***Official*** NatWest Series/Challenge

[honestbharani]

I travelled 700 Kms back to Chennai from Hyderabad (where my job is) and I can tell you that it is all almost worth it for having watched this cracker of a match. Great job to England. I have never seen an English side with so much ticker. I think Australia will win the Ashes but I am sure England will win a lot of hearts if they continue to fight this hard throughout the summer. The main thing is to stay focussed and understand that they HAVE to win, not just COMPETE with Australia.

 

[Top_Cat]

A great game and awesome work by Jones and Collingwood to rein in the Aussie score from 5/33. Collingwood reaffirms what I've been saying for ages; he is needed in the whites for England. It would be tough to find a place for him right now but I would think that if Thorpe doesn't perform, his spot might be vulnerable. And although not perfect with the gloves, Jones possesses some serious grit about him and could salvage some innings' where this (i.e. quick wickets) happens in the Test series. He reminds me of Dave Richardson for South Africa; again, not perfect with the gloves but a genuine fighter with the bat.

Some of the top-order dismissals should be cause for some concern for England, though. Both Flintoff and Pieterson were dismissed by nervous prods to back-of-a-length bowling which will undoubtably be exploited by the Aussies in the Test series (if Pieterson gets a game). Both are leg-side favourable players and with the Aussies stacking the slips in Tests, this might be what brings them undone. Both Pieterson and Flintoff have trouble covering their off-stump and unless they work on that, the Aussie slips could get some catching practice.

As for the Aussies, they were undone by some excellent bowling from Flintoff and Harmison which forced them into some injudicious shots. Ponting was strangled down the leg-side and I think this may be an area of attack by the English bowlers if the full-and-straight balls don't work early in his innings. The English plans to the Aussies seems to be working very well and I personally think it's been a triumph of planning and execution by bowlers who are bowling very well right now.

The Aussie bowling; well, the opening bowling spots seem to be working in the ODI's but if the Aussie selectors have no intention of picking Lee, this could be interesting. My personal opinion is that they have EVERY intention of picking Lee for the Tests ahead of Kasper and taking the new-ball with McGrath.

One interesting aspect of Lee's bowling I noticed last night is that Lee has reined in the speed a bit and seems to be hitting the seam far more often and concentrating on the McGrath outside off-stump line. McGrath has always said that when he tries to bowl quicker (140km/h+) he always gets less bounce and Lee seems to have learnt the lesson well because he is getting the ball to leap upwards upon pitching at around the 135-140km/h mark, well below top pace. He only 'skids' the ball in when he bowls quicker now. I think this will be the key to any success he has in the Tests. Gillespie has improving and I think he's accepted that he's not in top form but I get the feeling he's gearing up to be in rhythm for the first Test, just taking it slowly. The signs of improvement are there, though. Has some way to go, though.

 

[Pratters]

The Aussie bowling; well, the opening bowling spots seem to be working in the ODI's but if the Aussie selectors have no intention of picking Lee, this could be interesting. My personal opinion is that they have EVERY intention of picking Lee for the Tests ahead of Kasper and taking the new-ball with McGrath.

I have been almost certain Australia will play Lee ahead of Kasporqicz in England from months and I will give my reasoning.

In India, Kasporwicz was the more suited bowler as Australia needed a 'stock bowler' to fill in the overs without giving too many runs from an end. A spinner usually does that job but we know Warne has had a more attacking role over the years.

In England Australia require Lee as its not as exhausting to bowl in England as in India. So if England stride though an inning with a lot of runs, Australia would be able to cope with the long innning I suppose. Lee is a wicket taking bowler much more than Kasporwicz. He is a much better alternative, giving extra pace to the attack and a new ball option.

Kasporwicz is an excellent bowler and has served Australia well over the past few years. I fear this may become the series where Kasporwicz fades with Tait or some one else taking the place as backup number 1.

Kasporwicz isnt getting younger and Australian selectors have shown great timing. They need Kasporiwcz as a backup imo in this series as no other fast bowling option, some one like Tait, is experiecned enough.

 

[Craig]

What a game and series - it has everything. Cliffhangers, great catches, strong all round performances, upsets, and fantastic innings from the underdogs and the emergence of others.

