Cricket 33: ODIs Still Aren’t Proper Cricket Edition

[Jeor]

Once again Faf du Plessis and David Miller saving the South African batting lineup.

The thinness of the batting lineup was exposed once again - losing 3 wickets within the first 15 overs, that leaves Faf and Miller together with only the inexperienced Klaasen and the all-rounder Pretorius to come, followed by a genuine tail of 8-11 of Steyn/Rabada/Ngidi/Tahir. That's a lot of pressure on Faf/Miller not to lose any more wickets for at least 20 more overs. A lot of close shaves but they have built up a massive partnership now and look to be on course for a big total.

The balance of the South African team is all over the place. They have four great frontline bowlers but a very long tail. And (until Duminy comes back) none of their batsmen actually bowl either, which means they're heavily reliant on the all-rounder Pretorius to fill out his 10 overs.

Still, I think Australia are going to have trouble chasing anything 260+ against this top bowling attack.

 

[Paxter]

On 11/10/2018 at 2:29 PM, Jeor said:

Australia break the ODI losing streak, squeaking past South Africa with an unlikely win.

South Africa has one big problem with its ODI side in that none of their bowlers actually really bat. Rabada and Steyn are probably fine to bat at 9 and hold up an end but neither of them is really an ODI-style 7 or 8 as they don't play shots. It's a far cry from when the Springboks used to be able to count on a never-ending parade of all-rounders like Klusener, Pollock and Kallis to make one of the deepest batting lineups in world cricket. I still remember when they used to have Pat Symcox batting at 10 or 11 and he scored a Test century.

It didn't really hurt SA in this series though, as they lost just 19 out of 30 possible wickets across the series. And that was without Amla, who averages nearly 50 in ODIs in Australia, and JP who averages 45. 

Meanwhile, Australia's recent ODI record is showing no signs of improvement. Their last series win was at home against Pakistan in early 2017; they will have to wait until 2019 at the earliest to turn that around. 

[Jeor]

9 hours ago, Paxter said:

It didn't really hurt SA in this series though, as they lost just 19 out of 30 possible wickets across the series. And that was without Amla, who averages nearly 50 in ODIs in Australia, and JP who averages 45.

It's true, but that's really only because of the good form of Miller and Faf, who bailed South Africa out of some dodgy batting positions twice in the three games.

Still, South Africa are going to be a force to be reckoned with in the ODIs. They have a phenomenal bowling attack - Steyn, Rabada, Ngidi are all great ODI pace bowlers (Ngidi was especially good with the yorkers last match) and though Tahir can be expensive he is a legitimate bowling option. When Amla and Duminy come back, their top 6 will be bristling with talent. Their only weaknesses are the fifth bowler (Pretorius did ok, I guess Duminy at least gives them options as a sixth bowler and Markram tossed in a couple) and that batting from 8 to 11. Most teams have at least one bowler who can hit it over the fence but their innings could end with a whimper. Both weaknesses though can be hidden as long as their strengths (frontline bowlers and batsmen) come through.

I'm really looking forward to the one World Cup match I got in England (I'll be travelling to the UK for a couple of weeks next year) - it's the last group game, Australia vs South Africa at Old Trafford. Hopefully still a live rubber, and hope it doesn't get rained out!

[Paxter]

England have put in Stokes at number 3. This will be interesting!

Buttler will be in at 5, Ali at 6. Then Foakes, Curran and Rashid.

ETA: Well that didn't last long. Stokes gone for 19. The last century scored by an English number 3 was Root back in 2016...

[ljkeane]

On the plus side for England, despite not having got a big score yet, Burns looks fairly decent. Sam Curran also isn't a bad player.

With Curran's late flurry of sixes that's probably about a par score for England but Sri Lanka's batting lineup's pretty subpar and Leach looked almost unplayable so you'd probably say advantage England.

[Paxter]

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

On the plus side for England, despite not having got a big score yet, Burns looks fairly decent. Sam Curran also isn't a bad player.

With Curran's late flurry of sixes that's probably about a par score for England but Sri Lanka's batting lineup's pretty subpar and Leach looked almost unplayable so you'd probably say advantage England.

Get Curran in at number 3!

(Everyone else has had a go!)

[Jeor]

England romping home in this match. It's quite sad to see how far Sri Lanka have fallen. Usually their batsmen would be loving the home conditions and building up some pretty bruising totals.

