View Full Version : ICC Cricket World Cup 2003 - Australia vs Namibia
ScouseCat
27 Feb 2003, 10:09
Australia mean business tonight and are apparently going to field an unchanged side for their game against Namibia.
It wouldn't surprise me if Ricky Ponting decides to bat first if he wins the toss to enable our batsman to get some much needed time in the middle for a full 50 overs, but that will depend on the weather of course.
Thoughts, predictions, discussion....
rednugget
27 Feb 2003, 11:36
If Australia bat first I think they should put Bevan in first drop.
If there chasing a low total then open with him. He needs some time at the crease.
red+black
27 Feb 2003, 12:19
Originally posted by rednugget
If Australia bat first I think they should put Bevan in first drop.
That's ridiculous! I thought you wanted him to have a bat.
just kidding :-)
ScouseCat
27 Feb 2003, 16:29
I don't think we should be mucking around with our batting order approaching the Super Six stage of the tournament.
Originally posted by ScouseCat
I don't think we should be mucking around with our batting order approaching the Super Six stage of the tournament.
if beven bats at 6th tonight he might as well not bother playing.
Originally posted by ScouseCat
Australia mean business tonight and are apparently going to field an unchanged side for their game against Namibia.
Bichel is in for Gillespie
Kenny_01
27 Feb 2003, 17:53
I was pretty dissapointed when Gilly got out, wanted to see some fireworks. Bevan in at number 3.
Hayden looks to be struggling a bit.
spring6
27 Feb 2003, 17:57
have you guys got live tv coverage in australia?
Originally posted by spring6
have you guys got live tv coverage in australia?
This game is live on Fox Sports.
Bevan out for 17.
A big deal made of the fact he hasn't batted prior to this game, and wouldn't you know it, he fails.
Typical.
spring6
27 Feb 2003, 18:36
Hayden looking very comfortable now. Good to see. I know it is unlikely but i just hope the Poms don't fluck a win on Sunday. That would be very embarassing from where I am sitting i.e. England lol
Hayden out for 88. Bowled by Louis Burger.
Fall Out Boy
27 Feb 2003, 18:52
Very disappointing effort from the Aussies so far.
To be 4 down half way through against a side like this, is pretty damn average.
Bomber Spirit
27 Feb 2003, 18:53
Ponting gone for 2 - it's 4/146 in the 26th.
spring6
27 Feb 2003, 18:55
C'mon Damo big century.
Fall Out Boy
27 Feb 2003, 19:40
Originally posted by spring6
C'mon Damo big century.
30 runs off 45 balls.
Is he ever going to open his shoulders?
There was a god damn 2nd run when Symonds just got run out and Martyn stood his ground.
Symonds out for 50.
Fall Out Boy
27 Feb 2003, 19:46
What was Martyn thinking?
He completely sacrificed Andrew Symonds.
Poor effort.
Martyn best score some quick runs now.
And now Martyn's bowled out 3 balls later for 35.
231/6
he was trying to keep it to a single to turn the strike over to Symonds, i dont think Symonds heard the 'NO'.
spring6
27 Feb 2003, 20:08
You know, I could be going out on a limb here but I reckon we might still win this
;)
What an over.
Lehmann just got 28 off the last over.
Went something like 4 4 4 6 4 6
He started the over off on 22 and finished on exactly 50 with a 6 off the last ball.
Aussies 301 for 6.
lamby29
27 Feb 2003, 20:23
Boof is a gun... one of the most underrated players in the world.
Makes a handy number 7 does Boof.
Credit to the Namibians though, take out the last over and they went alright.
Kenny_01
27 Feb 2003, 20:27
Spectacular stuff.
Interesting thing I just worked out.
Lehmann took the run rate from 5.57 to 6.02 in one over.
What a knock.
We almost suffered the embarrasment of scoring less than 300 against a minnow. Lehmann saving us that humiliation after some inept batting from the usual suspects - Bevan, Martyn.
Kenny_01
27 Feb 2003, 20:30
Originally posted by phatandphreaky
30 runs off 45 balls.
Is he ever going to open his shoulders?
Martyn is having a pretty good series to date. 152 runs at an average of 76, combined with a S/R of close to 80.
ScouseCat
27 Feb 2003, 20:30
Originally posted by ozzult
What an over.
Lehmann just got 28 off the last over.
Went something like 4 4 4 6 4 6
Aussies 301 for 6.
I was relaxing here watching the Aussies going well on 273 with one over to go and I thought to myself, can we get the 27 runs we need off the last over to bring up the 300... my word we can!! :D
That was a fantastic display of hitting from Darren Lehmann, all be it against Namibia.
The Aussies will be reasonably pleased with 6 for 301 off 50 overs. Most of our batsman got a chance to spend some time at the crease with the exception of Ponting which was good.
Kenny_01
27 Feb 2003, 20:32
Originally posted by DaveW
We almost suffered the embarrasment of scoring less than 300 against a minnow. .
What an embarrasment. 300 against a minnow has only happened about 3 times in this WC.
GhostofJimJess
27 Feb 2003, 21:35
Brilliant stuff by Lehmann ...
But great credit to Namibia ... even though we got to 300 they showed an immense amount of ticker. I like the cut of their jib ....
I guess they've gotta bat yet, though.
Deestroy
27 Feb 2003, 21:36
Nambia 2/14 off 4 overs.
This game will be over in half-an-hour.
