Australia tour of England June-August 2012

[aussie1st]

I dont think in a best AUS ODI XI, Christian and Johnson are essentially battling for one spot.

They aren't but not because Christian is a 8 and Johnson a 9. Christian is seen as a number 7 at lowest, his bowling isn't good enough to take a bowling spot.

 

[Owzat]

That's essentially what Andrew Symonds' record looked like before the 2003 World Cup. Symonds had made only 2 small 50s in 50-odd ODIs, one when he was promoted to open vs Zimbabwe. Definitely NOT saying Smith = Symonds, but I'm guessing that's the idea. They think he's one for the future and are willing to use him basically as a specialist fieldsman in the meantime. Watson's presence means that it doesn't matter who plays at #7 as long as they can bat a bit.

We wanted Symonds didn't we, before he decided he was an aussie.............?

I think you're taking a 'classic' football comparison here, one of the worst being when someone tries to make out if you give a manager seven years he'll be the next fergie.

Back when the aussies were top dogs, having a passenger was viable. These days they obviously can't afford to and recognised as much after the 1st ODI

Oh and for Sedition (?), last time England won back to back ODIs against the aussies was the last time the aussies came here. I'm guessing you're going senile, living in denial that England are the better side, or maybe too young to remember That series we won the first three ODIs and the series 3-2, losing at Lords and The Oval.

HowSTAT! ODI Series - Matches & Results

 

[angryangy]

Developmental players are always viable. Particularly in this case, the potential for gains outweighs the horror of defeat in what will soon become a difficult series to remember, much like the last one. I mean from a game theory perspective, England having the more established squad have little to gain by flaunting it. They could hide Finn lest a key opponent like Australia gets better at facing 2 metre tall fast bowlers for a time when it could really matter.

And that's not to say that any one player is permanently keeping out a superhero who single-handedly wins matches. This is the same principle as was applied to the West Indies; people tend to overrate the inclusion of a different player. Even the really good ones tend to do nothing special most of the time.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Developmental players are always viable. Particularly in this case, the potential for gains outweighs the horror of defeat in what will soon become a difficult series to remember, much like the last one. I mean from a game theory perspective, England having the more established squad have little to gain by flaunting it. They could hide Finn lest a key opponent like Australia gets better at facing 2 metre tall fast bowlers for a time when it could really matter.

And that's not to say that any one player is permanently keeping out a superhero who single-handedly wins matches. This is the same principle as was applied to the West Indies; people tend to overrate the inclusion of a different player. Even the really good ones tend to do nothing special most of the time.

Couldn't agree more. I don't think selections are the issue. There are no superstars that I can think of who will make a difference. Christian might be bowled more than Smith but you can't tell me he's going to be any more use with the bat than someone like Bailey or even Lee.

 

[Haarithan]

Just realized England are a whitewash series win (5-0) away from being the #1 side in all three formats. Magnificent.

 

[War]

They aren't but not because Christian is a 8 and Johnson a 9. Christian is seen as a number 7 at lowest, his bowling isn't good enough to take a bowling spot.

Ye but in the best AUS ODI XI that i suggested on the previous page, Christian bowling position wouldn't be a main bowling/wicket-taking option. It would be 5th/6th option, capable of taking wickets, since lets not forget he took a 5-for just a few months ago.

 

[alexczarn]

Ye but in the best AUS ODI XI that i suggested on the previous page, Christian bowling position wouldn't be a main bowling/wicket-taking option. It would be 5th/6th option, capable of taking wickets, since lets not forget he took a 5-for just a few months ago.

And a powerful lower-order finisher/slogger

 

[sifter132]

We wanted Symonds didn't we, before he decided he was an aussie.............?

I think you're taking a 'classic' football comparison here, one of the worst being when someone tries to make out if you give a manager seven years he'll be the next fergie.

Back when the aussies were top dogs, having a passenger was viable. These days they obviously can't afford to and recognised as much after the 1st ODI

Yeah Symonds was initially picked for England A in the mid 90s somewhere I think, but told them he wanted to play for Australia instead. I was just writing about Symonds for the top 100, so that's why he came to mind

As for 'back when the aussies were top dogs'...well they are still #1 ranked - have been for the last 3 years . Yes I know 2012 Australia aren't as good a team as the late 90s/early 00s team that Symonds struggled in, but I still think the #7 spot is less important in the 2012 version, because he doesn't have to bowl due to Watson's presence. Symonds really had to bowl back then because the Waugh bros were losing their all-round ability with age.

AUS biggest problem is having a ODI batting line-up with Bailey, Forrest type players in in along with Clarke.

Although since the tri-nation series earlier this year they are probably the form batsmen are deserved their chance, but AUS can't build their one-day team with two batsmen like that.

I'm really torn on this. Part of me totally agrees with that, they are 3 pretty pedestrian players all playing next to each other. At least Clarke and Bailey can get going after they've been in there a while, but you are risking a lot of 15 off 30-type innings. And if all 3 of them miss out, then you've squandered a lot of balls for nothing. I think longterm Clarke needs to be #3, he plays too many dot balls to be in the middle because it seems like he tries too hard to thread tiny gaps and run 2s or hit 4s. That's better when the field's up.

