World Cup Semi Final 2 Thursday July 11; England v Australia @ Edgbaston

[Carbine Chaos]

It's the backing of Stoinis that bemuses me. Mitch Marsh is a very good ODI cricketer and has built a solid career in the format for himself. We had two chances to get rid of Marcus and do the right thing, but we chose not to? Stoinis can strut around the ground as much as he wants, he was lucky enough to play the knock of a lifetime on a joke of a NZ oval and he seems to be an automatic selection since.

That ODI Player of the Year award he got was undeserved and probably should have remained N/A for that season.

People underestimate how important the loss of Jhye was. He's perfect for English conditions and I don't think we win the Ashes if he doesn't get up. Hazlewood will waste the new ball time after time by bowling short of a length, it's so predictable.

I think making the semis is about right for the squad we managed to put out. Langer was building something pre-World Cup and the team was a little disrupted headed in with the inclusions of Warner and Smith. I think with a bit more time he'll have them purring.

I would like to see more positive batting in the opening PP. That's the big advantage we gain with Finch and Warner (the latter in particular). Playing Langer's Scorchers style play, conservative at the start, doesn't make sense with the cattle we have at the top. Let them play their natural games, or look at blooding somebody like Max Bryant in the next few years who can make the most of those early overs.

 

[Balls In]

Lol. No it wasn't.

England were a far superior side who bowled exceptionally to our top order. Better batsmen, better bowlers. We knew this going into the WC.

To say the selections cost us the match is a convenient excuse. We simply lost to a much better side.

We were beaten on the day and its was a combination of lots of things. Carrying at least two players didn't exactly help. We had two chances to replace Stoinis and failed, persisted with Maxwell and replaced Khawaja in the side with Handscome. The only bloke who could be excused from that lot was Handscomb, yet most people were perplexed he was chosen over Wade.

So basically our worst nightmare eventuates when our openers get done by a hooping ball and the problem we didn't bother fixing all series gets us shot us in the arse. What is worse was Smith and Cary could easily have had pushing a 280 + score if even one of them had performed. Having said that our bowling sucked last night as well.

 

[KiwiRoo]

Dont disagree with your comparisons, but i think that you should add that England have a more dangerous spinner & their batting line also bats much deeper than the Aussies
So not far superior, but definitely superior

 

[CrowBloke]

Woody15 more evidence:

Credit where credit's due --- England are ranked #1 because of consistently high-quality performances. Certainly the best-performed ODI side of the last 12-18 months, no question.

 

[Balls In]

LOL

We got beaten by 8 wickets mate.

Wade was never going to be the difference between us winning and losing.

You cant say that even. What if he came in and scored 150 off 120 balls?

 

[Van_Dyke]

If he were Australian it would be the only thing anyone is talking about right now.

This, if he were Australian then it would be the biggest news out of the game. some cricket writers who have been awfully quiet about this wouldn’t be so quiet if an Australian did that.

 

[KiwiRoo]

Lol @ labelling Archer the next Anderson. I could be proven wrong but Archer strikes me as the type that will be feasted on when it comes to the Ashes - completely different game.

England were the better team for the last 4 years and were deserving winners overnight. They deserve to win the tournament - but gee I hope the sheep shaggers give them a massive rodgering.

Long form cricket is obviously a different game. But that Archer has some skills. Quick, accurate, gets bounce. that's enough to build a pretty good career !
Not like hes going to be bowling to Hayden, Langer,Waugh, Ponting, Gilchrist etc

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

That's some mighty fine, triumphant, time-travel, I-told-you-so, right there.

Got the nag who'll win the 2019 Melbourne Cup, please?

The whole board has ignored Xtreme now and I suggest you do the same. All he does is try to antagonise people. Not worth the energy.

 

[Woody15]

No, not at all, and no again.
I've made several posts that give full credit to England for their Semi-final win eg below, bold italics for emphasis :
"CrowBloke, post: 61773597, member: 181165"]
Just saw Finch on Ch24 saying "We were outplayed". Comprehensively!
My "on the day" emphasis is to make the distinction between "far superior" or "best side", as opposed to what happens on the day in any given ODI, especially a World Cup semi-final.
England were much better on the day.
Are they a 'far superior' side, man for man? Not so much. Stokes is the outstanding difference, for sure. Stoinis is not in his league. Still, I'd rather Finch/Warner over Bairstow/Roy (especially in their WC form), Smith over Root, and Starc/Berehndorff/Cummins over Woakes/Archer/Wood"

Im not sure why you are digging up posts that I have already responded to. Im sure all the other posters dont want to keep reading you flooding this thread.

