Group C - Australia, Sri Lanka, West Indies

[Neil Pickup]

I've just seen Mathews' (Mathew's? What is the bloke's name?) fielding, and it's out of this world. Absolutely sensational presence of mind, agility and reactions.

And no bloody way is it a six. I like Adamc's analogy a lot.

[Beamer]

As a lot of you have already said 177 against that SL attack is a good effort without our numero uno 20-20 batsman.

The batting looks in good shape but Marshall has to go. Not only is he batting poorly at the moment but his fielding has regressed dramatically. Simmons will probably keep his place in the lineup. I am slightly worried about Shiv's 20-20 batting, he has looked terrible in his last couple of innings. He is the great man though so I would give him a chance against India on Friday (though I can't help but feel we missed out on a great opportunity to give a youngster like Darren Bravo some exposure by resting Shiv for this tournament). Sarwan didn't get the ball away too well today but he will come good and it doesn't get much tougher than having to score at 10/11 runs per over against Mendis and Murali.

The bowling is ok even if Fiddy had an off day today but the fielding is simply unacceptable. We have a team full of athletes (everyone apart from Suliemann Benn and Sarwan can run very quickly and are pretty agile) so it can only be appalling concentration levels that are holding them back. Dyson has to light a fire up their backsides because they are in with a great shout of winning this tournament if they can just field adequately.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Smith

Akin to me saying Atul Sharma will be better than McGrath once he starts playing.

No no. I did not say Siddle would become a better ODI bowler than Sharma once he plays. I am saying when Siddle plays i am expecting him to have similar success, given that given their test form, they are pretty even as bowlers.

Originally Posted by Smith

Both are left armers, albeit one is still wrongly listed as LMF.

Bracken is pace bowler. Ojha is a spinner. Bracken seam up with the new-ball & then in the middle overs & death combines his off-cutters as part of his bowling tactics.



It is already clear than in Harbhajan, Ojha and even Misha India's spin options embarasses AUS.

Bracken should be compared to the likes of Kumar, RP Singh, Sreesath - which he clearly is better.

Originally Posted by Smith

Check out the ODI rankings and see whether they are still on top. They are not.

You are clearly missing my point yo. We are refering to the CB series 08 which India won & i am telling you IND winning that series then, did not make them better than AUS ATT in ODI cricket.

Australia lost a fair few ODI series between the Gilchrist/Hayden ODI era of WC 99 to CB series 08. But AUS losing did not make the opposition better.

This point has nothing to do with RIGHT NOW.

Originally Posted by Smith

How do you say that despite agreeing to Zaheer = Johnson, Ishant > Bracken, Siddle, Ojha and Harby have no comparitive figures in Aus???.

Australia fast-bowling depth is way better than India thats, why at home AUS would be favoruites. While in IND at home would be favorites becuase of their spin strenght.

Originally Posted by Smith

Happens to all teams. Even when Ojha made his debut, it was against SL in their own backyard, he came good immediately.

When you are constantly excusing yourself with the same reason for a lengthy period of time, you know something is wrong with the team. It is not as if Aus lost just one series and people started berating them as an ODI team.

Yes but not AUS during their best years. You would be well aware of how over the last decade during the the ultra-competitve winning mentality in the AUS side, that fringe or young players would come in with the regular stars & IMMEDIATELY play well.

During last winter, going into the series AUS had just lost to IND & SA in tests. Selectors where doing crap & big players where under pressure & a few key players where out injured. So fringe players came into an unusal team enviroment, thus they performed below par.

That is why SA beating an under-strenght AUS team due to these reason - is not a straight forward indicator that they are better than AUS @ full-strenght. As i said before SA 3-2 win in 06 was far more legitimate.

Originally Posted by Smith

Who involved test cricket? I mentioned there is no way James Hopes is a better player than Pathan. In all formats, including ODIs.

Clear contradictory here.

Originally Posted by Smith

He is a handy player in the shield. But at the moment, when it comes to Internationals, he is found wanting, Hopes that is.