For a game to be tied after needing less then 200 to win shows that low totals can be exciting and IMO can be more exciting then a big scoring match (as long as it is close). I have been disappionted with Flintoff with the bat against Australia, after getting runs when England have need him to. Although he has bowled pretty well against Australia.

From this evidence I think Strauss could be McGrath's new bunny in the Ashes.

 

[luckyeddie]

well thats just your opinion eddie which i agree with, but at this stage their is no way Read will be playing in the ashes.

Funnily enough many people do agree with my opinion on several things (not all at once, of course) but that's all they are, of course - my own opinions.

If someone in authority doesn't necessarily agree with those opinions (they probably aren't aware I even exist god here I am brain the size of a planet etc etc) I'm not going to create a song and dance about it - life's too short for that nonsense.

Consequently, Read, Jones - it's all good. Both bring something to a game. Neither are Bob Taylor, but then again there's only ever been one like him - or two if you count Knotty, or three if you count JT Murray, or four if you count Les Ames, or five if (voice fades into distance)

 

[luckyeddie]

Well its true that Dizzy just hasn't looked himself on tour yet & with the 1st test just around the corner time is running out for him.

I dont think Langer is the best opener on either side, for me its Hayden.

I like Hayden too, and it's wrong of me to leave him out when I said 'no proper openers'.

Great opening partnerships are forged over the years, and those two are precisely that, great AND a partnership. Hayden probably got a bit 'flash' for a year or so last year - whether the mental pressures got a bit too much or not he seemed to find a lot of ways of getting out. Langer has just ground it out over the years, always the 'next one to be replaced' but always hanging on through sheer stubbornness and strength of mind. Boycott to Hayden's Edrich.

Now they were 'proper' openers too.

 

[Adamc]

Better!

The way I see the psychological afters is that whilst Australia were in "winning" positions (at 33-5, and then 167-8) and only once in a "bad" one (196ao), England only ever got to "good" positions (196ao, and maybe 134-5) and also experienced one "atrocious" position (33-5) so should (and will) be more content with the final tie.

That is probably right: if you compare the reactions of the players it would seem as though England were happy with the result while Australia were (temporarily) something just short of distraught. Although I guess they could hardly get excited about restricting England to 'only' nine off the last over. It's possible that Australia didn't actually realise the trophy would be shared; they probably had (reversed) WC '99 flashbacks and thought they'd lost.

 

[Mister Wright]

What excuses? Like I said, they bowled well early on. Lee was disappointing later but right on the spot early on, and Gillespie was the best he's been on tour at the beginning. The really poor point was the death bowling, particularly from Lee.

My point was, Lee & Gillespie should be match fit and firing, they have been consistently playing - Kasprowicz has not. Gillespie had another poor match in the final, he can no longer be considered an 'automatic' pick for Australia's one day & test side.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

My point was, Lee & Gillespie should be match fit and firing, they have been consistently playing - Kasprowicz has not. Gillespie had another poor match in the final, he can no longer be considered an 'automatic' pick for Australia's one day & test side.

He wasn't too bad in the final. Kasprowicz will play during the NWC, and probably in a tour match or two as well. He will have to make his case there, because as things stand I can't see how he would be in the text XI.

Hopefully, the selectors will pick all four seamers and Hogg in the NWC, and Hussey as the sub, giving all bowlers an opportunity to make their case. Probably Watson will get a go too, but definately all four seamers should play.

 

[luckyeddie]

He wasn't too bad in the final. Kasprowicz will play during the NWC, and probably in a tour match or two as well. He will have to make his case there, because as things stand I can't see how he would be in the text XI.

Hopefully, the selectors will pick all four seamers and Hogg in the NWC, and Hussey as the sub, giving all bowlers an opportunity to make their case. Probably Watson will get a go too, but definately all four seamers should play.

The perception I got was that Gillespie was very much seen by the England batsmen (well, Collingwood and Jones - did he actually bowl to anyone else?) as the weak link. Collingwood played him correctly while Jones just blasted him around the park.

