South Africa v England, 5xODIs + 2xT20s, 3-21 February, 2016

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

Whilst I was never enamoured with the T20 format, I dipped in and out of it. Having watched the last 1.5 Aus/Ind T20s, I'm really starting to tire of it. I like a bit of stand and deliver, but it's got to the stage where many deliveries are cloth-ed for ones and twos in the most ungraceful and f*cking ugly manner. Bottom-hand hacking, with the desperation of someone really needing a shit. Is this really what we've come to?

Brass Monkey wrote:Whilst I was never enamoured with the T20 format, I dipped in and out of it. Having watched the last 1.5 Aus/Ind T20s, I'm really starting to tire of it. I like a bit of stand and deliver, but it's got to the stage where many deliveries are cloth-ed for ones and twos in the most ungraceful and f*cking ugly manner. Bottom-hand hacking, with the desperation of someone really needing a shit. Is this really what we've come to?  

Yes.

RIP cricket. I'll miss you, good friend.

Agree with the above. Watched some of the T20 last night. Two things struck me.

Aaron Finch is the Oz captain. He was once a promising young batsman. Short form cricket has ruined his style and he is a borderline selection for Victoria in the Shield.

I saw Watson being interviewed at the end of the match. When asked about the Finch injury,he was smirking. Watsons future selection prospects are improved. T20 is about profile and money. A WC selection helps.

skully wrote:

best emoticon ever. must have been developed for t20

Refer glossary.

240Z.

240 balls, 240 snores.

T20 is and always will be a useless pile of shit. It isn't cricket at all.

I don't watch it. Watched an Agatha Christie re-run last night instead. I knew the outcome. Same as T20, but more interesting actors.

Prefer them to ODIs and Modis, but still far too much played these days.

With all the beefing about T20 overload (or T20 any-load?), we all seem to have missed the middle competition.

At least, I can't see any reference on here yet to the 50 overs match currently half-way through.

Handy totals from Taylor, Bluey and Morgan, and a bit of successful thwacking at the end by "Don't Call Me Carbs" Jordan and "Don't Call Me Dick" Willey.

Can't help thinking bringing Broad back is a mistake. The ODI side is getting along nicely without him, and he looks fitter for his reduced workload.

I don't see the point in Broad. He used to be a much more consistent limited overs bowler, than Test bower. That hasn't been the case in a few years. So, I can't see him being a top 5th or 6th limited overs choice for England.

Poms goiing pretty well

So is Buttler now England's permanent number four?

Tough luck on Taylor missing out, but someone had to give way. These two need to bat for the next 12 overs

Tough luck? Maybe. Or they realised that in these conditions they can pack their team with power players. Why aim for 300 when you have players capable of taking them to 350?

Henry wrote:Tough luck? Maybe. Or they realised that in these conditions they can pack their team with power players. Why aim for 300 when you have players capable of taking them to 350?

I would wager that Taylor's stroke rate is not so shabby, just because you can't hit the ball into the next postcode it doesn't mean that you can't score quickly.

Basil wrote:

Henry wrote:Tough luck? Maybe. Or they realised that in these conditions they can pack their team with power players. Why aim for 300 when you have players capable of taking them to 350?

I would wager that Taylor's stroke rate is not so shabby, just because you can't hit the ball into the next postcode it doesn't mean that you can't score quickly.

He CAN score quickly, but Root, Buttler, Stokes, and Morgan can score quicker. Who would you leave out?

Henry wrote:

Basil wrote:

Henry wrote:Tough luck? Maybe. Or they realised that in these conditions they can pack their team with power players. Why aim for 300 when you have players capable of taking them to 350?

I would wager that Taylor's stroke rate is not so shabby, just because you can't hit the ball into the next postcode it doesn't mean that you can't score quickly.

He CAN score quickly, but Root, Buttler, Stokes, and Morgan can score quicker. Who would you leave out?

It' may right to leave him out on flat pitches with the Kookaburra, but on English pitches with the Reader, I'd fancy him at 3 with Moeen opening.

Basil wrote:

Henry wrote:

Basil wrote:

Henry wrote:Tough luck? Maybe. Or they realised that in these conditions they can pack their team with power players. Why aim for 300 when you have players capable of taking them to 350?

I would wager that Taylor's stroke rate is not so shabby, just because you can't hit the ball into the next postcode it doesn't mean that you can't score quickly.

He CAN score quickly, but Root, Buttler, Stokes, and Morgan can score quicker. Who would you leave out?

It' may right to leave him out on flat pitches with the Kookaburra, but on English pitches with the Reader, I'd fancy him at 3 with Moeen opening.

It's a bit of a myth that English conditions mean low ODI scores. Especially in the last 5-6 years. 350 was par against NZ last Summer.

Perhaps if ODIs were ever played in May again, a few solid players might be required. But they're pretty much always played in June and then September these days.

Sloppy from England. Should have posted at least 400.

Wait... what? WTF are we doing? What IS it with this England team? Stop. Being. Exciting.

Brass Monkey wrote:Wait... what? WTF are we doing? What IS it with this England team? Stop. Being. Exciting.

RESTORE COOK NOW.

Brass Monkey wrote:Wait... what? WTF are we doing? What IS it with this England team? Stop. Being. Exciting.

It's alright. We are changing the old "Can't defend 300" to "Can't defend 400" as we speak.

England win by 39 runs, courtesy of Messrs Duckworth and Lewis. A good game, sawn off in its prime.

Well done Duck...er, I mean...England.