Cricket NZ V UK
Feb 6th 2007, 4:58 pm
#46
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: Sandringham, Vic
Posts: 350
Re: Cricket NZ V UK
I think that Strauss should be captain and Cook should be made vice captain and also be included in the ODI side. Strauss is not in great form currently but is a good player and a good captain for his county. Cook will more than likley be a future England captain so lets get him in both forms of the game now and get him some leadership exposure....
Feb 8th 2007, 11:53 pm
#47
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,949
Re: Cricket NZ V UK
Well done England today. I didn't think I'd see the day (particularly against this England team) when defeat would be snatched from the jaws of victory at 1/170.
I reckon it's a ploy to get some revenue from a 3rd final and to breathe a bit more interest into the comp.
Today proved that some of the players are capable of delivering even without Vaughan's presence (and lack of runs). Ponting, like Flintoff, wasn't too 'flash' to begin with as captain. Persist with Freddie and there's no need to keep looking backwards for Michael and feeling that the ship sinks without his helmanship.
OzTennis
I reckon it's a ploy to get some revenue from a 3rd final and to breathe a bit more interest into the comp.
Today proved that some of the players are capable of delivering even without Vaughan's presence (and lack of runs). Ponting, like Flintoff, wasn't too 'flash' to begin with as captain. Persist with Freddie and there's no need to keep looking backwards for Michael and feeling that the ship sinks without his helmanship.
OzTennis
Feb 9th 2007, 12:06 am
#48
Timelord
Joined: May 2006
Location: Lost in space...
Posts: 2,834
Re: Cricket NZ V UK
Well done England today. I didn't think I'd see the day (particularly against this England team) when defeat would be snatched from the jaws of victory at 1/170.
I reckon it's a ploy to get some revenue from a 3rd final and to breathe a bit more interest into the comp.
Today proved that some of the players are capable of delivering even without Vaughan's presence (and lack of runs). Ponting, like Flintoff, wasn't too 'flash' to begin with as captain. Persist with Freddie and there's no need to keep looking backwards for Michael and feeling that the ship sinks without his helmanship.
OzTennis
I reckon it's a ploy to get some revenue from a 3rd final and to breathe a bit more interest into the comp.
Today proved that some of the players are capable of delivering even without Vaughan's presence (and lack of runs). Ponting, like Flintoff, wasn't too 'flash' to begin with as captain. Persist with Freddie and there's no need to keep looking backwards for Michael and feeling that the ship sinks without his helmanship.
OzTennis
Feb 9th 2007, 12:33 am
#50
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Portsmouth, uk
Posts: 379
Re: Cricket NZ V UK
England showed the character that has been missing on this tour. Colly was brilliant - a really classy innings and superb fielding. Oz were aweful in the field and a collapse worthy of England.
If England win the toss at Sydney they could yet win the series!!! Plunkett will swing the ball at 90mph under the lights so anything can happen.
If England win the toss at Sydney they could yet win the series!!! Plunkett will swing the ball at 90mph under the lights so anything can happen.
Feb 9th 2007, 12:55 am
#51
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,949
Re: Cricket NZ V UK
You can say 9 times out of 10 that person won't win and usually you are right. There are more turning points in a ODI but I just had that feeling Bell, Collingwood and Flintoff would get to what was a modest total. Overs 45, 46, 47 and 48 were killers for Australia - few runs, 4 wickets, pinch hitter Watson out, 250 odd not a good enough total, 9 balls not used, 270 would have been probably been beyond England. Symonds (and White) were missed. Anyway, it makes it interesting for Sydney (and Melbourne again is it for game 3 if needed)?
I personally don't agree on Vaughan. If Flintoff was given a decent run and more experience as captain a better batsman than Vaughan could come in (not the Vaughan of 2 yrs or more ago, the ageing body, current form Vaughan). I feel a more experienced captain in Flintoff and a better batsman than Vaughan (eg Cook, mysteriously not used in ODI's) is England's answer. I, for obvious reasons, hope England keep looking back and not forward.
What did they say? Over 70 ODI's for Vaughan, no centuries, an average in the 20's, recent average below 20? Doesn't matter how good a captain you are, that's a passenger to me.
What concerns me slightly from an Aussie perspective is Gilly's form as an opener. He's capable of too much to be dropped but he'll need to pick up his game with the WC in mind. I would like Clarke in for Bracken and I'd also fit in Watson, White and Symonds if he's fit.
OzTennis
Feb 9th 2007, 6:01 am
#52
Melbourne Australia
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,169
Re: Cricket NZ V UK
When I saw 'Pigeon' drop Bell I said to my wife, 'that's it', England will win, even though they were 3/33 or something like that. In tennis we call it the 'moment of truth'. You can see someone with the upper hand and the 'moment of truth' comes and they don't take it.
