Eng v Aus - Limited Overs Thread

by **LondonTiger** Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:30 am

First topic message reminder :

Fixtures:

31 Aug: T20, Cardiff, 15:00 BST

3 Sep: 1st ODI, Southampton, 14:00
5 Sep: 2nd ODI, Lord's, 10:30
8 Sep: 3rd ODI, Old Trafford, 14:00
11 Sep: 4th ODI, Headingley, 10:30
13 Sep: 5th ODI, Old Trafford, 10:30

Squads:

England T20:
Eoin Morgan (Middlesex, capt), Moeen Ali (Worcestershire), Sam Billings (Kent), Jos Buttler (Lancashire, wk), Steven Finn (Middlesex), Alex Hales (Nottinghamshire), Adil Rashid (Yorkshire), Jason Roy (Surrey), Ben Stokes (Durham), Reece Topley (Essex), James Vince (Hampshire), David Willey (Northamptonshire), Chris Woakes (Warwickshire).

England ODI
Eoin Morgan (Middlesex, capt), Moeen Ali (Worcestershire), Sam Billings (Kent), Jos Buttler (Lancashire, wk), Steven Finn (Middlesex), Alex Hales (Nottinghamshire), Liam Plunkett (Yorkshire), Adil Rashid (Yorkshire), Jason Roy (Surrey), Ben Stokes (Durham), James Taylor (Nottinghamshire), David Willey Northamptonshire), Chris Woakes (Warwickshire), Mark Wood (Durham)

Australia
David Warner, Joe Burns, Steve Smith (capt), Shane Watson, George Bailey, Matthew Wade, Mitch Marsh, Marcus Stoinis, Glenn Maxwell, Ashton Agar, Nathan Coulter-Nile, Mitchell Starc, Pat Cummins, James Pattinson. Cameron Boyce (T20 only)

by Gooseberry Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:20 am

I'm not really convinced Wood is suited for tests either. Hes done a job nothing more. Then again it took Broad and Anderson quite some time to sort their lives out.

As for openers who are we talking about to replace them who would reguallry score at a more sedate but still acceptable level (lets say 5 an over) and reguallry score 50+. Cook? Bell? Trott? KP? Chuck Norris? Whichever Surrey player did well last week?
Hales does need to start performing though. Roys certainly bought himself a longer stint, but Id be very surprised to see either replaced in this series.

Looking at the players on the scene Englands strength lies in the all rounder/ bits and pieces guys backing up the likes of Root and Taylor with the bat.
Our specilast pure bowlers arent really noticebaly better than the Woakes, Ali, Rashid, Willey and Stokes types. Lets not hate on them just because they know which end of bat to hold as well.

One fairly heavy defeat against a near full strength world champions side and its all doom and gloom again. It wasnt same old England. They looked in the game at times, go back to the world cup and remember how all at sea they looked.
Its one game, and I still think Australias weaknesses have been exposed as well to some extent. They really lack and depth to the batting (Watson and Marsh are walking wickets .. and the exact kind of bits and pieces players england are slated above for picking) , and on a slower lower pitch would they really have the vareity of bowlers to back up neutered quicks.

England need their front line seamers to deliver wickets with the new ball. Then Aus are there for the taking.

by liverbnz Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:19 am

I didn't get to see any of the match yesterday but did Rashid generally bowl poorly and just get lucky? It seems from reports he bowled quite well but was admittedly lucky with 2 of his wickets, with the other 2 being very good balls. I think this is exactly what you should expect from a leg spinner. I get the impression from on here he was dead lucky with his bowling yesterday and with a few mocking's of people calling for a Test cap. Has he not done enough to earn that anyway?

Shane Warne should not be his measuring stick here. He is peak leg spinner, top of the class. In saying that though - their FC and ODi SRs are remarkably similar albeit, the ODi especially, being over a much shorter time frame from Rashid.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:22 am

From what I saw of the highlights he bowled ok, got a couple of lucky wickets. Think he's doing ok so far at international level.

by **Mat** Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:54 am

I thought Moeen should have opened yesterday, probably instead of Roy, but that was a good knock yesterday and he's probably brought himself some time.

