Champions Trophy - England and Wales 2013

First topic message reminder :

We have had a few prediction/ speculation type threads but this will be the discussion thread for matches in the Champions Trophy which starts this morning.

The first game is India v South Africa at the Swalec Stadium, Cardiff.

6 fingered tractor boy wrote:Well that's 20-30 runs short of what England wanted due to Root, Morgan and Buttler all deciding not to show up basically, nice little cameo from Bopara at the end there.

Mysti still trying to blame that on the top order I see #headsgone

Everything i said has been proved in the first game we played since my comments. And every single commentator is saying the same thing.. Live in this ignorance if you wish. At least you are only young! You will learn

what your saying msp is that India and the teams who "get" this format are going to spank England and England have no chance.

unless of course the bad weather returns, then it could be more even. But I agree with you and in the current conditions they look pretty brilliant.

mystiroakey wrote:Oh dear still banging that tune mike in the face of real evidence!!

Everything I said the other day has been proved!!

Nick Night,botham and Gower are saying everything I stated the other day.

I was called someone that had no idea about cricket and an inbecile and yet everything I said previously has been proved!!

Wake UP MIKE!!

What evidence?

Nobody called you an inbecile [sic] or someone who had no idea about cricket. I do wish you'd stop making things up.

msp, interestingly enough England scored 54 off the first 10 today. They then went quiet for 5 overs which was not ideal, before picking up the pace gradually (55/0 in overs 21-30 is pretty ideal in anybody's book surely?). However their gameplan then relies on Root scoring at 100, Morgan at 120 (what Bopara did today basically) and Buttler 150+ in the last 5.

mystiroakey wrote:

6 fingered tractor boy wrote:Well that's 20-30 runs short of what England wanted due to Root, Morgan and Buttler all deciding not to show up basically, nice little cameo from Bopara at the end there.

Mysti still trying to blame that on the top order I see #headsgone

Everything i said has been proved. And every single commentator is saying the same thing.. Live in this ignorance if you wish. At least you are only young! You will learn

When Trott got out the score was 168 off 33.4 overs. Literally 5 an over run rate, the perfect platform to go on and make 300.

Then Root, Morgan and Buttler all failed and got out playing poor shots.

Not quite sure what's so ignorant about that Mysti.

mystiroakey wrote:

6 fingered tractor boy wrote:Well that's 20-30 runs short of what England wanted due to Root, Morgan and Buttler all deciding not to show up basically, nice little cameo from Bopara at the end there.

Mysti still trying to blame that on the top order I see #headsgone

Everything i said has been proved in the first game we played since my comments. And every single commentator is saying the same thing.. Live in this ignorance if you wish. At least you are only young! You will learn

Oh please stop. You didn't even watch today's game, so I don't see how you can make definitive statements. This whole "today's game has proved me right" (it has done nothing of the sort, and even if the analysis from today was that the top order were too slow, which it isn't, one game proves nothing) is getting very trying.

For someone who takes offence very easily, you don't seem to mind offending other people much.

mystiroakey wrote:Oh dear still banging that tune mike in the face of real evidence!!

Everything I said the other day has been proved!!

Nick Night,botham and Gower are saying everything I stated the other day.

I was called someone that had no idea about cricket and an inbecile and yet everything I said previously has been proved!!

Wake UP MIKE!!

Mysti could be a bit of a slogger at times and Mike a bit too stubborn. Here I am more with Mysti though. Not for the first that Mike and I are on different pages though we have been agreeing a lot in recent times.
When your top order bat at 4.5 for 35 overs and then fail to press on and leave all the responsibility to the middle order with just the one experienced and proven player, there is a serious problem. If one of the top order player is capable of staying on and building the tempo of the innings up to the 45th over, then fair enough. But what happens with England is that the top order plods along till the 35th over, then get out, putting the middle order in a no-win situation. They can't really take a bit of time to get going, if they start going after the bowling straight away, there are more chances of them getting out, a full blown collapse would then be on, and if somehow one of them manage an extraordinary innings, that becomes the norm. It just doesn't work that way, and its a pretty poor ODI plan.

Mike Selig wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Oh dear still banging that tune mike in the face of real evidence!!

