posted Sep 17, 2007

"The problem is that England rewards mediocracy...."
at last somebody notices!
witness the number of diplomates in 'how to become a pop star' from a university near you!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 17, 2007

Basically RobM and I totally agree -wherever we look in England, we do not have many world class players in any form of the game who measure up to the Haydens, Pontings, Pollocks, Tendulkars,Kumbles, Flemings,Mohammed Yousefs,Yonis Khans, Gibbs,Bonds, Clarks,Orams,Jayasuriyas, Sangakarras, Muralis, etc etc. Which just goes to show what an exceptional job Duncan Fletcher did to make such a motley collection asd good as it was for a while. Just remember how bad we were in the Atherton/Stewart days and that seems to be where we are heading again. Only Petersen would be a contender for a worldX1 on current form.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 17, 2007

In response to RobM1974...

I'm afraid you've missed the point. If you look at the most successful and competitive teams in world cricket at the moment (ie Australia and South Africa) maintaining separate ODI and Test teams is not necessary. It has never worked, and is as much as a bad idea as having separate test and ODI captains (which has only worked moderately well for Collingwood as Vaughan is so poor at ODI cricket).

True class test cricketers can adapt. Our one true world class player, ie KP, has adapted, but noone else has. This simply proves the point that we dont have the players to win tournaments, just like the rughy and football guys. Separate squads is not the answer, better preparation of a nucleus of players is.

Oh, and by the way I also agree with the comment "The problem is that England rewards mediocracy...."

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 17, 2007

OK. First of all, you people need to learn how to spell correctly.
Now, with regards to the cricket. Only people that actually saw the match last night can comment because the scorecard doesn't paint an accurate picture.
A few simple points:
1. In the field, were we below par. The catching was appalling, the ground fielding was ok, but could have been better and I'm really not a fan, but Prior had a good game behind the stumps.
2. The bowling was good. but there were too many four balls from the seamers early on. Schofield was unlucky because he'd bowled 3.3 overs 1 for 16 including a bad drop (which was Collingwood's fault as he called for it). Snape was even more unlucky. His 1 over was excellent, he used all his variations which created two chances, both of which were badly dropped.
3. The batting was poor overall. There were too many dot balls, which kept building the pressure. They need to rotate the strike more. Wright needs to learn the difference between slogging and aggressive batting. I say bring Maddy back for NZ. The South African bowling was very good lets not forget. They bowled very few bad balls.
We were still in with a chance needing 57 off 33, but the decision to send Snape in ahead of Mascarenhas was truely illogical. It's not Snape's fault though, he did his best.
4. The Pietersen dismissal was important, but not the end of the world, we had plenty of batting left and time to get the runs. In my opinion, Pollock deliberately ran in front of Pietersen. He was never going to get to the ball, it was obstruction. Pietersen was guilty of careless running though and it was a great throw from Ntini.
5. Overall the worst performance of the day was from Collingwood. I thought his captaincy was decent, but he cocked-up the Morkel chance, which turned a total of 135-140 max into 154. Then when he bats, he wafts at a ball outside off stump, with no foot movement leaving the rest of 'em to chase under lights against some QUICK SA bowlers. Not only that but he sends Snape in ahead of Dimi!

All those calling for Bell/Cook/Strauss to be included must have very short memories, because they've been tried at twenty20 and failed. The squad in SA is good enough to beat anybody. They just need to take their chances and use their heads when batting. Same XI against NZ for me, except with Maddy in for Wright.
And finally...lets be POSITIVE!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 17, 2007

RobM1974 - good points, but I'm not so sure. I think if they had put the test team out for the 2020s the results wouldn't be that different, and probably better. I mean, they are test players after all, they should be able to last 20 overs and score runs! You'd hope, anyway.

I say keep the line ups as similar as possible, it would benefit english test cricket too. It would be good to know that the team could launch an assualt and score a hundred and fifty in an hour, with rain on the way it could be a very useful option.

It seems ridiculous to have the likes of maddy and wright leading the 2020 side out, when neither are going to contribute to test cricket for the forseable future. I don't believe that any member of the test side is incapable of playing limited overs cricket, not even vaughan. And the sooner they give tim ambrose a go behind the stumps the better.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 17, 2007

Who cares how England do? This is a Mickey Mouse tournament created to bring in revenue. It is not a true test of a cricketers skills and appears designed to cater for people with a short attention span.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 17, 2007

drowse1ok

Firstly, no sport is a 'true' test of a player's skills - competitive sport is about more than just technique (thankfully).