However, there is no way Moeen should be batting 7 in this side. He played a good knock there last summer against someone(can't remember who we played the ODI's against) but has always been a top order player in county cricket. He's got a decent record opening for England and has shown that if he's given time to bat in International cricket he can make runs, instead of always batting with the tail.

In my opinion, he should be batting above at least Buttler and maybe Stokes too, if they aren't willing to play him up the top.

by SimonofSurrey Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:42 pm

[quote="VTR"]I am not sure we need batting down to 9. When does a number 9 ever win an ODI with the bat?

This - http://www.ecb.co.uk/scorecard/37521 - was mainly about Bairstow, but you could argue that the batting of the No 9 that day was also crucial to the win. With no support from genuine taileneders at 9-11, it's doubtful Bairstow would have been able to do what he did. You DO need a side which bats down to at least 9 nowadays in ODIs, precisely so that a really bad start, as England had that day at 45-5, need not necessarily be fatal.

by **LondonTiger** Fri Sep 04, 2015 3:26 pm

I too felt Moeen should have opened, but roy finally got a score and better than that looked far less frenetic and really just a bit calmer. He could perhaps work on rotating the strike a bit more (he faced 50 of the first 70 balls) and as with Hales should be angry at the way he got out.

If he is not to open, then I would like Ali at 3. He has had his success up at the top of the order and the T20 earliewr was a prime example. Previousley he has been used down the order in the shortest format, and not delivered a great deal. Finally moved up the order and we saw what he can do. Plus I always like having a R/L combination to mess up the bowlers lines.

I too am not convinced by Wood yet - but we can give him time. We do though need wickets from the opening bowlers.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:13 am

Plunkett in for Wood is England's only change as they bowl first

by guildfordbat Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:34 am

Olly wrote:Plunkett in for Wood is England's only change as they bowl first

England seem unwilling to pull the plug on Plunkett but equally never give the impression of being convinced by him. There again, not sure if too many are.

[PS Olly - question for you on the Div 1 thread.]

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:50 am

Woakes is a lovely bowler

by Duty281 Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:49 pm

Australia cruising once more at 168/2; still 16 overs left. 320+ if they don't collapse again.

by Duty281 Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:49 pm

Wicket! Just as I type that.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:44 pm

Woakes isn't gonna bowl out despite being easily the best bowler. Strange

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:36 pm

Jason Roy's leg side flicks and drives are so wonderful I think I'm in love

by guildfordbat Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:45 pm

Olly wrote:Jason Roy's leg side flicks and drives are so wonderful I think I'm in love

I've felt like that since day one which for me I think was in May 2010.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:19 pm

This will obviously jinx him, but Roy looks really comfortable more so than Hales has imo

And Stoinis is the worst cricketer to play for Australia I reckon

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:19 pm

by GSC Sat Sep 05, 2015 5:23 pm

Rules are rules.

That said that was nonsense and Aus should be somewhat ashamed.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Sat Sep 05, 2015 5:32 pm

It's out, but it's a nonsense Australia upheld the appeal

by Duty281 Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:00 pm

Just seen it. Not sure what's controversial or debatable about it.

Starc tries to cleverly run out Stokes, like Harmison did to Clarke at Edgbaston in 2005, but the batsman clearly reaches out to try to prevent the ball hitting the stumps. Blatant obstruction.

Excellent decision.

by banyun Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:03 pm

Law 37 says that you're not out if you shouldn't be given out if you're avoiding injury (which I think he clearly was). It's not like England were going to win anyway. Leaves a sour taste in my mount honestly.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:06 pm

Agnew talking utter rubbish saying bowlers are just gonna throw the ball at batsmen all the time now

He's really really tiresome

by msp83 Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:15 pm

Got the feel Stokes was protecting the stumps rather than himself, and in that case he was correctly given out.

by Hammersmith harrier Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:28 pm

Steve Smith cements himself as a kumquat of the highest order.

by Duty281 Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:39 pm

Once again, England fail to chase 300+ on a good pitch.