You can say 9 times out of 10 that person won't win and usually you are right. There are more turning points in a ODI but I just had that feeling Bell, Collingwood and Flintoff would get to what was a modest total. Overs 45, 46, 47 and 48 were killers for Australia - few runs, 4 wickets, pinch hitter Watson out, 250 odd not a good enough total, 9 balls not used, 270 would have been probably been beyond England. Symonds (and White) were missed. Anyway, it makes it interesting for Sydney (and Melbourne again is it for game 3 if needed)?
I personally don't agree on Vaughan. If Flintoff was given a decent run and more experience as captain a better batsman than Vaughan could come in (not the Vaughan of 2 yrs or more ago, the ageing body, current form Vaughan). I feel a more experienced captain in Flintoff and a better batsman than Vaughan (eg Cook, mysteriously not used in ODI's) is England's answer. I, for obvious reasons, hope England keep looking back and not forward.
What did they say? Over 70 ODI's for Vaughan, no centuries, an average in the 20's, recent average below 20? Doesn't matter how good a captain you are, that's a passenger to me.
What concerns me slightly from an Aussie perspective is Gilly's form as an opener. He's capable of too much to be dropped but he'll need to pick up his game with the WC in mind. I would like Clarke in for Bracken and I'd also fit in Watson, White and Symonds if he's fit.
OzTennis
You can say 9 times out of 10 that person won't win and usually you are right. There are more turning points in a ODI but I just had that feeling Bell, Collingwood and Flintoff would get to what was a modest total. Overs 45, 46, 47 and 48 were killers for Australia - few runs, 4 wickets, pinch hitter Watson out, 250 odd not a good enough total, 9 balls not used, 270 would have been probably been beyond England. Symonds (and White) were missed. Anyway, it makes it interesting for Sydney (and Melbourne again is it for game 3 if needed)?
I personally don't agree on Vaughan. If Flintoff was given a decent run and more experience as captain a better batsman than Vaughan could come in (not the Vaughan of 2 yrs or more ago, the ageing body, current form Vaughan). I feel a more experienced captain in Flintoff and a better batsman than Vaughan (eg Cook, mysteriously not used in ODI's) is England's answer. I, for obvious reasons, hope England keep looking back and not forward.
What did they say? Over 70 ODI's for Vaughan, no centuries, an average in the 20's, recent average below 20? Doesn't matter how good a captain you are, that's a passenger to me.
What concerns me slightly from an Aussie perspective is Gilly's form as an opener. He's capable of too much to be dropped but he'll need to pick up his game with the WC in mind. I would like Clarke in for Bracken and I'd also fit in Watson, White and Symonds if he's fit.
OzTennis
Only caught the first 3 overs of the UK innings (think it was 3 for 15
) now wake up to a great victory
Well done England now I dont feel so bad after the Kiwi loss
Feb 9th 2007, 6:37 am
#53
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: Cricket NZ V UK
England beat Australia by 4 wickets
Australia won the toss and decided to bat
Australia Innings
252 all out (48.3 overs)
England Innings
253 for 6 (49.3 overs)
Congratulations to the Poms on a nailbiting finish and a well deserved victory!
Feb 9th 2007, 7:01 am
#54
Banned
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: woking england
Posts: 169
Re: Cricket NZ V UK
England beat Australia by 4 wickets
Australia won the toss and decided to bat
Australia Innings
252 all out (48.3 overs)
England Innings
253 for 6 (49.3 overs)
Congratulations to the Poms on a nailbiting finish and a well deserved victory!
recently england have had injuries and dont really have the strength in depth to fill them.
in the ashes tests, some wickets were lost with some bad decisions. (strauss) that might' have let england scrape one test.. maybe.
i dont think england are that bad a team, rather i think that theaussie test team is an all time great team! they may be getting on a bit but they looked as good as the viv richards era west indians..
the aussies looked a little casual today i thought, same as when they lost the ashes in england..
freddies boys might have been a bit lucky today but it makes for interesting games now..
i dont think the english are that bothered about cricket now days. football is king. thats why we havent got two 'freddies'
sad i think
Feb 9th 2007, 9:05 am
#55
Forum Regular
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Randwick
Posts: 208
Re: Cricket NZ V UK
3-15 what a match and advert for cricket,
oh and the worst EVER England team!!!!!!!!!!!
(redemption)
oh and the worst EVER England team!!!!!!!!!!!
(redemption)
Feb 9th 2007, 12:31 pm
#56
'In limboland'
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,880
Re: Cricket NZ V UK
Well done Colly. Whoopee..................