Hopes ODI career has been pretty solid given his role i'd say, by no means has been found wanting overall. His bowling at times could be targeted yea, but on slow surfaces he has proven to hard to get way. While his batting is versatile enough to give decent finishing innings in the late overs & in case of emergency open the innings.

Originally Posted by Smith

You got no data to back it up shotta, and in T20s, Hopes is a big joke.

His bowling is joke yea. But as he should for KXIP in the IPL - as i just said - if his role is to oepn the batting he is a dangerous hitter. For AUS he wont get that role, so his position in the national T20 is useless.

Originally Posted by Smith

And Ferguson has played all of SA as a big side? .

Ferguson was AUS best batsman in the ODI series in SA.

Originally Posted by Smith

Check out his stats for a change mister. Raina's record despite his inexperience is far better than that of Hodge and Hussey.

Yes. But those stats need to taken with a pinch of salt.

It is clear based on domestic ODI & T20 performances worldwide Hodge & Hussey are better bats than Raina. Its just that in their ODI careers they have not had settled roles, they usually play because of injury or as a rest replacement. No player regardless how good you are can't be in & out of a team & expect to have a SOLID record.

Raina may very well have a top ODI career, but as of right now as we are deliberating over who has the better ODI batting depth. Hodge & Hussey are better than Raina clearly.

Originally Posted by Smith

Lol, the way you arrive at conclusions is hilarious. Nayar is as good as Pomersbach if not better. That is evident from their domestic records,


Also Uthappa, Kohli, Badri, Vijay, Pande, Jadeja etc all outclass the bench strength of Aussies.

Firstly i was never actually comparing Pomersbach to Nayar. This is what i said to the other posted who first brought up this point:

Originally Posted by me

My bad i forgot about Kohli & Jadeja especially. Its pretty close between Bailey/Pomersbach and these two Indians.

Uthappa is straight wildness, id be very surprised if he plays for IND in ODIs or T20s again.

Badri strong suite seems to be test cricket. Seeing him in the IPL he looks a bit out of his depth in that format.

Pandey no doubt looked exciting, but so did Warner intially. So too early to judge him i'd say.

Originally Posted by Smith

He is firstly a Netherlands player. So it is an irrelevant argument.

TBH im not sure how strict the lawless ICC is about switching nations, especially a fringe on like the dutch. I sort of think Nannes can still play for AUS because he applied due to Dutch heritage, just like how foreign players can come & play county cricket as European players if they have links. But i could be wrong.

Eoin Morgan played for ENG just 2 years after representing Ireland in the 07 WC. So its a bit confusing.

Originally Posted by Smith

Secondly, Nannes has hardly played any International cricket to have an assessment. It is funny when you say he is better than RP, who has actually led India to test wins abroad, not to mention ODIs and T20s.

Irrelevant. We talking about ODI cricket.

T20s can give you an idea of how a bowler could bowl in ODI in the death overs at least & seeing the IPL this year. Nannes was slightly superior to RP in that area. While they both are equally dangerous with the new ball.

Originally Posted by Smith

Because he was denied a contract this year and has hardly impressed in the last few years?.

He only has not impressed in the Perth test vs IND. His ODI bowling has been pretty much what you get from Tait all the time - high pace, waywardness (sometimes accurate) & wickets.

Him not getting a CA contract does not mean AUS selectors dont see him as part of future plans. All it says that they see him as limited overs specialist given his injury record & given the likes depth in pace options in the respective forms of the game he is sort of down the pecking order.

Tait is currently involved in the AUS A vs PAK A series. So although confusing, its clear he is part of future plans & has a strong chance of being invloved in the ODI side over here this summer.

Originally Posted by Smith

Nobody put a knife to the Aussie squad's neck and demanded to rest their players. The fact that the top 6 of India remains constant shows a. How fit they are b. How consistent they are.

You just said Indian players cant have have/ask for rest except for Dhoni & Tendy.

