World Cup - Australia first.... daylight second

[Richard]

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

They were, but only by a small margin.

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.

Look at the rest of NZ's batting.
It's very likely they'd have won with that catch taken.

 

[Richard]

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.

Harmison generally bowled pretty well, with the glaring exception of the final game; Collingwood generally bowled pretty well; and Flintoff was more often good than poor. Other than, that, Gough did extremely poorly in the last 5 and no more than OK in the first 2; Jones bowled poorly; Lewis and Tremlett were both extremely poor in their 1 game; and Giles was pretty poor.
I hardly see that England's bowling could be classed as exceptional.

and if you say australia batted poorly, one can say that england batted even worse.

Well of course one can - with England's side containing Strauss, Vaughan, Collingwood, Geraint Jones and an out-of-form Flintoff it's hardly surprising, really, is it?

 

[Richard]

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.

You cannot know that the Martyn ball was part of a plan. Even if it was, it's an incredibly easy plan to carry-out - bowling Long-Hops.
The Gilchrist ball was a poor one, I can assure you Gilchrist would put that sort of ball away 19 times out of 20. He wasn't, of course, in the greatest touch early on in those one-dayers.
Yes, the Hussey ball was a good one and the Ponting one a reasonable one, but the fact is, his figures flattered him. He bowled well but not exceptionally.

 

[tooextracool]

They were, but only by a small margin..

either way NZ deserved to go into the super six ahead of the WI, and they had performed better than WI in the WC.

Look at the rest of NZ's batting.
It's very likely they'd have won with that catch taken.

styris and cairns are more than capable of scoring in ODIs, styris remember had just scored a 100 against SL. astle was of course still batting and looking good and brendan mccullum is also a more than capable player. theres definetly no way anyone can guarantee victory had the catch been taken, especially with the start that NZ had already got.

 

[tooextracool]

Harmison generally bowled pretty well, with the glaring exception of the final game; Collingwood generally bowled pretty well; and Flintoff was more often good than poor. Other than, that, Gough did extremely poorly in the last 5 and no more than OK in the first 2; Jones bowled poorly; Lewis and Tremlett were both extremely poor in their 1 game; and Giles was pretty poor.
I hardly see that England's bowling could be classed as exceptional.

i was referring solely to that game. id think that letting australia get 84 runs from the last 15 overs is exceptional death bowling, and i think most people would agree with me about that.

Well of course one can - with England's side containing Strauss, Vaughan, Collingwood, Geraint Jones and an out-of-form Flintoff it's hardly surprising, really, is it?

yes and so its hardly harmisons fault if the english batting is inept.

 

[tooextracool]

You cannot know that the Martyn ball was part of a plan. Even if it was, it's an incredibly easy plan to carry-out - bowling Long-Hops.

it was tried during every game of the series against martyn. it was even attempted during the test matches. so its highly likely that it was part of the plan, and whether or not it was easy to carry out is irrelevant, it still doesnt count as a poor ball if the plan worked.

The Gilchrist ball was a poor one, I can assure you Gilchrist would put that sort of ball away 19 times out of 20. He wasn't, of course, in the greatest touch early on in those one-dayers..

i cant see anything wrong with that ball. it pitched outside the off stump and was angled across and resulted in an edge. its not the best delivery you'll ever see but its not a poor one either.

Yes, the Hussey ball was a good one and the Ponting one a reasonable one, but the fact is, his figures flattered him. He bowled well but not exceptionally.

anybody who ends up with an ER of 3.3 has bowled pretty damn well. and if hes taken 5 wickets in the process, even if only 2-3 of them were off good balls, its still an exceptional performance.

 

[Richard]

either way NZ deserved to go into the super six ahead of the WI, and they had performed better than WI in the WC.

They did, but WI would still have qualified had they beaten Ban. IIRR it would've been instead of Kenya, but I'm not sure of that.

styris and cairns are more than capable of scoring in ODIs, styris remember had just scored a 100 against SL. astle was of course still batting and looking good and brendan mccullum is also a more than capable player. theres definetly no way anyone can guarantee victory had the catch been taken, especially with the start that NZ had already got.

McCullum is a capable ODI player? (Certainly was then?) Are you out of your mind?
Styris had just scored an innings which is likely to remain his best - do you seriously imagine he could do that 2 games running?
Yes, Astle and Cairns might've finished the job, but so might South Africa's attack.

 

[Richard]

i was referring solely to that game. id think that letting australia get 84 runs from the last 15 overs is exceptional death bowling, and i think most people would agree with me about that.

Good, yes, but even so with the last pair of recognised batsmen at the crease I don't find it exceptional.

yes and so its hardly harmisons fault if the english batting is inept.

Obviously not, and I've been at pains countless times to state how "match-winning" is not a good yardstick.
Nonetheless the point I was making is that Harmison has rarely made match-influencing performances and this wasn't, really, one, because Pietersen turned a near-lost-cause into a victory.

 

[Tim]

I swear to god Richard, you know absolutely nothing. How much cricket do you watch that is played outside of England?

