World Cup - Australia first.... daylight second

[Richard]

How about this one for collingwood?

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2002-03/OD_TOURNEYS/VBS/SCORECARDS/ENG_SL_VBS_ODI4_20DEC2002.html

HOW CLEARLY DID I HAVE TO PUT IT?
I quite palpably said "that did not owe to inept catching".
Collingwood was put down off an absolute sitter on 11 in that match, a match characterised by ineptitude indeed.

Maybe eng didn't win but collingwood sure tried

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2...S/SCORECARDS/AUS_ENG_VBS_ODI11_19JAN2003.html

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2...RECARDS/AUS_ENG_VBS_ODI-FINAL1_23JAN2003.html

Yes, that was part of a short spell where Collingwood did pretty well. He was never going to change the course of either match, though.

Or with the ball:

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/OD_TOURNEYS/NWC/SCORECARDS/AUS_ENG_NWC_ODI1_07JUL2005.html

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2001-02/ENG_IN_NZ/SCORECARDS/ENG_NZ_ODI3_20FEB2002.html

He's not a botham-style all-rounder but that's not to say he doesn't have a place.

That McLean Park one was a complete freak, at a time when he was an utterly useless bowler. Apart from that he hardly ever swung the ball pre-2004.
He hardly stood out in the NWC match. All the bowlers bowled well.

 

[Jono]

The best I've ever seen Collingwood bat was in this match against India when Harbhajan and Sehwag had pegged England back.

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004/OD_TOURNEYS/NWC/SCORECARDS/ENG_IND_NWC_ODI2_03SEP2004.html

 

[Top_Cat]

England were completely out of that game until Pietersen turned a near-impossible situation on it's head.
But for Pietersen Harmison's figures would have been pretty meaningless.

England had just lost Flintoff when Pietersen came out to leave them 4/119 with just under half the overs left, Vaughan still out there as well as Jones and Solanki in the shed. Hardly an impossible situation. Not exactly going to plan, yes, but England were still very much in it.

The below is a near-impossible situation (Australia were 6/38 then 7/74), the above was not;

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1995-96/OD_TOURNEYS/WSC/WI_AUS_WSC_ODI5_01JAN1996.html

As for Harmi's figures being meaningless, that was a 300 pitch; his 5-fer was very, very important. The Aussies were 4/63 after all, the top-four all knocked over by Harmi. It took a fantastic rearguard action for the Aussies to get above 200, let alone 250-odd.

Look you hate Harmi, fine. But just TRY, for me, to be objective just once.

 

[Richard]

The best I've ever seen Collingwood bat was in this match against India when Harbhajan and Sehwag had pegged England back.

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004/OD_TOURNEYS/NWC/SCORECARDS/ENG_IND_NWC_ODI2_03SEP2004.html

Yes he did play well there but you really have to question whether he would've done so but for Flintoff bashing it all over everywhere.

 

[Richard]

England had just lost Flintoff when Pietersen came out to leave them 4/119 with just under half the overs left, Vaughan still out there as well as Jones and Solanki in the shed. Hardly an impossible situation. Not exactly going to plan, yes, but England were still very much in it.

The below is a near-impossible situation (Australia were 6/38 then 7/74), the above was not;

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1995-96/OD_TOURNEYS/WSC/WI_AUS_WSC_ODI5_01JAN1996.html

I wasn't meaning when he came in, you know that, I meant the point (38.5 overs) where we needed over 8-an-over with no batters to come.

As for Harmi's figures being meaningless, that was a 300 pitch; his 5-fer was very, very important. The Aussies were 4/63 after all, the top-four all knocked over by Harmi. It took a fantastic rearguard action for the Aussies to get above 200, let alone 250-odd.

Look you hate Harmi, fine. But just TRY, for me, to be objective just once.

I don't hate anyone - I just don't find Harmison a very good bowler. Sure, it was a 300 pitch, but Harmison hardly got his early wickets with good balls, did he?

