England v Australia, 5xODIs + 1xT20, 13-28 June, 2018

Predictable result. Can expect much of the same for the rest of the series.

Big Dog wrote:Predictable result. Can expect much of the same for the rest of the series.

Thankfully we are not playing Scotland.

Agree the result was predictable. Bit of a shock to see No Show play a responsible knock and Ima bat like No Show at his worst.

horace wrote:

Big Dog wrote:Predictable result. Can expect much of the same for the rest of the series.

Thankfully we are not playing Scotland.

Agree the result was predictable. Bit of a shock to see No Show play a responsible knock and Ima bat like No Show at his worst.

I blame skully

horace wrote:

Big Dog wrote:Predictable result. Can expect much of the same for the rest of the series.

Thankfully we are not playing Scotland.

Agree the result was predictable. Bit of a shock to see No Show play a responsible knock and Ima bat like No Show at his worst.

Going on past history, that will be his one & only score for the series.

embee wrote:

horace wrote:

Big Dog wrote:Predictable result. Can expect much of the same for the rest of the series.

Thankfully we are not playing Scotland.

Agree the result was predictable. Bit of a shock to see No Show play a responsible knock and Ima bat like No Show at his worst.

I blame skully

Hehehe. Sometimes it is helpful to state the obvious.

Big Dog wrote:

horace wrote:

Big Dog wrote:Predictable result. Can expect much of the same for the rest of the series.

Thankfully we are not playing Scotland.

Agree the result was predictable. Bit of a shock to see No Show play a responsible knock and Ima bat like No Show at his worst.

Going on past history, that will be his one & only score for the series.

Guaranteed.

Odd. He was unable to buy a run the Bannie PL or in the practice matches.

Sounds like Spaghetti bowled well.

Wonder if cbnlg had a crack at Ima for his batting. Also dropped a catch. Still no doubt he shook hands in a very jolly manner.

A few thoughts (from those "close quarters" I mentioned above - the boundary edge).

Being there - more so than on (heavily curated, camera-covered and commentated) TV, let alone highlights - you feel how precarious every stage of the game is.

With two such unpredictable sides scuffling round for a formula (and their best XI) clearly even more so than usual - but the feeling in any case, in the "unmediated" crackling air of an event in front of your eyes, that the fortunes of this game seem permanently on a knife's edge, that one or two false (or one or two good) moves may cause a significant swing at any moment. Strange sensation.

Being a spectator on site also offers you a different, more wide-angled perspective. (Thankfully remembered to bring binoculars: all the closeups you want, and of your own choosing!) You are far more aware of the field settings, of strategy in setting and altering the field - if a strategy is apparent, of course *cough* - of mistakes in the same. And also of how wise, agile, clumsy various fielders may be. (e.g. Roy is very fast and lithe in the field, and quick to react - but a bit approximate (hamfisted even) in taking and returning the ball. Conversely, Hales seems handicapped by his long, rangy limbs - a bit of a carthorse getting there - but his handling and release are quite good. When his throws are not wild. Rashid seems to want to live up to the obsolete cliche of it being beneath a bit the dignity of Asian-origin fielders to dive in the field. He once let an Agar shot coast gracefully to the boundary when he was posted no more than a dozen yards from that point. Bairstow on the other hand is a livewire - always alert, always ready to act, to pounce, with all the on-it physical and mental activity of a wicketkeeper, even when posted at various positions around the square leg rope. Unsurprisingly, he judged and took a fine running catch there - must have been the fifth or sixth Aussie wicket.

Moeen's spin comes in for a lot of stick - not only, on occasion, from opposing batsmen. But he was very good here. Mixed it up well, got genuine offspin on some. Revs and drift on others.

They say taking wickets slows the scoring rate. But it was almost the other way round with Ali and Rashid bowling in the Wednesday match. In Moeen's final over, the batsman (was it Maxwell?) went for it, took the risk and sent one delivery into the stand - pretty much a straightish off drive. That spoilt the figures, but not the performance.

Rashid's leggies are generally easier to milk (sweep or carve) for ones and twos. But a lot of dot balls too on Wednesday. And not that much whacking.

The two England spinners (I'll leave out Root's three overs in this case... ;o) ) together took 7 wickets for around 80. Those were decisive contributions. Or should have been. Until England batted ...