Secondly, twenty20 is a test of different types of cricketing skills - namely, scoring runs quickly (while batting), and stopping runs being scored quickly (while bowling). It so happens those are the skills I WANT to be tested when watching limited overs cricket - or perhaps you'd prefer a game where the objective is simply not to get out. Sounds exciting.

Thirdly, so what if financial motivations played a part in the staging of this event? That's professional sport, like it or loathe it. No point putting on an event which you know will be unpopular just from some purist holier-than-thou attitude. People love twenty20 because it's exciting and over in a jiffy. More money means more people watching and getting excited by cricket - a good thing.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 17, 2007

At the end of the day, the real difference between the two sides and their scores were the mistakes that England made in the field.
With regard to KP, he’s clearly our top man with a bat and we all admire his confident attitude and bold stroke play, even if he occasionally gets rather arrogant off the pitch: we forgive him because he consistently gets the big scores (well, more consistently than the rest of our top order that is, though that’s not saying very much!)

But it was always going to be tough for him performing back in SA in front of a hostile crowd and I guess the added pressure was either going to inspire him or get to him and from what I’ve seen he was a little unlucky to have been given out considering there was a case for obstruction. (see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60Cq8x054Ec)
As someone else already pointed out, when there’s a case for both sides the referee’s decision is final... so deal with it!

Flintoff is a top class bowler and as I understand this is currently the primary reason for his selection. In the past he’s proved himself to be immensely capable with a bat against international opposition and even of rapidly building big innings, like KP.

At this time however, he’s not in form with a bat and we shoudn't continue to expect him to make big scores for us in any format of the game. Freddy may in the future become one of our top batsmen again but right now he's primarily there to bowl and we can’t keep slagging him off when he doesn’t deliver with a bat.

He should no longer be considered an automatic choice in our top order and I agree that at this time he should be dropped a few places down the order, which is a real shame as I’d hoped he might make a resurgence with a bat in this tourney, oh well.

I don’t see any big problems with our bowling, just a distinct lack of batsmen with the attacking mindset required for the pace of 20-20 tournaments and the continuation of some rather inappropriate management tactics (either due to naivety of this very short format or just shear desperation!) and the resulting seemingly bizarre selection choices - just as we saw back in the ODI WC!

Reading posts here, the jury is now pretty much back in re. the selection of ‘specialist’ 20-20 batsmen versus our tried and tested international players. The big problem is, of course, that when you compare us with the Ozzie top order and their ability to thrash the ball around in all formats of the game, you realise that we simply only have one batsmen in the same class as Punter, Haydos and Gilly.
I recall some appallingly slow batting from the likes of Bell and Vaughan earlier this year and that was in the ‘short’ 50 over format of the game!) So, although to date most of the inexperienced new boys have failed to justify their selection, we may have to start praying that some of them surprise us if we are to progress in the 20-20 game.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 17, 2007

In my opinion KP was obviously obstructed by Pollock. Pollock has always been a bit of a cheat even when he played for the Bears. The third umpire didn't even consider obstruction this is down to bias and the fact of home ground advantage - he needs to get a new pair of glasses. What poor sports the South African crowd are, they still continue to boo Pieterson in a way which is churlish and immature. The SA cricketing public need to grow-up just because they've had a 'bit' of success against England means nothing. They certainly won't win this tornament (nor the rugby).

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 17, 2007

Aargonaut

What a narrow minded comment. Take a look at KP's website, he lists only two cricketers which he admires one of them happens to be Shaun Pollock. Look at the impeccable career of Pollock he has played over 100 test matches and taken over 400 test wickets and never been labelled a cheat. This was a pure accident, it happens and there is no team in the world that would have called KP back. It was sloppy running on his part. KP is a person who speaks his mind and surely would have called Pollock a cheat if he thought it had been deliberate.
Regarding the SA crowds I admit it is childish to boo KP. Yet his treatment this time is nowhere near it was the previous time he was in SA and was done generally in jest. Last time the SA crowds gave him a hostile welcome KP responded well, this time they are less hostile and that is the reason he can't focus?
Remember the SA crowds have to look at the former hero Allan Donald sitting in the England kit aswell. But as AD said he is not taking the job for the badge, just the money.

add comment | complain about this comment