England v Australia, ICCCT Match 3, Edgbaston, 8 June, 2013

No need for spot-fixing in an England JAMODI innings for a gambler to make money, you can practically set your watch by it.

Morgan goes. All the eggs in one basket, and the basket has just been dropped from a great height.

Oh very f*cking dear.

They have to just slog here, no point batting out the overs for 240.

I really don't like watching Cook's England. Not at all. Not good for the health.

This has been ODI England since time began though. Rarely even threatening to move with the times or try something innovative. Gatting's reverse sweep in the '87 final was perhaps the most recent example of the latter...

beamer wrote:This has been ODI England since time began though. Rarely even threatening to move with the times or try something innovative. Gatting's reverse sweep in the '87 final was perhaps the most recent example of the latter...

The thing is, they THOUGHT they were being innovative and ahead of the game by going back to old-school ODI cricket, and it's failing spectacularly and embarrassingly. It's about time they came up with what they think is a good idea, and then pledge to do the complete opposite.

The trouble is, we'll now put away NZ and SL in typical English swinging conditions, make the semis at least which will give the "all on track" signal.

I don't know what you're all whining about. Nobody saw this coming. Literally nobody. Yeah, we all bemoan the lack of a Plan B. But we weren't bemoaning it five years ago. Or yesterday. And Bell and Trott in partnership together? Everybody expected that to be explosive. A match made in heaven. Nobody would have dropped and then killed both of them. Nobody.

Australia are going to be 20 minutes late finishing their overs.

Or even 25.....

So will Beetle be banned for the rest of the series?

Fairish effort by Fat Ravi at the death.

Well played by Bopara. England post a defendable 269 despite the best efforts of Ian Bell and Jonathan Trott.

So Aus need 270. Not a big chase on this deck, one would think, but Eng could win by 150.

SO Australia take three hours and 53 minutes to bowl their 50 overs.

England- Just below par score. Will be a close game, but we should have done better.

or more

Starc's wayward later overs allowed us to make 20 or more than looked likely. Still, pedestrian stuff which put the pressure on the middle order. Decent effort by the Chavster and Fatboy Tim though, got us up to something almost competitive if perhaps 20 or 30 below par for the pitch.

And Bopara seems to raise his game against the Aussies. There may be a future for him yet.

Well, if you discount that Ashes series where he crumbled after coming into it off the back of all those WI centuries...

I'm thinking more of ODI cricket. Had a good series against them last year as well.

Henry wrote:

England- Just below par score. Will be a close game, but we should have done better.

Not even close. Australia will get them in 38 overs.

England's unwavering devotion to dragging their feet for 40 overs while the top three fatten their averages and then hoping one of the less established players down the order unselfishly bats for the team and scrambles them to a reasonable total is giving me an aneurysm. It's f*cking ridiculous.

Plan A: "Morgan and Buttler will bail us out."

Morgan and Buttler: 9 runs.

Plan B: "Lose."

They can all f*ck off.

beamer wrote:Starc's wayward later overs allowed us to make 20 or more than looked likely. Still, pedestrian stuff which put the pressure on the middle order. Decent effort by the Chavster and Fatboy Tim though, got us up to something almost competitive if perhaps 20 or 30 below par for the pitch.

I'd have put 280 as par. Maybe 290 because England have Stuart Broad.

Bopara is a good one-day player. He's an effective bowler and solid number 6. He has played some very good innings for England, usually to revive them from near-death.

I'd back Australia from here. Even Voges is an excellent one-day player. And he's nowhere near as accomplished as Watson. However, Hughes, Warner and Bailey - not exactly stellar. I wouldn't be surprised if England lost this one from a good position.

He can get really bogged down when he's not in form though, I've seen some horrible one-day innings from him for both England and his county. He is probably best as a finisher type player at around number 6 with the expectation of bowling a few overs, as he is in this side, I was never convinced by him up the order.

Brass Monkey wrote:What is it with Johnson and Hitler, anyway?

Little bit Hilter, more "Sparks" for me.