*Official* Australia in England T20s and ODIs

[Penguinissimo]

Hard to recall a worse England ODI side in recent memory. Batsman not capable of putting up a decent total and the bowlers are not potent.

Hard to recall an England ODI side at all which could put up a decent total and which had potent bowlers.

How about the side that included Jamie Dalrymple, Alex Loudon, Saj Mahmood, Liam Plunkett and Ian Bell? How's this for potent bowling?

SJ Harmison 10 0 55 0 5.50 (2nb)

LE Plunkett 5.2 0 46 0 8.62 (1w)

SI Mahmood 5 0 36 0 7.20 (3nb, 1w)

PD Collingwood 6 0 33 0 5.50

IR Bell 1 0 12 0 12.00

JWM Dalrymple 9 1 40 1 4.44 (2w)

AGR Loudon 6 0 36 0 6.00 (1w)

 

[Uppercut]

4th ODI: India v Australia at Chandigarh, Oct 8, 2007 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

It's ridiculous how much worse the current batting lineup is than that one.

 

[Penguinissimo]

I hope England set us 290+ in one game, just to see how Clarke goes about it, TBH.

You hope in vain.

 

[Penguinissimo]

It's ridiculous how much worse the current batting lineup is than that one.

Put it this way - at least you can go through Statsguru to find a side that is much better than the current incarnation. Us Poms are scouring Statsguru in a desperate attempt to find worse sides.

 

[GIMH]

Haha, nailed it. Btw, do you see my point regarding Colly as an ODI player after his 28 off 52 today?

Never saw his innings, sounded turd though

 

[Penguinissimo]

Never saw his innings, sounded turd though

What made it bad was that he got out having laid the groundwork - there was nothing wrong with bit of consolidation on a pitch like that, but having decided to grind he had to stay there for the powerplay overs.

 

[Uppercut]

"Consolidation" shouldn't mean scoring at a strike rate of 50. Callum Ferguson has been the most natural ODI player on either side this series, because he consolidates while still scoring at almost a run a ball. It's not about big shots, it's just the difference between taking two balls to get off strike and taking one ball to get off strike. If Collingwood's natural pace is a 28 off 52 balls then he's not cut out for ODI cricket.

By the time he got out, Lee and Watson were both bowling excellent spells at either end. That's a chance you take if you're scoring so slowly while the bowling's no better than decent.

 

[Jakester1288]

If Collingwood's natural pace is a 28 off 52 balls then he's not cut out for ODI cricket.

No, you can't say that. If that's a players natural pace, but they can step up and score quicker without presenting many risks or getting out, it's fine. It all depends on the situation, after all.

 

[Uppercut]

No, you can't say that. If that's a players natural pace, but they can step up and score quicker without presenting many risks or getting out, it's fine. It all depends on the situation, after all.

If he can score quicker than that without taking unnecessary risks, I can only ask why on earth he didn't.

 

[Daryl Harper]

Getting to it, TBH I think that's been the only coherent strategy of this farce for England

Have started to find it all oddly entertaining in it's utter direness, like watching two Sunday morning pub sides play after a hefty night

But only one of them ever wins.

 

[zaremba]

By the time Clarke left the crease, Australia needed 34 runs from 38 balls with 7 wickets remaining. That's a bloody good position to leave your side in. It might not look pretty, and it might raise concerns about his ODI ability in the long-run. But it was good enough to win his side the game, which is what matters.

AWTA.

FWIW I didn't agree with your other point (which you've now edited out but with which someone - I think Nnanden - agreed) to the effect that "had White not played a really good innings Clarke might have left Australia in loads of trouble". Since they were batting together in a long partnership, Clarke was well able to judge how his partner was playing and play accordingly himself. In that sense you can't really divorce his innings from its context. If White had been crawling along at 50 runs per hundred balls, presumably Clarke would have attempted to up his own scoring rate. However he could see that this wasn't the case, and that acceleration just wasn't necessary. What mattered more was not losing wickets. He achieved this and Australia duly won the game very comfortably.

Anyhow I've no real enthusiasm for sticking up for Michael Clarke - if Aussie fans want him dropped, that's up to them and fine by me.

 

[pup11]

Watto ending Hopes' international career, would think Voges at 7 the far better option.

Just don't understand why people are always so keen on dropping Hopes, he is really a handy utility cricketer for the side, and has been solid contributor, if we drop Hopes in favour of White, and then make White bat at no.7, then that would be simply ridiculous.

