World Cup - Australia first.... daylight second

[marc71178]

I hardly see it's likely he'd have played 2 important innings in succession.

Recent Chappell-Hadlee mean anything to you?

 

[Richard]

clarke,hussey and watson actually.

Clarke was out with 15 overs remaining.
With the last recognised batsmen, Hussey and Watson, together and only Hogg with any real one-day batting pedigree at all to come, restricting them wasn't as difficult as it would be with more batsmen left.

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.

It would, and it was a credible performance.
It was not, however, something to fall into the list I originally listed.

 

[Richard]

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

Did it?
I don't remember it working after that.

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 was not astonishingly wide, but we've seen Gilchrist put those type of deliveries away countless times.

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.

Except that there were just 2 wickets off said balls, and 3 balls that took wickets should've gone to the boundary.

 

[Blaze]

Recent Chappell-Hadlee mean anything to you?

McCullum is a much better player now than he was in 2003.

 

[sirjeremy11]

McCullum is a much better player now than he was in 2003.

Agreed. And I think the little bugger will only get better. Wait for next year. I was leaning towards him moving up the batting order, but I think he is best served playing those lower order explosive type innings for now.

 

[Blaze]

Agreed. And I think the little bugger will only get better. Wait for next year. I was leaning towards him moving up the batting order, but I think he is best served playing those lower order explosive type innings for now.

There is so much hype surrounding McCullum. I don't actually expect him to do much in the next 12 months. He had two good innings against Australia, what has he done since? His average is still only 22 and he only seems to deliver the goods 1/3 times.

It is obvious that he has loads of talent but he still doesn't look like he is going to be consistant for a while yet.

 

[Richard]

Recent Chappell-Hadlee mean anything to you?

McCullum, even while still being pretty average, is better now than he was then.
I find it near enough impossible that he'd have done so at the time I said.

 

[sirjeremy11]

It is obvious that he has loads of talent but he still doesn't look like he is going to be consistant for a while yet.

My point exactly! And I'm not surpised his average is only 22. The fact that his highest score is 56* says how little time he gets to play a really good long innings. He had a pretty ordinary start, and a lot of his innings are "hit out or get out". You might argue that he get's more oppurtunity to be not out, which is fair enough.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

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).

what is with your obsession with 2 games in a row? its actually more likely that someone will play well 2 games in a row, because they are carrying the form from the last game. if you look at the pattern for most players, you'd see them score 2-3 good scores in the same series, as opposed to periodic good scores every 10 games.

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.

the fact that ricardo powell scored any runs is probably down to how poor SA was in that world cup.

 

[tooextracool]

It would, and it was a credible performance.
It was not, however, something to fall into the list I originally listed.

it is a match influencing innings if it influences the match. were it not for harmisons 5/33, no amount of Pietersen magic could have saved england.

 

[tooextracool]

Did it?
I don't remember it working after that.

http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard_ODI.asp?MatchCode=2354

bit ironic that the same fielder was out there for the catch too.

It was not astonishingly wide, but we've seen Gilchrist put those type of deliveries away countless times.

we've also seen him get out to those deliveries countless times.

Except that there were just 2 wickets off said balls, and 3 balls that took wickets should've gone to the boundary.

as said earlier 2 were genuinely good balls, one was ok, one was part of a plan, and only the hayden one was poor. and no matter what you say 3/33 is still a fine match influencing performance.

 

[Richard]

what is with your obsession with 2 games in a row? its actually more likely that someone will play well 2 games in a row, because they are carrying the form from the last game. if you look at the pattern for most players, you'd see them score 2-3 good scores in the same series, as opposed to periodic good scores every 10 games.

If someone's not that good (which McCullum categorically wasn't in 2003) the chances of them playing well 2 games in a row are pretty slim.

the fact that ricardo powell scored any runs is probably down to how poor SA was in that world cup.

It was down to the fact that, for once, his slogging came-off.
It was bad luck that it happened against South Africa.

 

[Richard]

it is a match influencing innings if it influences the match. were it not for harmisons 5/33, no amount of Pietersen magic could have saved england.

Look, everything will influence the match, whether positively or negatively.
Yes, Harmison probably kept Australia within range and yes, he bowled pretty reasonably, but his was not the single most important influence on the match, and would almost certainly have gone down as just another notch on the bedpost but for Pietersen playing such an extraordinary innings.

 

[Richard]

http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard_ODI.asp?MatchCode=2354

bit ironic that the same fielder was out there for the catch too.

Indeed, I didn't watch that innings, was at work.
Not really ironic - if something worked once, try it again.
Doesn't really change the fact that they're not good deliveries, though.

we've also seen him get out to those deliveries countless times.

As you almost always will when someone plays as often as Gilchrist.
Fact is, he's smacked them through the field far, far, far more often than he's got out to them.

as said earlier 2 were genuinely good balls, one was ok, one was part of a plan, and only the hayden one was poor. and no matter what you say 3/33 is still a fine match influencing performance.

Yes, it is.

 

[tooextracool]

If someone's not that good (which McCullum categorically wasn't in 2003) the chances of them playing well 2 games in a row are pretty slim..

i dont see how, as ive said earlier if a player is in form, hes quite likely to score in his next game.

It was down to the fact that, for once, his slogging came-off.
It was bad luck that it happened against South Africa.

strange then that the only other times hes gotten past 50 have been against extremely poor bowling attacks as well.

 

[tooextracool]

Look, everything will influence the match, whether positively or negatively.
Yes, Harmison probably kept Australia within range and yes, he bowled pretty reasonably, but his was not the single most important influence on the match, and would almost certainly have gone down as just another notch on the bedpost but for Pietersen playing such an extraordinary innings.

and your point can be argued against you also. were it not for harmisons 5/33, Pietersens innings would almost certainly have gone down as just another noth on the bedpost.....
they were both match winning performances and england couldnt have done without either of them.

 

[tooextracool]

Indeed, I didn't watch that innings, was at work.
Not really ironic - if something worked once, try it again.
Doesn't really change the fact that they're not good deliveries, though..

how can you blame a bowler for simply being told to follow a plan for the batsman? AFAIC, the ball cannot be ascertained to be a poor one if it did exactly what the bowler wanted it to do and took a wicket.

As you almost always will when someone plays as often as Gilchrist.
Fact is, he's smacked them through the field far, far, far more often than he's got out to them.

i certainly dont think thats true, hes been out many many times edging balls outside the off stump and being cramped for room.

 

[Richard]

i dont see how, as ive said earlier if a player is in form, hes quite likely to score in his next game.

Except that scoring runs in a single game doesn't mean being in-form.

strange then that the only other times hes gotten past 50 have been against extremely poor bowling attacks as well.

Well he didn't get past 50, did he? He just slogged like he usually does, and fortunately for him (unfortunately for us at large) it came-off on this occasion.

 

[Richard]

how can you blame a bowler for simply being told to follow a plan for the batsman? AFAIC, the ball cannot be ascertained to be a poor one if it did exactly what the bowler wanted it to do and took a wicket.

You can't blame him but you certainly can't credit good cricket - either to the bowler or the captain (or whoever decided on the idea).

i certainly dont think thats true, hes been out many many times edging balls outside the off stump and being cramped for room.

Yes, he has - as I say, kinda inevitable when you play 200-odd ODI innings.
In my experience, however, that is the sort of ball that he will much more often than not hit in the middle of the bat. Yours may be different.

 

[marc71178]

You can't blame him but you certainly can't credit good cricket - either to the bowler or the captain (or whoever decided on the idea).

What utter rubbish.

They conceived a plan and executed it to take a wicket.

How is that not good Cricket?