Aus-Ind-Eng: The Carlton Mid Triangular

First topic message reminder :

I like triangulars  that Aus hosts...there is a continuity and history with these.

and Just before the world cup...the 3 big brothers get the prime practise slot in the world cup conditions.....
it's a shame Aus found  no space for Harris and Lyon in the world cup squad...and India couldn't accommodate Vijay.( see story in next post)

to me in the triangular Aus are sure to make the finals and Ind inspite of their excellent overall record are about even with Eng...
better batting than Eng but the spinners that Ind relies so much on are not as much effective

beaten but not disgraced...losing to the side that is frontrunner to win the world cup.
Eng has to keep this core side and give them more exposure to such pressure situations.

Two times they cracked.....both in the "pressure" last 10 overs....

failed to press on when batting
and failed to choke Aus in last 10......just couldn't get 2 to 3 tight overs in a row and get the RRR upwards of eight.

Of course he could have, mysti.

What impresses me is the way they pace their chase. Everyone chipped in except for White - and he has been in cracking form of late... so not a huge worry really.

No need going for any more bonus points when they are home and hosed (for the Final) already.

Nah. The pressure would have been to much, it's not just smith it's the others around him.

You haven't even won yet at this lower total!!

So the pace of the chase is way of

Can england sneak a draw!!!!

Nope.

Well played aus.

Good game..

But them Aussies would have been crapping themselves at the end

You're talking rubbish as usual.

Have you seen what the others can do?... besides gifting a few late wickets, lol. Another cheap gift.

We've won now, haven't we? They would have eaten 350 as well!!

and the dramatic finish in the end inspite of Aus looking so comfortable 2 overs prior to the end......case in the point I was making...
it only take 1 or 2 wickets and a couple of tight overs to swing the game...unfortunately it came 5 overs too late for Eng

You really are a bad winner arnt you pal..

You barely passed 303 . Yet you think you would have eased 350.

Do yourself a favour pal. Get over yourself.

Take the win in a gracious way. And I would ask you not to talk rubbish,

England should have got 340, but didn't. Well played Australia.

I think it was more of a teasing win, KP_f.

8 r.p.o is not as big a deal as it used to be with 4 or 5 wickets still available. They were smacking around 11 r.p.o. in a recent BB match... making it look so easy. This team is well aware of that. They were probably running on 75-80% capacity (or even less with this selection) and the win was actually more comfortable than the espn scorecard & commentary looks.

A teasing win.

Blimey. You really are keeping up this nonsense arnt you..

mystiroakey wrote:You really are a bad winner arnt you pal..

You barely passed 303 . Yet you think you would have eased 350.

Do yourself a favour pal. Get over yourself.

Take the win in a gracious way. And I would ask you not to talk rubbish,

Keep gambling with your big mouth, you drunkard. You're all sloppy talk and not much else. Get lost you ignorant fool.

what the heck is wrong with you?

You are lucky you are a mod. That's bang out of order.

You always cause problems on these boards with your know all attitude.

You can't let others have different opinions to your own. You're pretty much a selfish, conceited and ignorant tw*t.

No point discussing anything with you. Don't bother sending any more abusive PMs either. They are not worth reading. They all get deleted.

Where do I cause problems?

You are the only one doing it on here..

I have said nothing abusive. Yet you have... So back up your statements.

Are you drunk ?

And I havent sent any abusive Pms. I just thought we could deal with it in a mature manor off board..

I congratulated aus. And I pointed out england problems. You are getting personal, and that is nasty.. You are self projecting .

You are always out of order. Why don't you read what you post? They are riddled with errors you do realise? Every single one of them!

I simply responded to a stupid comment you made and you start throwing your useless weight around. No wonder I responded the way I did.

It's true. I "never trust anything a drunken gambler says" is one of my mottos. And I certainly won't by bullied by the likes of you.

Get over yourself and act like a decent person for once.

I am not a drunk, or a gambler.(I have the occasional bet )

And I havent said one thing abusive on this thread.

You need to act in a decent way.

Why don't you ask another mod to go through this thread .Heck ask any member...

You are being bang out of order.

I may have had a few issues in the first year or so of being here. But I am not abusive these days.

Anyway. Look let's start again pal.

Sorry if I caused you offence..

I honestly didn't mean to.l

Bloody palace fans..........

Yeah I love chips with my plaice...

mystiroakey wrote:Yeah I love chips with my plaice...

Edited now. I prefer cod, myself.

Yeah battered plaice doesn't really work.. Maybe dusted with flour..

Guys...it was a good game......a practice game nevertheless....and Eng will get a few more practice games.

Leave the fist-fight for Eng's opening game of world cup which is also vs Aus

No, not necessary. Your above post says it all.

I'll just ignore your irritating contributions and not respond to your argumentative replies.

I may have argued your argument.

