Cricket IX

[Hereward]

You called? I watched the England innings and was impressed. We had a lot to spare in the end. It's satisfying that we can lose early wickets and still win at a canter without even having to call on Swann and Broad at 9 and 10. Pity most of the team are foreigners, though.

[ljkeane]

I thought England played well on all fronts, the batting lineup looks miles btter with Morgan at five and the bowling performance was pretty good as well. The Australians might regret electing to bat first though.

On the Windies game it's good they didn't lose but if they'd batted with a little bit of aggression on day four they did have the opportunity to give themselves at least a chance of winning the game.

[Paxter]

On the Windies game it's good they didn't lose but if they'd batted with a little bit of aggression on day four they did have the opportunity to give themselves at least a chance of winning the game.

Heh. I liked Andy Zaltzman's analysis of this:

Chanderpaul must have set a new all-time record for slowest progress from 150 to 166 (95 balls, after his previous 100 runs had come off 148, a perhaps unique case of having his eye in, then carefully playing his eye out), whilst Bravo, one of the more stylish batsmen in world cricket, stodged 53 off 215 to register the fourth-slowest recorded innings of 50-plus by a West Indian in Test history.

The only rational explanations for Bravo’s innings are:

(A) Bravo and the traditionally cautious Brendan Nash (114 off 148 balls) had their bodies secretly swapped by a rogue scientist before going out to bat; or

(B ) Bravo’s was a tribute innings, part of the official worldwide celebrations to mark the 30th anniversary of Chris Tavare’s landmark five-hour 42 at Lord’s against West Indies.

[williamjm]

I thought England played well on all fronts, the batting lineup looks miles btter with Morgan at five and the bowling performance was pretty good as well. The Australians might regret electing to bat first though.

Morgan's innings was excellent. It does look like one of the best English one-day line-ups for many years, although I might prefer a specialist batsman at 6 - Luke Wright would make a good number 7, but I think the player at number 6 should be capable of scoring at least the occasional century and I'm not sure Wright is.

[Sir Thursday]

Huh? England defeat Australia in an ODI and none of the Englishmen/women are in here gloating? ODI cricket must really be at a low ebb :P

I was relieved to see WI save some face in the second test, with Nash and Chanderpaul both making big hundreds. At least they still have something to play for in the final match.

The other bits of news that we haven't caught up on is Afridi's incredible ODI form (265 runs off his last 161 balls in just three innings) and the selection of a 23 year old Pakistan-born Australian player for the upcoming Pakistan test series. I've seen a bit of him in the last Australian domestic season and he looks to be an excellent prospect. At any rate, he has the numbers to warrant selection with a fist-class average close to 50 and a high conversion rate for a young player (50%).

I really don't understand why the Aussies are here in the UK at the moment, so I haven't been following this. As I think it was Jonathan Agnew pointed out, there are going to be 30+ ODIs played between the two countries before the Aussies come here to play a test again. That seems ridiculous. Besides, I'd prefer England to have a longer tour of Oz to give them time to get their eye in than to have them size each other up here first.

ST

[williamjm]

I really don't understand why the Aussies are here in the UK at the moment, so I haven't been following this.

The Aussies are here because they'll sell lots of tickets and make money. It does seem a bit of a pointless series, but I don't mind too much, since beating Bangladesh repeatedly gets a bit dull.

[Paxter]

I thought the Aussies were in the UK primarily to play against Pakistan? The England ODIs are really just a bit of a money-making exercise as williamjm suggests.

[Maltaran]

I thought the Aussies were in the UK primarily to play against Pakistan? The England ODIs are really just a bit of a money-making exercise as williamjm suggests.

Yep, the Aussies are here to play Pakistan, since Pakistan aren't allowed to play Tests at home any more.

[Hereward]

Too easy!

[Zoë Sumra]

No one blink or we'll start losing again.

[williamjm]

Too easy!

It was a good bowling performance from England. The Australian top order didn't handle the short ball well, I don't imagine many teams have put in a short leg in a ODI against Australia, but it worked well. Even if some of the England batsmen had some fairly careless dismissals there was never much pressure due to the relatively easy target they were given.

[Hereward]

Aussies, get back in here so we may mock you. :tantrum:

Where is Jeor anyway, I haven't seen him for ages? :(

[Stubby]

Aussies, get back in here so we may mock you. :tantrum:

Where is Jeor anyway, I haven't seen him for ages? :(

Ok. [bends and prepares to be mocked]

Dunno. Was thinking that myself actually. [peforms summon Jeor]

[Paxter]

The Aussies have looked decidedly average on this tour so far, especially for a team that won 9 of 10 ODIs during the Australian summer and reclaimed the #1 Ranking. They didn't impress against Ireland and have been comprehensively outplayed by the English in the first two games of this series (when did you guys finally learn how to play limited-overs cricket?? :P).

In all seriousness though, it's starting to look like the Moores-Pietersen debacle was a blessing in disguise. Flower and Strauss are combining well in the longer forms of the game, while Collingwood has done a good job in the T20s. Interestingly, playing a large number of all-rounders (a strategy I have been very critical of over the years) is paying dividends. Yardy is the one I'm especially surprised with - a first-class batting of average of just under 40 and a bowling average close to 80 are not the kind of stats I associate with a player batting at number 9 and bowling second change!