Longggggggggggggggg way behind the leading nations in ODIs.

by SimonofSurrey Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:22 pm

Ok, so Australia have now made a statement of 'win at all cost'. Fair enough, it's good to know where you stand. It probably will be wise, however, for them to avoid any situation in any of the final three games where they have to rely on the goodwill of their opponents.

Two sides toured England this summer. New Zealand left memories behind of their hard fought and exciting brand of cricket played always in the right spirit and which never failed to entertain. Australia leave next weekend with memories of the Ashes they left behind. Goodbye.

by 931035 Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:31 pm

What strikes me as interesting is that Morgan stated as clearly as he could without getting into trouble where he stood on the Stokes dismissal, and what he would have done in reversed roles (comments which Smith called 'disappointing'), while Smith himself largely hid behind the umpires, absolving himself of having to have any moral position on the matter at all. That's disappointing.

by **LondonTiger** Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:52 pm

At slow motion it looked dodgy by Stokes. At full speed however it looked purely like an evasive movement. Hand goes up to block his face, then body moves away from the hand and line of the throw.

Starc threw the ball at Stokes head from a distance of about 12 yards. i am seriously impressed by Stokes reaction times if he was doing anything other than self preservation.

by GSC Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:03 pm

That's the thing really. You can talk yourself into it in slow motion but in real time its a different story. Poor from Smith really.

by king_carlos Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:21 pm

Duty281 wrote:Once again, England fail to chase 300+ on a good pitch.

Longggggggggggggggg way behind the leading nations in ODIs.

It's a new look side without much experience being asked to play a certain type of cricket for the second series. Give them time Duty. If the struggles continue then the important thing will be to not rip everything up. If Hales and Roy continue to not set a platform then drop one and either bring Vince in at the top or move Moeen up to open and pick a 'finisher' at 7 - probably Billings again from the current squad.

The bowling looks like exactly what it is, short of big game experience and a leader. With Broad and Anderson both gone this was always going to be the case for a period however.

by Duty281 Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:20 pm

I looked at the Stokes incident at normal speed - his hand extends quite a way from his body, so I don't think it was accidental.

No qualms from me about Australia appealing or the wicket being given.

England would have done the same, no matter how much the Irish bloke pretends otherwise.

by SimonofSurrey Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:42 pm

Duty281 rarely posts anything without betraying his prejudice and his age. Best ignored.

I guess the Stokes arguments will run and run. What is evident is that the atmospherics of the series now have changed and that Smith risks having set a negative tone as to how others (not just English) will assume a team under him plays. Good to be clear, but he's playing a high risk Billy No Mates game.

by Duty281 Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:44 pm

What prejudice would that be?

by kingraf Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:54 pm

Looks instinctive, sure but not nit protective instinctive. So he's out. Clearly obstructing the ball. If he wasn't out on obstruction, then he'd probably have been given out run out because he's changed direction to prevent a run out opportunity while out his crease

by SimonofSurrey Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:12 pm

"he'd probably have been given out run out because he's changed direction to prevent a run out opportunity while out his crease"

Come off it, how can you give a bloke run out when no fielder has broken the wicket with the ball??? The whole argument hangs on whether you feel Stokes's action was deliberate and premeditated obstruction or not. Any other form of dismissal is irrelevant in this scenario.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:14 pm

Random cricket thought - how comes you can be out handling the ball but kicking it is allowed

by Duty281 Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:16 pm

Olly wrote:Random cricket thought - how comes you can be out handling the ball but kicking it is allowed

Ahh the mysteries of life.

by kingraf Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:17 pm

A batsman can be dismissed if they changed their course to prevent a run out.
He was moving left, then his hand went right. It's not exactly rocket science.

by kingraf Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:18 pm

It's not even that new a rule. It's been here since 2011

by guildfordbat Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:59 pm

Re Stokes. I can understand both sides but not out from me. There isn't sufficient evidence that his act was not one of self preservation.

Starc's whole manner and throw had a lot of aggression about it. Imo he wasn't just trying for a dismissal, it was meant to give Stokes a jolt. That helps tip the balance of my decision in the batsman's favour.

