**Official**VB Series 2005 Australia,Pakistan,West Indies.

[marc71178]

Martyn leaves his bat and helmet and walks out... I wonder if the ICC will do anything about this... I doubt it... he ain't brown!

Stop spouting rubbish.

 

[benchmark00]

Didn't he take 3/33 off 10 to spark the Australian collapse in the first final?

Yeah but you cant simply say that it was only razzaq and afridi getting close, if thats not what he meant, i apologise, but thats how i took it... I just think its a bit erroneous to forget the efforts of Inzi and Malik

 

[Beleg]

SL,

I just paged through the statistics of this tournament, and you might be surprised to know there are only two australians in the top ten run getters and five/six in the top-twenty. The bowling outlook is better, with McGrath and Lee coming at the top of the list, and it's quite clear that they won this series due to their bowling.


Now seeing this, [and how they got cloberred in the last 10 overs] domination doesn't seem to me to be the right word. Yes they played the best of three involved but they tripped too much for me to accept that they dominated the tournament.


[If you want I can explain more later, right now I just am not focused enough to string togather a coherent sentence let alone a convicing arguement]

 

[marc71178]

Afridi has actually batted with some consistancy this series..

es, he's consistently come in anjd gone for it, regardless of the match situation!

 

[benchmark00]

SL,

I just paged through the statistics of this tournament, and you might be surprised to know there are only two australians in the top ten run getters and five/six in the top-twenty. The bowling outlook is better, with McGrath and Lee coming at the top of the list, and it's quite clear that they won this series due to their bowling.


Now seeing this, [and how they got cloberred in the last 10 overs] domination doesn't seem to me to be the right word. Yes they played the best of three involved but they tripped too much for me to accept that they dominated the tournament.


[If you want I can explain more later, right now I just am not focused enough to string togather a coherent sentence let alone a convicing arguement]

dom·i·nate (v) : To enjoy a commanding, controlling position in


Sounds like Australia dominated to me! they commanded and controlled the tournament to the extent where they were way out ontop of the points table

 

[amokk1]

Why did Azhar bowl 1 ball and bat at 9?

Because they have no one else in the side that can perform?
Shows how Pakistan lacks game plan?
Match Fixing?
In case Razzaq had another Spinach attack?

 

[Eclipse]

es, he's consistently come in anjd gone for it, regardless of the match situation!

yes...

I guess he hasn't really made many runs but at least he has made over 20 basicly every time.. kinda not that good though because he should have gone on on a few more occaions.

 

[Slow Love™]

SL,

I just paged through the statistics of this tournament, and you might be surprised to know there are only two australians in the top ten run getters and five/six in the top-twenty. The bowling outlook is better, with McGrath and Lee coming at the top of the list, and it's quite clear that they won this series due to their bowling.


Now seeing this, [and how they got cloberred in the last 10 overs] domination doesn't seem to me to be the right word. Yes they played the best of three involved but they tripped too much for me to accept that they dominated the tournament.

Yes, their batting was well below par. Most of them struggled for consistent form (with the exception of Clarke, and possibly Martyn). However, in spite of this, they still managed to win nearly all of their games fairly comfortably, in ODI terms. Domination means to stand well above the other teams in the competition, and I think they did that, even acknowledging that the batting looked brittle at times.

If you were to ask me: "Did Australia dominate this tournament like they dominated the 2003 World Cup?", I would say no (even though it pays to remember they tripped a few times in that tournament too, before recovering to win games), but IMO, that means they just dominated to a lesser degree.

 

[Eclipse]

We batted well below our best in this tournement.. our bowling and feilding where fine i thought.

 

[Beleg]

Sounds like Australia dominated to me! they commanded and controlled the tournament to the extent where they were way out ontop of the points table

Tell me in how many matches they enjoyed a commanding, controlling position for the majority of the game?

And being on top of the points-table doesn't automatically establish dominance. Incase that game hadn't been washed off, the hypothetical table would then have the difference of only one win between Pak and themselves.


