Australian ODI tour of the United Kingdom and Ireland, June-July 2010

[drainpipe32]

Hmm. When the pitches don't spin they are flat, when they do they are terrible...

If the Australian spinners had done well in that game I'd agree, but the Wankhede is notorious for just destroying batting line-ups. The test match in 2004, I mean Michael Clarke 6/9? What'd Kartik get, another 6-fer. If Shane Warne had played that test the game would have finished in two days.

And while it did spin pace took most of the wickets for Australia.

 

[Cricketman]

Or maybe the Australian spinners just suck...

 

[AkshayS]

Or maybe the Australian spinners just suck...

AGREE just except Warne(not to forget not against Tendulkar. Dravid, Laxxy)

 

[shravi]

AGREE just except Warne(not to forget not against Tendulkar. Dravid, Laxxy)

What?

 

[AkshayS]

What?

I mean most Australian spinners suck except Warne,.

 

[Ollie_H]

Okay England vs Australia here, seperate thread for that, thanks.

I think the one thing many fans miss out in is the team harmony that is created, that can actually do much better for a team than anything else. If there are too many 'disruptive' players than it can swing the team away being a good side and detract from it's ability. I think England have found a good balance recently and that is why the team is performing to a high standard.

I'm fully awarre that 1 or 2 changes should be made, but I really don't think we need to start making drastic changes. Okay maybe Shahazad should come in, but you lay a lot of the blame on Bresnan, but a lot of the series was actually down to our batsmen and not the bowlers. I would go as far as saying that many of the bowlers had a poor series. I mean Swann, took 7 of his wickets in two games, one that you could say didn't actually mean anything.

This squad as gelled, and as for the 'building for the future' attitude, if we want to build for the future we have the right team to do it (bar a few squad changes) we need to give them as much playing time as possible. Of course there will be changes, as we have seen the ECB are going to make changes to keep people fresh for the next series.

Re-calling Trott should be a good decision, and should be a rock at 3. I'm all for Trott playing a sort of 'Michael Clarke' roll, he doesn't have the highes strike rate but he stays in periods of time and gets a score and allows people to bat around him.

The England team are in a good period at the moment, and I think instead of falting them for bit's and pieces, which is really what we're doing, let's enjoy thei success!

 

[P Squared]

Australia win.... and there I was thinking that England would win 5-0.

 

[angryangy]

The series was ultimately decided by the one match where Australia did not bat out their overs. The English batsmen were not put under pressure in the first two games, but once they were, wicket taking became a lot more vital.

But I agree, wholesale changes are not warranted. Kieswetter warrants more chances; it's not like the next guy up is going to come in with the experience of having faced 100 mph. You want to see what Kieswetter does with that, though admittedly, Bangladesh probably won't yield conclusive results for that test.

The top order could use Trott's determination. In contrast to Pietersen, this provides someone who will let a long innings be its own form of dominance, rather than having to force the issue.

I would aim to bump Pietersen back to 4, so I would try Bell at 4 while he is injured. Looking at Mike Hussey, Eoin Morgan shouldn't suffer from batting at 6, so I see no problems with the order.

Both Bresnan and Wright are so confusing. Bresnan is apparently more a bowler than a batsman, yet he seems much more natural with the bat, especially against Australia. Likewise Wright is meant to be the batsman, but after years around the England team, he still seems to have way too many flaws. I would actually go as far to say he was more awkward than anyone above or below him.

I'd be inclined to suggest playing Yardy or Bresnan based on what the pitch offers, but Bresnan got pitches that offered something and he didn't use them. Yardy was definitely the best "bits'n'pieces" player, but it feels like a win by default.

I don't know anything about Shehzad or Finn in one dayers, but I'd wager they do offer something with the new ball.

It sounds like a lot, but only two real changes are glaring. Drop an all-rounder for a top order batsman and drop an all-rounder for an opening bowler. Simple, really.

 

[Sureshot]

Shahzad is a bit of an unknown to most of us, his records ain't that great, but he's pretty talented.

Finn is a massive prospect. He reminds me of Harmison a lot.

 

[Themer]

Bit of a diservice to Shahzad there. 28 at 28 for 4.5 runs per over isn't too bad compared to Finn's 33 wickets @ 31 but he goes for 5.23 an over which is too much for him to be considered for international one dayers at the moment.

 

[angryangy]

Finn's been smashed at the top grounds like Lords and the Oval, but Shahzad hasn't actually played at either ground, so it's very hard to find comparison in the numbers. I also imagine Headingley would be a pretty good home ground for a paceman. Nevertheless, I think England probably need to be open to improving a talented player's skillset and focus on what they really need. They don't need someone to keep an end tight. They do need someone to get a couple of wickets with the new ball.