I actually think this particular incident would have been better decided by the on field umpires rather than the third umpire continually studying tv footage in slow motion. If you are deciding on intent, I feel that's best done in real time by those there.

Again understandable but a shame this prevents or reduces other issues for England being debated. All I'll say now is compare Maxwell's bowling stats with those of Rashid and Moeen - something is very wrong when we are letting someone like Maxwell take 2/44 off a full 10 overs whilst our spin combo took 2 wickets off 15 overs and went for 112.

by jimbohammers Sun Sep 06, 2015 12:53 am

I actually think it was the right decision in the end. Not sure the Aussies are to blame, the decision was eventually made by the 3rd umpire.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:23 am

guildfordbat wrote:Starc's whole manner and throw had a lot of aggression about it. Imo he wasn't just trying for a dismissal, it was meant to give Stokes a jolt. That helps tip the balance of my decision in the batsman's favour.

The whole issue for me, and something I absolutely hate. Batsmen should start doing practice shots really close to bowlers then look them in the eye. Would be just as ridiculous. A habit I really hate, throwing the ball near enough to the stumps whilst really trying to intimidate the batsman.

Seems to me that common sense wasnt evident at all, and it was very small of the Aussies to appeal. Which is sadly too often how I feel about their attitude to sport and winning.

by msp83 Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:32 am

I am reminded of the Jos Buttler run-out by the Sri Lankans that had the moral police out in full force!
From whatever I've watched of the Stokes dismissal, his act didn't really come across as self-preservation. He was, perhaps instingtively, saving the stumps rather than himself, and that's out in my book. The ball didn't seem like coming directly towards him, so where does self-preservation come into it? Was Stokes thinking that since Starc is a swing bowler, the throw would swing in and hit him?
The only debatable point for me, is whether Stokes was protecting himself or protecting the stumps. Whether that was a reflex action is secondary. To me it looked like the latter, so he was rightly given out. Can't see why that fuzzy and conveniently deployed concept of the 'Spirit' has to come in here.

by Stella Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:40 am

It was the correct decision, though perhaps going through with the appeal wasn't in the spirit of the game. This much ado about nothing does however mask an inept performance from England.

by msp83 Sun Sep 06, 2015 9:24 am

If the batsman was in the wrong, then there is absolutely nothing wrong in appealing and going through with the appeal. We can't invoke the spirit of cricket each time an English batsman does something silly!

by Stella Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:13 am

msp83 wrote:If the batsman was in the wrong, then there is absolutely nothing wrong in appealing and going through with the appeal. We can't invoke the spirit of cricket each time an English batsman does something silly!

I kind of agree, though reacting to something so quick can hardly be deemed 'silly' ala Bell against India a few years ago, when Dhoni wrongly recalled Bell. Back to Stokes. It was out, so get on with it.

by Hammersmith harrier Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:22 am

Anyone who thinks that was out is basing it on seeing the slo-mo's, in real time it's an absolute shocker of a decision and the moving of the hand was pure instinct. The thing that really baffles me is what it has to do with the third umpire anyway, it should have been Dharmasena making the decision, his actual view was better than that of anyone watching a slowed down replay.

The initial movement of his hand is also telling, straight towards his face and then away.

by msp83 Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:24 am

Indians have a habit of capitulating to the spirit of cricket nonsense time and again. Dhoni recalling Bell who was run-out forgetting the rules of the game, and then Sehwag recalling Sri Lanka's Lahiru Thirimanne when he got run-out trying to take an unfair advantage as a non-striker.

by msp83 Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:27 am

The question though is, what was the instinct about? Saving himself or saving the stumps?

by Hammersmith harrier Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:27 am

I'll point out that I had no issue with Senanayake Mankading Buttler, he was warned on more than one occasion so it was sheer stupidity to then leave the crease early and got what he deserved.

by msp83 Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:34 am

and when he goes all self-righteous on the incident yesterday, Eoin Morgan can cool himself down by googling Elliot v Sidebottom run-out controversy or Harmison's controversial run-out of Inzamam!

by Sponsored content