Re: England v New Zealand, 5th ODI, Lord's, 28th June

by Red Sat 28 Jun 2008, 14:41

England seems always to be shorter odds in the betting. This score is below par for such a perfect deck though isn't it?

by Chivalry Augustus Sat 28 Jun 2008, 14:42

The odds definitely seem to be the wrong way round. New Zealand are around about par, but England's batting is dreadful.

The biggest problem will be when Cook and Bell are gone and the RRR is comfortably above 6 (probably close to or even beyond 7). A slow opening partnership isn't necessarily the worst thing though because, as New Zealand showed, you can make up for it towards the end.

by Red Sat 28 Jun 2008, 14:48

Styris paced his innings very well.

by skully Sat 28 Jun 2008, 15:10

267 target. Probably 30 more than I thought they'd set. Should be a good match from here.

by JKLever Sat 28 Jun 2008, 16:50

101-4 - Usual story - batting looks piss weak if KP fails.

Our ODI cricket is still going nowhere fast... hope you took some of those odds offered on NZ!

by furriner Sat 28 Jun 2008, 16:54

JKLever wrote:
Invader Zim wrote:
I'm not the one having a great big sook whenever someone posts something about Australia that doesn't involve the sun shining out of it's arse...
Who is? I'm just picking YOU up on YOUR current obsession. We don't need another pom being an inferiority complex ridden goose. We're already well addressed in that area.

My obsession?

Ok mate. I'd forgotten the unwritten rule that Aussie can give it out but must under no circumstances be given it back.

Yeah but you need to follow the rules from here on FFS! Evil or Very Mad

Meanwhile, Eng not looking too good are they?

by JKLever Sat 28 Jun 2008, 17:13

furriner wrote:
JKLever wrote:
Invader Zim wrote:
I'm not the one having a great big sook whenever someone posts something about Australia that doesn't involve the sun shining out of it's arse...
Who is? I'm just picking YOU up on YOUR current obsession. We don't need another pom being an inferiority complex ridden goose. We're already well addressed in that area.

My obsession?

Ok mate. I'd forgotten the unwritten rule that Aussie can give it out but must under no circumstances be given it back.

Yeah but you need to follow the rules from here on FFS!

Meanwhile, Eng not looking too good are they?

No - 130/5 we're looking like our ranking tbh... what are we 7th? Series wins v IND (h) and SL (a) looking a bit like a false dawn. 1 step forward, 2 steps back...

Carrying too many players not established in international cricket atm...

by furriner Sat 28 Jun 2008, 17:21

JKLever wrote:..No - 130/5 we're looking like our ranking tbh... what are we 7th? Series wins v IND (h) and SL (a) looking a bit like a false dawn. 1 step forward, 2 steps back...

Carrying too many players not established in international cricket atm...

They'll be queuing up to play against your lot for the Stanford everyone's a millionaire jamboree.

But I forgot, WI are shyte.

by doremi Sat 28 Jun 2008, 17:22

England are probably a better ODI side than a Test side now. Just that NZ are 10 times better as an ODI side themselves.

by furriner Sat 28 Jun 2008, 17:22

Ambrose goes.

by furriner Sat 28 Jun 2008, 17:23

doremi wrote:England are probably a better ODI side than a Test side now. Just that NZ are 10 times better as an ODI side themselves.

Eh?

by JKLever Sat 28 Jun 2008, 17:27

furriner wrote:
doremi wrote:England are probably a better ODI side than a Test side now. Just that NZ are 10 times better as an ODI side themselves.

Eh?

Yeah, WTF?

by JKLever Sat 28 Jun 2008, 17:28

furriner wrote:Ambrose goes.

Poor series, got to be under pressure.

by JKLever Sat 28 Jun 2008, 17:31

Augustus wrote:The odds definitely seem to be the wrong way round. New Zealand are around about par, but England's batting is dreadful.

The biggest problem will be when Cook and Bell are gone and the RRR is comfortably above 6 (probably close to or even beyond 7).

Sageness...

by Eric Air Emu Sat 28 Jun 2008, 17:32

Thing about Ambrose is that he's played one or two good innings but the rest has been practically binary. It's not like Mustard and Prior are Mr Magic Pants though.

by JKLever Sat 28 Jun 2008, 18:23

Eric Air Emu wrote:Thing about Ambrose is that he's played one or two good innings but the rest has been practically binary. It's not like Mustard and Prior are Mr Magic Pants though.

Though as Bumble says - he's coming to the wicket with 8 an over needed, no chance.... it's the top 6 that are failing.

Fair play to the Kiwis though, much the better side over the last 4 games....

by LeFromage Sat 28 Jun 2008, 18:26

Stick a fork in it.

NZ put England out of their and our misery.

by LeFromage Sat 28 Jun 2008, 18:27

JKLever wrote:... it's the top 6 that are failing.