Originally Posted by Smith

And plus, Australia did not miss 5 players of their core in any series. Don't talk out of your arse.

Well i have already explained the crux of this point above. So hopefully when you reach here, you would have gotten the drift...

Originally Posted by Smith

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Averaging 36 at an abysmal SR of 70 since 2007 WC. His slow batting has ensured that the middle and lower order were put in huge pressure often more than not.

I dont know where you got this madness from. Most likely you went of cricinfo etc & cherry picked a few games & came up with this idea.

But again this is nonsense. He is averaging 36, his SR is down yea. But if you followed Clarke's ODI career along with the dynmaincs of the AUS ODI batting over the years, this really is crazyness.

Clarke when he first started in ODI would come in @ 7 and be quite a clinical finisher, which lead to him getting a few early goes @ opening. This proved to be the detriment to his early test career though since that aggressive style lead to him being dropped.

As he improved his test game, thus leading to a promotion to # 4 in the ODI side when Martyn retired. His ODI batting changed in the dynamincs of the ODI side with him being the the steady presence - but still freescoring around a top 7 consisting of Gilchrist, Hayden, Punter, Ryo, Hussey, Watson.

This really is a baseless stats argument, because just recently in PAK. Clarke was scoring quite freely as Afridi & Ajmal was reguarly tied AUS batting down.

So back to the original point about AUS batting competition. Clarke position has never been under threat.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by TT Boy

Bati man

Haha, its battyman BTW. Good effort though TT

On Bracks. These stats are a bit misleading. The SA nullified his effect with the new-ball pretty well & a few times he was smoked in the death overs. But he held is own very well vs NZ & PAK.

So overall no REAL evidence suggested that this was the startiing of bowling slump for Bracken. Just well played by SA for getting on top of him, given that AUS bowling was generally weakend over those 10 ODIs.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Smith

FC cricket exists for a reason imho.

Which is?

And whatever F50 can do, T20 can also do imho.

No way. Should SA pick Botha in their test side based on T20 performances, does Yuraj really deserved to be in the test side ahead of Badrinath due to his supet T20 batting, should WI pick Pollard, Dwayne Smith (if he still available) in their test side based on T20 batting, should Ojha be chosen over Misha based in test because of his recent T20 bowling. Damn i can go on and on...

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by aussie

No way. Should SA pick Botha in their test side based on T20 performances, does Yuraj really deserved to be in the test side ahead of Badrinath due to his supet T20 batting, should WI pick Pollard, Dwayne Smith (if he still available) in their test side based on T20 batting, should Ojha be chosen over Misha based in test because of his recent T20 bowling. Damn i can go on and on...

No, but what does that have to do with ODIs?

They shouldn't be picked in Tests based on ODI performances either.

[Shri]

Originally Posted by aussie

Haha, its battyman BTW. Good effort though TT

On Bracks. These stats are a bit misleading. The SA nullified his effect with the new-ball pretty well & a few times he was smoked in the death overs. But he held is own very well vs NZ & PAK.

So overall no REAL evidence suggested that this was the startiing of bowling slump for Bracken. Just well played by SA for getting on top of him, given that AUS bowling was generally weakend over those 10 ODIs.

He wasn't out played in an one-off game against RSA. He was **** through a full series.

[Shri]

Originally Posted by aussie

No way. Should SA pick Botha in their test side based on T20 performances, does Yuraj really deserved to be in the test side ahead of Badrinath due to his supet T20 batting, should WI pick Pollard, Dwayne Smith (if he still available) in their test side based on T20 batting, should Ojha be chosen over Misha based in test because of his recent T20 bowling. Damn i can go on and on...

Yuvraj should not be ANYWHERE near the test side atm.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

No, but what does that have to do with ODIs?

They shouldn't be picked in Tests based on ODI performances either.

