Group A: Australia, England, New Zealand and Sri Lanka

MUFC1987

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Online Cricket Games Owned
England v Australia today.

Positive start from the England openers, whatever next? :p

Finn left out too, probably not too surprising with them wanting Bopara in the side for his stodginess with bat and ball.

Swann also missing with an injury, but Tredwell looks reliable enough.
 

aussie1st

Retired Administrator
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Location
Auckland
Feels like they missed a trick so far by not playing a spinner or even just Maxwell rather than Marsh.
 

aditya123

National Board President
Joined
Sep 25, 2003
Location
Mumbai
Online Cricket Games Owned
  1. Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox 360
  2. Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox One
England have a potent bowling lineup here. I`m not sure if Tredwell for Swann is necessarily a negative for them. Tredwell, from what Ive seen seems to be sure of his game and has enough guile to go with his control.
 

MUFC1987

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Online Cricket Games Owned
I think that's the good thing about Tredwell, being an experienced player, he knows exactly what he's capable of and knows how to do it. Something that you don't always get if you're bringing in a younger spinner. Be interesting to see how much it spins for him and probably Voges if he gets a go.

Decent start though, just need Bell to get aggressive with Cook still there. No need for both of them to look to bat a long time. We have Trott who can also do that. Need to up that rate. 300 needed as a minimum I'd say.
 

StinkyBoHoon

National Board President
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
what I don't like about englands line up is you're 3 down before anyone aggressive comes out (unless they make order changes on the fly which, lets fact it, no one ever does).

good start but bringing in trott to work singles about with bell for 30 overs could mean they end with a below par score even if they dominate the bowling.
 

MUFC1987

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Online Cricket Games Owned
Totally agree. That's why for me, Bell needs to be hitting the accelerator in these middle overs. There's no point in having him as well as Cook and Trott looking to bat through, because we will simply not score enough. It's all very well being critical of Trott taking up balls getting in, but Bell is doing exactly the same and he's already faced 30+ balls.
 

sifter132

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Location
NSW
Online Cricket Games Owned
Gosh I've never been so happy to stop watching a cricket match...zero variety in the Aussie attack, absolutely vanilla field placings, and Jonathon Trott batting - hoping for a massive collapse for all you fans sticking in there, just to give this thing a pulse.

And yes, first time you'll ever have heard me say 'i wish they'd played maxwell'! Marsh as the 6th seam option is overkill.
 

MUFC1987

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Online Cricket Games Owned
So frustrating. Time for them both to go now. Voges' non-spinning filth going for 3 or 4 an over is just embarrassing. It's as flat a pitch as you'll find, we can't rely on Buttler and Morgan to score 150 off the last 10 overs.
 

StinkyBoHoon

National Board President
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
the annoying thing is this will probably work out for england.

it's tedious and irritating cricket but clearly they wanted to get to say 35 over with as many wickets in hand as possible and then attack. just odd to see, trott has played like they were 4 or 5 down inside the first 10 overs.
 

MUFC1987

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Online Cricket Games Owned
This is the thing, the last 5 overs or so, they've started to get going, but without really taking any risks. So why can't that happen another 5 or so overs earlier? You don't need to be blasting the ball to the boundary 3 times an over to up the rate, just look for one an over and run hard and you start going at 7 or 8.

----------

Root in ahead of Morgan? Sums up the England management right there.
 
Last edited:

MUFC1987

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Online Cricket Games Owned
Not good enough from the top three. Pressure is the word. At least if you send Morgan in ahead of Root, Root can then knock it around at the end if we do collapse. Sending him in when we did, just meant that he felt pressure to up the rate and then him being unable to do that and getting out, meant that Morgan came in having to do even more. I'm not blaming Root, it's just poor management from England.
 

Owzat

International Coach
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Online Cricket Games Owned
the annoying thing is this will probably work out for england.

it's tedious and irritating cricket but clearly they wanted to get to say 35 over with as many wickets in hand as possible and then attack. just odd to see, trott has played like they were 4 or 5 down inside the first 10 overs.

England have loaded themselves on the batting side and are hoping Bopara and Root get through overs, not the best approach in my book as you're basically given away much prospect of a wicket from your fifth bowler and just hoping the 10 overs go for say 40-50 runs. Even if it does 'go to plan', they'll be giving away 50 runs before the death overs and releasing pressure.

