Milky Posted 15 January 2007 Author Posted 15 January 2007 just to balance things out a bit these are the test rankings Team Matches Points Rating 1 Australia 43 5807 135 2 England 47 5344 114 3 Pakistan 34 3800 112 4 India 38 4056 107 5 Sri Lanka 36 3686 102 6 South Africa 38 3726 98 7 New Zealand 28 2602 93 8 West Indies 33 2378 72 9 Zimbabwe 15 415 28 10 Bangladesh 22 48 2
Milky Posted 16 January 2007 Author Posted 16 January 2007 well, we just beat New Zealand. Wasn't exactly in great style, but it's a win. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/6260327.stm
RowlattsFox Posted 16 January 2007 Posted 16 January 2007 nice to see anderson taking a few wickets, will improve his confidence no end, well atleast til we play the aussies again. 2 sixes in the whole match is shocking.
Simi Posted 16 January 2007 Posted 16 January 2007 Finally got a win however close it was a win is a win
Flynny Posted 16 January 2007 Posted 16 January 2007 Even though our batsmen played shite? Why do we have an ODI side with only 2 batsmen who can heft the ball over the boundary? 1, now that Pietersen's gone home. Our top 5 batsmen at the moment, with Joyce in the side, are all touch players scoring 1's and 2's and the odd 4 but never really going for it, playing like it's a test match or something. I can understand that to an extent, because the message coming through is that one or two of our top batsmen need to score 50's or 100's. But what's the point of that if it takes them 200 balls to do it in?
RowlattsFox Posted 16 January 2007 Posted 16 January 2007 Even though our batsmen played shite? Why do we have an ODI side with only 2 batsmen who can heft the ball over the boundary? 1, now that Pietersen's gone home. Our top 5 batsmen at the moment, with Joyce in the side, are all touch players scoring 1's and 2's and the odd 4 but never really going for it, playing like it's a test match or something. I can understand that to an extent, because the message coming through is that one or two of our top batsmen need to score 50's or 100's. But what's the point of that if it takes them 200 balls to do it in? with the exception of trescothick, who else is there? does strauss play one dayers?
Flynny Posted 16 January 2007 Posted 16 January 2007 with the exception of trescothick, who else is there? does strauss play one dayers? Yeah, he played today/yesterday. Was out to a shocking decision but was scoring at a shite rate anyway. Bell, Colly, Joyce and Vaughan are broadly similar technique-wise - all groundstrokes and slowish scoring. Who else do we call in? Cook? He's just the same. Apparantly Ravi Bopara who they've called up is a bit of a bigger hitter. With Vaughan injured perhaps he can make sure Flintoff doesn't have to carry the team on his own again, especially since he'll probably be captaining too next game. EDIT: fook me that's post 500.
RowlattsFox Posted 16 January 2007 Posted 16 January 2007 Yeah, he played today/yesterday. Was out to a shocking decision but was scoring at a shite rate anyway. Bell, Colly, Joyce and Vaughan are broadly similar technique-wise - all groundstrokes and slowish scoring. Who else do we call in? Cook? He's just the same. Apparantly Ravi Bopara who they've called up is a bit of a bigger hitter. With Vaughan injured perhaps he can make sure Flintoff doesn't have to carry the team on his own again, especially since he'll probably be captaining too next game. EDIT: fook me that's post 500. that mal loye who was rumoured to replace KP before bopara got the nod is supposed to be a big hitter. why not give him a go.
Flynny Posted 16 January 2007 Posted 16 January 2007 that mal loye who was rumoured to replace KP before bopara got the nod is supposed to be a big hitter. why not give him a go. He's quite old and Bopara is pretty young.
Nationwider Posted 16 January 2007 Posted 16 January 2007 Mal Loye has been overlooked for way too long. Benning of Surrey would have been worth a punt too. For a really imaginative choice, they might have considered sounding out Loye's team-mate Stuart Law about his availability for the Dairylea Triangle Series and the World Cup. He may be 38, but he's a very destructive batsman and an experienced international cricketer. I'd have fancied him to open with Strauss for some quick runs. I reckon he would have fancied it too.
surrifox Posted 17 January 2007 Posted 17 January 2007 Why the hell is Flintoff so desperate for the captaincy ? He is our most gifted player and should concentrate on being just that. It's not that he's necessarily a bad captain he's got a really thankless task having lost all the tests he will lose all the one dayers against Australia as well and may pick up the odd win against NZ. As a result he will have a record to equal the worst captains in cricket history and he deserves better than that. Have any of the administrators got the nerve to take unpopular decisions since he is clearly too thick to see the situation for himself?
