yeah ive heard about him hes another one of "imports" isn't he, hes irish or something and meant to be an excellent batsman, after thorpe has retired were gonna ahve a lot of you or prime batsman with no-one who can really make way. We seem to have an abundancy of great new batsmen. Looks like there is no way back in for butcher now.Briggsey said:
NatWest Series 2005
- Thread starter Rangeela
- Start date
Same here pal! That would be one of the most biggest insults for the World Champions.. If that happens, wonder what changes the ICC rankings would undergo?
Its still too early to dream but what the heck? We humans have the right to dream anything!
Its still too early to dream but what the heck? We humans have the right to dream anything!
"The grand old Bowlers of Australia they gave away 253 runs and when they got to the top of the crease they gave as a extra"
My view
Pieterson and Vaughan did great and Australia saw Harmison for themselves, what a catch by Collingwood.
He's irish but doesn't qualify until after the Ashes. Pieterson and Bell > joyce.
Forget Harmison and Vaughan then.
They play for England Cricket Team not Pieterson R Us
My view
Pieterson and Vaughan did great and Australia saw Harmison for themselves, what a catch by Collingwood.
nickypoo said:
He's irish but doesn't qualify until after the Ashes. Pieterson and Bell > joyce.
barmyarmy said:
Forget Harmison and Vaughan then.
They play for England Cricket Team not Pieterson R Us
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
Ed Joyce qualifies for England on the 1st of July. The same day that the ICC Trophy starts in which he'll be playing for Ireland. We could end up with the bizarre situation where he helps Ireland qualify for the World Cup, then plays against them in the actual tournament!
sarwan
Club Cricketer
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Online Cricket Games Owned
u r wrong there.icc rule states that once a person represents a country.he cannot play for another country before 5-8 yers break.not sure abt the length of time.but there is a rule.when eng toured zim last yr,a zimbabwaen father didnt allow his son to play in zim a team.he wanted his son to play foe eng.think this was published in telegraph.
jazz said:
but still they would lose good amount of points and the gap between them and the rest of the nations would definitely bridge. i am not saying that they will fall down to No.2 or No.3 soon. They might remain No.1 for some more time but the gap would definitely narrow!
jonah
International Coach
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2001
- Online Cricket Games Owned
I've had a quick look around the net but can't find anything yet; I guess the catch was just so damn good nobody was quick enough to get the shotBriggsey said:
. Stunning 
, Colly has definately taken over Jonty's no1 point/backward point fielder spot.
vibs89
School Cricketer
Man all Australian players are above 30 years and some of them are under 30 years. Anyway who cares I hope ENG-BANG come in finla. that would be great.
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
Good game. I thought England would win initially, but I constantly changing my mind.
Gillespie struggled, as did Kasprowicz, to pressure batsmen and maintain economy. Gillespie's first over certainly allowed England a better start than they had played for. McGrath, Hogg and Watson, on the other hand did quite well.
Australia would certainly have benefited from a first slip in place for most of the game, the three chances that escaped Gilchrist were well catchable. The fields used late in the game to Lewis exhibited no pressure whatsoever on an unsettled rookie tailender. This was poor cricket, not necessarily solely by Ponting, as his faith in his bowlers may well have dwindled towards the end of the match. On a whole, the fielding was good from both sides, Collingwood's catch and Gilchrist's runout were both impressive.
Neither team was particularly effective in using short deliveries to rattle opposition batsmen, but England were definitely the better of the two. Australia need to reacquaint themselves with such a weapon (and I hate to say that probably means Brett Lee) to establish some standard of intimidation.
A number of England's wickets fell easily, without too much being deserved by Australia. Strauss' strange unnecessary chop-on and Collingwood's failed defence of a high ball showed points at which England threatened to hand the game over to Australia. Likewise, Damien Martyn made things easy for Harmison. Both teams will be expecting better top order performances, although England will likely want Pietersen up higher, while Symonds could possibly struggle to regain his place in the team (but I doubt it).
Vaughan's innings damn near killed England. His intention was to bat it out and bring it home, but in getting out he wasted so very much strike. Such an performance would have been severely detrimental chasing 270+. When Vaughan left, it was virtually a requirement that Pietersen post a big and fast score.
Fantastic news for followers of Mike Hussey, after more than a year since his ODI debut, he finally has an average. It would be the meagre number of 230.
England definitely played better today, but they will know that if there is room for improvement in Australia's game, they too will have to improve to meet Australia at the top of it's game.
Gillespie struggled, as did Kasprowicz, to pressure batsmen and maintain economy. Gillespie's first over certainly allowed England a better start than they had played for. McGrath, Hogg and Watson, on the other hand did quite well.
Australia would certainly have benefited from a first slip in place for most of the game, the three chances that escaped Gilchrist were well catchable. The fields used late in the game to Lewis exhibited no pressure whatsoever on an unsettled rookie tailender. This was poor cricket, not necessarily solely by Ponting, as his faith in his bowlers may well have dwindled towards the end of the match. On a whole, the fielding was good from both sides, Collingwood's catch and Gilchrist's runout were both impressive.
Neither team was particularly effective in using short deliveries to rattle opposition batsmen, but England were definitely the better of the two. Australia need to reacquaint themselves with such a weapon (and I hate to say that probably means Brett Lee) to establish some standard of intimidation.
A number of England's wickets fell easily, without too much being deserved by Australia. Strauss' strange unnecessary chop-on and Collingwood's failed defence of a high ball showed points at which England threatened to hand the game over to Australia. Likewise, Damien Martyn made things easy for Harmison. Both teams will be expecting better top order performances, although England will likely want Pietersen up higher, while Symonds could possibly struggle to regain his place in the team (but I doubt it).
Vaughan's innings damn near killed England. His intention was to bat it out and bring it home, but in getting out he wasted so very much strike. Such an performance would have been severely detrimental chasing 270+. When Vaughan left, it was virtually a requirement that Pietersen post a big and fast score.
Fantastic news for followers of Mike Hussey, after more than a year since his ODI debut, he finally has an average. It would be the meagre number of 230.
England definitely played better today, but they will know that if there is room for improvement in Australia's game, they too will have to improve to meet Australia at the top of it's game.
m_vaughan
Chairman of Selectors
Bang-Eng final.....dont see that happening....and dont want to see that happening.
Also guys like I said before, the Aussies are just going through a bad patch. Form is temporary but class is permanent, and the Aussies do have a lot of class.
The Aussies played a lot better today, which is why the win means so much. As far as Bangladesh are concerned, unless we have a few washouts, I dont see them winning any more matches. Their work is done, one surprise win in the tournament, as Whatmore has said earlier.
But it set the platform for Pieterson. Imagine if England were 120-6 instead of 160-6.
Also guys like I said before, the Aussies are just going through a bad patch. Form is temporary but class is permanent, and the Aussies do have a lot of class.
The Aussies played a lot better today, which is why the win means so much. As far as Bangladesh are concerned, unless we have a few washouts, I dont see them winning any more matches. Their work is done, one surprise win in the tournament, as Whatmore has said earlier.
But it set the platform for Pieterson. Imagine if England were 120-6 instead of 160-6.