 

[Jono]

Yes he did play well there but you really have to question whether he would've done so but for Flintoff bashing it all over everywhere.

Yeah quite true, I'm not really getting in on the argument about Collingwood's worth. Just thought that whilst Collingwood has been brought up I'd just mention that that knock of his which really made me stand up and take notice. Harbhajan had everyone bamboozled at the time, and Sehwag was causing problems too. He purposely decided that he was going to use his feet during that knock and come to the pitch of the ball rather than get stuck on the crease like the others had, which allowed Harbhajan to only go for 14 off his 10 overs.

The Flintoff/Collingwood partnership really took the game away from India. Whilst talking about that match, what about Freddy's shot when he was on 99? He clearly, like Gilly, doesn't really think about personal milestones when batting. Did the job for the team.

 

[Richard]

Well there's not exactly any difference between 99 and 101, is there?
Like I say - Collingwood may have played well in that innings, but I have to very much doubt whether he would've managed to do so without Flintoff at the other end.

 

[Jono]

In theory no, but for many many players there is. I mean players don't jump up for joy and celebrate, raise the bat, kiss the helmet etc. when they get to 99

Just one of those things which makes cricket fairly unique.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't hate anyone - I just don't find Harmison a very good bowler. Sure, it was a 300 pitch, but Harmison hardly got his early wickets with good balls, did he?

Oh God, not this again.............

EDIT: Not worth the trouble.

 

[Richard]

In theory no, but for many many players there is. I mean players don't jump up for joy and celebrate, raise the bat, kiss the helmet etc. when they get to 99

Just one of those things which makes cricket fairly unique.

And - as you point-out - fairly inconsequential because just about every player - except those with no brain - would take 99 which lead to a victory ahead of 101 which didn't.

 

[Richard]

Oh God, not this again.............

EDIT: Not worth the trouble.

Fine, if it's not worth the trouble, it's not.
Fact is, good bowling is about taking wickets, not being gifted them. If Harmison had bowled especially accurately in that game, he'd have earned them.
Fact is, though, he didn't - the first 3 were all with out-and-out bad balls that should have gone to the boundary, not to the hands of fielders.

 

[luckyeddie]

Well there's not exactly any difference between 99 and 101, is there?
Like I say - Collingwood may have played well in that innings, but I have to very much doubt whether he would've managed to do so without Flintoff at the other end.

There is the WORLD of difference between 99 and 101.

 

[Richard]

Why?
2 runs will barely affect your average and will hardly ever influence your team's performance.

 

[silentstriker]

The line isn't physical...its psychological. It effects the opponent too, when you are in your 100's. When you are on 99, they are pumped up and want to get you out. Getting 100, though not much different in actuallity from 99, can change the complexion of the game.

 

[Richard]

I'll grant you that there are occasions where it can affect the team with the century-maker (or would-be century-maker), notably this one, but even these are rare.
It certainly can't have an effect on the strong-minded opposition (which numbers near enough everyone playing serious international cricket).

 

[silentstriker]

I'll grant you that there are occasions where it can affect the team with the century-maker (or would-be century-maker), notably this one, but even these are rare.
It certainly can't have an effect on the strong-minded opposition (which numbers near enough everyone playing serious international cricket).

They can try not to let it get to them, but they are human just like everyone else. There definatly is an effect...on the home team as well as the opposition. The batting becomes freer and more relaxed, and the fielding team's shoulders are a little more hunched.

I'm not saying its a night and day difference, but its definatly there and its most definatly noticable.

 

[Richard]

Not really - good sides (whether home or away) are equally likely to dismiss a batsman whatever his score. No-one feels a downer just because someone has scored a century against them.
Of course, some batsmen do free-up after scoring a century - and that often costs them their wicket. But that's their fault.

 

[BoyBrumby]

2 runs will barely affect either your average or your team's performance.

Errr...

 

[silentstriker]

Errr...

Hah! Well, I am not an England fan so I guess I can be forgiven for forgetting that!

 

[Richard]

Errr...

True, that wasn't perfectly put.
That better?