Everything I said the other day has been proved!!

Nick Night,botham and Gower are saying everything I stated the other day.

I was called someone that had no idea about cricket and an inbecile and yet everything I said previously has been proved!!

Wake UP MIKE!!

What evidence?

Nobody called you an inbecile [sic] or someone who had no idea about cricket. I do wish you'd stop making things up.

msp, interestingly enough England scored 54 off the first 10 today. They then went quiet for 5 overs which was not ideal, before picking up the pace gradually (55/0 in overs 21-30 is pretty ideal in anybody's book surely?). However their gameplan then relies on Root scoring at 100, Morgan at 120 (what Bopara did today basically) and Buttler 150+ in the last 5.

You said I either didn't watch the game or didnt understand it.. If you think my comment is making stuff up (just because i paraphased it!!) You are the one Lieing or to stupid to work out what you said!!

Just wake up and listen to your own advice fort once!

mystiroakey wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Oh dear still banging that tune mike in the face of real evidence!!

Everything I said the other day has been proved!!

Nick Night,botham and Gower are saying everything I stated the other day.

I was called someone that had no idea about cricket and an inbecile and yet everything I said previously has been proved!!

Wake UP MIKE!!

What evidence?

Nobody called you an inbecile [sic] or someone who had no idea about cricket. I do wish you'd stop making things up.

msp, interestingly enough England scored 54 off the first 10 today. They then went quiet for 5 overs which was not ideal, before picking up the pace gradually (55/0 in overs 21-30 is pretty ideal in anybody's book surely?). However their gameplan then relies on Root scoring at 100, Morgan at 120 (what Bopara did today basically) and Buttler 150+ in the last 5.

You said I either didn't watch the game or didnt understand it.. If you think my comment is making stuff up (just because i paraphased it!!) You are the one Lieing or to stupid to work out what you said!!

Just wake up and listen to your own advice fort once!

Paraphrasing and exaggerating are fairly different though. Not understanding international cricket is for me very different from having no idea about cricket or being an inbecile [sic]. Maybe just me...

Mike Selig wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

6 fingered tractor boy wrote:Well that's 20-30 runs short of what England wanted due to Root, Morgan and Buttler all deciding not to show up basically, nice little cameo from Bopara at the end there.

Mysti still trying to blame that on the top order I see #headsgone

Everything i said has been proved in the first game we played since my comments. And every single commentator is saying the same thing.. Live in this ignorance if you wish. At least you are only young! You will learn

Oh please stop. You didn't even watch today's game, so I don't see how you can make definitive statements. This whole "today's game has proved me right" (it has done nothing of the sort, and even if the analysis from today was that the top order were too slow, which it isn't, one game proves nothing) is getting very trying.

For someone who takes offence very easily, you don't seem to mind offending other people much.

I heard the commentators.. It was as if they read my comments before they commented at lunch mate! It was spooky! And yet you still banged out your tune

Good start from Jimmy, 2-0 after 1. Sack the Aussie openers, they're going at under 5 an over

msp83 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Oh dear still banging that tune mike in the face of real evidence!!

Everything I said the other day has been proved!!

Nick Night,botham and Gower are saying everything I stated the other day.

I was called someone that had no idea about cricket and an inbecile and yet everything I said previously has been proved!!

Wake UP MIKE!!

Mysti could be a bit of a slogger at times and Mike a bit too stubborn. Here I am more with Mysti though. Not for the first that Mike and I are on different pages though we have been agreeing a lot in recent times.
When your top order bat at 4.5 for 35 overs and then fail to press on and leave all the responsibility to the middle order with just the one experienced and proven player, there is a serious problem. If one of the top order player is capable of staying on and building the tempo of the innings up to the 45th over, then fair enough. But what happens with England is that the top order plods along till the 35th over, then get out, putting the middle order in a no-win situation. They can't really take a bit of time to get going, if they start going after the bowling straight away, there are more chances of them getting out, a full blown collapse would then be on, and if somehow one of them manage an extraordinary innings, that becomes the norm. It just doesn't work that way, and its a pretty poor ODI plan.

