Eng v Zim, T20 WC, Cape Town, 13th September

So it'll be a moral victory only, then?

England must be favourites in that case.

On a serious note, did you know that the winner of this tournament won't be World Champion? This is only a practice tournament and the first official World Champion will be the winner in the 2009 tournament in England . . . weird!

Oh great, that means you Aussies start taking this seriously from now on and get to be the first World Champs in 2009.

Dello wrote:So it'll be a moral victory only, then?

England must be favourites in that case.

Did you know that, Dello?

Phurt! If anyone will win due to it becoming a moral victory, it will be India.

Our batting line-up certainly does look like it's been distorted by the strategic placing of mirrors within a dressing room occupied by Sussex players and admirers. Luke Wright is crap, why he got there in ahead of Patel is beyond me, but still, there are better players in the squad anyway. Prior is crap - the pair of them belong in the lower middle order where they can slog at the end to their heart's content.

However, if we're going to open with one of them (which we have to) make it Luke Wright. At least he gets on with it and gets out if that's the way it's going to be. Prior wastes valuable balls getting out. I'd go with this:

Maddy
Wright
Shah
Pietersen
Collingwood
Prior
Mascarenhas
Schofield
Broad
Anderson
Flintoff

Luke Wright edges one ball to the keeper and he's crap? Nowt like giving a lad a fair chance is there?

It was there to be hit, he went for it and he edged it. Happens sometimes, we've all done it, at whatever level you play.

He has been one of the best domestic batsmen this year, and certainly one of the fastest scoring. He deserves a proper chance, and to get to open like he does for his county.

Still don't reckon Jimmykins should be in the team either. Its not like the 50 over stuff where you can probe away with outswingers on a length for your 7 over spell.

And he's always expensive at the death whatever form of cricket it is.

Undoutedbly Wright deserves the chance, but he bats regularly at 3 for Sussex in Twenty20 and One-Day formats. In fact, every time I've seen him, bar when he scored a hundred in a Pro40 game, he has batted at 3.

But it's not about edging one ball - it's about two consecutive ducks, and an apparently go lucky attitude that has brought him no runs against international attacks wielding the new ball so far. That ball might have been there to hit, but he didn't bloody hit it, did he? Or at least, not well enough.

And that's twice in a row...

Just doesn't make much sense to top-load your batting line-up with blokes with no kind of international success to their name thus far, in a game where you want your best bats to face as many balls as possible.

Maddy (34 year old county pro who couldn't cut it at international level)
Prior (25 limited overs intenationals, 1 fifty)
Wright (3 games, 2 ducks, 1 fifty)

I'm not saying they can't be successes, but to wade into a 'major' tournament and audition fringe players right at the thick end of things seems, well, thick.

What's the point in leaving Collingwood, Flintoff and Shah in the hutch until the final thirty balls? Are we playing for a draw?

Personally I think it's quite preposterous to slate the line-up, considering Maddy looked good whilst there - so he lofted one to extra cover... boo hoo. Wright is hit-or-miss, that's the whole point - caution to the wind, throw your hands at it, fast hands(good hands too) and see what happens. I've waited and waited for England to try someone who does that and Prior was striking at 150.... personally I wouldn't have him up top but 20 off not many should be what it's all about. Get stuck in or get out. Then the likes of Collingwood and Pietersen are in relatively early with some runs already on the board.

KP was immense, utterly immense. He's a damn bonafide legend already. Can't enthuse enough about the man.

I'm not so sure.

If we're picking Wright he has to open with Maddy for me.

The first 3 really have to go Sh*t or bust in the 1st 6 overs.

55-3 off the first 6 overs is a good start in my eyes. You can afford to burn a few wickets in T20

Prior is the one I'm over though - much better options.

JKLever wrote:I'm not so sure.

If we're picking Wright he has to open with Maddy for me.

The first 3 really have to go Sh*t or bust in the 1st 6 overs.

55-3 off the first 6 overs is a good start in my eyes. You can afford to burn a few wickets in T20

Prior is the one I'm over though - much better options.

Ideally, I'd have Flintstein up top. No holing out to the spinners, just a license to produce lusty blows.

Three non-established players in the top three just doesn't seem smart.

Sure, keep a 'wildcard' in there - a Wright or a Maddy or even a Solanki - but how about a bit more substance up the order, a bit more proven quality.

I'd open with Flintoff, Pietersen at three.

Plenty enough quality behind them in Collingwood and Shah to bail England out if they get in trouble early.

But if it comes off....

Apparently the equation for England to go through is :

bat 2nd - will go through if they lose by less than 76 runs

bat 1st - if say England score 150, Aus must not chase that down inside 14 overs

JKLever wrote:Apparently the equation for England to go through is :

bat 2nd - will go through if they lose by less than 76 runs

bat 1st - if say England score 150, Aus must not chase that down inside 14 overs

Sounds complicated - wonder if Ricky will bring out his big piece of paper again.

Dello wrote:

JKLever wrote:Apparently the equation for England to go through is :

bat 2nd - will go through if they lose by less than 76 runs

bat 1st - if say England score 150, Aus must not chase that down inside 14 overs

Sounds complicated - wonder if Ricky will bring out his big piece of paper again.

I didn't know he could read?

Obviously I'm copying that from the BBC sport page.

Now some other muppet has come along and said thats wrong.

Meh, i'll just copy and paste...

"FYI, the run rate calculation
is performed over the full 40 overs batted and fielded of this phase of
the competition, so if Australia bat first we have to lose by 98, not
76. And for an England total of 150, Australia would need to get there
in less than 10 overs not 14"

If thats true, then not even we could guff that up.

Hey, lets just beat them then we'll not have to worry about all this. Aus don't want to be here, we don't want them to be here. Lets let Matty Hayden get back to preparing his new cook book and let Brett Lee fly back into the loving arms of his dear Mark...

Although it would totally scupper my fantasy cricket plan of stuffing my team full of Aussies...

How many subs you got left Dello?

I think i've still got 14 'modifications' left.

That seems quite a lot.

Yes a hell of a lot, i've only got 8 left, i'm planning not to use anymore up untill there are fewer teams left but that can change tomorrow with both matches tomorrow.

JKLever wrote:Obviously I'm copying that from the BBC sport page.

Now some other muppet has come along and said thats wrong.

Meh, i'll just copy and paste...

"FYI, the run rate calculation
is performed over the full 40 overs batted and fielded of this phase of
the competition, so if Australia bat first we have to lose by 98, not
76. And for an England total of 150, Australia would need to get there
in less than 10 overs not 14"

If thats true, then not even we could guff that up.

Hogg will be playing for Oz tomorrow. We are totally farked.

The messenger of doom hey spin.

Yes we are farked if he plays.

I'd like to see Anderson out Snape in tomorrow.

Wright and Maddy open, with Flints at three, same middle order and Prior at 7.

Flints and Broad with new ball......

holcs wrote:The messenger of doom hey spin.

Yes we are farked if he plays.

I'd like to see Anderson out Snape in tomorrow.

Wright and Maddy open, with Flints at three, same middle order and Prior at 7.

Flints and Broad with new ball......

You wish... You know Prior is going to walk out first to bat come what may.