|
|
Post by coverpoint on Feb 14, 2015 10:05:45 GMT
31 overs
Australia 172-3
England 157-6
If only England hadn't lost so many wickets.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Feb 14, 2015 10:20:31 GMT
31 overs Australia 172-3 England 157-6 If only England hadn't lost so many wickets. And if only England had bowled better, and if only England had held their catches, and if only England took one-day cricket as seriously as Australia, and if only England were not playing one of the best sides in the world.....and so on, and so forth. |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Feb 14, 2015 10:42:49 GMT
The biggest differences between Australia and England are intent and belief.
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Feb 14, 2015 11:00:03 GMT
If the lbw is not out then the ball is dead. How has Anderson been given run out? Taylor robbed of a hundred by poor umpiring.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Feb 14, 2015 11:01:40 GMT
Guess who wrote this in his recent autobiography -
“I said to Flower, for what was the second time, that I didn’t think James Taylor should be playing for England. That he was the wrong choice. I have nothing against James but at 5ft 6in he’s one of the shortest men currently playing county cricket. His dad was a jockey and James is built for the same gig. We were facing the fiercest bowling attack in world cricket; I didn’t think he was up to it.”
Strangely, the writer did not refer to Sachin Tendulkar's height.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2015 11:36:09 GMT
It's hard not to conclude that the current England side is worse than the one that lost the Ashes 5-0 in the winter of 2013/14.
We've lost Trott and replaced him with Ballance.
We've lost Pietersen and replaced him Taylor.
We've lost Cook - from the one day side, at least - and replaced him with Morgan.
We've lost Prior and replaced him with Buttler.
We've lost Bresnan and discarded Stokes and replaced them with Woakes.
We've lost Swann and replaced him with another seamer,Finn, because Tredwell isn't good enough.
Now all those changes may have been necessary and unavoidable - and it is just possible that in a few years time, the replacements may yet turn out to be better than the players we've lost. But the notion universally spouted by English coaches, administrators, players and compliant journalists that we could sink no lower than the Australian tour last winter and since then "we have made considerable progress, alhough there's still work to do" is looking very threadbare.
Michael Slater just said that the 111 run margin today "flattered England" - and he's right. If anyone thinks we can sink no lower than we did last winter, I wouldn't be so sure because the gulf in quality between England and Australia in 2015 is now greater than it was in the 5-0 whitewash last winter.
The response of the England selectors , no doubt, will be to bring back Cook and Trott, two of the worst basketcases from the whitewash, for the tour of the West Indies which will follow the world cup.
Kevin Pietersen must be laughing himself silly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2015 11:46:11 GMT
Guess who wrote this in his recent autobiography - “I said to Flower, for what was the second time, that I didn’t think James Taylor should be playing for England. That he was the wrong choice. I have nothing against James but at 5ft 6in he’s one of the shortest men currently playing county cricket. His dad was a jockey and James is built for the same gig. We were facing the fiercest bowling attack in world cricket; I didn’t think he was up to it.” Strangely, the writer did not refer to Sachin Tendulkar's height. James Taylor is not 5'6", as Paul Weaver pointed out in The Guardian: "...the shortest man on the county circuit, in the official books he is either 5ft 7in or 5ft 6in but that exaggerates his true height by two or three inches."  But I agree, fb, height is irrelevant and KP's 'only alpha males need apply' eugenics are risible. On the 1974/5 Ashes tour, the only batsmen who played Lillee and Thompson with anything approaching comfort were the tallest (Grieg) and the shortest (Knott). Perhaps we should drop all those players of boring, average height in between and only select those who are shorter than 5'7" or taller than 5'11" !!! |
|
|
|
Post by philh on Feb 14, 2015 12:14:03 GMT
No surprise, I guess. If you picked the best XI from the 22 players in this match, ten would be Australian. DA Warner v Bell AJ Finch v Moeen Ali SR Watson v Ballance SPD Smith v Root GJ Bailey* v Morgan GJ Maxwell v Taylor MR Marsh v Woakes BJ Haddin† v Buttler MG Johnson v Broad MA Starc v Finn JR Hazelwood v Anderson If the 11 English players were available to the Australian selectors, the only change they would make in their side would be Anderson for Hazelwood! I'm trying to find a way to argue with you here, but I am failing. At least it means that my decision not to get up at 3.30am was a wise one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2015 12:35:53 GMT
Trott has turned world cup pundit in advance of his possible recall to the England Test side for the imminent West Indies tour. Discussing today's game on one of the irritating profusion of videos that now dominate the Cricinfo site, he says: "You need someone in the top three or four to get a big hundred...it would have made the job a lot easier for the dangerous hitters down the order, Morgan and Buttler." Please, sir! Me, sir! I can do that, sir!  |
|
|
|
Post by mrsdoyle on Feb 14, 2015 13:35:01 GMT
