must be right.

Only he was taken off after the 44th, which incidentally went for just 5 runs. The 42nd, Giles's penultimate over, went for ... wait for it.... 2. The one before that went for ... 4.

You really haven't got a clue what you are talking about, have you?

and of course restricting the scoring was the name of the game at the time wasnt it?
australia were 6 wickets down, i dont know about you but given how easily we've dealt with the tail in the past, and how easily flintoff disposed off lee and gillespie, i'd think that flintoff would have been a far far better option than giles. giles should have been off by the 40th over, because he never looked like taking a wicket. the fact that vaughan was trying to contain the likes of brad hogg was stupid enough when they were 6 wickets down, the fact that he was doing it on a seam friendly wicket by bowling giles was just insane.

 

[tooextracool]

i'm a bit comfortable knowing that Lee & Pigeon are bowling the last 2 but has i type Gough samshes Lee for 4

giles wasnt it?
quite an atrocious ball from lee too, bowling a 90 mph bouncer in the 49th over.

 

[tooextracool]

1 swallow does not a summer make.

exactly, i think most people knew that he had the potential, just that hes never managed to apply himself. i'd still think that read is the better option for ODIs.

 

[tooextracool]

As you know only too well, TEC (having made an asp of yourself once or twice in the past) opening a test innings is a completely different proposition to opening an ODI. Mind you, his lack of foot movement can only be compensated for if his eye is in - and at the moment he definitely needs glasses. Same with Strauss, Flintoff, Vaughan and most of the Aussie batsmen.

its not exactly how much he scored, its the way hes got out, flashbacks of the last 2 ashes series, and how best and edwards worked him out in the WI. with flintoff and vaughan i know that their weakness lies not in their technique but in their mind, because they constantly get themselves out. trescothick bar some miracle in SA has always struggled against the ball moving away from him on a seam friendly wicket, and the biggest problem now is that both are openers have major technical flaws, and that doesnt bode well at all for the first ashes test.

 

[tooextracool]

wonder how long back we'd have to go since the last time australia didnt win the final of an ODI tournament(in which they played in)?

 

[luckyeddie]

and of course restricting the scoring was the name of the game at the time wasnt it?
australia were 6 wickets down, i dont know about you but given how easily we've dealt with the tail in the past, and how easily flintoff disposed off lee and gillespie, i'd think that flintoff would have been a far far better option than giles. giles should have been off by the 40th over, because he never looked like taking a wicket. the fact that vaughan was trying to contain the likes of brad hogg was stupid enough when they were 6 wickets down, the fact that he was doing it on a seam friendly wicket by bowling giles was just insane.

It's all a question of timing, though. You cannot just take an arbitrary point in the match (which you got wrong) and, with the benefit of hindsight, suggest that the skipper got it wrong.

The point I was trying to make (and frankly got a bit peeved, because your patented brand of aggressive negativity just gets a bit much to take after a while, especially after such a wonderful game of cricket) is that why conveniently choose that point to take Giles off? Why not 2, 4 or 6 overs before? And why not go the whole hog and suggest that he should have taken Jones off after 1 over? That way, Gilchrist wouldn't have hit four successive boundaries - well, not then, anyway.

You saw the folly of leaving yourself without options - Ponting painted himself tight into a corner 'going for the kill' and threw away all of his flexibility - what would you have done if England had done the same? You'd have gone bonkers as usual.

I said earlier that you are a 'glass half empty' kind of guy. Is there any booze in yours at all?

 

[Neil Pickup]

September 2002, PSO Tournament in Nairobi - but only because the rain denied them.

Before that, you're looking for the 1999 Aiwa Cup in Sri Lanka.

 

[luckyeddie]

its not exactly how much he scored, its the way hes got out, flashbacks of the last 2 ashes series, and how best and edwards worked him out in the WI. with flintoff and vaughan i know that their weakness lies not in their technique but in their mind, because they constantly get themselves out. trescothick bar some miracle in SA has always struggled against the ball moving away from him on a seam friendly wicket, and the biggest problem now is that both are openers have major technical flaws, and that doesnt bode well at all for the first ashes test.

I know - but I'll see your Tresco outside off stump and raise you one Ponting falling over to the off. The Aussies have been exposed in exactly the same way by England's attack - we could be in for one of the lowest-scoring Ashes series of all time.

Somehow, I doubt it.

For the record, I agree with much of what you say - yes, even about Trescothick - but just occasionally take your blindfold off. You missed a cracking match today.

 

[Neil Pickup]

All finals that Australia haven't won

 

[luckyeddie]

All finals that Australia haven't won

'lost the toss' excuse in 5....4....3....

 

[Crazy Sam]

problem for ponting was that he realised that hogg really wasn't the greatest fifth bowler option. unfortunately, neither was hussey ! symonds bowled great once again.


i'm actually not too unhappy with this, the australian bowlers did pretty well and gave the top order a tough time of it, and when you throw warne into the mix we shouldn't do too badly. there were some overs and balls from the pacers though that were quite ordinary in the last 20 overs.

 

[marc71178]

If Richard's told you once he's told you 1000 tmes - Australia will sort the big fellow out.

Obviously.

Next he'll be telling us McGrath won't deserve his 25 wickets in the Ashes.

 

[Blaze]

Probably the fact that having us 33-5 and 8 down needing 26 from 3 overs and they didn't win

England have no reason to be happy either after their bowlers did so well. Chasing less than 200 in a final against Australia. They won't get too many better opportunites than that.

 

[marc71178]

No reason to be happy?

From nowhere we fought back and stopped them from winning.

That'll do me.

The target looks small in theory, but it was in part dictated by conditions and doesn't change the fact that Australia threw it away.

 

[Blaze]

No reason to be happy?

From nowhere we fought back and stopped them from winning.

That'll do me.

The target looks small in theory, but it was in part dictated by conditions and doesn't change the fact that Australia threw it away.

Yeah obviously you should be happy with the extraordinary comeback but you should still be dissapointed that your top order didn't do better.

 

[marc71178]

I'm not so sure - yes we didn't win, but what we fought back from must be worse mentally for the Aussies.

Had we strolled it for 3 or 4 wickets they'd have been more able to shrug it off than having 5 down in the first 10 overs and not winning.

 

[luckyeddie]

England have no reason to be happy either after their bowlers did so well. Chasing less than 200 in a final against Australia. They won't get too many better opportunites than that.

Do you know the meaning of the word 'churlish'?

Hang about - I'm having one of those 'deja-vu' moments again. I asked you exactly the same question a couple of weeks ago and you didn't answer then.

 

[Blaze]

Do you know the meaning of the word 'churlish'?

Hang about - I'm having one of those 'deja-vu' moments again. I asked you exactly the same question a couple of weeks ago and you didn't answer then.

Look I am not denying that they did fantastically well to come back but if the England top order aren't gutted with their performances then there is something wrong. Chasing less than 200 and having your top 5 back in the shed with the score bearly on 30.. sure it was great bowling by Australia but England didn't apply themselves to the task. Had they been 40 or 50 for a maximum of 2 wickets at the first drinks break then they would have made things a lot easier for themselves.