Poor Plunkett is going through a bad patch, perhaps terminal at international level, I'm not sure. He was also carrying a niggle from his previous match (Yorks), which won't have helped. But though he's always been one to concede some runs - but for some valuable wickets that others don't take - he seemed a bit unlucky, too. Some poor work in the field, for example. Dropped catch, misfields.

I was very impressed by Willey - with the bat. At times, the match seemed like a contest in "Which side can throw away the best position?" - Hales had one of his rustic mows (but too often he seems that way) - Bairstow gave simple catching practice to shortish long off when he seemed to be establishing the England innings on a firm footing in chasing a low total - Root & Morgan batted well (if the later in typical swashbuckling flexible-wristed risky style, good eye and balance though), but perished poorly - Buttler went out as if he'd eaten 2 pounds of raw steak and there were 25 to win in the last 2 overs of a T20, when in fact they needed 4 or less an over and people to stay around a while and accumulate or find gaps - Moeen played with fine judgment, timing and touch until he lobbed out short of the mickwicket boudary and reopened the game with 20-odd to go and then only 3 wickets left - but Willey's nerves seemed as steady as his eye and coordination were true.

Maybe he should open, with Bairstow, and they could push down the order or ditch altogether the flatter-to-deceivers Hales and Roy. Not entirely kidding. With England, who knows? Who has the answers?

I have to admit I didn't know any of the Australian quicks. But there didn't seem a dud among them. Neser and Richardson were less effective, and seemed nervous in manner and approach. But not duds.

Stanlake caused Root in particular lots of grief - worrying for England in a Test context - and Tye resourceful, confident. All four of them seemed willing and able workhorses. Ten overs max, I know. But unstinting, etc.

I suppose that is true of Wood, Willey and Plunkett as well. Big hearts. But then a big heart has limits for seamers. You need more than bags of effort and application to succeed. (Ask Darren Gough.) Guile, insight into your opponents' weaknesses, a supportive clever captain, good work in the field from your teammates, consistency & odd surprise, repeatable accuracy (!) ... and quite a bit of luck, too.

I was surprised Agar had less menace about him than either Moeen or Rashid. Not rank, just did not exert a control on runs.

The Australian batting was disappointing. Right from Head losing his. Maxwell predictably had a go, with some success (brutal bashing, once he got going), but had a heave too many just when he might be setting his team up for a 280-odd total. Agar was the sheet anchor - overdid it a bit for a long time, perhaps. Very correct technique was a treat. When he realised he'd better get a bit of a move on (Maxwell presumably gave him a poke and said "Can't do it all on me own, mate") he got lucky with two boundaries that shouldn't have been, but continued to look technically very good if not lightning fast.

I like the cut of Paine's jib, with the bat (though he didn't score many, and his wicket put his team under real pressure) and in the field. And the way he talks and thinks as a skipper, too. Ironically perhaps, of three or four catches shelled in the match, it happened to be Paine who pulled off - or didn't pull off - the worst. However much ground they have to make up - he could perhaps simply have left it to someone closer - keepers shouldn't let the ball jag out of their gauntlets on impact with the ground. It was a proper howler, and may possibly have affected the result. Though to be honest, I'd have backed Rashid to contribute towards 10 or so remaining runs.

Sections of the crowd roared like joyous cocaine-injected baboons at that spill.

Which reminds me....

The worst aspect of being there was not the predictable sardining of seats and almost total lack of effective crowd(ing) management at the Oval (despite all the stewards) - or even the way-overloud ice-hockey-ish blasting out of canned scraps of music, great for conversation or hearing yourself think - but the beer-besotted (I hope) blazing-headed uberpartisan ignorance of some in the crowd:

The waving of scraps of yellow sandpaper (offered outside the ground as a marketing opp by agents of an opportunist firm) & bullyboy chorussing of "YOU KNEW-EW!! YOU KNEW-EW!!"  by such pissed oafs at any Australian fielder unfortunate enough to get close to them - any Australian fielder who had no part in any of the stupid cheating committed by others.

Yes, I know it was the first encounter between ENG and AUS since the scandal broke.

And yes, I do regard cheating seriously, by any team, any management plan or licence, by any individual player or cabal of players.

But neither is an excuse for baboon-level bawling ignorance by anyone.