Tests, ODIs, T20 - always the same story.

by Chivalry Augustus Sat 28 Jun 2008, 18:40

Really good innings from Ace - our best batsman in the series. He should have wrapped up a Test place for South Africa, but English cricket doesn't work like that and I'd probably be more surprised if he is there than if he isn't. The openers were poor, as poor as ever in fact and probably worse even than Mustard and Cook were in the reverse series in New Zealand. Only Pietersen scored a hundred, and though he proceeded to do nothing else, you'd have to say that in scoring that hundred he just about met expectations for the series. Bopara was again in the team on reputation rather than runs scored. He averaged less than any batsman who played more than one game (not counting Luke Wright who simply cannot be described as such).

Anderson and Sidebottom were awful on the bowling front, averaging 41 and 75 (!!!) respectively. Broad and Swann bowled tidily, but then you'd expect that of Nottinghamshire players. Ambrose was abysmal in all areas, to be honest. Doesn't look a ODI player.

by JKLever Sat 28 Jun 2008, 18:41

Nice summary until the fanwankery over Notts Wink

by LeFromage Sat 28 Jun 2008, 18:53

All the batsmen were piss-ordinary.

Wright @ 17.80 (1x50)
Bell @ 27.80
Cook @ 24
Pietersen @ 33.25 (1x100)
Bopara @ 25.80 (1x50)
Collingwood @ 37.25 (1x50)
Shah @ 39.80 (2x50)
Ambrose @ 2.50

Only one batsman contributed something meaningful in more than one game: Shah. Two fifties - and also an AGBB 49 at the end of the innings in the first ODI. He was also the only batsman with a SR of over 100.

Bell, Ambrose and (although he only played once) Cook might just have well have not played for all they contributed.

Really poor.

Broad, Swanny and Tremlett (though he was dropped straight away) came out of the series with some bowling credit. No-one else.

by Chivalry Augustus Sat 28 Jun 2008, 19:02

The statistics are awful. I nearly posted them but didn't feel like it considering the sinking feeling in my stomach as soon as I looked at them. Slight positives came in the form of Broad averaging 21 and Swann 23; very respectable, all things considered. James Anderson has already taken the next turn on his cycle, I suppose, though Sidebottom's even poorer series can probably be written off as such considering the good start to his limited-overs career.

Ultimately, you have to criticise the batsman considerably more than the bowlers though, especially for losing the third game when chasing a meagre 180-odd for victory. If you can't chase 180, you really are shit. I think you can justify, to an extent, the middle order's failure to score runs because they are always chasing 6+ an over after coming in thanks to the awful openers who waste the power-plays scoring pretty 20s. However, even then you can't excuse the batsman for the aforementioned collapse at Bristol, another pretty twenty somewhere along the line there would actually have won us the game.

by LeFromage Sat 28 Jun 2008, 19:09

Like I said, Shah showed up for three games out of five - that's a pretty acceptable rate for a front-line bat.

No-one else managed more than one contribution. That kind of sums up England's batting in all forms of the game: everyone will make the odd knock here and there, do the bare minimum to hold onto their place, but as a batting unit, they flatter to deceive more than they deliver. No-one scores back-to-back hundreds, or goes on a solid run of fifties. It's dribs and drabs.

One knock in five is not good enough. Some didn't even manage that.

by Allan D Sat 28 Jun 2008, 20:22

JKLever wrote:Nice summary ~~until~~ including the ~~fanwankery over Notts~~ honest appreciation of Nottinghamshire CCC players

by Geoffrey Trueman Sat 28 Jun 2008, 20:55

Dello wrote:Like I said, Shah showed up for three games out of five - that's a pretty acceptable rate for a front-line bat.

No-one else managed more than one contribution. That kind of sums up England's batting in all forms of the game: everyone will make the odd knock here and there, do the bare minimum to hold onto their place, but as a batting unit, they flatter to deceive more than they deliver. No-one scores back-to-back hundreds, or goes on a solid run of fifties. It's dribs and drabs.

One knock in five is not good enough. Some didn't even manage that.

Yes, and that's exactly why arguing the toss over every mistake and failing in each and every match England play is so utterly pointless. They're all ****, every single one of them. Folk go harping on about hundreds, yet Pietersen, the only player who seems capable of getting one more often than not fails miserably inbetween. Best player my Harris.

What is there left to try? We're still ranked 7th in the world, we've just been battered 3-1 (should have been 4-1) by NZ and we're as carp now as we've ever been. Things are so bad the only player I'd keep would be Shah, and I once said he shouldn't be let anywhere near an England team because he batted like a spaz, what does that say about the current players? I say let's get rid of the lot of them and start again. Things are so bad I'd even give that Mr Blobby bloke at Northants a go, and Key, and even McGrath!

Oh, and can someone remind me what Mustard did wrong to lose his place to Ambrose???

by Sponsored content