I don't agree. It's the plan, and England have the players to put the plan in practice. In today's game and with the new field restrictions, 10 runs per over is no biggie, even granted a couple of sighters. England did it with ease against New Zealand, mainly thanks to Buttler, but had Bopara batted at 100 (which is his job) then Buttler would have "only" needed to finish at 200 (which is his job). In recent times until the last couple of series, the plan has mostly worked. Today all that was needed was Root and Morgan to bat as well as Bresnan did (in the end) - is that really beyond them? Then Buttler would have come in with fewer overs to go and been able to really express himself and England could well have got 300-310.

Today the top order went along at all but 5 per over, to call it "plodding at 4" is a bit mischievous. I agree that Bell should have batted a bit longer (that is now twice) but his dismissal was exacerbated by Root (again) getting out shortly afterwards.

Mike, Buttler is not really an established player, for that matter even Root is not much experienced. The number 7 spot has been a matter of question for quite some time. In such a situation, rather than placing additional pressure, I think the senior players have to show greater responsibility. People say that Virender Sehwag knows only one way to play, and this argument is often put for his defense. While the natural flair has to be given some considerable space, you also have to look at making best use of that for the team. Keeping at the Sehwag example, during his best days, whenever he put his head down for 5-10 overs, he more often than not went on to score really big, even in away conditions. Alastair Cook is one player who has made signicant changes to his approach to the ODI game. It won't be too much to ask Jonathan Trott and Ian Bell to follow their captain's example. Cook still plays within the frame of his natural game, but there certainly is greater intent, no radical shift, but more of a change in approach. And there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for the other 2 not to try doing something similar.

These two looking comfortable. Should be a big match winning partnership here.

Mike this plan is not a good plan. No other team plays to it and they are better than us!

Its not rocket science.

When you leave your batters at a position that is basically like a 15/15 over game.. They have to slog.. They will; only get a good score 1 in 10 that way. 1 may sort things out as Butler did the other day- but that is a 1 in 30 shot!

Engalnd need to accelerate though the innings . not plod at 4.7 and then up the pace to a 10!!(which is the only way we could have managed a 320 on this pitch!)

You start of at the 4.5- after ten you move on and on and on! etc,

The problem is trott and bell that dont do this(as a partnership)- Both want the aanchor role- neither one becomes the aggressor .. What is showing us up more at the moment is cooks lack of form.. Normally he will stick about and then he up's the rate.. But he hasnt been sticking recently and we are stuck with two very stubborn batters that dont understand that there is no I in team!

I don't see as placing additional pressure. I see it as asking them to do their jobs. Indeed, putting the emphasis on keeping wickets in hand is taking pressure off Buttler, so he can just go out there and express himself in the last few overs, which seems to be what he is happiest doing (every time he's had time to play himself in in his international career he hasn't done much - on the other hand give him the last 5 or 6 overs with a free hand and he's come off a few times already).

The point about Cook is a bit misleading, as he was much younger and importantly out of the ODI team when he became more aggressive. Hard to see Trott or Bell being able to change their ways at their age, and to do so you would have to give them some time on the county scene anyway.

mystiroakey wrote:

When you leave your batters at a position that is basically like a 15/15 over game.. They have to slog.. They will; only get a good score 1 in 10 that way. 1 may sort things out as Butler did the other day- but that is a 1 in 30 shot!

Sorry but those numbers are rubbish. Else sides would regularly fold in T20s... The whole point of England's approach is to get to the last 15/20 as if it were a T20. From where they think they can score 160 more often than not.

Mike Selig wrote:I don't see as placing additional pressure. I see it as asking them to do their jobs.

Spot on. It's their job to up the pace, and today they didn't need to up it from 4 odd an over to over 6, they just needed to play themselves in and then push on. Which none of them bar Bopara did. In fact Bopara showed how to do it today really, which is something I thought I'd never type

mystiroakey wrote:Mike this plan is not a good plan. No other team plays to it and they are better than us!

Au contraire, South Africa play a similar game plan certainly. Based around Amla batting through and allowing AB to play as Morgan does at the end. England are currently (I think) no 3 in the world so I'm not sure who all these better teams are...

