***Official*** NatWest Series/Challenge

[aussie]

Giles does absolutely nothing though, waste of a space in the team. If they are going to plan for WC 2007 then start now.

What the f**k , absolute nonsense mate.

 

[aussie]

Wait a minute England are still to use the two remainding powerplays, dear Vaughan has problems

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Giles does absolutely nothing though, waste of a space in the team. If they are going to plan for WC 2007 then start now.

Well he certainly doesn't do much if they choose not to bowl him. With the sub though, I think he's a good idea in the team, since he is quite capable of bowling 10 economical overs, and Collingwood can take some of his 10 if the pitch is seaming. On a turner, he becomes a strike bowler obviously.

I'd drop Gough for Tremlett immediately, and rethink the opening bowler policy. Harmison doesn't seem to handle the new ball very well, and he doesn't rely on seam or swing which comes with it. So it's probably Jones/Tremlett, or Jones/Flintoff at a pinch. The rest of the team is pretty solid I think.

England actually have the potential to be in the top few ODI teams in the world in a very short period of time. They've got a solid bowling attack with a fair amount of variety, their team gets more settled as time goes by, and they've got two world class ODI players in Flintoff and Pietersen. I don't think many teams are going to dominate Trescothick and Strauss as comprehensively as Australia have, so it's certainly not panic stations just because they lost a couple of games. The last team to win two ODIs in a series against Australia is Sri Lanka at home with Murali, who aren't exactly poor.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Great innings by Gilchrist. Probably the best of the tour to date, with the previous two centuries being a bit more scratchy. He hasn't put a foot wrong, and has turned a gettable but competitive chase into a complete rout.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Or maybe I actually watch the games and make a reasoned judgement based on what happens in them, rather than assuming every instance of winning the toss must be exactly the same value as every other instance of winning the toss, every game must be of equal significance and so on?

You would know, if you paid any attention, that I've have nothing but praise for Flintoff with the ball in this series, and I also think Harmison has bowled exceedingly well at times. Collingwood used the conditions perfectly at Headingley, too, while Flintoff, Pietersen, Collingwood and Jones have all had moments of brilliance with the bat. England for the most part have fielded better than Australia aside from the last two games, their first and second change bowlers have been much better, and they've fought back brilliantly from situations where Australia looked certain to win on two occasions. I pointed out the significance of the toss at Headingley because, you guessed it, the toss was extremely significant. Inserting Australia first on such a pitch was an advantage to begin with, but when the conditions changed so dramatically between the innings it only made it more noticable. The toss in the other games has been no more significant than it usually is in a one day game, which is to say it mattered, but it didn't put any particular team at a massive advantage off the bat.



Rubbish. Bowlers like McGrath have made a career out of taking wickets on flat pitches. You don't just put it in the right area and hope for a mistake, although that helps, you can work for wickets as well. You would know if you watched the game that the ball that got Strauss straightened to a significant degree off the seam, and turned what should have been a regulation defensive push into an edge to Gilchrist. It was brilliant bowling by Kasprowicz, and dismissing it as "poor batting" just shows how readily you attack your own players, and how blatantly you refuse to give the opposition any credit. Pietersen batted brilliantly, but was removed by a brilliant slower ball. Trescothick too, was removed by a clear plan from the Australians in the same way Martyn was in the first game. Vaughan fell to brilliant fielding.

McGrath took 0-40 in case you forgot, notice how when the batting got better he was powerless to stop the batsmen scoring at a fast pace - the same would happen on that pitch regardless of the pace bowler because there was nothing in the pitch. If England had batted well for 50 overs they would have scored 300 or thereabouts against any pace attack regardless of how well they bowled, that's not faulting how a team fielded and bowled, that's just what happens on these stereotypical rubbish ODI pitches that reduce every bowler to cannon fodder and make it a batsman's game. What I don't get is why people think pitches like this make a good, proper ODI - it just makes it a contest between bat and bat.

 

[Jono]

LOL @ Ponting's wicket.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Australia will have it tied up by then, notwithstanding any further comedy dismissals like Punter's. You'd also like to think we'd have a slip in for that kind of position.