Call me odd. (I don't mind.) But concerted crowd jeering in any country sickens me. And concerted crowd jubilation - of a triumphalist type - is generally not for me, leaves me cold. I see and feel and hear such self-indulgent shit not as "patriotic" in any (good) way, but as a sign of a desperate lack of self-esteem by individuals in their own identity, displaced and conjoined as a "great common cause". Who doesn't want their chosen country - country of birth or grateful adoption - to do well, be regarded with respect and perhaps admiration, fare well in trading, economy, fairness and to have a healthy, sound social fabric? Many of those who bawl and boo and jeer the loudest, I fear, is the answer. And that's my point.

Apologies if that last paragraph is unduly influenced by witnessing Brexit at first hand - probably the biggest load of toxic bullshit in Europe since 1945. And anything but patriotism in any good sense.

Nice post Peter.  Even a dozen Farages in a crowd of thousands make it a noxious place.  Sadly such oafs always seem conspicuous.

Cracking match & crowd analysis, Peter.

I don’t see the issue with the sandpaper thing... it’s a bit of fun, winding up the opposition. We’ve been on the other end of it enough times. A bit like shouting “no-ball” when Mohammed Amir bowls - he served his time but it still doesn’t mean he’s entitled for it to be forgotten. I know, some, most or all (delete as appropriate) of the Australian players here were not involved or had no knowledge about it, but it seemed to be reflective of the general culture of Aussie cricket in recent years, so few can count themselves completely blameless.

Obviously when it crosses the line into actual personal abuse that’s going too far. But some of the “humorous” Barmy Army songs about past Aussie players step closer to that line than waving a few bits of sandpaper around.

I agree, beamer, but if you check my sentence again. ...

If it had just been demonstratively "waving a few bits of sandpaper around" - the more silently the more effectively in a way - it would have been a decent jape, and a fair wind-up, in the first 'rematch'.

But you had to be there.... I don't know how much the TV coverage picked up - whether they caught the full volume of the uproar on two or three occasions - or found puckish WUM faces, or the heads with the veins bulging red necks out. It was the latter combination of brandishing and bawling/screeching at approaching "enemy" faces by (admittedly) a small but significant minority I was on about.

Alcohol is some but little extenuation, "patriotism" no excuse, I think. And for the worst of them, cheating - to repeat, by completely other players - seemed a mere launchpad for a venting of unresolved psychological/mental health issues I'd prefer to steer well clear of.


Nicely written article here, focusing not least on that "commercial opportunism" angle to the sandpaper event: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2018/06/13/sandpaper-stunt-atmosphere-fall-flat-oval/

Except the journalist was clearly not in the thick of it. Media centres and hospitality areas can be protective soundproofing bubbles, away from the thick brunt of crowd fevers.

Hoult also pays well-merited tribute to Paine there, too.

PS: The middle picture of that article shows Morgan and Paine in discussion. Oddly, they look like twins.

Hopefully they are. In a sporting sense.

terrific posts Pete

My ha'penny worth :

Re: Sledging - there are none better than the Aussies at this particular pastime - they are world class. The sandpaper issue has swung the pendulum in favour of England at this juncture, though whether they will grasp the mettle and use it against the "old enemy" remains to be seen - no sign of it so far as everyone's on their best behaviour. I personally believe that it should be allowed to continue.

Personal Abuse :  Another kettle of fish altogether. The most outstanding exponent of this was one Merv Hughes. A mediocre bowler who made up for his lack of skills by shouting abuse at - and invariable spitting - yes, spitting, in the direction of the opposing batsmen he was targeting. Hughes/Hick anyone?
I believe this aspect of the game ought to be stamped out …. from all accounts from our Australian friends, Warner was dragging it back into the game.

Brexit :  Pete's  probably the biggest load of toxic bullshit is a singular opinion which flies in the face of the majority (1.75 million) who voted in favour of Brexit.


How one comes around to describing something as "toxic bullshit" without first experiencing it, without first seeing it at work; based  purely on the face of the EU's staunch opposition to the UK leaving (now why is that, I wonder? perhaps triggering a mass exodus??) ; based upon peoples musings and moanings at the fact that they were on the losing side … it all beggars belief.
So how to change that?
Continue moaning; continue "demanding" a "best of three" referendums; insisting on a change of government; spoiling due process and basically flying in the face of the majority of voters with their continuing groans, moans and bleating.

