posted Jan 19, 2007

I'm embarrassed that the Aussie team lost to this "great" English side in 05. At first I thought it would be great for cricket.....the POMS have well and truly proved me wrong.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 19, 2007

ChrispyHawk:

Yeah, I'd go for that. A line-up of Loye, Strauss, KP, Bell, Shah and Flintoff, followed by Dalrymple and someone like Prior has massively more batting potential than we have now. Gets us much closer to the situation we want to be in where every time the Aussies get one of our batsmen out, they're going "oh, but now we've got so-and-so to deal with", much like we do with their batting at the moment.

In his post-match interview, Gilly said of getting Loye's wicket "yeah, we were certainly relieved to see the back of him". They'd feel that way about KP and Flintoff too... it'd be great if they felt that way about all our batsmen.

I also have the feeling that the more big-hitting, risk-taking batsmen there are in the side, the better it comes off for each of them. Takes the pressure off, and means they don't have to adjust their game. Often, only two or three need to fire in any one innings.

I'd still be tempted by a seventh batsman though, especially since we tend not to use our fifth bowler since they are rarely up to it, and in the one-day game, we don't need the cover for something like Fred's injuries so much...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 19, 2007

All makes sense to me, but the selectors seem more keen on a side that can supposedly build innings, although I thought if they built innings they might last the 50 overs! Time for them to rethink their strategem me thinks.

On the fifth bowler it would be interesting to see Bopara bowl. I wonder what he could be capable of in a year or two with the ball. I still quite like the idea of having two spinners in the side though as being a Hawks man I'm quite used to seeing two spinners squeeze batsman in One Dayers and if you go in with only two proper quicks you may be asking for trouble so would need three fast men and the two spinners. However I don't see why on a seaming wicket we couldn't use Bopara as fifth bowler instead of a spinner. It's that or stick Blackwell or Giles in for Monty for a bit of extra batting. But Monty's probably worth the better economy and wickets.

Who better than the Aussies to show us how to be successful and with our selection I think we'd be closer to matching them:

Tres/Loye - Gilchrist (wk)
Strauss (c) - Hayden/Katich
Pietersen - Ponting (c) (Best bat at 3)
Bell - Clarke
Flintoff - Symonds
Collingwood/Bopara - Hussey
Dalrymple - White
Prior (wk) - Watson/Hogg/Johnson/Clark
Tremlett - Lee
Panesar/Broad - Bracken
Anderson - McGrath

Striking similarities in those line ups and it works for Aus so why don't we learn from them.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 19, 2007

Yeah, Chrispy, the selectors have been missing the point; I suppose we can see how they got themselves into this mess. They built a side based around test matches, where the scoring rate isn't so important, so they go for the nurdlers. Then they decide they want to play the same side in the ODIs, and pretty much have to when packing more youth into the side to give them more experience. Then it's like... oh, we can't score fast enough in ODIs...

I think there's a bit more to it than that, a certain cynicism about "flair" players, which transcends the sport of cricket: we see it in Rugby and Football too. But the Australians have so crushingly demonstrated the virtues of packing a side with aggressive scorers even the selectors can't easily dodge the issue any more. But if they'd given more of a damn about the one-dayers to begin with, they might have stuck more big-hitters in and then found, like the Aussies "Gosh, they can play in test matches too!!"

The Aussies are ahead of us in the big-hitting thing, and the fielding thing, but there are other potential developments. Maybe back in 2005 we had stolen a march in some respects with things like Cooley and the bio-mechanics thing. But another logical development is in having the entire team able to bat... the more batters, the more the big-hitters can take their risks, which is something the Aussies benefit from at the minute.

At the moment, the Aussies have a slight edge, but we do at least have a couple of all-rounders in Dalrymple and Flintoff, and yes, Bopara's bowling will be interesting. I agree about the two spinners thing: squeezing is good enough in one-dayers since it either constrains their score or forces them to take risks and getting out. I think one big reason we lost today is that Tremlett wasn't able to match the economy of Lewis and Anderson. I do think Monty's worth the economy and wickets over Giles. But there's a chance Monty may also become a decent bat over time.

Yeah, interesting comparison in the line-ups. If we played our best side, would we be that far off? We really need to be trying for another seamer who can bat, though... then it'd be REALLY interesting...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 20, 2007

Yes one double ton - big deal considering what he scored for the rest of the series. Had England scored their runs at a faster rate, as they should have done, they wouldn't have lost it. At the end of day 2, it was not enough to only have 550 on that pitch. Says a lot about the Australian bowling to me.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 20, 2007

Yep we always put far too much pressure on KP and Pietersen and before them Tres. We have never actually been able to play all three of them together for that long.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 20, 2007

KP, Flintoff and Tres that is rather!!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 20, 2007

Yeah, that's ANOTHER thing about having more big-hitters in the side... initially, we had the three you mention, with Tresco, KP and Fred. Down to just one of those, we felt it against NZ, when it could have been much easier. We should really have at least prepared batsmen like Loye with some internationals in the past just in case we got hit by injury. But of course, if you have more big hitters in the side to begin with, even easier...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 21, 2007

Big hitters arent necessarily the answer if the game between Australia and New Zealand tonight is any indication. The answer seems to be batsmen who get a start going on and doing the job for their team . Australia was 2 for not many when Pup came to the crease and set about restoring the innings hopefully with his Captains help but when he went it didnt phase the Aussies they just played to their ability and had the belief that they would win unlike the English team who rely on one or two batsmen to do the job and fall apart when they fail. There is no belief that they are good enough to win and as such fold when the pressure builds. Close game tonight only a few balls left and 8 out but Mr Cricket scored the winning runs again. How many times has he done that for the Aussies?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 21, 2007

I know the big-hitter thing is contentious, and it can seem as thought it leaves too many hostages to fortune. The reason I'm in favour of packing the team with more big-hitters is...

1) If you pack the team with them, then you can afford some failures, as Aus. showed today and at other times...

2) Yeah, we might not consider, say, Hussey and Clarke as big-hitters compared to Gilchrist, but nonetheless, Hussey scored 65 off 73 balls, with a six thrown in. Even their more "careful" batsmen CAN hit big, whereas we have some who seem very reluctant. How often does Colly hit a six?

3) If you hit big, you can avoid getting out by virtue of clearing the ropes. Also, you can miscue and still clear the ropes. Our "small-hitters" keep having to find spaces, and the Aussies don't give too many...

4) In ODIs, the goal is to score more runs, in a limited period. Run-rate is therefore everything. It is no good staying in, building an innings as you suggest if you score too slowly, putting pressure on later batsmen who don't have the benefit of the power plays. Some of our batsmen DO get a start, they just dont capitalise on it... the hang around for ages, but don't score...

5) Australia keep winning with this tactic.


Regarding the belief thing... I can't help feeling it's as much down to stubbornness. The nurdlers keep saying they want to play their "natural game", when their natural game is clearly the problem...

add comment | complain about this comment