Currently calling to mind Private Fraser’s opinions from Dad’s Army. i.e. We’re doomed.
Starting to think after watching a number of overs 300 will be a good score.
Australia are going to put up 330.
I say that - I think a lot will depend on Finch, Smith and Maxwell.
Yeah, but actually no.
Gilchrist played 287 ODIs. He batted 1 or in 260 (90%) @ 35.6 with 16 hundreds.
He only batted #3 once
In 26 innings batting at 4-11 he averaged 15 with highest score of 77 batting #6.
Bogging down. I still think 300 will be competitive givem the moisture around. Australia - on paper- has a better attack than previously. However, I agree Finch (especially,) Smith and Maxwell are the key to their innings. I havenen’t seen much of Stoinis. Anf Finch will no longer be a key.
Factor in the Test appearances.
And I do like Nasser as a commentator.
Nasser and Atherton are our best commentators imo. Neither the most talented of players, so had to think about and analyse their games more than most to stick at the top level - and obviously captained too, so know a bit about that bit of the game. Also able to communicate what they know relatively effectively.
330 now looking distant. Getting Finch and Maxwell - the latter just as it looked like he was about to get going - probably the key. Still, don’t fancy chasing 300 or so given Australia’s bowling line up (Starc, Cummins - Lyon is our kryptonite too).
250 is looking distant!
For England. Come on, you can’t out-pessimise us English! Hoping the pitch drying out and shine coming off the ball will allow us to settle down and have a proper go at this. Australia firmly in charge with England at 53/4 off 14. One or two English players are going to have to have the knock of their life if we’re even going to get close.
England are a bunch of flat track bullies aren’t they?
We’re certainly missing Roy at the top of the order. This is turning into a bit of a shambles, and England aren’t playing the style of cricket that’s got them to the top of the ODI rankings.
With Stokes gone, this is all over bar the shouting (“start the car”, as Bumble might say), which means we’ve got beat at least one of NZ or India, and possibly both.
I’ve not been Ben Stokes’ biggest fan - but fair play to him, he’s the only one playing innings of substance in these last two, terrible, slow death, games, where we just can’t get the bowling away. Took a bloody good delivery to get him too.
I would imagine that Jason Roy is playing on the weekend come what may. I really don’t know how many more times we’re going to see James Vince at international level.
Five for Behrendorff. Australia looking ominous and England now under immense pressure for their last two games.
Pakistan v New Zealand next. A Pakistan win will put them right back in the hunt.
Well, I stayed up as long as I could but an “all nighter” is beyond me these days. In the end it looked a rather easy win for Australia but there are some issues I feel need to be addressed.
Firstly however, for England, Stokes seems to be the key- an extremely talented player.
Australia need to get their batting order in the right order. As Nasser said, Smith is wasted at 4- the best player should be at 3. Also an extremely good bowling performance by Australia- hopefully they can do it again. The good or bad points is that both Cummins and Lyon didn’t get a wicket and they are normally very reliable.
As mentioned, things are now rather difficult for England- I still think India will be in the final but now against Australia or the Kiwis. Kiwis are really doing what the Kiwis do- not headline acts but are an extremely good side. So much now depends on the weather.
Well, they are the best bunch of a flat track bullies going 'round.
The AUS middle order totally rogered a sound base, by losing wickets and momentum in the final 15 overs to let a 310-320 total go to waste. So if (aunts, ball, uncles etc) that’s the target to chase that puts ENG over 100 runs off the pace and that gap will require much more than Stokes and Roy firing.
ENG now need a road and a big chase vs IND and NZ.
Doesn’t really matter if they say chase 380 vs IND and fall short a handful short.
A worse result for their longer term prospects would be to roll IND for 200 and chase that down in the final over. They need to reaffirm their strategy delivers.
At the moment it looks a bit like they have a Ferrari but it’s racing on a 4WD track and they are being beaten by a Land Rover
I like it. Relentlessly optimised for speed but prone to falling apart when things get bumpy.
Above quotes are in the wrong order but according to this article on ESPN the number of wins is the first tie breaker in the case of teams being tied on points. Therefore a win- even by a small total in the final over is better than a small loss chasing a huge total.
I trust I am reading your posts correctly.
The cliche about being able to find a way to win even when you’re playing badly. It’s what marks out the great performers from the merely very good. Like** penultima thule’s **Ferrari analogy shows, England can’t find other ways to win.
They’ve built their team around a particular style of play, that requires among other things a particular style of opener. They had Roy. Failing him they had Hales. Now they have Vince.
With Vince in, they’re not going to reach the end of the powerplay at 50-0 or 70-1. They’re not going to dominate the bowling from the get-go. That shouldn’t stop them winning. It’s a 50-0ver match and they’ve got a lot of batting talent. But they don’t seem to know how to approach a 4-1 situation. Stokes has shown he does. He can stay in, keep the run-rate manageable and start hitting big when he’s got runs under his belt. But it doesn’t seem like anyone else is keeping notes.
There’s a lot of pressure on England - they’ve spent the last 4 years making themselves World Number One and favourites or near-favourites for this World Cup. And suddenly, 0-1 in a crunch match against Australia, that semi-final place looks less of bolted on cert than it used to. The mantra you hear from the captain and team - based on a lot of evidence - is that “if we play this way, we’ll win”. Which is good confidence building stuff. Except that when it turns out you can’t play that way, the corollary seems to be that you’re not sure you can win.
There was some great bowling from Australia. But sometimes you’re going to face great bowling. Vince got out cheaply. Sometimes openers do. If the way you play can’t cope with these hardly unexpected events, you need a new way of playing.
The number of wins only comes into play when there are cancelled matches (which is an issue this year, due to the weather). That wasn’t my complaint, although even that one seems unfair. My issue is that when 2 teams are tied on points, and the teams have completed their match, whoever won that match should get the higher position. In the case of more than 2 teams tied on points, it should be points earned in common games. The argument that a head-to-head match could have occurred early in the tournament, and thus may not represent who is actually playing better, doesn’t hold water.
It’s like the tie-breaker sequence is exactly backwards. If multiple teams are tied on points, it should be 1) points earned in common games, 2) NRR, and then 3) total wins