I hope England set us 290+ in one game, just to see how Clarke goes about it, TBH.

Australia in South Africa ODI Series - 4th ODI, at St George's Park, Port Elizabeth

This is the last time Aussie were set a target of 290+ to chase, and Clarke really didn't do all that well.

Australia in South Africa ODI Series - 5th ODI, at New Wanderers Stadium

Though in the next game in this series, where Australia set a 300+ target, he performed pretty decently opening the batting, and I think if he has to remain in the side then he probably would have to open the batting in both ODI's and T20's, as things surely don't seem to be working for him anymore in the middle order.

 

[marc71178]

I hope England set us 290+ in one game, just to see how Clarke goes about it, TBH.

Only got another 4 chances, so not going to happen.

Maybe if we had a 15 match series it might...

 

[pup11]

AWTA.

FWIW I didn't agree with your other point (which you've now edited out but with which someone - I think Nnanden - agreed) to the effect that "had White not played a really good innings Clarke might have left Australia in loads of trouble". Since they were batting together in a long partnership, Clarke was well able to judge how his partner was playing and play accordingly himself. In that sense you can't really divorce his innings from its context. If White had been crawling along at 50 runs per hundred balls, presumably Clarke would have attempted to up his own scoring rate. However he could see that this wasn't the case, and that acceleration just wasn't necessary. What mattered more was not losing wickets. He achieved this and Australia duly won the game very comfortably.

Anyhow I've no real enthusiasm for sticking up for Michael Clarke - if Aussie fans want him dropped, that's up to them and fine by me.

The problem is this wasn't a one of instance, he has consistently struggled to maintain a decent strike-rate in recent times, and that's why most Aussie fans want him out of the limited over teams.

Yesterday its wasn't as if Clarke was trying to play perfect foil to White, Clarke got bogged down for a good part of his innings, and when he tried his level best to hit a few boundaries and break the shackles, he couldn't even get the ball across the square, and no matter how well he timed the ball, he kept hitting it straight into the hands of the fielders.

The orthodoxy with which he plays nowadays might have turned him into a test player capable of scoring runs in most conditions against most attacks, but he needs to learn to adapt to different formats of the game, atm when he comes out to bat in limited overs cricket, one gets a feeling he is out there for an extended net session..!!

 

[zaremba]

Fair enough, Pup. I haven't been monitoring his progress and from what I saw the other day he was indeed struggling to keep the scoreboard ticking. But despite that I thought his was quite an important innings, because the only way England could win was to take wickets and he stopped that from happening by participating in a very long partnership with White which took Australia to the brink of what was by then certain victory.

 

[Uppercut]

AWTA.

FWIW I didn't agree with your other point (which you've now edited out but with which someone - I think Nnanden - agreed) to the effect that "had White not played a really good innings Clarke might have left Australia in loads of trouble". Since they were batting together in a long partnership, Clarke was well able to judge how his partner was playing and play accordingly himself. In that sense you can't really divorce his innings from its context. If White had been crawling along at 50 runs per hundred balls, presumably Clarke would have attempted to up his own scoring rate. However he could see that this wasn't the case, and that acceleration just wasn't necessary. What mattered more was not losing wickets. He achieved this and Australia duly won the game very comfortably.

Anyhow I've no real enthusiasm for sticking up for Michael Clarke - if Aussie fans want him dropped, that's up to them and fine by me.

Haha, I didn't edit that out, Nath just tampered with my quote. Confusion. I even responded to him saying exactly what you just did

 

[mikeW]

Clarke
Watson
Ponting
White
Ferguson
Hussey
Paine
Johnson
Lee
Hauritz
Bracken

Would how i'd line up next game....

 

[Hoggy31]

Just don't understand why people are always so keen on dropping Hopes, he is really a handy utility cricketer for the side, and has been solid contributor, if we drop Hopes in favour of White, and then make White bat at no.7, then that would be simply ridiculous.

Been a big Hopes supporter in the past but he's looked particularly pedestrian with the ball in this series, seems to have a lost a bit of nip. His batting alone doesn't justify selection, will be the one to make way for Ponting.

 

[Nate]

Haha, I didn't edit that out, Nath just tampered with my quote. Confusion. I even responded to him saying exactly what you just did

 

[zaremba]

Jeeeeeesh.