At least Woakes posed a real wicket threat, not that I'd stick with him (overall)

England are tossing this one away, with their 'strength' lying in batting they really could have done with posting a big total. At the moment they're heading for a par total. Where was the acceleration?

10 overs : 54/0 - two batsmen set

20 overs : 87/1 - momentum gone, Trott 11 off 24 balls while Bell added 18 more to his score off 29 balls

30 overs : 142/1 - picked up a bit

40 overs : 196/4 - wickets falling, but still six in hand to push on

Just lost too much in that second spell while Trott plays Test cricket. I think we'll be looking at 270-280 when 300+ was on for most of that innings.

142/1 doubled = 284 but we've gone with extra batting, Bopara is an ok bowler but the aussies should target him and Root, if Anderson doesn't turn up or Broad or Bresnan are expensive as they are half the time, then we'll be lucky to defend this.


As I type it's now six down, England looking like they might only limp past 250 with 32 balls left and only 216 on the board. Shambles?

re the issue of Morgan/promoting batsmen, you want to give your aggressive one-day stroke-maker enough time to make a big score, not so long he's every chance of not being there at the end and you don't want him in when wickets are tumbling.

I'd suggest the fall of Trott's wicket at 168/2 in the 34th over would have been about right, 16 overs to go, no worries at that stage about wickets in hand and the innings could have done with an injection of pace, even if only scurrying singles better. Problem is the one-day side is filled with Test players and the importance of pacing the innings, quick singles etc isn't a big part of Test cricket.

It's interesting just scanning down the c*****fo scorecard that only Bopara of the (top seven) batsmen has an SR of greater than 80 in this innings. Putting Bell down as the anchor that is weak, considering all got a start and Bopara could be the fourth to make it to 30.

England are way too wooden, "rigid" as tuffers put it, and just simply don't seem to get one-day cricket. They seem better suited to leisurely accumulating runs on decent batting tracks, rotating the bowlers until the opposition make a mistake or pressure is built from a big total on the board.

Should make around 260 now, thanks to some fortune for Bresnan. I think that "double your score at 30 overs" rule of thumb may show England are likely to fall a good 20-25 runs shy of a decent total, should really have been looking at 300 from 163/1 after 33 overs. Don't forget we're effectively gambling on our fifth bowler, are without Swann and don't know if Bresnan or Broad will keep it tight, Anderson too for that matter, although he's become a little more consistent recently
 
Last edited:

StinkyBoHoon

National Board President
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
you have to say that went to plan, they built a very solid platform, kept wickets in hand then found their quick cameo down the order in bopara. the problem is that if that really is the dressing room executing it's strategy down to the letter then it's lacking in ambition and quite meek.

you look at india, their plan was derailed when they lost 3 or 4 quick wickets, but given they'd batted positively and their batsmen had taken their chances they ended up with a score that puts this one in the shade. the indian fans were complaining that they missed out on 350, england look somewhat fortunate to have made 270, yet on the face of it england was the one that better executed their strategy.

who knows, maybe this is a deceptively tricky pitch, ball not coming on to the bat very well and all that, but australia would definitely taken this given the start england had.
 

Owzat

International Coach
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Online Cricket Games Owned
England getting out of jail a little bit with Bopara/Bresnan putting on a fifty partnership, but I still think they're going to be 30 runs or so short of where they could and should have been.

With the bowling lightweight and vulnerable the aussies surely only need to keep their composure to win.

Probably feels like more runs than it was scored in the last 10 - 73/2. Saddest thing is we scored 54-33-55-54-73 so even though it was the quickest scoring spell, it was less than 20 runs more than any other spell. That 10 over spell of 33 runs I reckon has given the aussies the edge, England too often seem like they're afraid of losing, or of what will happen if they are aggressive. It's like a Test mentality, want to be in a very very strong position before considering an acceleration. Sometimes you can't wait until you're 200/1 before pressing on, if you don't take any risks in ODIs then you won't win the World Cup

Didn't Morgan used to keep wicket? Just thinking that the batting line-up is reasonable with Cook, Trott, Bell, Morgan, Bopara and maybe Root just about justifiable inclusions, I'm wondering if Morgan couldn't 'do a Stewart' and keep for the sake of the side. Not necessary in Tests, but to get in an extra batsman and not lose a bowler then a batting keeper is an obvious move, except I don't think Buttler is it.

In fact it's daft to play Buttler as a keeper, he isn't even established and being asked to do that.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top