And it could also just be that this England team are very good, and much better travellers on the road than they historically have been.

[Paxter]

3 hours ago, Jeor said:

England romping home in this match. It's quite sad to see how far Sri Lanka have fallen. Usually their batsmen would be loving the home conditions and building up some pretty bruising totals.

And it could also just be that this England team are very good, and much better travellers on the road than they historically have been.

Haha. And Sri Lanka promptly get a small but handy lead in this test match!

Pretty funny, I was listening to the Sky commentators yesterday and they were scoffing at suggestions from locals that the pitch would not deteriorate rapidly and might even improve. Local knowledge does count for something after all!

[ljkeane]

Wait, I just looked at the scorecard, did Jennings send out a nightwatchman? That's not really in the spirit of things.

[Maltaran]

55 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

Wait, I just looked at the scorecard, did Jennings send out a nightwatchman? That's not really in the spirit of things.

It's unusual for a nightwatchman to open, but how is it different from him coming in at any other position when there's only one over to go?

[ljkeane]

4 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

It's unusual for a nightwatchman to open, but how is it different from him coming in at any other position when there's only one over to go?

It’s not really but traditionally openers don’t take a night watchman, shows lack of character. I always thought Jennings had a bit of a shifty look to him.

[Paxter]

4 hours ago, ljkeane said:

It’s not really but traditionally openers don’t take a night watchman, shows lack of character. I always thought Jennings had a bit of a shifty look to him.

I think they did it because there was only one over left. In that case, the day’s play ends if the nighwatchman’s wicket falls. England was therefore guaranteed not to lose a top order wicket.

In any case, I very much doubt it was Jennings’ decision. It would have been a management/captain’s call.

[ljkeane]

9 minutes ago, Paxter said:

In any case, I very much doubt it was Jennings’ decision. It would have been a management/captain’s call.

It was probably Root or Bayliss' idea but I'd expect Jennings was offered a nightwatchman rather than being told he was taking one, it's usually the batsman's call.

To be clear I don't actually care.

[williamjm]

25 minutes ago, Paxter said:

I think they did it because there was only one over left. In that case, the day’s play ends if the nighwatchman’s wicket falls. England was therefore guaranteed not to lose a top order wicket.

It can be difficult to tell whether a bowler or a top order batsman is more likely to score runs in the current England side.

Away from Sri Lanka, I noticed Theresa May is now comparing her approach to leadership with Geoffrey Boycott's approach to batting. I think the occasion where Boycott was deliberately run out by his own team-mates probably isn't what she was think of but it might end up being the most apt metaphor.

[Jeor]

Ah, commentator's curse strikes again, Sri Lanka have resurrected themselves. I still think England should win this. It's only a small lead and Sri Lanka are still going to be batting last, so they'll want to bowl England out quickly today.

[ljkeane]

Good innings from Root to put England in a decent position.

I don’t think batting’s as tough as I thought it was going to be with the extravagant spin there was early though. It’s fairly slow spin so the batsman seem to be able to navigate it if they bat well.

ETA: Hmm, that wasn’t great timing.

[Paxter]

Impressive stuff from England to bounce back after conceding a first innings lead. Leach has been a revelation in this series.

[Jeor]

England should win from here, although the Sri Lankans probably won't make it easy. They probably just have maybe 50 runs too many to chase down.

Another mindless T20 international between Australia and South Africa. I'll still be suckered into watching it though!

EDIT: This Sri Lankan chase is starting to get interesting. And the T20 is getting rained out, so I know what I'm watching tonight.

[ljkeane]

Mathews gone straight after tea. That’s relieved a little pressure for England.

[Jeor]

England have a bit of breathing space now, though they won't be able to sleep at night completely comfortably knowing that Dickwella is still there. If he plays one of his ODI-style innings he could get Sri Lanka close.

The T20 (or should it be T10 after rain halved the game to 10-over innings) between South Africa and Australia was predictable again. South Africa put on a good score, Australia cocked up the chase. I am getting annoyed at Shane Warne's commentating though. He's always highly negative about the Australian team, which is not a bad thing, but he says it with such an air of arrogance; I've lost count of the number of times he's said something along the lines of "I don't understand why they're doing that, it's so simple, just do X instead".

Not to mention he is also a total loose cannon - on air he just called for Graeme Hick's sacking (batting coach). It was rather amusing to hear Gilchrist keep on trying to drag the commentary back to the match at hand.