Yea. But as Smith is saying ODIs should be abolished, thats doesn't really make sense. Although ODI form does not equal test success, outside ENG, AUS, SA other nations have poor to average FC competitions. So other than special talent, most selectors are generally tempted to pick players based on ODI form.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by aussie

Yea. But as Smith is saying ODIs should be abolished, thats doesn't really make sense. Although ODI form does not equal test success, outside ENG, AUS, SA other nations have poor to average FC competitions. So other than special talent, most selectors are generally tempted to pick players based on ODI form.

Well not that I'm actually in favour of abolishing ODIs, but if anything I think it'd be a good thing on this particular front, as it'd stop selectors from doing that. I think it's wrong and I'd be happy to see them not have the ability do so anymore.

[GIMH]

I think you can gauge some things from how a player performs in ODIs; temperament, basic ability etc. But we've seen time and time again mistakes made where players are picked for the long-form through being good at the short-form. Inclined to agree with EWS here.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Smith

Freakish. Considering the opposition, and the lower number of matches, nothing much to look into

No, you're quite right. I suppose the point is that we have to watch each of them bowl and decide who is better. Ojha's a decent little tweaker, but Roelof's a fantastically canny bowler. He's often used in South Africa as a specialist death-bowler, and you can't imagine Ojha being used in such circumstances.

Botha, on the other hand, has seriously improved over the past year or so, so it's not really fair to hold his career stats against him. Of course, it would be equally unfair to compare the vastly more experienced Botha to the promising Ojha, but if you were forced to, Botha's superior experience would always make him the guy I'd pick first.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

No, but what does that have to do with ODIs?

They shouldn't be picked in Tests based on ODI performances either.

The selectors have a tendency to give too much attention to ODI performances when picking the test side, but i think on this forum some people (Richard) go too far the other way. If you're smashing world-class attacks all over the pitch in ODIs it's pretty unusual that you'll not be up to scratch in tests.

You've got to watch them play though. It's pretty blatant when a player is having success because his game is so well-suited to limited overs (Johann Botha, for example) but there's also a lot of players who do well in ODIs because they're ****ing good at cricket. Kevin Pietersen, for instance, had every right to be picked after his ODI performances in South Africa.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

The selectors have a tendency to give too much attention to ODI performances when picking the test side, but i think on this forum some people (Richard) go too far the other way. If you're smashing world-class attacks all over the pitch in ODIs it's pretty unusual that you'll not be up to scratch in tests.

You've got to watch them play though. It's pretty blatant when a player is having success because his game is so well-suited to limited overs (Johann Botha, for example) but there's also a lot of players who do well in ODIs because they're ****ing good at cricket. Kevin Pietersen, for instance, had every right to be picked after his ODI performances in South Africa.

Yet England still didn't pick him against Bangladesh and were totally fooled by Ian Bell's easy runs. That said, they did pick him for the Ashes so they got that right. Ah well, no-one's perfect, especially selectors.

[shivfan]

Originally Posted by Beamer

As a lot of you have already said 177 against that SL attack is a good effort without our numero uno 20-20 batsman.

The batting looks in good shape but Marshall has to go. Not only is he batting poorly at the moment but his fielding has regressed dramatically. Simmons will probably keep his place in the lineup. I am slightly worried about Shiv's 20-20 batting, he has looked terrible in his last couple of innings. He is the great man though so I would give him a chance against India on Friday (though I can't help but feel we missed out on a great opportunity to give a youngster like Darren Bravo some exposure by resting Shiv for this tournament). Sarwan didn't get the ball away too well today but he will come good and it doesn't get much tougher than having to score at 10/11 runs per over against Mendis and Murali.

The bowling is ok even if Fiddy had an off day today but the fielding is simply unacceptable. We have a team full of athletes (everyone apart from Suliemann Benn and Sarwan can run very quickly and are pretty agile) so it can only be appalling concentration levels that are holding them back. Dyson has to light a fire up their backsides because they are in with a great shout of winning this tournament if they can just field adequately.

Well said....

Shiv is 34, after all, and maybe it's time for him to look at his future, and focus mainly on tests and ODIs. I believe he should leave 20/20s for the younger players....