It's hard not to conclude that the current England side is worse than the one that lost the Ashes 5-0 in the winter of 2013/14. We've lost Trott and replaced him with Ballance. We've lost Pietersen and replaced him Taylor. We've lost Cook - from the one day side, at least - and replaced him with Morgan. We've lost Prior and replaced him with Buttler. We've lost Bresnan and discarded Stokes and replaced them with Woakes. We've lost Swann and replaced him with another seamer,Finn, because Tredwell isn't good enough. Now all those changes may have been necessary and unavoidable - and it is just possible that in a few years time, the replacements may yet turn out to be better than the players we've lost. But the notion universally spouted by English coaches, administrators, players and compliant journalists that we could sink no lower than the Australian tour last winter and since then "we have made considerable progress, alhough there's still work to do" is looking very threadbare. Michael Slater just said that the 111 run margin today "flattered England" - and he's right. If anyone thinks we can sink no lower than we did last winter, I wouldn't be so sure because the gulf in quality between England and Australia in 2015 is now greater than it was in the 5-0 whitewash last winter. The response of the England selectors , no doubt, will be to bring back Cook and Trott, two of the worst basketcases from the whitewash, for the tour of the West Indies which will follow the world cup. Kevin Pietersen must be laughing himself silly. Yeah, but, at least the dressing room is happy lol |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Feb 14, 2015 14:24:30 GMT
If the lbw is not out then the ball is dead. How has Anderson been given run out? Taylor robbed of a hundred by poor umpiring. And, as someone has commented on the cricinfo site, this dreadful umpiring lapse could leave the ICC vulnerable to accusations of corruption: what if there were massive spread-betting on England not getting to 42 overs? There is no excuse possible for this sort of incompetence. It doesn't matter that England were well beaten, nor does it matter whether Taylor got his hundred,or England managed another 10 or 20 runs before the chop....although the patterns of betting might have made something of it. What does matter is that millions are being spent on this tournament and nobody can be bothered to ensure that the Laws and the Playing Conditions are maintained. It really doesn't matter what sort of DRS is used,or none at all, if the umpires are too stupid to make decisions. So that's Dharmasena - who has previous - Aleem Dar (who should have had a word with him) and the appalling TV umpire, the recently reinstated Billy "Look at me on telly!" Bowden, all off to flying starts. |
|
|
|
Post by philh on Feb 14, 2015 14:32:32 GMT
Just watched the highlights....why is it that we only field well when it barely matters in the last over? The first 49.3 overs, we were poor in the field. Of course, Australia fielded brilliantly until it didn't matter - when the game was well out of our reach.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Feb 14, 2015 17:43:18 GMT
If the lbw is not out then the ball is dead. How has Anderson been given run out? Taylor robbed of a hundred by poor umpiring. You're dead right. According to the BBC site: - "The International Cricket Council's later admitted that an error had been made and that the ball should have been declared dead, but the decision was incidental to a one-sided result." It wasn't "incidental" as far as James Taylor was concerned! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2015 19:39:36 GMT
What if England had needed fewer than six to win when they were denied the last ball due to umpiring incompetence?
One can forgive the on-field umpires - heat of the moment and that's why there is a third umpire, with access to rule books, ICC back-up advice and the TV (every single voice in the commentary box called it right, even Hard-As-A Brick-And-Twice-As-Thick Botham.)
I gather the third umpire who got it so arse-over-tip wrong was Bowden, who only two years ago was dropped from the elite panel due to 'performance issues' and then reinstated when Tony Hill stood down last year. If so, he cannot be allowed to hide behind 'it didn't matter because the game was over, anyway', because under other circumstances (ie England being less crap than they sadly are) it could have theoretically denied us a chance to win the match if the scores had been close.
Bowden should be suspended and not allowed any further role at the world cup.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsdoyle on Feb 14, 2015 23:07:49 GMT
What if England had needed fewer than six to win when they were denied the last ball due to umpiring incompetence? One can forgive the on-field umpires - heat of the moment and that's why there is a third umpire, with access to rule books, ICC back-up advice and the TV (every single voice in the commentary box called it right, even Hard-As-A Brick-And-Twice-As-Thick Botham.) I gather the third umpire who got it so arse-over-tip wrong was Bowden, who only two years ago was dropped from the elite panel due to 'performance issues' and then reinstated when Tony Hill stood down last year. If so, he cannot be allowed to hide behind 'it didn't matter because the game was over, anyway', because under other circumstances (ie England being less crap than they sadly are) it could have theoretically denied us a chance to win the match if the scores had been close. Bowden should be suspended and not allowed any further role at the world cup. It may still matter if run rate comes into it. In any case knowing the laws is the job of the umpires, so pretty poor, and hardly a fulsome apology, basically they are saying yeah, well, it was wrong but England were so bad who cares. |
|
