Opinions on The Super Series

[social]

Still, when it mattered, they crushed England in the final of the ODI's. There are no real weaknesses in their ODI team, that's the main point. By contrast, in Tests, Australia's lack of quality pacemen, to support Warne and McGrath, is cause for genuine concern. In ODI's, this weakness can be papered over by allrounders who only have to bowl a handful of overs. That's why such a flaw is a threat to their Test Match dominance, while their ODI supremacy continues to be largely unchallenged.

Aus has a short - medium term problem - how to replace McGrath Gilchrist and Warne (any team would have a problem replacing 3 of the greatest cricketers of all time).

However, their failure to pick their best players (MacGill, etc) and/or to their continued desire to select teams based on loyalty rather than performance (Hayden's retention, etc) impedes their present perfomance.

Aus still has far and away the best group of players but, IMO, they are handicapping themselves at present.

Their perfomance in the ODIs vs World X1 just illustrates the gulf between Aus and the rest of the world's individual teams.

 

[howardj]

Aus has a short - medium term problem - how to replace McGrath Gilchrist and Warne (any team would have a problem replacing 3 of the greatest cricketers of all time).

However, their failure to pick their best players (MacGill, etc) and/or to their continued desire to select teams based on loyalty rather than performance (Hayden's retention, etc) impedes their present perfomance.

Aus still has far and away the best group of players but, IMO, they are handicapping themselves at present.

Their perfomance in the ODIs vs World X1 just illustrates how great the above has been.

For sure man - I agree with all that, 100%. Im just pointing out that, particularly now that Gillespie and Kasprowicz have gone off the boil, that the decline in our bowling has hurt us a little more at Test level, and will continue to do so (especially when McGrath and Warne retire) than in the ODI theatre. Just on McGrath and Warne, I think when they retire, there's no risk of Australia falling into a big heap. Rather, things will probably revert to about 1994 - where Australia will be one of the leading Test teams in the world, rather than the undisputed Kings that we've been from 1995-2004.

 

[howardj]

Anyway, back on topic, I thought tonight's game was great. The ROW players seemed particularly dedicated and deliberate in their run chase.

 

[Richard]

Well, if you really want to get into the nitty gritty of it, the ICC RoW XI represents ICC and the Australian team represents the Cricket Australia. And, as the success of Irani Trophy in India has shown, it is not a bad concept at all.

Maybe at the domestic level "rest of" teams are less of a bad idea.
I know The RoW XI reprisents The ICC - but it only reprisents part of ICC, because CA are a part of it.
So it's part of ICC vs the rest of it.

 

[Richard]

Actually, I am of the feeling that a couple of guys are "too" keyed up for this series and that has cost them these games. Certainly Lara seemed to want to take control of the game straightaway, which is not how he usually bats even when chasing big targets for the Windies.

Well Lara looked totally out-of-nick to me - not really surprising given he hasn't played international cricket for ages, and his form recently has been inexplicably modest anyway, with just 1 substantial innings in the last 2 years.

 

[Richard]

330 games are not farce at all, if the batting was good enough and the pitch was flat enough. Certainly in this game, it was the case. Flat pitch and good batsmen = big scores.

Well as far as I'm concerned games like this are farces - obviously different people have different viewpoints.

 

[Richard]

I see where Gilchrist did not think these matches should have been given official status, I wonder if he has changed his mind now?

Knowing him I'd reckon probably not.

 

[Richard]

Having been humbled in the first 2 games, I'd say that the World X1 better be up for it or else all the "good work" done for the game by England will be well and truly flushed down the toilet until the next Ashes series comes along.

Because of course England did so much "good work" on Australia's ODI sides?
Somehow they managed to lose just 3-2, which was an achievement in itself, but I'd hardly say they got anything over them.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Still, when it mattered, they crushed England in the final of the ODI's. There are no real weaknesses in their ODI team, that's the main point. By contrast, in Tests, Australia's lack of quality pacemen, to support Warne and McGrath, is cause for genuine concern. In ODI's, this weakness can be papered over by allrounders who only have to bowl a handful of overs. That's why such a flaw is a threat to their Test Match dominance, while their ODI supremacy continues to be largely unchallenged.