You got personal.

Yours is the rule break. And you sound like a drunk. And if you can't accept my hand of peace then that's fine by me and tells the whole forum what you are about.

Your "hand of peace" is not worth the skin it's written on.

Have another drink and a bet and leave us all in peace.

Well I Will graciously back out anyway.

It's offered whenever you want to take it.

I am not here for an argument..

Enjoy your win. Aus are a top team..

However as an england fan I am not that disappointed . I can see see improvements.l

Yes, they are improving.

If you read any of my other posts - I'm probably more confident about them than most on here. Except for Duty perhaps.

I do have respect for all teams. If England win the WC... then great. They will have played very well to have earned it. Same goes for India, SA, NZ, SL, Pakistan... whoever.

Well halfway there at least!

Difference probably being that too few English batsmen made starts compared to their Australian counterparts, and that England could not fully capitalise when Australia had a miniature collapse of 76/0 to 92/3.

Hey ho, save it for the proper game lads!

Whoever wins will deserve it...

Aus are in prime position. Sadly you may have the tag that you can only lose it at this rate!!

Everyone here is calling SA the favourites. It's hard to argue with that!

The Loaded Dog wrote:Everyone here is calling SA the favourites. It's hard to argue with that!

They've been known to choke.

Just wading through the argument, I think there's good points on both sides in amongst the rage!

Comfortable for Aus, but I think it's spot on to say another 40 runs would not have been a walk in the park at all. I think the risks needed would have produced the one or two more wickets England were desperate for to get into the tail earlier. The England bowling is good enough to take tail end wickets in the "genuine" manner e.g. caught behind, bowled, lbw. I think 340/350 and England probably win.

It's all done now anyway and we still need that defend a score win!! I will try and dig out some stats around setting and defending, we never seem to do it.

VTR wrote:Just wading through the argument, I think there's good points on both sides in amongst the rage!

Comfortable for Aus, but I think it's spot on to say another 40 runs would not have been a walk in the park at all. I think the risks needed would have produced the one or two more wickets England were desperate for to get into the tail earlier. The England bowling is good enough to take tail end wickets in the "genuine" manner e.g. caught behind, bowled, lbw. I think 340/350 and England probably win.

It's all done now anyway and we still need that defend a score win!! I will try and dig out some stats around setting and defending, we never seem to do it.

Spot on - decent batting from England let down by a failure to push on in the last 10 overs. Not only did this mean we were 30 or so runs short, it gave away some confidence and momentum. Aussie batting was good enough to never let the pressure build, although we chipped away with wickets at times to stop them running away for a comfortable victory - probably only when we didn't get Haddin during his early struggles that the balance tipped Australia's way.

So some encouragement for England but still things to work on, in particular batting in the closing overs with wickets in hand - was the perfect set up for Buttler to score a quick 50. Also, we have to stop losing wickets in clusters..

The biggest question is what is the point of Bopara in this team? If he's not contributing with his bowling, it makes sense to pick another specialist batsman in better form or with more potential to be destructive (Hales?)

Ok the stats are in, I have taken all results against Test playing nations since Jan 1st 2013

Overall Win % is a pretty horrendous: 38% (17 wins, 28 losses )
Batting Second the Win Rate is: 43% (10 wins, 13 losses)
Batting First it is: 32% (7 wins, 15 losses)

So good to see that the stats support the perception!

Yep we have been talking about it for years- We just cannot set a total..

Pre 2013 we were bailed out by some brilliant bowling performances- that also included a top quality spinner. Somehow we got to no.1 in the world in the format- But our batting was never really up to it.

our averages are just so sad- Looking at that list of highest run England ODI batsmen , only two on the list are marginally above 40

Afternoon all.

I watched quite a bit of the game, it is quite interesting to see how Aus go about chasing totals: they try to stay up with (or near) the rate even if it means losing a few more wickets than you would like. The thinking seems to therefore be that:
- if you get a really good partnership going (> 100) then you're pretty much home and dry
- if you get to the last 10 overs with say 70-80 required but 6 wickets down (as opposed to needing 90 but with 6-7 wickets in hand) you can afford a couple of quiet overs run-rate wise
We've seen this a few times in the past, when they are up with the rate or close to it, and then are able to finish with fewer wickets in hand than you'd normally expect.

For that reason, whilst I think they could have chased 330-340 given the way the chase ended up, I agree with VTR that they would probably have taken more risks (Smith in particular never really got out of 2nd gear) and that could have led to more wickets.

In the end with this method 300 looked, if not comfortable, then at least always within range. There was never a time during their innings that you thought "yes England are well on top here".

Part of that was a failure to build pressure after the wickets had taken. And a lot of that is IMO down to the Aussie approach. E.g. when Haddin came in and originally struggled, Smith took a couple more risks to ensure Aus were still getting their 6-7 per over. Similar stuff happened throughout the innings.