 

[Richard]

it was tried during every game of the series against martyn. it was even attempted during the test matches. so its highly likely that it was part of the plan, and whether or not it was easy to carry out is irrelevant, it still doesnt count as a poor ball if the plan worked.

A poor ball is a poor ball. Martyn has put those away far, far more often than he's been dismissed to them.
Even if it is a plan, it's a pretty damn poor one to try and get someone out with a tactic that will occasionally be successful while giving away a lot of runs.

i cant see anything wrong with that ball. it pitched outside the off stump and was angled across and resulted in an edge. its not the best delivery you'll ever see but its not a poor one either.

I find it was. It didn't move at all, and it had more than a bit of width. Gilchrist went for an attacking stroke, he was right to do so, but on this occasion he didn't play it correctly.

anybody who ends up with an ER of 3.3 has bowled pretty damn well. and if hes taken 5 wickets in the process, even if only 2-3 of them were off good balls, its still an exceptional performance.

It doesn't really matter how many were off good balls, as you said earlier, but if someone's taken any number of wickets off bad balls which should have gone to the boundary a spell isn't as good as it looks.
Point is, Harmison's economy-rate would almost certainly have been higher if bad deliveries had not got wickets.

 

[Richard]

I swear to god Richard, you know absolutely nothing. How much cricket do you watch that is played outside of England?

Lots.
I swear to God you know nothing about how much I know.

 

[Tim]

haha.

 

[Richard]

Haha.

 

[tooextracool]

They did, but WI would still have qualified had they beaten Ban. IIRR it would've been instead of Kenya, but I'm not sure of that.

im pretty sure it would have been over NZ. nonetheless that would have only been because NZ forfeited their game against kenya.

McCullum is a capable ODI player? (Certainly was then?) Are you out of your mind?

mccullum is and always has been a useful lower order batsman. hes not brilliant, but on his day he can score and score quickly. he scored a neat 36* against the WI before that.

Styris had just scored an innings which is likely to remain his best - do you seriously imagine he could do that 2 games running?

it would actually have been his 2nd game after that 100, i certainly dont see why not.

Yes, Astle and Cairns might've finished the job, but so might South Africa's attack.

the same attack that couldnt do the job at any other point of the series?

 

[tooextracool]

Good, yes, but even so with the last pair of recognised batsmen at the crease I don't find it exceptional.

clarke,hussey and watson actually.

Obviously not, and I've been at pains countless times to state how "match-winning" is not a good yardstick.
Nonetheless the point I was making is that Harmison has rarely made match-influencing performances and this wasn't, really, one, because Pietersen turned a near-lost-cause into a victory.

it would have been match-influencing if england could bat, and in the end it did turn out to be match influencing, pietersen or no pietersen.
further if harmison had not taken 5/33 england would have in all likelyhood been chasing around 300, and they would have had no hope at all.

 

[tooextracool]

A poor ball is a poor ball. Martyn has put those away far, far more often than he's been dismissed to them.
Even if it is a plan, it's a pretty damn poor one to try and get someone out with a tactic that will occasionally be successful while giving away a lot of runs.

it worked more than once in that series did it not?
certainly suggests that it wasnt a bad plan at all.

I find it was. It didn't move at all, and it had more than a bit of width. Gilchrist went for an attacking stroke, he was right to do so, but on this occasion he didn't play it correctly.

it was certainly not that wide and it was going across at an angle.certainly not a poor delivery. the highlights of the game are actually on google videos http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2596095363913088592&q=natwest and you can see clearly that it was not that wide, if anything it cramped gilchrist for room.

It doesn't really matter how many were off good balls, as you said earlier, but if someone's taken any number of wickets off bad balls which should have gone to the boundary a spell isn't as good as it looks.
Point is, Harmison's economy-rate would almost certainly have been higher if bad deliveries had not got wickets.

that makes no sense whatsoever. harmison was economical at several other points of that series as well, and its a joke that he doesnt deserve credit for taking at least 3 wickets off decent and good balls.

 

[marc71178]

Point is, Harmison's economy-rate would almost certainly have been higher if bad deliveries had not got wickets.

Oh, it's the if argument again.

If Brett Lee had hit 6 sixes off an over on that Sunday in Birmingham, Australia would've won...

 

[Richard]

And there are realistic ifs and unrealistic ones.
The one you dredged-up falls into the "unrealistic" category.

 

[marc71178]

And the fact of the matter is, that he did take those wickets, and that is all that counts at the end of the day.

 

[Richard]

mccullum is and always has been a useful lower order batsman. hes not brilliant, but on his day he can score and score quickly. he scored a neat 36* against the WI before that.

Yes, on his day, which usually tends to come about once every 5 or 6 games, at best.
I hardly see it's likely he'd have played 2 important innings in succession.

it would actually have been his 2nd game after that 100, i certainly dont see why not.

Because he's not really good enough. I was surprised enough that he played as well as he did against SL. I find it near inconceivable that it'd happen twice in consecutive matches (NZ played WI straight after losing to SL, no games in between).

the same attack that couldnt do the job at any other point of the series?

Couldn't do the job against the West Indies sloggers (quite how Ricardo Powell managed to score any runs is beyond me) and couldn't do the job against Sri Lanka's two best batsmen, more accurately.