I'm now pretty glad I missed this morning - for all intents and purposes this track seems like a road and we must have played some exceptionally poor cricket to get to 93/6. Still, it does seem that our top order stupid-shot issue only seems to come in when we bat first in an ODI - so it ain't *too* much of a concern yet. I hope.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

McGrath took 0-40 in case you forgot, notice how when the batting got better he was powerless to stop the batsmen scoring at a fast pace - the same would happen on that pitch regardless of the pace bowler because there was nothing in the pitch. If England had batted well for 50 overs they would have scored 300 or thereabouts against any pace attack regardless of how well they bowled, that's not faulting how a team fielded and bowled, that's just what happens on these stereotypical rubbish ODI pitches that reduce every bowler to cannon fodder and make it a batsman's game. What I don't get is why people think pitches like this make a good, proper ODI - it just makes it a contest between bat and bat.

Err, has it occured to you that maybe McGrath's last 6 overs went for 40 because people played him well? It's a flat wicket yes, but good bowlers have managed to get the new ball to swing, and to pick up seam movement from the pitch. Kasprowicz did Strauss with significant seam movement, Flintoff and McGrath both got plenty of balls to move off the pitch, not just a fraction but a long way at times, even Symonds got seam movement, and Lee got the new ball to swing and Giles has found a bit of turn. The pitch was good for batting but it didn't have NOTHING for the bowler, good bowlers bowled well on it.

I agree that dead flat pitches don't make great ODIs. The most entertaining ODIs routinely come on seaming, turning or slow/low pitches. This wicket isn't too bad for ODIs though. It's flat and batting is pretty easy on it, but it's certainly far from a disgrace like some ODI pitches you see are.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Strauss got a good 'un and Vaughan played some delicious shots before being superbly run out, so the "stupid shot" issue didn't arise with those two. Didn't see Tresco's but (fnarr fnarr).

 

[aussie]

Oh yes Gilly, just loving it.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Strauss got a good 'un and Vaughan played some delicious shots before being superbly run out, so the "stupid shot" issue didn't arise with those two. Didn't see Tresco's but (fnarr fnarr).

Don't forget that they were both dropped tho.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Don't forget that they were both dropped tho.

It's the nature of the ODI beast, attacking play. I guess Gilly plays a lot of what could be deemed stupid shots too, they usually go for four. It doesn't bother me that we get out attacking to be honest, better that than defending over after over awaiting one with your name on it.

 

[Anil]

australia romping home...impressive comeback from them....

 

[Barney Rubble]

Game over, Gilchrist 121* Harmison 9.5-0-81-0.

Goodbye David Shepherd, he's getting a standing ovation and an Anglo-Australian Guard of Honour - well-deserved, a true servant of the game. Here's to Shep.

 

[aussie]

All over, Australia looking in ***y form. Goodbye Shep u will be missed, nice to see the players giving him a hug. MR.Harmison will want to forget this game 9.5-0-81-0

 

[marc71178]

Botham believes in the first Test at Lord's, England don't need a spinner and thus Pietersen should come in for Giles.

Any coincidence that Botham manages Pietersen?

 

[marc71178]

Come in supersub - England send in Solanki. Now would be a good time for him to prove his ability. KP needs to stay there all the way now.

But why him in for Gough?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Looks like we've had our bottoms well & truly spanked. Aside from the death throes I only saw about 50 minutes at lunch, which coincided with Vikram & KP moving us from 110-6 when I arrived to Dizzy castling KP with a low-ish full toss @ 180-odd for 7. Looks like I caught the best bit!

We've been that busy at work I couldn't even follow it on the net. It's a disgrace, I'm a civil servant, we aren't paid to work!!

 

[marc71178]

Pietersen looking pretty good today, this is an important innings for KP in the context of him being selected for the 1st Test next week.

I fail to see how he can be selected, it would be a complete farce.

 

[Arrow]

Since the introduction of the new rules we have seen 3 of the most one sided and boring one dayers of recent times, all in succession.