You seem to side with the belief that England just got the better of us on the day and that they are not a superior side. I completely disagree. Their openers are one of the highest averaging partnerships in ODI history - http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283664.html - averaging 20 more than Warner and Finch.

They have a better ODI spinner.

They have a better all rounder.

Their middle order is much more potent.

They bat deeper.

As other posters have pointed out, you seem to hang onto the result at Lords as some strange reason to say we are on par with England talent wise when we are clearly not. Its such a bizarre point to cling to.

 

[CrowBloke]

The whole board has ignored Xtreme now and I suggest you do the same. All he does is try to antagonise people. Not worth the energy.

Noted, thanks.

 

[Slow Love]

No, not at all, and no again.
I've made several posts that give full credit to England for their Semi-final win eg below, bold italics for emphasis :
"CrowBloke, post: 61773597, member: 181165"]
Just saw Finch on Ch24 saying "We were outplayed". Comprehensively!
My "on the day" emphasis is to make the distinction between "far superior" or "best side", as opposed to what happens on the day in any given ODI, especially a World Cup semi-final.
England were much better on the day.
Are they a 'far superior' side, man for man? Not so much. Stokes is the outstanding difference, for sure. Stoinis is not in his league. Still, I'd rather Finch/Warner over Bairstow/Roy (especially in their WC form), Smith over Root, and Starc/Berehndorff/Cummins over Woakes/Archer/Wood"

CrowBloke you seem like a guy I'd get along with in real life but I'm a Hawk supporter so clearly that's not an option.

I think the main point of debate here is whether England is a far superior ODI side to Australia. I would say they are, even acknowledging that we managed to beat them twice (if we include warm-up games) this tourney.

You said you'd take Finch and Warner over Roy and Bairstow. Finch and Warner were great but Roy is a freaking force of nature and Warner has struggled with his strike rate and Finch has a definite weakness to in-swingers so I'd take Roy and Bairstow any day.

Root vs Smith is tough. Smith is a genius and will get you home more often than not but does he have the same ability as Root to capitalise on a fast start? I have my doubts. I think this is a dead heat though because Smith is amazing against the odds.

Morgan/Stokes/Buttler vs Handscomb/Carey/Stoinis is an easy win for England. Even if Carey has shown he's got steel in his veins and he's proven he belongs in this squad.

Starc was awesome but England's bowling lineup is far more potent.

Granted, I started to tire here but I think we've hit downhill skiing level when we compare the bowling lineups if Starc doesn't fire.

Wish I had covered Wade but I suspect he's another John Inverarity or David Hookes and doesn't have what it takes at this level. Happy to be wrong though.

 

[CrowBloke]

As other posters have pointed out, you seem to hang onto the result at Lords as some strange reason to say we are on par with England talent wise when we are clearly not. Its such a bizarre point to cling to.

I was responding directly to your questions:
"Do you find it hard to praise the opposition and admit where we stand in comparison? Or is everything easier to dismiss as 'being better on the day' ?".
If you don't like the frequency of my posting, stop asking me questions maybe?

As for "flooding the thread" which is in its 165th page, Report me, and if the Mods think I've been overdoing it, they'll let me know, fair enough?
You have your opinions; I have mine. Opinions aren't right or wrong; they are just impressions, and can be very different subjective responses to observing the same thing. eg somebody said above that Smith made no contribution last night. I disagree. Looked to me like he top-scored with 80-odd and batted deep into the innings. That's some contribution!
Someone else said that Langer and Ponting are idiots/morons. I disagree. They've got extensive cricket experience, achievements and nouse and deserve more respect than that.

 

[CrowBloke]

1) CrowBloke you seem like a guy I'd get along with in real life but I'm a Hawk supporter so clearly that's not an option.

