Ashes 2013 - see mod warning in post 689

Jonny_Darcy

dom17 wrote: »

Did it not occur to you that England capitulated because of the bowling

It certainly did but i dont think that tells the whole story. I think they bowled very well as unit keeping it tight and keeping the pressure on batsmen however alot of the errors and pressure generated was down to very poor play from batsman and poor shot selection, not due to exceptional bowling.

Harris' ball for Cook's duck was an absolute beauty

Gillespy

I wonder would Flower be taking this stance if he didn't have the backing of Cook and other senior players?

kryogen

ODI

Aus 1
Eng 0

Rjd2

kryogen wrote: »

ODI

Aus 1
Eng 0

Could whitewash them, best bet for England is to hope complacency sets in for Australia and they take their eye off the ball or rest to many players.

It has happened before in ODI series but its grim for England that is what they have to hope for.

Beasty

Meanwhile Australia are 57-5 requiring 185 to win the Women's Test in Perth - y'see it's not all gloom and doom downunder ....:D

kryogen

Rjd2 wrote: »

Could whitewash them, best bet for England is to hope complacency sets in for Australia and they take their eye off the ball or rest to many players.

It has happened before in ODI series but its grim for England that is what they have to hope for.

Cook is woefully out of form, Root too, the whole top order need to be doing so much more tbh. The Aussie ODI team is very different to the Test team and have been playing good stuff for a long time.

Should be a good end to the Ashes series from my point of view anyway, I do hope England make it competitive though. Morgan could have got a big score in the first, and probably should have, another 40 or 50 runs were needed imo to put Australia under pressure in that match, not the 20 or so Cook said.

riffmongous

Is there any competition for Rankin's place in this squad too? No wickets today.

Rjd2

To be fair England have been a decent ODI team for a while and did beat Australia in 2012 and in the champions trophy, just right now confidence is shot.

Some things England need to worry about. Wtf has happened Finn always a gun ODI bowler seems destined not to play in this tour, what have the bowling coaches and he done to his game?

buttler at 8 is just lunacy, so often he has not enough time to take England to an imposing total and has to swing from the hips,what makes it worse he has been in savage form in the BBL.

Trott actually was a better ODI player than test in 2013, he will be missed from this format.

Australia look very good though, not many obvious weaknesses, Mc Kay is a bit meh for me but plenty waiting in the wings to replace him.

Favorites for the 2015 ODI world cup for me.

Gillespy

Yes, it's a long way off but Australia are looking strong for the world cup. Good depth in batting and bowling. Match-winners with bat and ball too.

Rjd2

riffmongous wrote: »

Is there any competition for Rankin's place in this squad too? No wickets today.

Finn, Tredwell and Briggs,oh and as if England did not have enough, Chris all rounder Woakes.

Gillespy

Broad might be fit for the next game too.

Bresnan hasn't done much either.

Royale with Cheese

Rankin never looked good enough for England to me. Has probably thrown away his Ireland career for one test and a handful of ODIs.

Rjd2

Gillespy wrote: »

Yes, it's a long way off but Australia are looking strong for the world cup. Good depth in batting and bowling. Match-winners with bat and ball too.

Yep, interesting to see if they will trust harris's body to give him a go, absolute gun record in that format and much better option than someone like Mc Kay.

kryogen

Rjd2 wrote: »

To be fair England have been a decent ODI team for a while and did beat Australia in 2012 and in the champions trophy, just right now confidence is shot.

Some things England need to worry about. Wtf has happened Finn always a gun ODI bowler seems destined not to play in this tour, what have the bowling coaches and he done to his game?

buttler at 8 is just lunacy, so often he has not enough time to take England to an imposing total and has to swing from the hips,what makes it worse he has been in savage form in the BBL.

Trott actually was a better ODI player than test in 2013, he will be missed from this format.

Australia look very good though, not many obvious weaknesses, Mc Kay is a bit meh for me but plenty waiting in the wings to replace him.

Favorites for the 2015 ODI world cup for me.

They beat Australia in 2012, but Australia beat them in England, after the last Ashes Test series so its not as if Australia have shocked England here, the confidence would have been high in the summer and Australia still won. I dunno whats happening with Finn, he has said himself he has lost it and he needs to get it back, he said it just isnt happening for him right now. Hope he works through it and rediscovers form, I like Finn.

Trott is certainly going to be missed, Mc Kay is ok, and as you say, there are plenty to take his place if he doesnt get the job done.

If they can carry this form and confidence with them to the WC they will certainly be heavy favorites for it

kryogen

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

Rankin never looked good enough for England to me. Has probably thrown away his Ireland career for one test and a handful of ODIs.

Even if he has, at least he took his shot

Royale with Cheese

kryogen wrote: »

Even if he has, at least he took his shot

Yeah I don't really blame him. It's just a bit of a shít situation. I wonder do the ECB even consider any of this when picking him for a game or two and then casting him aside.

riffmongous

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

Yeah I don't really blame him. It's just a bit of a shít situation. I wonder do the ECB even consider any of this when picking him for a game or two and then casting him aside.

I doubt it,look at Joyce, took the fall for a poor world cup and then never given another look in and had to spend 4 years in the international wilderness

kryogen

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

Yeah I don't really blame him. It's just a bit of a shít situation. I wonder do the ECB even consider any of this when picking him for a game or two and then casting him aside.