 

[Mister Wright]

He wasn't too bad in the final. Kasprowicz will play during the NWC, and probably in a tour match or two as well. He will have to make his case there, because as things stand I can't see how he would be in the text XI.

Hopefully, the selectors will pick all four seamers and Hogg in the NWC, and Hussey as the sub, giving all bowlers an opportunity to make their case. Probably Watson will get a go too, but definately all four seamers should play.

I will admit that Lee does seem to have the edge over Strauss atm, but that is in the ODI format, Lee has always bee destructive in the ODIs, however hasn't been able to do it in tests (consistently) because batsman don't feel the same pressure to score. If he does have good tour games and Kaspa doesn't, he will likely play, but then the selectors will face a bigger dillema if he does play and performs poorly. The selectors should take the easy option and select Kasprowicz and that way if either he or Gillespie are poor Lee can play. Considering if Kasprowicz is left out it could be the end of his career.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The perception I got was that Gillespie was very much seen by the England batsmen (well, Collingwood and Jones - did he actually bowl to anyone else?) as the weak link. Collingwood played him correctly while Jones just blasted him around the park.

I have no doubt they see him as a weak link (although I think they were more contemptuous with Hogg, since Gillespie was allowed to bowl tight death overs), but that doesn't necessarily mean he will be that weak in the tests. Gillespie has always been inconsistent, and I still feel he will improve before the tour is done.

Either way, he won't be dropped. As I said earlier in the thread, if Gillespie doesn't play at Lords (yes yes, excluding injury) I will eat Richard's computer.

I won't go so far as to say Lee will definately play at Lords, but if he doesn't it will be a major error on the selectors part, and I'd expect to see Australia suffer from the same problem they did in the New Zealand tour with periods of unpenetrative bowling from both ends. Carrying one out of form bowler when they've had a history of coming good at opportune moments is one thing, carrying two is another entirely. While Lee is in good form, has done everything possible to get back into the Australian team during his 17 test absence, seems to have the wood over the English top order AND the bowler he is competing for his spot with is out of form, why not pick him?

 

[luckyeddie]

I have no doubt they see him as a weak link (although I think they were more contemptuous with Hogg, since Gillespie was allowed to bowl tight death overs), but that doesn't necessarily mean he will be that weak in the tests. Gillespie has always been inconsistent, and I still feel he will improve before the tour is done.

Gillespie didn't bowl any 'death overs' at all. He was done and dusted before the game moved into the last 10.

(You're normally better than that. You're not having a 'TEC moment' and making it up to suit your point, are you?)

My opinion, If it's worth anything to anyone, is that Gillespie is too classy a bowler to remain out of form for ever. As far as who will play in the first test, I think he's a shoe-in, as are McGrath and Lee. If it doesn't come off, well, heads will roll before the second match. The Aussie selectors can be ruthless - there's no room for sentiment and there's certainly not a lot of feeling in their collective glass eye.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Gillespie didn't bowl any 'death overs' at all. He was done and dusted before the game moved into the last 10.

(You're normally better than that. You're not having a 'TEC moment' and making it up to suit your point, are you?)

Sorry, by death overs I just meant overs near the end. He bowled two about 37 and 39, I think, and one of them only went for one run.

My opinion, If it's worth anything to anyone, is that Gillespie is too classy a bowler to remain out of form for ever. As far as who will play in the first test, I think he's a shoe-in, as are McGrath and Lee. If it doesn't come off, well, heads will roll before the second match. The Aussie selectors can be ruthless - there's no room for sentiment and there's certainly not a lot of feeling in their collective glass eye.

Agreed. Once you get dropped, it can be very, very hard to get back in too, and if Kasprowicz plays in the Ashes and has a torrid time and gets dropped, his career is done. Don't think there can be that much doubt about the first XI though. Hopefully for Lee's sake he can make the most of a second chance.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