It's interesting to see Australia "plodding along" with Warner and Watson at the crease at the moment... Sometimes you can only score as quickly as the bowling allows you to. Perhaps again nobody has given Australia's bowlers enough credit. Bell tried at times to get after them, but they bowled good areas with good fields.

Hey mysti ...take it easy man...

You are certainly entitled to your views , no matter that I , and others , disagree strongly. And unlike Olly , I am anything but young so am unlikely to learn now
However I am confident enough that more than half a century playing and watching this game affords me a reasonable chance of getting it right now and again...

I don't think you can claim that England's failure to reach 300 today (and it was a failure. I think.) actually proves your chosen method to be better , any more than the Butler-inspired mad dash at the end on Wednesday automatically proves your theory is total madness

My own preference is for the plan England are using , partly because a relative failure , like today , tends to produce a score like the 269 currently on the board , while an all-guns-blazing approach can easily end in a total wipeout...

Conservative ? Yes. But if you are prepared to back your bowlers , not unreasonably so. In my opinion.

Today , we shall see. But let us keep it all respectful.

Mike Selig wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

When you leave your batters at a position that is basically like a 15/15 over game.. They have to slog.. They will; only get a good score 1 in 10 that way. 1 may sort things out as Butler did the other day- but that is a 1 in 30 shot!

Sorry but those numbers are rubbish. Else sides would regularly fold in T20s... The whole point of England's approach is to get to the last 15/20 as if it were a T20. From where they think they can score 160 more often than not.

Sorry but you are wrong again, You are trying to suggest that England plan to get a wicket less low score after 35 and then play 20/20 cricket for the last 15.

that is 35 over's of cricket. If the openers are still in like trott and bell- they cannot play t20 anyway so its fruitless to have them in at this point.. Se4condly we may be 6 down at this point ! The game plan you suggest will only happen 1 in 5 for a team like England..

As i have always stated use cricketers that play to the conditions and in game situation. bell and trott play one way and are as elastic as steel! When they play together we have issues and we waste our potential resources

Good pressure by England, leads to an edge and a sharp catch by Buttler.

Good start for England. Tight bowling and now Broad strikes ...fine catch Butler

had a funny feeling the pressure over those dots would get to Warner.

I love David Warner. One of hammers finest right there.

mystiroakey wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

When you leave your batters at a position that is basically like a 15/15 over game.. They have to slog.. They will; only get a good score 1 in 10 that way. 1 may sort things out as Butler did the other day- but that is a 1 in 30 shot!

Sorry but those numbers are rubbish. Else sides would regularly fold in T20s... The whole point of England's approach is to get to the last 15/20 as if it were a T20. From where they think they can score 160 more often than not.

Sorry but you are wrong again, You are trying to suggest that England plan to get a wicket less low score after 35 and then play 20/20 cricket for the last 15.

that is 35 over's of cricket. If the openers are still in like trott and bell- they cannot play t20 anyway so its fruitless to have them in at this point.. Se4condly we may be 6 down at this point ! The game plan you suggest will only happen 1 in 5 for a team like England..

As i have always stated use cricketers that play to the conditions and in game situation. bell and trott play one way and are as elastic as steel! When they play together we have issues and we waste our potential resources

I am saying that England plan to get more or less exactly where they were today after 35. Just under 5 an over with 2 wickets down. At which point the accelerators Root (100 SR), Morgan (120) and Buttler (150 at least, ideally 200+) can come in, play with freedom, and push England up to 300.

As I type, Broad gets Warner due to some good pressure. Bowling a lot of balls across the seam is Broad which is right on this pitch. Neat catch from Buttler too, good movement.

Dave Warner might be getting a few tweets from some Aussie journos tonight one may think...

6 fingered tractor boy wrote:Dave Warner might be getting a few tweets from some Aussie journos tonight one may think...

all those dots were an omen you'd be out. that sort of thing?

Great start for England - nice one Broady!

England have tried the 'put someone at the top to slog it a bit' strategy before and it never worked because we don't have the players to pull it off. KP is the only one good enough to do it (maybe Hales/Vince in the future hopefully) as you have to be a quality player to do it, see Watson, Sehwag (in his prime), Gayle etc. We should still regularly make 270-300 with our top order at the moment if all goes to plan, not like today where the hitters all got out early, and when KP comes back it does give us that extra dimension at the top of the order. But we need to play with what we've got at the moment.