@Hereward: I think Jeor said he was going to be out of action for a while due to a trip to Melbourne and World Cup/Tennis viewing commitments ;).

[williamjm]

Yardy is the one I'm especially surprised with - a first-class batting of average of just under 40 and a bowling average close to 80 are not the kind of stats I associate with a player batting at number 9 and bowling second change!

He seems to be a specialist batsman in first-class cricket and a specialist bowler in one-day cricket, rather than a true all-rounder.

[Stubby]

[peforms summon Jeor]

* Arcane spell failure.

:(

[Jeor]

* Arcane spell failure.

:(

Or not!

Yes I'm here...well, a combination of (as Pax quite accurately remembered) a trip to Melbourne, work getting a little crazy and me taking ages to set up my new desktop PC meant I haven't been here in a while. It was very nice to be missed though, I appreciate it guys. :)

Well yes, Australia have definitely looked dodgy here. In truth, England have just tended to play much tidier cricket, and they haven't looked in any trouble so far (at least their batting has been quite assured). This is potentially the second wave of Australian hiccups - the first being the retirement of Warne/McGrath/Gilchrist, the next is the impending departures of Ponting/Katich/Hussey (Lee is already gone). I'm actually concerned the next Ashes series is in real danger of being lost at home. Home advantage will help our bowlers (and we're in reasonable shape if Johnson and Bollinger perform at their best) but I just think in general the Australian team is looking a lot more tired and ragged, while England are young, lively and successful. Guys like Swann, Broad, etc are at the peak of their careers and too many of ours (Ponting, Hussey, Katich) are on the downhill slope. Arguably Watson and Bollinger are the only guys at the right stage, since Clarke seems to be suffering burnout, Haddin's coming back from injury, and White isn't a Test player. The way the Australian batting has underachieved so far in this series is not a good sign.

Just putting in a random comment, McKay doesn't really convince me as a bowler. In terms of pace, bounce, movement and overall style, you could probably find dozens of players like him plying the trade in English county cricket. To be fair, he has a good ODI record, but it's easier for mediocre bowlers to find wickets in ODIs.

EDIT: Oh and for the record...I just looked back and wow it has been a while since I posted. Good on England for pulling off that Twenty20 win - I had a bad feeling about that final and my foreboding was confirmed!

[Stubby]

Or not!

Yes I'm here...well, a combination of (as Pax quite accurately remembered) a trip to Melbourne, ...

Heh. Delayed reaction spell. :thumbsup:

You went to Melbourne at the wrong time!

[williamjm]

This is potentially the second wave of Australian hiccups - the first being the retirement of Warne/McGrath/Gilchrist, the next is the impending departures of Ponting/Katich/Hussey (Lee is already gone). I'm actually concerned the next Ashes series is in real danger of being lost at home. Home advantage will help our bowlers (and we're in reasonable shape if Johnson and Bollinger perform at their best) but I just think in general the Australian team is looking a lot more tired and ragged, while England are young, lively and successful. Guys like Swann, Broad, etc are at the peak of their careers and too many of ours (Ponting, Hussey, Katich) are on the downhill slope. Arguably Watson and Bollinger are the only guys at the right stage, since Clarke seems to be suffering burnout, Haddin's coming back from injury, and White isn't a Test player. The way the Australian batting has underachieved so far in this series is not a good sign.

I think the big unanswered question for the next Ashes is whether the English bowling attack is going to be able to take 20 Australian wickets a match. Traditionally most English bowlers have struggled in Australian conditions. On the plus side, I think some of the recent English bowlers like Broad, Onions and Finn are probably better suited to Australian conditions than the more traditional swing bowlers like Anderson or Sidebottom, but aside from Anderson they're all untested on Australian pitches so it is difficult to know how well they will do. I can see Graeme Swann performing well, but he's going to need some support from the seam bowlers.

[Jeor]

I think the big unanswered question for the next Ashes is whether the English bowling attack is going to be able to take 20 Australian wickets a match. Traditionally most English bowlers have struggled in Australian conditions. On the plus side, I think some of the recent English bowlers like Broad, Onions and Finn are probably better suited to Australian conditions than the more traditional swing bowlers like Anderson or Sidebottom, but aside from Anderson they're all untested on Australian pitches so it is difficult to know how well they will do. I can see Graeme Swann performing well, but he's going to need some support from the seam bowlers.

It's true that overseas bowlers normally find it difficult on Australian pitches, adjusting to the fact that they have more bounce but much less swing and seam movement (and English bowlers traditionally depend on the swing and seam). But I think the struggles of overseas bowlers in Australia may also have been slightly assisted by the strong Australian batting of the past decade or so. A more stuttering Australian lineup (which we are seeing in this ODI series) will make English bowlers' task a little easier. Ponting has not looked in any sort of proper form, which at 35 is a bit of a worry. Much as I don't like him, Shane Watson is pretty much carrying most of the batting lineup.

Swann will do well anywhere, I think Broad will probably be crucial - good or bad, he will carry a fair bit of England's chances with him. Unearth another paceman with lots of bounce or pace and the England attack will be doing reasonably well.