The Cricket [The road less travelled...]

You know, it may make me sound like a bitch, but England didn't win the cricket, Australia lost it. We deserved to lose, of course, because we played as badly as I have ever seen Australia play, and even our one win was luck in a lot of ways. Our batsmen were the height of patheticness, and other than Shane Warne (and Glen McGrath in the first test) our bowlers also failed. However, our captain's temper tantrums were, to me, the most humiliating part of the tour.

That said, the English team weren't that much better. Flintoff was the equivalent of Warne in terms of great bowling, but otherwise, most of your wickets, like those Australia took, were the result of bad decisions/play on the part of the batsmen. None of the English batsmen really stood up in every single match and produced consistent innings.

Australia is going to have to make major changes over the next few months. Those who need to go: Ponting, Hayden, Langer, Martin, McGrath. Gilchrist needs to concentrate more on his keeping and stop trying to be the saviour when he clearly can't take the pressure. He certainly shouldn't be the next captain. If Clarke got more confidence he would make an excellent captain, moving Australia on from the Steve Waugh days. We also HAVE to get rid of John Buchanan, who is far too fixed in his ways. Then we can look at winning away from home again.

December

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3	4	5	6	7 1
8	9 1	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Well I haven't followed it particularly, although I did find myself becoming interested in it, but from what I've heard/seen I agree with you. And I think part of the problem may have been over-confidence on the part of the Aussies - they came here so convinced they were going to win easily that they didn't necessarily have the strength of mind to then overcome their problems when they occurred. But then most of that statement has been formed after reading English tabloids so it may be totally inaccurate! :)

[link] [reply]

I think that's probably a fair point, although I can't say what the Aussie team's POV might have been. That was certainly what the Aussie media thought though.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I've been watching this series on and off, thanks to my boyfriend who's madly into all things sport, and I totally agree with you. Going into the series, Australia seemed to be over-confident, which judging by their form of the last few years, is probably justified, but I think that they really did not play as well as they could and should. The stand out was definitely Warne this year, no one else really did anything for the game as much as him.

I disagree slightly. I think that England played as a team whereas Australia played as eleven individuals and that's really what split the difference between the two sides. True enough, Flintoff's contribution came in every match (except Lord's), but there was at least three out of the five other batsmen firing with him - and at Old Trafford, every English batsman made a good contribution. With the bowling, I think a lot of the wickets were down to bad decisions on the part of the Aussie batsmen, but they were forced into making them because the English bowlers bottled them up and ultimately prevented them from playing their normal game (the sort of thing that, in previous years, Australia have been excellent at). To give the England bowlers no credit in those downfalls is very unfair.

Where I completely agree with you is who needs to go from the Australian side (barring Langer, who I think, has had a pretty good series really - he's the one Aussie batsman who consistantly made England work for his wicket, and you need SOME experience going into your home series). The question is, if you get rid of Ponting, who do you bring in as captain in the interim? You can't saddle Michael Clarke with the job just yet.

The team mentality thing may have had something to do with it, and I would suggest part of that comes from the unexpected absence of Glen McGrath in the second match. (Not that McGrath himself holds the team together, but losing one person from a tight unit shakes them all up.) The Aussies are almost a clique who do badly with new people and I blame Buchanan for fostering that in them.

I agree that England's bowlers were good, but they weren't consistent (other than Flintoff). I don't give them no credit at all, but I tend to feel that most wickets, particularly from fast bowlers come from mistakes by the batsmen. It's really the spinners who make a wicket fall, fast bowlers seem to just hurl the ball and hope it scares the batsmen enough that he muffs it.

Langer isn't as bad as some of the others, but his scores in this series haven't been that impressive and I'm not feeling forgiving. *lol* However, he could be a stand-in captain for a year or two. Brad Hogg would be another who could fill that role.

I forgot to add Gillespie to my list of must-goes.

I think you can give Clare the position of captain. If you're remaking the team, you almost have to, as he has had most experience of international play. He would also grow into it. No one would expect the team to immediately have the success it did under Waugh and (except lately) Ponting, but in a few years, it would. And then our captains tend to be middle-order batsmen rather than bowlers or keepers. Also, don't forget that the Aussie A team does play quite a lot of intermational cricket, so they have the experience that other newcomers to teams might not.

My future team (if you're interested) would be:
Nathan Bracken (Fast-medium bowler) (28)
Michael Clarke (Middle order batsman) (24) (Captain)
Dan Cullen (Bowler) (21)
Adam Gilchrist (Keeper) (33) - test matches
Brad Haddin (Wicketkeeper batsman) (27) - one day matches
Brad Hodge (Batsmen at 3 or 4) (30)
Brad Hogg (All-rounder) (34)
Mike Hussey (Opening batsman) (30)
Michael Kasprowicz (Medium-fast bowler (33)
Justin Langer (Opening batsman) (34) - test matches
Simon Katich (Batsmen in at 4 or 5) (30)
Brett Lee (Fast bowler) (28)
Stuart McGill (Spin bowler) (34)
Andrew Symons (Opening batsmen) - one day matches
Shaun Tait (Fast bowler) (22)
Shane Warne (Spin bowler) (36)
Shane Watson (All-rounder) (24)
Cameron White (Spin bowler) (22) (Vice-Captain)

Assume that, in two or three years, we lose Gilchrist, Hogg, Kasprowicz, Langer, McGill and Warne (and as they are all 34 or older, it can only be a matter of time). That leaves twelve men who, if they have been shuffled in and out of the team enough to get the experience (and not just in dead rubbers!) can become a really strong team in five years (maximum).