A lot has rightly been written about England's failure to kick on, but perhaps not enough about how well the top order played to get them to that position. I would actually say that that is more important than the failure of the middle-order, because I would expect one of Buttler, Morgan, Bopara or even Woakes to come in and smash a few in that situation far more often than not.

Much as I am a fan of Hales, it would make little sense at this point for him to replace Bopara. England's top 4 is looking increasingly settled and balanced (my concerns about Moeen's long term suitability notwithstanding) and I can't realistically see Hales as a number 6. If Bopara is to make way then it should be for Ballance (who hasn't batted down the order for England yet, but does play there for Yorkshire) or another bowler.

Like guildford I would go for that option as the "least bad" as things stand. Moeen does seem to be a remarkably intelligent cricketer whose bowling has improved very very quickly in internationals, so much so that he is now probably not much inferior as a bowler to Tredwell (in ODIs). But still, if you replace Bopara by Ballance and the opposition get after either Moeen or one of your strike-bowlers, then your back-up is Root, which is... unideal.

Bopara does actually give you a bit of back-up there. In fact I thought Morgan was a bit knee-jerky in only giving him the 1 over today (admittedly it was a poor one) - I actually think his cutters should have been suitable to the pitch. Then again Tredwell may have been even more useful. Particularly in keeping things quiet after a wicket.

For what it's worth I make Aus comfortable enough favourites over South Africa. There's not necessarily much in it, but I think Aus have more depth; put simply if both sides play well, I think Aus win unless Steyn or AB do something remarkable.

Don't you dare call us the favourites LD. we can choke well enough without the added pressure!

Teams that are good in test cricket are likely to be good in this world cup also.
Worldcups outside of sub continent and WI reward teams that have a balance between bowling and batting
If at all they favour.....the stronger bowling sides.

So SA are the top side
followed by Aus ......equal becuase of batting depth and home conditions
Pak is 3
NZ and Egf joint 4th.......

Ind and lanka 5 &6

WI is out of contention

Any of the 7 have a shot. You only to win 3 games(forgetting the gimme groups) and luck of the toss can knock a team out due to conditions, strange DL if a reduced game, etc.

But aus favs for me then SA if all goes smooth.

But there is no guarantee..

India will definitely lose of to one of IRE or ZIM.....possibly both.
by no means is qualification a given for Ind and WI

a tiny club in Ireland has produced 2 world captains....Morgan and Porterfield
Just read the trivia on CI
http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015/content/story/822165.html

India will not definently lose to anyone and will be favs in both games. They might lose to one or both of them..

Regarding Guildford's bopara point I agree he's too bits and pieces, but he does offer a balance to the side that I like.

If stokes had played well, and was playing well he'd be perfect for that spot in the side

Olly - I'm all in favour of selecting a player who brings a balance to the side provided - and this is key for me - he's of sufficient quality.

Different example and context but I liked the response of Angus Fraser on Sky last month when it was being suggested that the England Test selectors should opt for a bowler with express pace. Tymal Mills had been mentioned earlier in the discussion and I'm sure that Gus had him in mind when he replied, ''There's no point picking someone fast if he's only going to test the wicket-keeper''.

Completely agree. Bits and pieces players are the bane of my existence, although surely Ravi is a little better than purely bits and pieces? Averages 30 with the bat, which I think is par, maybe slightly above par for a lower middle order batsman. His bowling is worth a punt as well. Only real issue is the strike rate, he doesn't score quickly enough for a genuine late smasher, but doesn't really score enough to justify slots higher up.

Definitely need a sixth bowler, who can if required, bowl 5 overs or so. Bops or Syokes, who won't get called up, anyway.

stokes is the bowler first batsman second to boparas batter first/bowler second.

we should pick the one player that is doing his first job better.

To be honest its 6 and 2 3's

We should pick who benefits the team better. Stokes may not get to bowl a lot, so is he worth it as a batsman? On the other hand, Bopara is reasonably economical, when he does bowl. Not much in it, like you say.

Or look at it another way and just concentrate what we what are not doing well enough and that is posting a decent total or not keeping up with a good total set .

So - maybe just think about why we are playing bell/taylor and root in our odi team..

They are our best 3 batsmen on form- but what are we doing- just setting them up for test cricket- I think those 3 could destroy teams in test cricket- but can they consistently build a big enough(quick enough) platform for our middle order.

or put it on our middle order more and take bops out for ballance or hales.- forget about an extra bowler as teams seem to post good scores whatever we do or they click and we bowl them out cheap and we win.. We only win when the bowling clicks.

or do both.

Or go back to the original plan and forget bops/stokes and go with jordan again, who seems more of an all rounder than both.. but maybe not quite as good as either at one aspect.- a more natural all rounder.