LOL
One of my best mates and his son are Port supporters . The enemy here.
We avoid talking footy, is all.

 

[Woody15]

I was responding directly to your questions:
"Do you find it hard to praise the opposition and admit where we stand in comparison? Or is everything easier to dismiss as 'being better on the day' ?".
If you don't like the frequency of my posting, stop asking me questions maybe?

As for "flooding the thread" which is in its 165th page, Report me, and if the Mods think I've been overdoing it, they'll let me know, fair enough?
You have your opinions; I have mine. Opinions aren't right or wrong; they are just impressions, and can be very different subjective responses to observing the same thing. eg somebody said above that Smith made no contribution last night. I disagree. Looked to me like he top-scored with 80-odd and batted deep into the innings. That's some contribution!
Someone else said that Langer and Ponting are idiots/morons. I disagree. They've got extensive cricket experience, achievements and nouse and deserve more respect than that.

You've just quoted a couple of my posts from pages back after I had stopped responding to you. Those questions were asked pages back and had since been responded to. I dont know why you're still going on about them. You're carrying on a bit. If you wish to continue, I suggest for the sake of the other posters who I'm sure do not want to keep reading the same long-winded argument from you and me over and over again, take it to a PM. I really dont care.

My comment with regards to praising the opposition was in regards to you being unable to entertain the thought that England are a more talented side than Australia - they just were on the day - which I find to be rubbish. Its such a ridiculous point to argue over and over again.

If you disagree - good for you.

 

[eddiesmith]

You cant say that even. What if he came in and scored 150 off 120 balls?

Matthew Wades past performances suggest a first ball duck far more likely in tough conditions at ODI level.

The thing is, with the ball moving as it was last night, Khawaja probably fails as well if he was fit at no3, never liked that much movement either.

 

[boondy]

I called your opinion that we were on par, or England were just a better side on the day or your reluctance to accept England are a better side clueless. Not you. Big difference. I did not insult you personally. Stop being so precious.

Thanks for your cricket career history (well done on what you've achieved) but with all due respect that really doesn't carry your opinion any further or give it more weight - neither does your bolded, italicised words.

The 50/50 selections were exactly that. Whilst people had preferences and selections had pros and cons, they were absolutely not the reason we lost. I wanted Wade in but I'm not going to sit here and pretend it would have been the difference or as you put it "lost at the selection table". Its such a convenient excuse. This is what you said in your first post and I absolutely disagree. England have been the sleeping giant in this WC to a certain extent and most realised it was only a matter of time until they woke up.

You can go on and on about being better on the day and bring up the Lord's match. The chances of us repeating it giving the addition of Roy, the difference in pitch and our unstable side as a result of injuries was always going to be minimal. Fact is, we just weren't good enough. I dont know why you're placing such an emphasis on your argument "on the day" with the posters you're engaging with.

I love a good stouch lets call this a draw.

 

[CrowBloke]

2) I think the main point of debate here is whether England is a far superior ODI side to Australia. I would say they are, even acknowledging that we managed to beat them twice (if we include warm-up games) this tourney.
3) You said you'd take Finch and Warner over Roy and Bairstow. Finch and Warner were great but Roy is a freaking force of nature and Warner has struggled with his strike rate and Finch has a definite weakness to in-swingers so I'd take Roy and Bairstow any day.

2) Last 18 months, give or take? Most definitely.
In this tournament? We beat each other, once. That's on par. We had more wins than them, but it's of no consequence. They won the one that matters, so the fact they made it to the Final and we didn't makes them the better side.
3) Again, in this tournament, yes. Not over the last 18 months, clearly. Warner (647 runs) + Finch (507) scored more than Bairstow (496) and Roy (426). Starc and Cummins took more wickets than Archer/Wood (41-36) but not a huge difference, really.
My Aussie bias wins, there.

 

[CrowBloke]

4) Root vs Smith is tough. Smith is a genius and will get you home more often than not but does he have the same ability as Root to capitalise on a fast start? I have my doubts. I think this is a dead heat though because Smith is amazing against the odds.
5) Morgan/Stokes/Buttler vs Handscomb/Carey/Stoinis is an easy win for England. Even if Carey has shown he's got steel in his veins and he's proven he belongs in this squad.
6) Starc was awesome but England's bowling lineup is far more potent.