I think you'll find the more meaningful final (still fairly meaningless in the grand scheme of things) was tied and England beat Australia in the CT.

 

[Richard]

I think the one crucial point throughout the Super Series so far is that the cricket has been of remarkably high quality. There's been some utterly spectacular batting, great fielding (although the catching from Australia has been poor), good bowling... it's been high quality, entertaining one day cricket. I don't like the closed roof and never have for cricket as the weather is a vital part of our game, but aside from that there's absolutely nothing to complain about in the matches in terms of them not being competitive, played in a good spirit or highly skilled. It's perfectly obvious if you look at the players and the way every run is cheered, every wicket is celebrated and see how much every error hurts that all the players on both sides are desperate to win. Aside from with their catching, Australia has played utterly superb cricket so far, and aside from suffering a bit with a lack of established teamwork the R.O.W. side has provided, as expected, wonderful opposition.

I'm very much looking forward to the final game, and very pleased indeed with the way Australia has performed, particularly the way guys like Bracken and Watson have stood up in such big games. Gilchrist's new found dominance has just added an extra element to the Flintoff battle as well.

Of course Gilchrist's dominance is new-found? He's not been batting like this for the last 7 years now?
You like weather interruptions?
How on Earth you have construed ROW have played especially well when near enough all their players have underperformed I really don't know.
Quite why you seem surprised that Australian catching has been poor when it has been so for the last 3 years I'm not sure either.
What I'm not surprised about is that you can make this series look like a massively positive thing when in fact it's been not remarkably interesting, given that you've already decided it was going to be a massive piece of brilliance.

 

[Richard]

I think you'll find the more meaningful final (still fairly meaningless in the grand scheme of things) was tied and England beat Australia in the CT.

Of course - England are indeed a better ODI side than Australia.

 

[Tom Halsey]

To be honest, I think when we're playing a side with no bits-and-pieces players, we're a better ODI side than people give us credit for. I think we could fairly say we were unlucky with the toss/supersubs rule in the NatWest Challenge, and England and Australia were fairly even in the triangular tournament before.

I'm not saying England are the best ODI side or anything, but we're better than people give us credit for.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Of course Gilchrist's dominance is new-found? He's not been batting like this for the last 7 years now?
You like weather interruptions?
How on Earth you have construed ROW have played especially well when near enough all their players have underperformed I really don't know.
Quite why you seem surprised that Australian catching has been poor when it has been so for the last 3 years I'm not sure either.
What I'm not surprised about is that you can make this series look like a massively positive thing when in fact it's been not remarkably interesting, given that you've already decided it was going to be a massive piece of brilliance.

I had not "decided it was going to be a massive piece of brilliance", I just hadn't shut my eyes, put my fingers in my ears and screamed "NO" over and over to ensure I couldn't possibly enjoy it. Aside from the fact that the games haven't been massively close and that it's been indoors, I've enjoyed the games as incredibly high standard ODI cricket with lots of great players that I like to watch.

And, it's not weather interruptions that I like, but the effect that weather has on the match. Cloud cover, wind, temperature, humidity and so on all have a big impact on cricket, just like the condition of and variations in the pitch, and I think it's a travesty to attempt to either manufacture pitches or remove variation in conditions, as it takes a great deal from the game.

That's not really the fault of this fixture though, as other games have been played at the Telstra Dome and I've always felt the same way about them.

 

[honestbharani]

Does the team batting first at the Telstra Dome win most of the time? I seem to recall the first 3 games played in that stadium and the team chasing lost every time, well, almost, the third game was tied but Australia struggled to chase modest totals twice in succession and RSA failed to chase a decent score in the first game.

 

[Richard]

To be honest, I think when we're playing a side with no bits-and-pieces players, we're a better ODI side than people give us credit for. I think we could fairly say we were unlucky with the toss/supersubs rule in the NatWest Challenge, and England and Australia were fairly even in the triangular tournament before.

I'm not saying England are the best ODI side or anything, but we're better than people give us credit for.

