Commonwealth Bank Series

[puddleduck]

And by the way, you do accept that England is more interested in winning a Test series than becoming a good ODI side? As most of their players seem to be more interested in the longer variety of the game?

I don't say it's wrong, but if that's the case, maybe England shouldn't worry a whole deal about the World Cup as it's just another useless ODI tournament along the way...

No that's what the majority of English fans feel, myself included, but it's not what the players feel. As I said earlier, they want to win every game they play. Just because I, or some journalists, or other fans think they play too much Odi cricket or that Odi cricket isn't important doesn't mean the players representing their countries feel that way.

Their careers are essentially on the line with every game, as is their pride and the hopes of their nation in regards to the fans who do enjoy the Odi format.

Edit - Although if given the choice of winning the test series or Odi series of a tour, I'm sure they would rather win the test series. That however goes for just about any cricketer as it is the more stringent test of abilities. That doesn't however change the fact that they want to win every match they play.

 

[Sureshot]

Did you have a moment of madness when you said this? Australia is always hard to beat on home soil and the lads were hurting from losing the ashes last time. As for the odi's, we have some of the heaviest hitters and miserly bowlers in the world. I would be surprised if we lost two matches. New Zealand always gives us a hard time and may just knock us over at some stage but Australia will be a clear winner at the end of the series. P.S. If you poms separate the test team you have now, you'd be crazy! They have a heap of talent and should be nurtured without the insecurity that goes with being a member of the U.K. national team. Get rid of the has-beens that control U.K. cricket.

If only the ball went over KPs head as quickly.

Why not? Most teams around the world plays 3-test series these days. Would it be too much to expect Australia and England to remain in step? What's so great about the so-called traditions?

As I said, the choice is up to the cricket boards... but I doubt whether things will change anyway. Doesn't mean I'm not entitled to my opinions

15 match tri-series or a 5 Test match series.

Not a hard choice. Far too many games in this CBS series but what they hey, whatever makes the most money wins I 'spose.

 

[evertonfan]

I couldn't care less about ODI's. They are fun to watch but if England lose I won't tear my hair out like I do in the Tests.

Part of our problem with ODI's is that the selectors use ODI's as a means of testing out potential Test players. A lot of Test careers have been ended before they even started because we've shoved a novice into an ODI when FC cricket is their stronger suit, and they haven't been seen since.

 

[harishankar]

Puddleduck, thanks for that good post. Maybe, as you say, it's a matter of perception. But I certainly believe that the ICC needs to resolve this problem of some countries playing the same countries more often than other countries... it happens this way and is quite irritating for a genuine cricket fan who wants more variety in the International scene.

It's not that I'm against Test Cricket, but when it comes to variety, Test Cricket seems to eat up so much chunk of the International Calendar preventing a lot of teams from playing together often enough. Australia and England certainly seem to play a lot of cricket against each other and I haven't seen as much England vs India... certainly they don't play enough Test cricket against each other as I would like... I think there needs to be a balance because quite often a number of teams end up playing far too few Test matches against each other. It's something that needs to be seriously worked out. That's why I made out the case for a shorter Ashes series - because I would love to see that time being used for playing other teams as well.

 

[puddleduck]

I think the difficulty Hari is that at the same time the financial side has to be taken into it. So in India and Pakistans case they try to fit in games when they can because the financial benefits are there. Location wise it is viable for them to do so, but with England and Australia we can't just fly off and play each other when there's a free date because our cricket seasons are at different times and seasons in the year. So when we do play, it is a big deal and we try to fit as much cricket in as possible.

With both countries fans valueing test cricket highly a big test series is a financially viable route to take, whilst with India and Pakistan it makes sense from a financial point of view to fit in Odis whenever there are gaps in the calender as they are likely to fill the ground.

 

[harishankar]

Yes, of course. Money is a big part of it. Although I don't see Test Cricket as lossmaking in the subcontinent either. We play to pretty packed grounds for all forms of the game... (most of the time at least)

 

[puddleduck]

Yes, of course. Money is a big part of it. Although I don't see Test Cricket as lossmaking in the subcontinent either. We play to pretty packed grounds for all forms of the game... (most of the time at least)

Yes I'm sure they do alright, but in Pakistan the test arenas were fairly empty against England and included that rather chilling scene of the entire ground emptying when Afridi got out. I think it's a case of them making more money from 2 Odis then one whole test match.