5) Yeah, close to dead heat, but Smith is an Aussie. No logic in that, only my bias.
6) Yes, for sure.
7) Not sure. Did they take more wickets? If so potent, how'd they lose three games?
Odd, but someone above (to1994, I think) posted that "Starc is completely useless in England ".
That's hilarious .

 

[CrowBloke]

If you wish to continue, I suggest for the sake of the other posters who I'm sure do not want to keep reading the same long-winded argument from you and me over and over again, take it to a PM. I really dont care.

I was 5 pages behind in the thread, took me a while to catch up. Hence the "pages ago" thing.
You seem actually to 'care' a lot, especially enough to keep ignoring the fact that I have said several times England have been a better ODI side than us over the last 18 months or so eg please my other replies to Slow Love. The ways the Poms have re-built their side and their aggressive style have been awesome and re-shaped ODI cricket. Very un-Pommie like, compared to previous years.

I just don't like getting done by the Poms, anytime. There's no logic and a ton of Aussie bias in there.

As for the PM, yeah but nah.

 

[Tugga27]

View attachment 707677

LOL

If you're talking about Maxxy, I'm a fan.

Not the other two though.

 

[Slow Love]

2) Last 18 months, give or take? Most definitely.
In this tournament? We beat each other, once. That's on par. We had more wins than them, but it's of no consequence. They won the one that matters, so the fact they made it to the Final and we didn't makes them the better side.
3) Again, in this tournament, yes. Not over the last 18 months, clearly. Warner (647 runs) + Finch (507) scored more than Bairstow (496) and Roy (426). Starc and Cummins took more wickets than Archer/Wood (41-36) but not a huge difference, really.
My Aussie bias wins, there.

2) Granted, we did ok and we over-performed - this is why we shouldn't succumb to hysteria because we're actually right up there and there's no doubt Starc is a match-winner by himself on his day. Hand on heart would England beat us 7 times out of 10 on recent ODI form? I say yes and that makes them a conclusively superior ODI outfit.

3) Strike rights matter but I suppose this will be clearer once the Cup is over and England have won. We just don't have the firepower if Maxwell doesn't launch.

 

[Slow Love]

LOL

If you're talking about Maxxy, I'm a fan.

Not the other two though.

Yeah, it was Maxxy, I felt the sting haha

 

[Balls In]

Matthew Wades past performances suggest a first ball duck far more likely in tough conditions at ODI level.

The thing is, with the ball moving as it was last night, Khawaja probably fails as well if he was fit at no3, never liked that much movement either.

We'll never know. The thing is a really great innings by a number 4 coming in in that situation could have changed the course of the whole match. There were many overs left and Smith was anchoring things nicely. A 50-100 there has us at a 300ish score which suddenly forces a different mindset in the chasing team, perhaps in our bowlers too.

 

[CrowBloke]

I love a good stouch lets call this a draw.

Yeah, that'd be fair, but you've forgotten RULE #1:
--- in the case of a draw, anything pro-Aussie wins.

 

[Woody15]

I was 5 pages behind in the thread, took me a while to catch up. Hence the "pages ago" thing.
You seem actually to 'care' a lot, especially enough to keep ignoring the fact that I have said several times England have been a better ODI side than us over the last 18 months or so eg please my other replies to Slow Love. The ways the Poms have re-built their side and their aggressive style have been awesome and re-shaped ODI cricket. Very un-Pommie like, compared to previous years.

I just don't like getting done by the Poms, anytime. There's no logic and a ton of Aussie bias in there.

As for the PM, yeah but nah.

Fantastic.

You said several times England have been a better ODI side? Twice you rebutted people claiming England were the superior side based off a single victory at Lords.

Yeah, nah. We belted the Poms only 17 days ago.
Finch/ Warner and Starc saved their worst performances for the Semi. Stoinis, over-rated and retained. Wade's avalanche of runs in Pommie conditions ignored.
3/14 start <== game lost in first 30 minutes.

which the Aussies thrashed 17 days ago.
You're dreamin'.

One thing is for sure, there is absolutely no point in engaging with someone who openly admits to their Aussie bias. Thank you for admitting it.