I agree with you Mike- I think that is how we want to play . Trott and bell arnt going to change this late in the day. So playing that top 3 I agree its our plan. That is not the argument.. My argument is that is the wrong plan..

Umpires being ultra-carefully today...some peculiar checks with the TV umpire ! That never looked out...

Good bowling there from Broad ...Watson lucky as it flies between slip and keeper...and then nearly run out !

Twitchy.

But Hughes starts with a nice drive for four...

main man Watson looking like a rock though and scoring well now. he won't be removed today.
and PH.. bit of a joke last time here will cement himself a giant of the game today.

JDizzle wrote:England have tried the 'put someone at the top to slog it a bit' strategy before and it never worked because we don't have the players to pull it off. KP is the only one good enough to do it (maybe Hales/Vince in the future hopefully) as you have to be a quality player to do it, see Watson, Sehwag (in his prime), Gayle etc. We should still regularly make 270-300 with our top order at the moment if all goes to plan, not like today where the hitters all got out early, and when KP comes back it does give us that extra dimension at the top of the order. But we need to play with what we've got at the moment.

This is spot on what I think

Jdizzle I think Root could mix it up at 2.. We havent tried him there yet But before this game in 10 innings he averaged 60 at an SR of 85.. He also has a range of shots and has experience at opening..

Off course if Kp was here then its a no brainer..

From what I've seen of Root, he does remind me a little of Bell, but with the innovation sometimes of a younger generation player. He doesn't rely on strength to get the ball to the boundary, just good timing and plays proper strokes.

He could do a job at 2, but I'd rather he established himself in the middle order first, which I think he is still in the process of doing

Phil Hughes has a brilliant Aussie accent.

mystiroakey wrote:Jdizzle I think Root could mix it up at 2.. We havent tried him there yet But before this game in 10 innings he averaged 60 at an SR of 85.. He also has a range of shots and has experience at opening..

Off course if Kp was here then its a no brainer..

Root might be good at opening in ODIs , (and in Tests) But do you want Bell at four ?

KP isn't here , alas. In the future , maybe Hales ? But with the squad we have I reckon what they're doing is fair enough.

Australia 19 behind at this stage ...no guarantees for later , but ...

these aussies will open up now. can't lose.

and they are smashing bresnan. this looks ugly. really will be an easy win. that batting was a shambles.

derp we dropped finn.. who needs bowlers.

Missing Finn right now...

Hughes looking more dangerous than Watson at the moment !

Though these two don't look happy running together...

Brilliant start from Tredwell, and the scoreboard pressure is starting to build...

Phil Hughes going at a Trott-esque pace...

Impressed with Tredwell's first two overs ! Hughes might be starting to feel the pressure...
Watson uncharacteristically hesitant so far. Still the big wicket England want though.

Yes we get Watson! Huge huge wicket!

shane Watson won't be out...

oh.

... And they have got him !

Bat to pad and Bresnan has his man

up above said they bat very deep though.

basically all the way down?

The go-slow approach won't work. In 15-20 overs, you would be going along at 3.5-4 an over, and a couple of wickets would mean you are in serious trouble. No need for recklessness, but you need a positive approach. Australia are 53-2 after 17, in my book they are behind by 25 runs at least.

Okay, Brezza gets the other opener and the Aussies still aren't scoring much above 3 an over. Still good so far.

Would love another wicket (or two) before I go watch the F1 qualifying in an hour. Just how good are Hughes and Bailey?

England showing the value of genuine bowlers at this level. Maybe the pitch isn't as much of a belter as people assumed.

Australia look short of class to me.

msp83 wrote:The go-slow approach won't work. In 15-20 overs, you would be going along at 3.5-4 an over, and a couple of wickets would mean you are in serious trouble. No need for recklessness, but you need a positive approach. Australia are 53-2 after 17, in my book they are behind by 25 runs at least.

they are following englands template wierdly enough.

they probably have the men to bosh it later though.