To say that England and Australia were fairly even in The NatWest Series is utterly typical of just reading results. Anyone who watched can tell that Australia were easily the better team even while the results read 1-1. They were just Pietersened once, probably suffered from the thunderstorm once and somehow managed to snatch a tie from the jaws of victory.

 

[Richard]

I had not "decided it was going to be a massive piece of brilliance", I just hadn't shut my eyes, put my fingers in my ears and screamed "NO" over and over to ensure I couldn't possibly enjoy it. Aside from the fact that the games haven't been massively close and that it's been indoors, I've enjoyed the games as incredibly high standard ODI cricket with lots of great players that I like to watch.

How has it been a high standard of cricket? It's contained most of the usual pitfalls - good batsmen getting out to rubbish deliveries (Lara especially culpable), only 1 decent spell of bowling from a bowler on either side (Pollock and McGrath in the First game), Vettori bowling rubbish and getting superb figures, Lee as usual getting wickets with rubbish deliveries, etc. etc.
Just because the players should be good players most have not performed as such and as such it's been a poor standard of cricket - and on my part that was utterly predictable, it's expecting far, far too much to expect so many good players to be on top of their games at the same tiny point in time.

And, it's not weather interruptions that I like, but the effect that weather has on the match. Cloud cover, wind, temperature, humidity and so on all have a big impact on cricket, just like the condition of and variations in the pitch, and I think it's a travesty to attempt to either manufacture pitches or remove variation in conditions, as it takes a great deal from the game.

That's not really the fault of this fixture though, as other games have been played at the Telstra Dome and I've always felt the same way about them.

I hardly see that taking the climatic conditions out of the equation is a problem as long as it's only done once in a while, and games at Telstra aren't exacly a common occurrance.
If you think that drop-in pitches are a bad idea you're obviously deluded - clearly it would be a better idea to use stadia for rugby\AFL\whatever and then make these into cricket squares. Drop-in pitches are the logical and sensible way forward in all multi-purpose stadia, and obviously all pitches are deliberately "manufactured" whether drop-in or not - do you think we should just go back to the 1850s and playing on dirt?

 

[Tom Halsey]

To say that England and Australia were fairly even in The NatWest Series is utterly typical of just reading results. Anyone who watched can tell that Australia were easily the better team even while the results read 1-1. They were just Pietersened once, probably suffered from the thunderstorm once and somehow managed to snatch a tie from the jaws of victory.

Or rather, Jones and Collingwood batted very well and got us a tie - are you going to give us credit for it? And yes, England and Australia were reasonably even. England were on top for some of it, Australia were on top for some of it. I'll say it again, I don't think England are as good an ODI side as Australia, but we're better than some give us credit for (when not playing useless bits-and-pieces players).

 

[Richard]

Does the team batting first at the Telstra Dome win most of the time? I seem to recall the first 3 games played in that stadium and the team chasing lost every time, well, almost, the third game was tied but Australia struggled to chase modest totals twice in succession and RSA failed to chase a decent score in the first game.

It's strange, isn't it? The pitches have not seemed to deteriorate in any of the games, yet batting second even when chasing relatively straightforward targets (such as Aus v WXI First ODI) has not been easy.

 

[Richard]

Or rather, Jones and Collingwood batted very well and got us a tie - are you going to give us credit for it? And yes, England and Australia were reasonably even. England were on top for some of it, Australia were on top for some of it. I'll say it again, I don't think England are as good an ODI side as Australia, but we're better than some give us credit for (when not playing useless bits-and-pieces players).

No, England had lots of very poor players in the ODI side last summer (Strauss, Vaughan, Solanki, Flintoff who wasn't exactly in tip-top touch, Collingwood, both Joneses, even Gough sadly).
Poor specialist players are every bit as poor as useless bits-and-pieces players.

 

[Tom Halsey]

No, England had lots of very poor players in the ODI side last summer (Strauss, Vaughan, Solanki, Flintoff who wasn't exactly in tip-top touch, Collingwood, both Joneses, even Gough sadly).
Poor specialist players are every bit as poor as useless bits-and-pieces players.

Don't know how you can say Strauss, Flintoff and Collingwood are poor ODI players.

In the main, a good Test player will also be a good ODI player, and vice-versa. There are a few exceptions, but not many.