Dont think they give a **** tbh

Rjd2

The Warwickshire connection with Giles hopefully should ensure he gets one or two more opportunities, why else is Chris Woakes in the squad:pac:

Dozen Wicked Words

England Women won their ashes test match today, so onto the one dayers and t20 stuff now.

Not really seen much women's cricket but at least this series looks like it's going to be close, unlike the men's game which looks like England could finish whole tour with a big fat nil.

/crumb of comfort to English fans.

djimi

Rjd2 wrote: »

The Warwickshire connection with Giles hopefully should ensure he gets one or two more opportunities, why else is Chris Woakes in the squad:pac:

Woakes is in the squad because he is consistently good for Warwickshire with both bat and ball. He has yet to show anything like his true ability yet when playing for England, but if he can click at the ODI or even test format then he is going to be a very good player for England.

djimi

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

Rankin never looked good enough for England to me. Has probably thrown away his Ireland career for one test and a handful of ODIs.

For me, Rankin looks like the kind of bowler that England were lacking, in theory. His height and bounce make him a handful when he is bowling well, and he has been doing well in the CC for Warwickshire.

The problem that he faces is that he is simply not quick enough for test level. If he could add say 5mph to his speed and get up to the low 90s consistently then he would be a very different proposition, and a bowler who could be genuinely dangerous to face (Im thinking Harmison in his pomp; something England never really replaced). But as we saw with Johnson, short pitched bowling at 92mph is a different game to short pitched bowling at 87mph, and that is where Rankin is going to suffer I fear. As was pointed out before, I dont think his body is physically capable of standing up to the extra pressure of bowling that quick.

wicorthered

Never thought Rankin was good enough for England. Even his ODI record for Ireland, considering he played mainly against sub standard associate batsmen while good wasn't great. I don't even think he was Ireland's best bowler, at times Trent completely out bowled him. That being said he couldn't really turn down the chance to play test cricket. I'm sure he had Giles in his ear telling him to retire from Ireland because his England chance would come. I doubt you'll see him in English colours again after this winter and with his injury record and 2 year requalification period I'd imagine that'd be him done with international cricket. Even though he'll miss out on 2 world cups with Ireland, I'm sure when he retires he won't have any regrets over his decision.

On Woakes, I think he just lacks that bit of pace to trouble international batsmen. His batting keeps him in the mix and reminds me of the days of Adam Hollioake, Mark Ealham etc bits and pieces players almost but not quite good enough for International cricket.

Gillespy

Rankin was to be their Tremlett on this Ashes tour. They should have played him at the WACA when the pitch was in his favour and the series still to play for. He left himself down in the last test but it was an impossible situation at the end of a long tour.

Rjd2

djimi wrote: »

Woakes is in the squad because he is consistently good for Warwickshire with both bat and ball. He has yet to show anything like his true ability yet when playing for England, but if he can click at the ODI or even test format then he is going to be a very good player for England.

As a four day player he has been good for Warwickshire but his previous run outs in the ODI stuff for England have been underwhelming to say the least.

Think if he makes it for England it will be as a test player.

y0ssar1an22

Just back to the test series for a minute, and the problem of playing an all rounder:

Full time bowler goes at 3.1 an over (broad, anderson).
Stokes goes at 4.2 an over.
Overs bowled per innings: 20

That means for stokes to recover the extra runs he concedes he needs to average 22. His current average is 35, so his bowling-adjusted average is 13.

Do you think you are better going in with a full time batman at 6, with 4 dedicated bowlers at 8-11? And have root and pieterson as part timers?

Compare with watson: Bowling economy = 2.76.
therefore his bowling adjusted batting average average = 3.1 - 2.76 = .35 x 20 overs = 7. That means that his bowling adjusted batting average is: 36 (current batting avg) + 7 (runs saved by bowling) 43.


I think this is kind of interesting, sort of a cost-benefit analysis of having an all rounder in the team.

Kallis:

Bowling economy: 2.82
Average economy: 3.1
Difference: .28
20 overs will save: 5.6 runs

Batting avg: 55.37
Bowling adjusted batting avg: 55.37 + 5.6 = 61.

Gillespy

That system brought England great success albeit with Swann in the team. No Swann now, they might feel they need a fifth bowler. Stokes being an all-rounder is exactly what they need at this moment in time.

His bowling is expensive but old ball in a team on the back foot all the time and it being his first taste of test cricket, he did okay. I think his bowling is actually more impressive than his batting, he isn't a 6. England have tried so many at 6 in the last few years and no one made it their own. His 100 will buy him time there.

riffmongous

That's an interesting analysis. Maybe you need to look at comparing an allrounder to the part timers too though in a numerical way?

And also of course Stokes took more wickets than Anderson at a lower average. I think in test cricket average runs per wicket could be more important than economy

y0ssar1an22

riffmongous wrote: »

That's an interesting analysis. Maybe you need to look at comparing an allrounder to the part timers too though in a numerical way?

And also of course Stokes took more wickets than Anderson at a lower average. I think in test cricket average runs per wicket could be more important than economy

thats true enough on the economy vs average. I'll look into root and pieterson's figures when I get time.
Perhaps there is a way to incorporate wickets taken as well.

kryogen

It may be a tour match, but England won a game of cricket!!

Rankin took a couple of wickets too, PM XI collapsed to 92 all out in 26 overs chasing an England target of 264, Bopara took 4 for 3 in 4 overs

Cook went almost for a duck, lasted two balls

Carberry scored 47 off 50, Root scratched around again making 1 run before getting out LBW to Lee after 14 balls, Ballance and Butler both made half centurys.