Manwell Pablo Posted 19 January 2007 Posted 19 January 2007 Why the hell is Flintoff so desperate for the captaincy ? He is our most gifted player and should concentrate on being just that. It's not that he's necessarily a bad captain he's got a really thankless task having lost all the tests he will lose all the one dayers against Australia as well and may pick up the odd win against NZ. As a result he will have a record to equal the worst captains in cricket history and he deserves better than that. Have any of the administrators got the nerve to take unpopular decisions since he is clearly too thick to see the situation for himself? Looks like we might actually beat the Aussies they're chasing 155 and they are 61-4!!!!! Even if we lose, at least we've actually given them a game for once.
The People's Hero Posted 19 January 2007 Posted 19 January 2007 they're a decent side. Look at the ODI world rankings 1 Australia 133 2 South Africa 126 3 Pakistan 112 4 New Zealand 111 5 Sri Lanka 109 6 India 106 7 West Indies 104 8 England 98 9 Bangladesh 41 10 Zimbabwe 23 11 Kenya Which goes some way towards contradicting your original post.
Manwell Pablo Posted 19 January 2007 Posted 19 January 2007 Now 109-6! Hussey top edged it to Nixon and some how wasn't out <_< replays show it to be blatent <_< <_< if we had got that we'd probabley go on to win it.
surrifox Posted 19 January 2007 Posted 19 January 2007 should be 7 down - Hussey edging to the keeper and staying put. Good to see the good old solid Aussie tactic of cheating is alive and kicking oops bit of a timing difference there
Lord Nibblington Posted 19 January 2007 Posted 19 January 2007 Hussey top edged it to Nixon and some how wasn't out <_< replays show it to be blatent <_< <_< if we had got that we'd probabley go on to win it. We still could! To be fair, when I got up this morning and saw our total, I thought we'd get an absolute spanking. Again. It's nice just to be competative for once.
Milky Posted 19 January 2007 Author Posted 19 January 2007 Which goes some way towards contradicting your original post. in what way? Test Cricket and ODI are completely different forms of the game
The People's Hero Posted 19 January 2007 Posted 19 January 2007 in what way? Test Cricket and ODI are completely different forms of the game Mate, you're talking to someone who has played limited over and the longer (timed) version of the game. The fact is, if I can't disprove your point by using the source YOU posted because the games are so different... then how does it SUPPORT or PROVE YOUR argument? You can't have it both ways bud.
Geo V Posted 19 January 2007 Posted 19 January 2007 Hussey coming out laughing that he nicked that one is a big wind-up. Also the Aussies are so lucky as they played and missed plenty the gits! Anyway, it was a good effort and for once we can be proud of our lads even though we lost again!! The WC team is starting to take place for me.... Trescothick Loye Strauss Vaughan Pietersen Collingwood Flintoff Darlymple Tremlett Anderson 11th man Im not sure - Hoggard if he is available, if not Lewis Bell needs to go as we have too many similar players.
Milky Posted 19 January 2007 Author Posted 19 January 2007 Mate, you're talking to someone who has played limited over and the longer (timed) version of the game. The fact is, if I can't disprove your point by using the source YOU posted because the games are so different... then how does it SUPPORT or PROVE YOUR argument? You can't have it both ways bud. hey? i argued that we're a good test team (as shown by the test rankings) and that we're not a very good ODI team (as shown by the ODI rankings) i also argued that new zealand are a good ODI side (as shown by the ODI rankings) where is the contradiction? i've supported my arguments with official world rankings
Manwell Pablo Posted 19 January 2007 Posted 19 January 2007 The Aussies have just battered New Zealand in the second game of the tri-series. see, it's not all down to us being "shit" as some of you say, it also has a lot to do with Australia being in exceptional form at the moment. Yes but the ODI rankings show that we are "shit" as we're down in 8th!
Milky Posted 19 January 2007 Author Posted 19 January 2007 Yes but the ODI rankings show that we are "shit" as we're down in 8th! yes so it's not ALL down to us being shit, we are still not very good, i haven't said we aren't not very good at ODI, i've said we ARE POOR, but a lot is also due to the Aussies being REALLY GOOD. Supported in some way by the fact we just beat New Zealand i wouldn't describe us as shit, because we can still compete with most. I suppose it depends what you view as shit
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.