i chose that point because it was the only bad move by vaughan, the rest were all understandable because the fact is most captains would have probably done the exact same thing in that situation. its not hindsight at all, while i was watching the last 10 overs, i sat there wondering, what in the hell he was trying to do. and while paul allott was talking about how much of a cakewalk this would be for england i was saying to myself, that cost england at least 20-30 runs, and the game. of course i didnt expect jones and collingwood to score as much as they did. but the point of it all is that when you had australia down, you have to take them out. you cant be negative and say i'm fine with australia getting about 4 runs an over on a seaming wicket and contain brad hogg when hes just come in, you have to get him out. england simply were too negative, vaughan obviously didnt read the pitch well enough because he certainly seemed pleased with containing australia below 200, when he should have been looking to get them out for 160.i agree with most of what you say too but what i sometimes get annoyed with about you is that you're so quick to defend vaughan and attack pontings captaincy, when this move was just as poor as ponting not trying to prevent jon lewis from getting taking the single at bristol. as far as what happened with gilchrist was concerned, it was just poor bowling too many half volleys and the fact that it took him 10 balls to come around the wicket to gilchrist(took gough even more), i mean come on everyone knows that gilchrist thrives on width, you only saw that in the last game! when he did of course gilchrist flashed at a wide delivery(which was called a wide and missed) 2nd ball and then played and missed the next one.

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.

err yes but how is that comparable with vaughan who wasted 2 overs from one of his best bowlers?
that would be equivalent to ponting deciding to bowl hogg instead of finishing lee's full quota of overs in the last few overs.

 

[James]

Read Cricket Web's Player Review of the NatWest Series

 

[luckyeddie]

Sorry, by death overs I just meant overs near the end. He bowled two about 37 and 39, I think, and one of them only went for one run.

He definitely finished well - understandably because I think that Jones and Collingwood were 'gathering themselves' for the big push at the end. For a while (if 3 overs can be classified as 'a while') it looked decidedly comfortable, but then after the run-out it all threatened to go belly-up.

All the time as they were moving into the last 10 it became apparent that Ricky Ponting had a huge problem (no flexibility left - the old thing about 'going for the kill' being fine if it works but potentially disastrous if he doesn't get the back-up from his bowlers) - that's what made Collingwood's run-out so needless. Then Jones felt that he had to do it alone and threw it away (brilliant yorker by the GLA, incidentally), but one thing about Ashley Giles - if I had to choose any No 8 in world cricket to bat for my life, the King of Spain would be the one I would choose every time.

 

[tooextracool]

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..

really?so you think pontings weakness is equivalent to trescos despite the fact that it still hasnt stopped him from scoring runs against england and every other team on basically any type of pitch?
trescothick was not even a year ago being worked out by best and edwards both in england and in the WI.
just look at our batting card:
trescothick: major weakness
strauss: major weakness
vaughan: has struggled in tests since hes taken over as captain
bell: unproven
thorpe: no weakness, but england seem hell bent on dropping him
flintoff: hasnt scored much for nearly a year, weakness against spin
jones: lack of application

on the other hand look at australia
hayden: weakness against the inswinger, certianly prominent in all of the games of this series where he kept hopping around against it
langer: slight weakness against the inswinger, but nothing thats ever bothered him seriously.
ponting: proven performer against pace
martyn: fabulous player against all forms of bowling
katich: ditto
clarke: inexperienced, unproven on seam friendly wickets
gilchrist: proven performer against pace, although i'd like to see england bowl around the wicket to him this summer

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.

it was an amazing game, and it was something that rekindled my dying interest in ODI cricket(even if only temporarily) because even as overplayed as it is these days, its still worth watching occasionally. but just because it was you cannot just exclude mistakes and poor performances from certain players from it.

 

[tooextracool]

Better!

The way I see the psychological afters is that whilst Australia were in "winning" positions (at 33-5, and then 167-8) and only once in a "bad" one (196ao), England only ever got to "good" positions (196ao, and maybe 134-5) and also experienced one "atrocious" position (33-5) so should (and will) be more content with the final tie.

the way i see it is that unlike in the past, we have tremendous fighting spirit and never really give up. you'd have expected something like jones and collingwood from michael bevan and [insert name here](bichel being most recent) a few years ago.
and for those who think the australia dont need bevan, think again.

 

[Linda]

Who wouldve thought a game with no result could be so good? I think my head almost exploded when Collingwood was run out..

The best thing about low scores imo is that every wicket in the chase is made all the more thrilling.. and isnt that what sport is all about?