Azhar Mahmood was brought in to bolster the batting-line up, and if needed, swing his arm around for a few overs. And as the Aussie inning quite clearly shows, there was no such neeed. [Though If Razzaq hadn't gotten Gilchrist then it might have been different]

To be fair to Afridi he has shown some consistency. 240 odd runs from his batting position is sound if not good. [And his bowling has been a major weapon too, taking crucial wickets at important stages and cripling the opposition]

 

[Top_Cat]

Tell me in how many matches they enjoyed a commanding, controlling position for the majority of the game?

Define majority because in my mind, the answer to your question is 'all bar two games', one of which they lost and the other they were well on the way until the rain came.

 

[Top_Cat]

Damn Slow Love, you're quoting me? That quote is out of context!

 

[Slow Love™]

Damn Slow Love, you're quoting me? That quote is out of context!

LOL - but I gave it a context by inserting "(Lehmann's)", so people would know who you were originally referring to.

BTW, I think Beleg means "majority of a match", rather than "majority of the matches".

 

[Beleg]

Err, how did they enjoy a commanding, controlling position for most of the time in the two finals?

Domination for me is when a team plays and comes off as clearly superior in all three disciples; something which Australia in this series didn't display [consistently].

Majority percentage for dominance: more then 2/3rd.

And before I forget: Excellent fielding effort by the Aussie's today!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Err, how did they enjoy a commanding, controlling position for most of the time in the two finals?

They never looked like losing any of the other matches. Hence, they enjoyed a commanding, controlling position in each of them. If you go through a whole ODI match and always look like you are going to win, you dominated the match, even if the end result is only a win by 20 or 30 runs.

 

[Pratters]

Andre and Marc totally thought Watson could never play for Australia at number 8 and opposed me on it. Well I checked out he just did in the first final..

 

[Adamc]

I suppose they meant that he could never play well at number 8 for Australia, and he didn't, really...

 

[Swervy]

They never looked like losing any of the other matches. Hence, they enjoyed a commanding, controlling position in each of them. If you go through a whole ODI match and always look like you are going to win, you dominated the match, even if the end result is only a win by 20 or 30 runs.

even a 30 run win..although doesnt sound that much...most of the time it does suggest that the losing team were probably struggling most large chunks of the game (unless some freak collapse happened or something)

 

[Gangster]

Afridi was certainly not the problem in this series. If anything, this series has shown that the Pakistani ODI team needs to be built around guys like Afridi and Rana. Pakistan are fine from 4 on in their order, they just need good guys 1-2-3. It can start with Malik being sent back to 3, then Inzamam at 4, Youhana at 5, Younis Khan at 6, Razzaq at 7, Afridi at 8, Sami at 9, Rana at 10, and Akhtar at 11. I think Butt probably should return at 1 and be stuck with, and maybe Hameed at 2.

 

[Jono]

Afridi was certainly not the problem in this series. If anything, this series has shown that the Pakistani ODI team needs to be built around guys like Afridi and Rana. Pakistan are fine from 4 on in their order, they just need good guys 1-2-3. It can start with Malik being sent back to 3, then Inzamam at 4, Youhana at 5, Younis Khan at 6, Razzaq at 7, Afridi at 8, Sami at 9, Rana at 10, and Akhtar at 11. I think Butt probably should return at 1 and be stuck with, and maybe Hameed at 2.

I agree with just about everything in that, except I'm a firm believer that Youhana should bat at 3. Also, for the time-being Kamran Akmal IMO should stay, just not as opener. I don't think Younis Kahn is suited to keeping at international level. Here's my ideal Pakistan line-up:

Butt
Hameed
Youhana
Inzamam
Malik
Razzaq
Afridi
Akmal
Rana
Akhtar
---
Sami/Rao/Khalil/Gul etc.etc.

Other than the final pacer who can be anyone, I really like that line-up. I feel Hafeez doesn't have a spot in the team at the moment, especially if Shoaib Malik is allowed to bowl again (what's the news on that anyway?).

Younis Kahn and Hafeez and Mahmood is strong bench strength, and I think Taufiq Umar is talented, but playing him in the final after 10 months away from international ODIs was stupid. Real stupid.