Anyway...the converse argument of course is that Australia's batting has just plain sucked recently. Seems like it's always at least 4 down by the 35 over mark and another one during the powerplay...I'd kill for someone who can make a big score.

Just looking at some figures...Australia's batted first 17 times in the last 12 months, and only 6 times have they passed 252. So essentially, only 6 above average innings. In all those 6 above average innings the 4th wicket wasn't lost until at least the 36th over. And conversely in all bar one of the 252 or lower scores, the 4th wicket has gone down before over #35 (the one was the tie vs WI in St Vincent-slow, low pitch). So getting guys who can occupy the crease at the start, like England are doing I guess with Cook and Trott, is theoretically a good idea. Ricky Ponting must be shaking his fist at the TV anyway, still in the Test side but deemed not good enough for the crappy ODI batting lineup??

Then again the batting isn't the only issue...for 3 of 6 of those 'good' scores, Australia haven't been able to defend it...

 

[Owzat]

I find it laughable that if we win the series 5-0 we'd be ranked #1 ! The side that surrendered the World Cup QF to a 10 wicket defeat, hasn't been in the final since 1992 and struggles outside of England most of the time.

But then I have zero faith in ICC rankings

 

[War]

I find it laughable that if we win the series 5-0 we'd be ranked #1 ! The side that surrendered the World Cup QF to a 10 wicket defeat, hasn't been in the final since 1992 and struggles outside of England most of the time.

But then I have zero faith in ICC rankings

Indeed, that's why i have never taken it seriously.

AUS ODI team clearly doesn't have the same AURA since the likes of Gilchrist, Hayden, Ponting etc left. But this new AUS ODI team has still won in SRI recently and won a hard home tri-series recently.

ENG ODI team although improving slowly, its very questionable how they have come so close to being # 1.

 

[sifter132]

Yawn this topic again...just because there is no clear standout team doesn't mean the rankings are bad - it's just that EVERY team has a problem. I could have told you that Australia aren't a very good #1, but that doesn't mean the rankings have stuffed up.

Here are the W/L stats of the top 8 teams against each other since the last World Cup:
England, P23, W14, L7, T/NR2 (W/L = 2.00)
South Africa: P11, W7, L4 (W/L = 1.75)
India: P30, W17, L10, T/NR3 (W/L = 1.70)
Australia: P26, W13, L12, T/NR1 (W/L = 1.08)
Sri Lanka: P38, W15, L21, T/NR2 (W/L = 0.71)
West Indies: P19, W7, L11, T/NR1 (W/L = 0.64)
Pakistan: P18, W6, L11, T/NR1 (W/L = 0.55)
New Zealand: P3, W0, L3, T/NR0 (W/L = 0.00)

Combine that with the World Cup results, and what we knew before that, tell me who who you guys think should be the #1 team in the rankings...

Just as an aside, how the hell are we supposed to have a good rankings system when NZ has played just 3 meaningful ODIs in the last 14-15 months while SL has played 38!!

 

[barmyarmy]

Would love a whitewash regardless of the rankings. Am predicting 3-1 with one rained off though.

 

[Owzat]

Yawn this topic again...just because there is no clear standout team doesn't mean the rankings are bad

You could put forward your case without the "yawn" comment, I don't agree with a lot of what War says but we don't have to resort to such approaches in debating something. And nobody said the rankings were bad because "there is no clear standout team", the underlying mechanics are rubbish, they are meaningless anyway and hinder any progress that might be made towards having a proper Test championship

And ironic much you start off with "yawn" yet charge in and defend it, and also rankings feature heavily in your own yawn-worthy rankings which are equally rubbish and meaningless I do wonder if you've read some of the comments questioning the interest in that, kettle-pot-black.......................

----------

But this new AUS ODI team has still won in SRI recently and won a hard home tri-series recently.

Beating the lankans is not really a big deal anymore, no Muralitharan. England won there in 07/08, doesn't mean they were any good at the time.

 

[Howsie]

Yawn this topic again...just because there is no clear standout team doesn't mean the rankings are bad - it's just that EVERY team has a problem. I could have told you that Australia aren't a very good #1, but that doesn't mean the rankings have stuffed up.

Here are the W/L stats of the top 8 teams against each other since the last World Cup:
England, P23, W14, L7, T/NR2 (W/L = 2.00)
South Africa: P11, W7, L4 (W/L = 1.75)
India: P30, W17, L10, T/NR3 (W/L = 1.70)
Australia: P26, W13, L12, T/NR1 (W/L = 1.08)
Sri Lanka: P38, W15, L21, T/NR2 (W/L = 0.71)
West Indies: P19, W7, L11, T/NR1 (W/L = 0.64)
Pakistan: P18, W6, L11, T/NR1 (W/L = 0.55)
New Zealand: P3, W0, L3, T/NR0 (W/L = 0.00)

Combine that with the World Cup results, and what we knew before that, tell me who who you guys think should be the #1 team in the rankings...

Just as an aside, how the hell are we supposed to have a good rankings system when NZ has played just 3 meaningful ODIs in the last 14-15 months while SL has played 38!!

lol.

 

[angryangy]

don't know about whitewash but this is certainly washy