Anyway, good discussing with you, but we should probably stop before someone arrives and tells us we're not on topic anymore

 

[harishankar]

So why is this now called the Commonwealth Bank series? Wasn't it called the VB series last year? Did the sponsor back out?

 

[puddleduck]

So why is this now called the Commonwealth Bank series? Wasn't it called the VB series last year? Did the sponsor back out?

Yep just different sponsors, they come and go in all walks of life.

 

[evertonfan]

What happened to Australia being called the Common Wealth Bank National Team as well? I knew it was a load of arse.

 

[symonds_sixes]

There should never be a shorter Ashes series. 5 tests is what it has always been and the Ashes should never be easy to win, particularly when there is so much pride at stake. When England aren't in Australia we usually play 6 tests per summer and the usually amount of ODIs. Therefore playing a 5 test Ashes series is less of a workload on the players.

A 3 test series is good for your average test series but not a Australia vs England test series.

 

[aussie1st]

There should never be a shorter Ashes series. 5 tests is what it has always been and the Ashes should never be easy to win, particularly when there is so much pride at stake. When England aren't in Australia we usually play 6 tests per summer and the usually amount of ODIs. Therefore playing a 5 test Ashes series is less of a workload on the players.

A 3 test series is good for your average test series but not a Australia vs England test series.

You're in the wrong thread
The Ashes threas was moved to the past series forum - http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/showthread.php?t=28706&goto=lastpost

 

[sifter132]

Morning Richie morning all,

Just some thoughts on the game last night:

1. Paul Collingwood - I thought he was a faster scorer in ODIs. Has playing Test cricket tightened him up cause he was pretty slow last night and was struggling to get the ball away consistently.

2. Cameron White - Did OK apart from the 3 biggies off KP, but he's gonna be targeted for sure if he's the 5th bowler. Watson is a much better bowler (see his 2006 record in ODIs), but I think White's batting is better in ODI's, especially if they are both fighting for the #7 spot where Watson isn't suited. Depends what we need on the day as to who should get the spot.

3. Matthew Hayden - Best thing about his game was his running between the wickets and his feeding of the strike to Gilly. Seems incapable of playing spinners off the back foot - has anyone seen him do this?? He's put away the sweep shot for some reason and Monty just fired it in fast & shortish on the off stump and Hayden was totally bogged as he was on the front foot forcing to mid wicket and mid on. Then went for the tonk which looked really stupid and was really irresponsible cause Ponting had only just come in. He still needs to prove he's the man for the job as far as I'm concerned - despite the 100 partnership.

4. Monty P - Fell for the old trick of bowling too fast. Sure it was good to start with when Gilchrist was in to dry up runs, but once those 2 quick wickets fell he needed to slow it up. He was accurate though and Ponting/Clarke seemed happy to either lean on the forward defense or pick his straight balls through square leg. But he wasn't a threat to them and that's not really good enough - England needed wickets, so toss it up Monty please.

5. Michael Clarke - Really like him at #4 - good move Aussies. Didn't really have to move out of 2nd gear and take risks, but was good for him to build an innings and guide the run chase. He still plays questionable shots every now and then however. 2 shots - an off drive and a pull fell just short of Jon Lewis and could easily have been out. Once he cuts those out from his game, he'll be the Ricky Ponting of our team in 5 years time - a real star.

6. Advice for NZ - Play 2 spinners and use Astle. Assuming the pitch is slowish of course, but I think Australia generally don't score as well against the slower bowlers and whether you use them early to break the openers up or just in the middle to tie down I think they will concede less runs than if they bowl 40 overs of pace. Hopefully Vettori and Bond can add to that by picking up some wickets and if that happens Aussies won't beat 250 probably. Sri Lanka usually has a plethora of spinners and I feel we usually don't score as well against them as we do against other sides. Its just lucky the SL batsmen can't handle our bowlers as well or they might beat us a bit more often.

 

[aussie1st]

Having Watson as the 5th bowler is real handy but I'd like to keep White at 7 to finish our inns off so Watson opening looks to be the best bet unless we want Clarke opening and Watson 4. Of course if Hayden can put some decent knocks together then good luck to the selectors figuring out where to put Watson.

For NZ having 2 spinners could work out even though they are playing at Bellerive as their pacemen haven't been too good lately.

 

[RoboRocks]

Why drop Hayden?
He has been in good form, he played well in the Twenty20 and the first ODI.
I may not be Matthew Hayden's biggest fan but he deserves to keep his place.