Oops, *Clarke. Clare - makes him sound like even more of a girl than he looks with that blond hair!

I would argue that the bowlers were consistent - the wickets were evenly shared between them, with the exception of Giles, who wasn't there in an attacking mode. The mistakes were forced because of good fielding - for example using deep point/backward point against Langer. One of his eye scoring areas, but it was denied him because of the fielder there.

Australia had just smashed NZ. For them to make the errors that they did when they'd been playing so well as a team in that series (and yes, I just watched a programme comparing playing NZ and Bangladesh as build-up as part of the Ashes Fever stuff) suggests that England did something out of the ordinary.

I heard one commentator say that the England team had borrowed many of the tools Australia has used for a long time in practice (computer images, etc.), and that may have contributed to the changes in England's fielding that were evident and probably did play some role in their wins.

I don't think New Zealand is as strong as England, particularly not having the programs of developing younger players so that they can fit into the team. Their great bowlers are ageing, as Australia's are. England's team is (or at least seems to be) much younger and that, added to a new coach and new attitudes, makes a big difference.

England took the Aussie stuff and took it further, particularly with the individual tactics (Flintoff/Gilchrist for example) for particular opponents. We've had fletch for 6 years, but we've had injury problems.
And then there's Merlyn, and the mental attitude lessons.

No, NZ aren't as strong as England, but they're no daft outfit - I believe they're above the hundred bar on the ICC league?

Or they were :).

I disagree. Australia always targets certain players and moulds their game to match the way that player plays. And I'm not saying that all of your team is new, but I would guess that, of all the test-playing nations, if there was an average of how long players have been playing, Australia would have the longest figure and England among the shortest.

I really don't pay much attention to the ICC standards, because I have basically nothing but contempt for the ICC as a whole. Still, it's nice to be number one. ;-)

The ICC as a whole is contemptible, but the ranking scheme is one they nicked, not one they created :).

Yup, and how long will that be for?

Ah, that explains why there is some skerrick (sp?) of logic to it then.

And it will be until someone passes us, of course. :-P

Which will be by Easter

I don't know, I think we'll play more cricket than you before then, as your summer is nearly over and ours has barely begun.

But we have two tours. India and Pakistan with lots of rankings points...

We have the West Indies and South Africa in Australia, as well as the Super Series (if that counts, which I think it does), so I think we've got more chance of winning those than you do of winning as many matches in both your series, particularly in light of your comment about match-fixing. ;-P

Super Series is for individual ranking points, but I'm not sure that it counts for team ranking points. Windies and Saffies.

Having checked the current rankings - lots of points from India and Safrica, relatively few points from Pakistan and Windies. Potentially, we can get more points that Australia can over the winter, and we can lose fewer points.

We'd better agree to differ and just see what happens at the end of it all...

*giggles*
yup :)

There have been Australians on the news also saying this. It amuses me ^_^ *doesn't give a crap about the cricket, sorry*

*lol* I suppose it does sound a bit ungenerous, but I've even heard some English supporters saying it, which does seem to back up the idea.

And you don't have to care! *hugs*

Oh, I'm STILL going around telling people that winning a Rugby game and a World Cup by kicking isn't really winning. I get into arguments with English people about it all the time =D

The Irish cricket team threw a wobbly on the news a few weeks ago because they have almost no support and they were qualifying for the World Cup. I'd feel bad for them... but it's cricket, for god's sake! We're not bred to love it like you guys ;p

*lol* We are pathetic fanatics! I get excited about cricket and enjoy tennis, but that's it. Any code of football/rugby/soccer bores me to tears (my father's team is heading for the grand final - help me!), as do golf and assorted other sports. *sigh* Maybe I should move in with you and we can bitch about sport together! Yay!

English supporters will say it. We like to be as generous in victory as we are in defeat. I think it would be fair to say that if we beat Pakistan (big if) then it's fair to say we beat Australia as well - we've just won rather a lot (for us) of series on the trot.

I say that it was a damn good series, which went to the wire, and if England hadn't choked through not used to winning vs Australia then we'd have won it 3-1.

I had thought/hoped Australians could be generous in defeat, but instead the players look like sulky schoolboys given detention for bad behaviour. (Still not impressed by that.) I don't agree with your Pakistan point, though, because the Pakkies aren't in the same league as England or Australia. (Not in tests, anyway. They come closer in one dayers.

Which match are you saying England should have won and didn't to make it 3-1?

Trafford. The Rain. And Stupid Pietersen's drops!

The Pakistani team are very hard to defeat on home turf. As are the Indians.

Ah, yes, how could I have forgotten? *lol* That said, I'm not sure the rain was anyone's fault.

And (it has to be said!) we beat both teams, so England should have a fair shot!

*grins*

What were the results in the sub-continent? We've beaten pakistan away, I know, but I didn't know the Aussie record away in the subcontinent...

I think we beat India in 2003 (could be last year, not sure) and that was the first time we won a series against India in India, so I do see what you mean. I don't exactly know when we beat Pakistan, but I know we have.

I know you have but... So have we

Then you should have no problem doing it again! :-D

*sniggers*

Yeah, right. Match-fixing central...

The road less travelled...

The Cricket

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

December