View Full Version : Aus v Eng [Adelaide]
England are so hopeless.Their struggling against an Australia A bowling line up.
Eng 6/73 after 25 overs.
ScouseCat
19 Jan 2003, 14:40
I think that's taking away from the good bowling by Bracken, Williams, Lee and Watson so far.
England: 6 for 90 after 30 overs.
Collingwood and Irani are their last hope of making a decent total.
ScouseCat
19 Jan 2003, 16:02
Australia need 153 to win this game after bowling England out for a very ordinary score of 152. Only Paul Collingwood managed to do anything with the bat for England, all the Australian bowlers bowled well.
GoalSneak
19 Jan 2003, 16:24
This team that calls themselves Australia are gonna take this easy. England had to bat in 40 degree heat (although the Aussies did have to field in 40 degree heat too)! It's getting a bit hard to recognise this Australia team. Clarke, Bracken, Williams, Hogg...
Jim Boy
19 Jan 2003, 16:51
Aus are now 5/2. That score is starting to look a little more menacing.
Jim Boy
19 Jan 2003, 17:30
Wow - Anderson has just bowled 5 maiden overs straight! Surely that must be some kind of record.
eagleskickass
19 Jan 2003, 18:38
u mean 2/5:P thats how u say it in Aus;) 2 wickets for 5 runs
Npw its 2/85 and rather insipid so far...either the pitch is bloody hard to bat on(and i dont see this as the excuse) or Aus are doing what they were so against last year and trying to rig the finals opponent...
31.1 over in.
3/96
33 overs
Bevan 30 off 90
hmmm
must hard to bat in hot conditions eh? :o
4/97
Lee managed to buy himself some peiking duck for dinner.
ScouseCat
19 Jan 2003, 19:14
Australia are 6 for 106 after 38 overs, still needing another 47 off the last 12 overs. Clarke and Watson are at the crease with Hogg, Williams and Bracken left to bat if needed.
Jim Boy
19 Jan 2003, 19:17
Originally posted by eagleskickass
u mean 2/5:P thats how u say it in Aus;) 2 wickets for 5 runs
woops, been out of the country too long!
catattack
19 Jan 2003, 19:34
AUS 6/130 after 44.
Where is Richie to wrap up events in tonights match?
Clarke hits winning run on debut.
isn't it great to see clarke and WATSON guide australia to victory. Clarke is as an exciting prospect as ricky ponting was at the same age. Watson, well i am a fan as i often state, he bowled well and i feel alot more confident with him at the crease than either symonds or harvey.
I hope Andrew Symonds is a good drink carrier,because that's all he'll be doing at the World Cup.
His ODI career is just about over.Michael Clarke's bowling was prefered instead of Symonds,who bowls a lot more often.Brett Lee was prefered as the pinch hitter ahead of Symonds.So Symonds is only in the WC squad because of his fielding ability.
Originally posted by Frosties_Flank
Lee managed to buy himself some peiking duck for dinner.
Better than Symonds - he just ended up looking a TURKEY!
lamby29
19 Jan 2003, 20:40
I was impressed with the 'young guns' today. Clarke didn't really look like going out and his bowling was handy. Watson bowled superbly and although he looked a bit shaky, he batted well at the end. Bracken and Williams were both impressive with the ball. Symonds' ODI career is just about over though.
wagstaff
19 Jan 2003, 21:04
I know it's a bit early to large, but the picking of Symonds ahead of Michael Clarke for the World Cup squad looks like being a serious misjudgement on the part of the selectors.
Clarke, above all else, seemed to have the composure required to play at the highest level. He looked far more impressive then some of his more highly regarded batting teammates tonight.
Silliest thing about Symonds' dismissal was that Stewart stumped him as an afterthought. Symonds played and missed, and Stewart took the ball in his gloves. About a second later (a long time in relative terms), Symonds leered forward momentarily and Stewart stumped him.
Stumped of the third ball, before scoring, as an afterthought. :rolleyes:
The Hippie
19 Jan 2003, 21:48
Originally posted by scmods
Better than Symonds - he just ended up looking a TURKEY!
I don't know about anyone else, but I thought Symonds was a little unlucky to be given out on that stumping. I've seen a lot of similar decisions made by the third umpire were a batsmen's foot or toe were on the line, which is where Symonds was, and be given not out. It used to be the case the where the stumps were set up in relation to the back line was the guide as to whether on the line was out or not out, but recently it seemed to me that hasn't been the case, any time someone was on the line, the benefit of the doubt was given to the batsman.
I think that's the first time I can remember where a batsman being on the line has been given out. :confused:
Originally posted by The Hippie
I don't know about anyone else, but I thought Symonds was a little unlucky to be given out on that stumping. I've seen a lot of similar decisions made by the third umpire were a batsmen's foot or toe were on the line, which is where Symonds was, and be given not out. It used to be the case the where the stumps were set up in relation to the back line was the guide as to whether on the line was out or not out, but recently it seemed to me that hasn't been the case, any time someone was on the line, the benefit of the doubt was given to the batsman.
I think that's the first time I can remember where a batsman being on the line has been given out. :confused:
On the line is out, and having the third umpire adjudicate on it, the TV footage removed all doubt that he was on the line and no part of his foot behind it.
So on-field umpire's naked eye might have had doubt, the third umpire had the benefit or the footage removing that doubt.
