Jump to content

Cricket VI


Stubby

Recommended Posts

Well, it happened and we got bundled out. True to form, Malinga, Murali and Mendis (the three dreaded M's) managed six wickets between them at an overall economy rate of about 7 an over.

I don't think the Australian team will be that concerned. Twenty20 still isn't our game, and they might even welcome the extra time to prepare for the Ashes. Australia still don't quite treat the Twenty20 game with any respect; which in this case can be an advantage, as they brush off defeats as meaningless. But we're missing out while other countries are fielding good teams and getting exposure. The current Twenty20 side for Australia has too many Test cricketers (and even one-day cricketers). Warner is really the only one who could be called a Twenty20 player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current Twenty20 side for Australia has too many Test cricketers (and even one-day cricketers). Warner is really the only one who could be called a Twenty20 player.

You don't think Johnson should be in there?

I don't follow the 20/20 as closely as the other formats, but I reckon he would be in my side. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Jeor. The line-up that just got eliminated from the WC really isn't suited to T20 cricket.

The ideal Australian XI for T20 would probably be:

1. Gilchrist

2. Hayden

3. Marsh

4. Symonds

5. Hodge

6. D Hussey

7. Watson

8. Hopes

9. Lee

10. Warne

11. Nannes

Obviously four of those players will never play for Australia again, so this is pretty pie-in-the-sky. But I think that it is far superior to the current line-up.

Johnson's lack of T20 experience means he doesn't make the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with Jeor - the aussies (with the exception, perhaps, of ponting) definitely took the world cup seriously. they just got their team composition horribly wrong.

and warner isn't particularly good at ANY format of the game - yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think Johnson should be in there?

I don't follow the 20/20 as closely as the other formats, but I reckon he would be in my side. ;)

Sorry, I meant that Warner was the only Twenty20 specialist (someone picked entirely for Twenty20s, as opposed to players who are good at Twenty20). Johnson and David Hussey (after his IPL exploits) are decent players to have in a Twenty20 lineup, for instance. I wouldn't take Lee though, as Lee isn't as good a hitter as Johnson and there isn't space for two expensive pace bowlers.

As for taking the Twenty20 Cup seriously...well, of course I can't really attest to having any special knowledge about what the team's mindset was. But I can't help thinking that at least some people would be able to see the silver lining standing out pretty brightly in that cloud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with Jeor - the aussies (with the exception, perhaps, of ponting) definitely took the world cup seriously. they just got their team composition horribly wrong.

I agree with you about Ponting. I don't think his heart is in it at all. Perhaps a new T20 captain is in order?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you about Ponting. I don't think his heart is in it at all. Perhaps a new T20 captain is in order?

I wouldn't disagree with you there. Only thing is the new captain would probably be Michael Clarke, ugh. Either him or the cheating Haddin (still can't get that NZ fake dismissal out of my mind). David Hussey would be a more palatable option for mine, even if he doesn't have much presence in any other form of the game, no one's doubting his Twenty20 ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. As I mentioned in the previous thread, neither of the Ashes combatants are going to play that well in a tournament like this. The other teams see this as a great opportunity to achieve something in world cricket, whereas the Ashes teams see this as nothing more than an appetiser and are eagerly awaiting the main course.

To be fair to England, they played well against Pakistan the other night, so they may still surprise me.

I think you're wrong about England treating this tournament as an appetiser. English teams get utterly shafted by the media and to a lesser extent the public when they fail to do well in sporting tournaments, and doubly so when the tournament is at home. They'd not have heard the end of it for a long time if they'd gone out at this stage, for instance - particularly with the other teams that are going through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're wrong about England treating this tournament as an appetiser. English teams get utterly shafted by the media and to a lesser extent the public when they fail to do well in sporting tournaments, and doubly so when the tournament is at home. They'd not have heard the end of it for a long time if they'd gone out at this stage, for instance - particularly with the other teams that are going through.

So why did they rest Pietersen in that first game?

Obvious answer: they were far more worried about Pietersen's potential unavailability in the Ashes than beating Holland.

Look, I do concede that England are showing a great deal more enthusiasm for this tournament than Australia did. All credit to them. I was just trying to make the point that it is difficult to expect the Ashes teams to put every last ounce of their energy into trying to win this tournament when the most historically important cricketing event on the planet is only a matter of weeks from commencing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

pakistan's infamous for their fielding antics...this side takes the cake though for their sheer inability to handle the ball with any sort of dexterity.

pakistan win. need to play better if we're to beat anyone else (with the exception of ireland).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why did they rest Pietersen in that first game?

Obvious answer: they were far more worried about Pietersen's potential unavailability in the Ashes than beating Holland.

Even more obvious answer: they didn't think they needed Pietersen, who could be resting his slight injury, to beat Holland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even more obvious answer: they didn't think they needed Pietersen, who could be resting his slight injury, to beat Holland.

Are you trying to tell me that the Ashes didn't enter into the team management's thoughts at all? Call me a cynic but I doubt it ;)

I can just imagine the thoughts going through Andy Flower's head: "If they lost 5-0 with Pietersen last time, what would happen without him?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are offering a false dichotomy. I'm sure they did want to rest Pietersen for the Ashes, but you then make the leap to thinking that they therefore don't care about beating Holland. I'm saying they decided to rest Pietersen because it never occured to them they would lose to Holland.

If you're right, Pietersen would have been rested for the second game, as he still had the injury, but he wasn't? Why, if England don't much care about the 20/20?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're right, Pietersen would have been rested for the second game, as he still had the injury, but he wasn't? Why, if England don't much care about the 20/20?

Media pressure. See Eloisa's post above. England were made to care about the T20 after the Holland game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're not getting anywhere. They cared before, they just didn't think they were going to lose to Holland. The media kicked up a stink, but it is not credible to think the team saw this and thought, oh, perhaps we ought to pretend to give a shit. Nothing was more predictable than England getting a kicking over the result, and they would have known it.

I'm not going to pretend they don't care more about the Ashes, but if you think they were taken unawares by the media's reaction to a defeat in a tournament they didn't care about and didn't think anyone else cared about, you know little about England and nothing about the British media!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone know how to get live video for the matches - either free, or cheapish and reliable? I'm in Canada, suffering withdrawal from my NZ team.

Hmm, on tonight's performance I'd just stay oblivious if I was you

Ok, so as an NZer I'm used to my team snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, but that was something special tonight :rolleyes:

edit for typo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're wrong about England treating this tournament as an appetiser. English teams get utterly shafted by the media and to a lesser extent the public when they fail to do well in sporting tournaments, and doubly so when the tournament is at home. They'd not have heard the end of it for a long time if they'd gone out at this stage, for instance - particularly with the other teams that are going through.

A lot of the England players also have additional motivations. While some players like Pietersen and Anderson who are secure in their test places might be able to be complacent about this tournament, a large part of the England team isn't in the current test side (Wright, Shah, Rashid, Morgan, Key, Mascarenhas, Foster) so they should have plenty of motivation because this tournament could be their personal highlight of the Summer. Some of them, such as Shah or maybe Rashid might still have outside ambitions of a place in the Ashes squad so they'll also be motivated to try and impress against international opposition.

Ok, so as an NZer I'm used to my team snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, but that was something special tonight

It was an oddly low-scoring game, almost as if both sides had forgotten the game was only twenty overs long - NZ in particular left if too later to try to attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...