• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** First Semi-Final: Australia vs. England

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Lame, mundane, poor,

These are the words I would use to describe Englands ODI team before mecurical gets a run.
Fine.

All Australia had to do was beat the West Indies C team, scrape past Pakistan and beat a lame, mundane, poor England team in the semis.

Sound less emotive?
 

pasag

RTDAS
See I don't disagree for one second that we've had a difficult run to the finals, I mean playing this England side who are pretty much one step away from an ODI minnow without Fred and KP in the semis is as easy as you'll get. All I'm saying is that our efforts against India shouldn't be conveniently left out in discussing what we've done in this tournament and how we've gotten here.
 

pasag

RTDAS
I still think Australia are a better ODI side and both South Africa and Sri Lanka. With their batting line-up and bowling attack, beating sides such as England and the West Indies (who had a truly apalling side) should be pretty regulation.
Nah, SA still comfortably ahead as they showed not long ago, though with Ponting, Hussey et al in good form it'd be a lot closer. Pretty even with SL, IMO.
 
Nah, SA still comfortably ahead as they showed not long ago, though with Ponting, Hussey et al in good form it'd be a lot closer. Pretty even with SL, IMO.
Thats a poor assumption, becuase that Would mean Australia are a better test team than SA.

I think it is the other way around and SA have the edge in tests but Aus have the edge in ODI's.
 

pasag

RTDAS
Thats a poor assumption, becuase that Would mean Australia are a better test team than SA.

I think it is the other way around and SA have the edge in tests but Aus have the edge in ODI's.
Sorry, don't get you in what way?

SA won here 4-1 and over there 3-2. Means they're better than us.
 
Sorry, don't get you in what way?

SA won here 4-1 and over there 3-2. Means they're better than us.
England beat SA 4-0 in their last ODI series and beat them here, do you consider England better than SA in ODI's. Just looking at one or two series in isolation is not how I judge which team is better. That was my point, Australia beat SA in their last test series but I not going to think oh that means Australia are better in tests than SA.
 

Jakester1288

International Regular
I'm so devo I missed Ponting's (and I suppose Watto's) innings. Ponting shows again he is far and away Australia's best batsman in both formats, and I missed it. FML.
 

pasag

RTDAS
England beat SA 4-0 in their last ODI series and beat them here, do you consider England better than SA in ODI's. Just looking at one or two series in isolation is not how I judge which team is better. That was my point, Australia beat SA in their last test series but I not going to think oh that means Australia are better in tests than SA.
It's not really in isolation when you have a home series and a return series consisting of 10 matches in total, both within the last year. It's pretty conclusive.
 

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
Fine.

All Australia had to do was beat the West Indies C team, scrape past Pakistan and beat a lame, mundane, poor England team in the semis.

Sound less emotive?
How about:

Slaughtered a second string WI side.
Had the pain of a washout ruining what would likely have sealed their progression after only two games.
Defeated the other probable finalists in a nailbighter.
Absolutely annihilated another semi-finalist who had beat SA and Sri Lanka to be there.

It may have been an easier path than what say New Zealand had to face, but Australia have still beaten every team they've faced (except India, but you cannot hold the weather against them).
 

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
It's not really in isolation when you have a home series and a return series consisting of 10 matches in total, both within the last year. It's pretty conclusive.
As always Australia doesn't really care too much about individual ODI series. It's the big multi-nation tournaments that they show up for. Does anyone remember the ODI series that they lost in NZ before the last WC? I do, but only because of Hayden's hundreds.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
It doesn't imply that they don't deserve it at all, it's just interesting how little they've needed to do to get there. Are West Indies C not a prank team? Did you not scrape past Pakistan? Are England not mercurial, and were they not very poor today?

I made no effort to use emotive language, that's just accurate.
Fail.
Mercurial means "inconsistent". How is that emotive? :unsure:
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
See I don't disagree for one second that we've had a difficult run to the finals, I mean playing this England side who are pretty much one step away from an ODI minnow without Fred and KP in the semis is as easy as you'll get. All I'm saying is that our efforts against India shouldn't be conveniently left out in discussing what we've done in this tournament and how we've gotten here.
I was only listing what Australia had to do to get here, and the India game plays no part in that.
 

Top