Probably the closest ever run out or stumping decision I've seen slow-moed... would have been 2mm in it... but still out.
mattyc2422
19 Jan 2003, 23:38
I'm a Clarke fan and was impressed with the way he and Watson kept level heads to take the win. Bracken bowled supurbly, who I am usually critical of.
Top order batting was worrying, but well done to Marto who chugged along nicely.
Hoping to see a lot more Clarke/Watson partnerships in the future.:)
The Hippie
20 Jan 2003, 00:05
Originally posted by Darky
On the line is out, and having the third umpire adjudicate on it, the TV footage removed all doubt that he was on the line and no part of his foot behind it.
So on-field umpire's naked eye might have had doubt, the third umpire had the benefit or the footage removing that doubt.
Probably the closest ever run out or stumping decision I've seen slow-moed... would have been 2mm in it... but still out.
I realise that Darky, but recently the common practice had been to give the batsman benefit even though as you say, technically it's the right call. Just thought he was little unlucky compared to some other third umpire decisions I've seen.
When a batsman snicks the ball into the keeper's gloves and all the players rush in without looking at the umpire it is considered as "impolite". Why then is it okay for all the players to come rushing in and congratulate each other when waiting for a 3rd umpire's decision on stumpings and run outs?
I see players all slapping each other on the back, and when you see the replay the batsman is clearly in. Obviously they didn't know, and yet are convinced the batsman is out.
Navy Master
20 Jan 2003, 10:03
Symonds and Harvey are duds, nothing more than domestic cricketers, i still cannot believe that Ponting wanted Symonds in the side so badly... Clarke, even though he hadnt played a game of international cricket, wouldve been a better option
EagleBlue
20 Jan 2003, 10:22
Originally posted by Darky
Symonds played and missed
Symonds didnt even play and miss, he let the ball go, making his dismissal look even more ridiculous. Looks like we only have a squad of 14 for the world cup:D
Ronnie Irani
20 Jan 2003, 11:37
Originally posted by Navy Master
Symonds and Harvey are duds
They're both even bigger duds then Ronnie!
Originally posted by The Hippie
I realise that Darky, but recently the common practice had been to give the batsman benefit even though as you say, technically it's the right call. Just thought he was little unlucky compared to some other third umpire decisions I've seen. I think that had it been a runout that was that close, or had he been trying to regain his ground, he might have got away with it because the movement creates the uncertainty.
But because his foot never moved at all, the replay umpire got to have a very good clear picture with no blurring, movement or worrying about what happened between frames.
It looked pretty clear to me that no part of his foot was grounded behind the line.
I went to the game and left after about 40 runs were scored in 20 overs by Bevan and Martyn.
Easily the most ridiculous and boring cricket spectacle I have ever witnessed live.
I used to only dislike Bevan, now I despise and hate him with a passion and would prefer Symonds in the side to him. Wasting 15 overs to score 30 runs is unforgivable, especially as he then just got out and put pressure on Clarke and Watson to actually score at a half decent rate.
Gilchrist having to send in a pinchhitter chasing 150 is a sad indictment on the complete inability of Martyn and Bevan to rotate the strike with the field up.
Match rating : 0.5/10
MoM : Collingwood, by that far it isnt even funny
Originally posted by Port01
I used to only dislike Bevan, now I despise and hate him with a passion and would prefer Symonds in the side to him. Wasting 15 overs to score 30 runs is unforgivable, especially as he then just got out and put pressure on Clarke and Watson to actually score at a half decent rate.
Don't forget, Bevan is a matchwinner. :rolleyes:
Why was Nathan Bracken playing? I know he got man of the match and deservedly so, but his form this summer hasn't been anything to write home about. I know we have injuries, but surely someone like Noffke or Inness would have been a better selection because they had superior form to Bracken.
Clarke showed he has a future. I was angry that another NSW player was picked, but he showed a lot of poise and confidence for a debutant. Replace Bevan with Clarke. Watching Bevan last night would have been a good cure for Insomnia. 30 of 90 balls is a disgrace when you are meant to be the best one day batsman in the world and when only chasing 153.
Symonds showed that he is worthy of a WC spot. An embarassing dismissal and some quality bowling. What a star! :rolleyes:
Seriously, what would be his role in the WC? He can't bat and they obviously have no faith in his bowling, evidenced by the fact he did not bowl one delivery yesterday. You cannot pick a player on his fielding ability. What a waste of a spot. Even Clarke who had been moderate this summer with his form would have been a better inclusion.
mattyc2422
20 Jan 2003, 16:29
Woohoo. Someone else can't stand Bevan.
I'm not alone!
lamby29
20 Jan 2003, 16:43
Someone should start a poll with the question: "Should Bevan be in the One Day Team?". I would certainly vote 'no'.
The Herald-Sun today suggested it was an intentional go-slow to make sure England did not concede a bonus point, as the Aussies would rather face England than Sri Lanka in the finals. This is of course denied by the Australian camp, but it is at least another theory...
Originally posted by Darky
The Herald-Sun today suggested it was an intentional go-slow to make sure England did not concede a bonus point, as the Aussies would rather face England than Sri Lanka in the finals. This is of course denied by the Australian camp, but it is at least another theory...
Deputy deadbat, he's been doing it for years! Not quite to the extent that he did last night however.
I'd always have him in the team however.