World Cup - Australia first.... daylight second

[wpdavid]

Does "on paper" assume that Strauss, Collingwood, Vaughan, Harmison, Geraint Jones, Solanki et al are good players?
Because I'd say that "on paper" none are up to it.
The only England players that are worth places - "on paper" or in reality - in the current set-up are Trescothick, Pietersen and Flintoff.

And of those three, even Trescothick has generally been a waste of a space for most of the last couple of years.

As for the others, "on paper" probably wasn't the best choice of words. Suffice to say that most people view them (apart from Solanki) as automatic choices, whereas, in reality, they have contributed relatively little. That's certainly true of Strauss' & Collingwood's batting, anyway. Harmison's done well enough, to be fair. And Vaughan did considerably better in 2005 than Tres, Strauss or Collingwood, if you ignore the games against Bang, although that isn't saying much.

 

[Richard]

I must say I was surprised at how many runs Vaughan ended-up managing in 2005.
Interesting about Trescothick - not something I'd especially noticed, but an extremely worrying trait nonetheless.
That's 2 good innings in 30 (excluding 1 against Zimbabwe).
Hopefully that means he's due some runs soon, and hopefully it means Pathan, Singh, Khan et al will get the treatment.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Most of them are end-of-Test-tour ODIs when he weren't really that bothered.

 

[Richard]

And if that is the case (you can't say for certain whether it was - there are many shattering illusions) he has no-one to blame but himself.
It's not exactly like he's never performed in end-of-tour ODI series (West Indies 2004), nor that he's never had bad series at the start or in the middle of tours (New Zealand 2001\02, summer 2004).
Using "it's the end of the tour" is a poor excuse, especially given that WC2007 is after a long period of time on the road.

 

[tooextracool]

1999 and 2003 hardly comparable.
NZ's side was inestimatebly better in 1999 than 2003 and quite how they managed to make the Super Six in 2003 was quite a question.

probably because the WI and SA were even worse.....

 

[tooextracool]

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.

and if the batsmen bat miserably it is of course harmisons fault isnt it?
when you have a batting side that is filled from top to toe with largely mediocre ODI batsmen you're not going to chase too many, but to blame the bowlers when they actually did their job is quite a joke.

 

[tooextracool]

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?

i find it hard to understand what good balls have to do with ODI cricket? whether or not they were wicket taking deliveries is irrelevant, he bowled economically and thus took wickets, which is the basis of ODI cricket is it not?

 

[tooextracool]

There is the WORLD of difference between 99 and 101.

for players who care about personal records yes. i personally will never understand that. i can understand being nervous when you are yet to score, because you're always going to be a bit edgy when you first come in especially if the pressure is on you to score runs. for a player who is on 99, ther pressure isnt(or shouldnt be) anymore than what it was when he was scoring all his other runs.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

probably because the WI and SA were even worse.....

How did WI and SA affect England's Super Six place in the 2003?

Besides, the West Indies suffered a great deal from a rain-affected match v Bangladesh in that tournament.

 

[tooextracool]

How did WI and SA affect England's Super Six place in the 2003?.

i think he was referring to NZ was he not?

Besides, the West Indies suffered a great deal from a rain-affected match v Bangladesh in that tournament.

oh of course, but wouldnt you say that NZ was the better team? given that they won every game bar 1 against SL in the group stage?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

i think he was referring to NZ was he not?

Indeed. Huge mis-read on my part. Apologies.

oh of course, but wouldnt you say that NZ was the better team? given that they won every game bar 1 against SL in the group stage?

I think that even back then New Zealand and the West Indies are two teams that either could win on any given day, because on paper, there's not too much between them. The difference is that, as you say, New Zealand is a better TEAM. What they lack in natural talent, they make up for with the concept of teamplay.

 

[MoxPearl]

australia will win the world cup IF they bring their A game to the semi's and the grand final. With the way the world cup is set up it is highly conceivable that if Australia has an off day and comes up against a red hot opponent then they will get knocked out in the Semi/Final stage.

The teams who could knock them over in this period are;
India: if Shewag, Tendulkar or someone else goes nuts with the bat.
Pakistan: If their bowlers blitz our batters.
England: If they just fire full stop.

Can i have what your smoking ?

 

[SJS]

Maybe....but if so, it has to be the daylight of the variety at Ambler, Alaska on 21st of December I would say

PS : It was an hour and 28 minutes of daylight last year on this day at Ambler. I would say there is less between Australia and the next best as of date and this may drop further.

 

[Richard]

probably because the WI and SA were even worse.....

WI were hardly bad - managed, somehow, to beat South Africa and would've qualified had their Bangladesh game not been washed-out.
SA should've won the lot of their qualifying games, and certainly should've beaten New Zealand. All it took was Boucher holding onto Fleming on 54.

 

[Richard]

and if the batsmen bat miserably it is of course harmisons fault isnt it?
when you have a batting side that is filled from top to toe with largely mediocre ODI batsmen you're not going to chase too many, but to blame the bowlers when they actually did their job is quite a joke.

I hardly see how - Australia simply batted poorly, the bowlers weren't really that exceptional.

 

[Richard]

i find it hard to understand what good balls have to do with ODI cricket? whether or not they were wicket taking deliveries is irrelevant, he bowled economically and thus took wickets, which is the basis of ODI cricket is it not?

It is.
However, if someone takes 3 wickets with out-and-out bad deliveries, I hardly see how they deserve much credit. The Gilchrist ball was a poor one. The Hayden ball was a poor one. The Martyn ball was a poor one.
Yes, he bowled well leading up to most of the dismissals, but as I say - 3 of the balls that took wickets should've gone for four. That is not good ODI bowling.

 

[Richard]

I think that even back then New Zealand and the West Indies are two teams that either could win on any given day, because on paper, there's not too much between them. The difference is that, as you say, New Zealand is a better TEAM. What they lack in natural talent, they make up for with the concept of teamplay.

And that game was one of those rare occasions where that saying, which is normally a misnomer, actually applied in fact.
With West Indies' key man - Lara - being run-out by fielding in teamwork.

 

[tooextracool]

WI were hardly bad - managed, somehow, to beat South Africa and would've qualified had their Bangladesh game not been washed-out..

they may not have been that bad, but they were still worse than NZ.

SA should've won the lot of their qualifying games, and certainly should've beaten New Zealand. All it took was Boucher holding onto Fleming on 54.

considering that NZ won that game with only 1 wicket down, id say that theres no way anyone could claim that boucher holding that catch would definetly have won them the game.

 

[tooextracool]

I hardly see how - Australia simply batted poorly, the bowlers weren't really that exceptional.

nope england bowled and fielded exceptionally. not only in was there food bowling the top of the innings but more importantly almost everytime during that natwest series, england bowled brilliantly at the death and never allowed any australian to score at a rapid rate.
and if you say australia batted poorly, one can say that england batted even worse.

 

[tooextracool]

It is.
However, if someone takes 3 wickets with out-and-out bad deliveries, I hardly see how they deserve much credit. The Gilchrist ball was a poor one. The Hayden ball was a poor one. The Martyn ball was a poor one.
Yes, he bowled well leading up to most of the dismissals, but as I say - 3 of the balls that took wickets should've gone for four. That is not good ODI bowling.

the ball to ponting was an excellent delivery considering how he plays when he first comes in. the slower ball to hussey was quite brilliant and even better gien the situation. the ball to gilchrist was definetly not a poor ball either. and how many times must it be said that the ball to martyn was part of a plan and if the plan worked it cant be considered a poor ball. the only ball that was actually poor was the one to hayden, and i can assure you that every bowler takes 1-2 wickets in his spell with poor balls.