That there, in a nutshell, is Brexit's toxic bullshit, Pete!
The Remoaners, who, one way or another, obstruct and refuse to let due process take place in their fervent belief that THEY ARE RIGHT.

Germany 1930 anyone?


That's it … I'm now off to Cardiff !

FFS!!! Take Agar off

Looks like 350+ for England.

God we are awful. Agar-Smagar.

Merlin wrote:My ha'penny worth :

Re: Sledging - there are none better than the Aussies at this particular pastime - they are world class. The sandpaper issue has swung the pendulum in favour of England at this juncture, though whether they will grasp the mettle and use it against the "old enemy" remains to be seen - no sign of it so far as everyone's on their best behaviour. I personally believe that it should be allowed to continue.

Personal Abuse :  Another kettle of fish altogether. The most outstanding exponent of this was one Merv Hughes. A mediocre bowler who made up for his lack of skills by shouting abuse at - and invariable spitting - yes, spitting, in the direction of the opposing batsmen he was targeting. Hughes/Hick anyone?
I believe this aspect of the game ought to be stamped out …. from all accounts from our Australian friends, Warner was dragging it back into the game.

Brexit :  Pete's  probably the biggest load of toxic bullshit is a singular opinion which flies in the face of the majority (1.75 million) who voted in favour of Brexit.


How one comes around to describing something as "toxic bullshit" without first experiencing it, without first seeing it at work; based  purely on the face of the EU's staunch opposition to the UK leaving (now why is that, I wonder? perhaps triggering a mass exodus??) ; based upon peoples musings and moanings at the fact that they were on the losing side … it all beggars belief.
So how to change that?
Continue moaning; continue "demanding" a "best of three" referendums; insisting on a change of government; spoiling due process and basically flying in the face of the majority of voters with their continuing groans, moans and bleating.

That there, in a nutshell, is Brexit's toxic bullshit, Pete!
The Remoaners, who, one way or another, obstruct and refuse to let due process take place in their fervent belief that THEY ARE RIGHT.

Germany 1930 anyone?


That's it … I'm now off to Cardiff !

Merv last played a Test in 1994

Yeah, it’s all about where the line is drawn between sledging and personal abuse. And players who cross that line should expect consequences, from officials and the opposition. Curtly Ambrose would just bowl you a couple of 90mph beamers for example.

The great Australian sides of a decade or two ago, obviously used sledging but their cricket did the most important part of the talking. After that, they seemed to up the nastiness to compensate for the reduced level of talent in the side.

Then, after the Phil Hughes tragedy, we briefly saw another side of the Australian players. They appeared human - yes, even David Warner. It looked like a fresh start, a realisation that cricket wasn’t the most important thing in the world, that the excessive aggression and abuse could be left in the past.

But it quickly got back to normal, and more. And an “anything goes” culture progressed from unsportsmanlike behaviour to blatant, underhand cheating. Now, once again, there’s a chance for a new start. That’s why we can’t let sandpapergate be quickly forgotten.

Anyway, back to the cricket... No-Show holes out and it’s almost over. Marsh seems to be playing an Ian Bell one-day innings (run-a-ball 70 without ever looking like making a telling impact on the game) at the other end.

Well, that was a bit closer than it needed to be. I did Marsh a disservice by comparing him to the Belf...

Still things to think about for England, Wood is increasingly a liability and Billings is a passenger. I know we have Morgan, Stokes and Woakes to come back in, but the search for a strike bowler and a middle order backup has to continue.

I don't know who the answer is to our ODI spinner problem, but it's not Agar (or Lyon).

Nath wrote:I don't know who the answer is to our ODI spinner problem, but it's not Agar (or Lyon).

cbnlg) WAgar is playing out of his skin and adds so much passion to the team. (cbnlg

So Bog did his bit but nobody else showed up.

Andrew Tye's 81 runs conceded (in 9 overs) was a bit Mick Lewis FFS-ish.

I love AJ Tye ...he is a top bloke and gives everything ...


but...


he is a T20 bowler 


he can play Jamodi's in the same team as Koo Purple and Second because they will be taking wickets and AJ will always have fresh batsmen ...but he is fodder to a set batsman