3/16 after 5
GhostofJimJess
27 Feb 2003, 21:41
Officially the WORST decision of the World Cup so far ... Karg given out caught behind when his hand was nearly a METRE away from his bat .... !!
And it wasn't even Russell Tiffen .....
What exactly was Billy Bowden watching at the time ??? Or doesn't he know the rules ....
dr nick
27 Feb 2003, 21:44
Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
Officially the WORST decision of the World Cup so far ... Karg given out caught behind when his hand was nearly a METRE away from his bat .... !!
And it wasn't even Russell Tiffen .....
What exactly was Billy Bowden watching at the time ??? Or doesn't he know the rules ....
i find it incredible that a guy can sight that a ball has cleared a boundary rope by a matter of millimetres from 70 metres away, yet cannot tell that the same ball brushed a glove that was so far away from the bat :rolleyes:
Extra's is playing well for Namibia. :p
Rudi van Vuuren's 0-92 is statistically the worst ever bowling performance in an ODI. Previously there were only three instances of a bowler conceding more than 90 runs in an ODI, but all took wickets.
Those three were :
Martin Snedden 12-1-105-2 NZ vs Eng, The Oval 1983
Ashantha de Mel 10-0-97-1 SL vs WI, Karachi 1987/88
Sanath Jayasuriya 10-0-94-3 SL vs Pak, Nairobi 1996/97
Adrian Shelton
27 Feb 2003, 22:23
Namibia have eaten a fat one
8-45 and McGrath has 7-15
Bomber Spirit
27 Feb 2003, 22:24
It's 8/45, McGrath has 7/15.
Poor Namibia. It may be a learning process, but it's a tough lesson for them. They're just nowhere near good enough to match it with Australia.
Two more records that could be broken :
Best bowling in an ODI - Chaminda Vaas 8/19
Biggest winning margin in an ODI - SL 5/299 d. India 54 (245 runs)
Adrian Shelton
27 Feb 2003, 22:31
45 all out, Bichel 2-0 of one over and robs McGrath!
Bomber Spirit
27 Feb 2003, 22:31
Namibia all out for 45, Australia won by 256 runs.
What an embarrasment for Namibia. It's supposed to be a learning experience and all that, but surely a result like this does more harm than good.
Kenny_01
28 Feb 2003, 00:04
Clinical spell from McGrath. Pity Bichel robbed him :)
ScouseCat
28 Feb 2003, 06:20
Australia broke the record for the biggest winning margin for a one-day match, 256 runs.
Glenn McGrath broke the record for the best bowling in a World Cup match, 7 for 15.
Darren Lehmann now holds the record for the most runs scored off one over in a World Cup match, 28 runs. (4, 4, 4, 6, 4, 6)
Simon_Nesbit
28 Feb 2003, 06:22
Originally posted by Kenny_01
Clinical spell from McGrath. Pity Bichel robbed him :)
Surely we don't need any more evidence to finally give Lee the flick??~!?!?.
Play him against the Indians, and the minnows, where his damage won't be as painful, but against a good side, we need that 3rd performing quick (after McGrath and Gillespie).
St-KriS
28 Feb 2003, 06:54
Bloody Andy! I thought for sure that McGrath was gunna get a 9 wicket haul.
And did I hear a "HOOOOOOOOOGGGGGGGGGY" chant when Mr Brad Hogg was batting? The new cult figure for Australian cricket?
Surely we don't need any more evidence to finally give Lee the flick??~!?!?.
Yeah he was only man of the series in the VB Series...
and last night he could have had 3 or 4. They kept hitting him over the slips head....
Fair enough you hate lee but just becoz bichel took 2/0 off 1 over isn't really great evidence...i reckon i could have taken 2/0 against the Namibian tail...
Please tell me that Gillespie was only rested and he hasn't gone and done an injury to himself.
St-KriS
28 Feb 2003, 11:21
Originally posted by Nic
Please tell me that Gillespie was only rested and he hasn't gone and done an injury to himself.
Heard it was just a minor strain so they just rested him. Nothing to worry about.
mellowyellow
28 Feb 2003, 12:01
Originally posted by St-KriS
Heard it was just a minor strain so they just rested him. Nothing to worry about.
I heard it was some minor brusing to his ankle .....regardless lets hope it's only minor.
Since when does Jason Gillespie have minor injuries? They always end up costing him many games in a row. He apparently has a sore achilles. Certainly not an injury where you could rush him back into the side, because if he does his achilles, then you can kiss goodbye most of this year.
Please get rid of Michael Bevan. Once again he slows up the run rate to try to protect his own average and strike rate. As much as I don't like Lehmann, his last over was the sort of style I wish Bevan would adopt, especially against the minnows. The run rate was at almost 6 when Bevan came in, it dropped to just over 4 in only a couple of overs. He made their bowling looked top class with his defensive approach.
Kenny_01
28 Feb 2003, 13:57
Originally posted by Simon_Nesbit
Surely we don't need any more evidence to finally give Lee the flick??~!?!?.
Play him against the Indians, and the minnows, where his damage won't be as painful, but against a good side, we need that 3rd performing quick (after McGrath and Gillespie).
There is no way we will be giving Lee the flick. He has been bowling very well of late. A certainty for the side.
GoEagles
28 Feb 2003, 15:07
A few records from the Australia vs Namibia game:
- Australia matched the West Indies record of 11 consecutive one-day wins.
- The winning margain (256 runs) was the largest runs difference in limited overs history
- McGrath's 7/15 was the best return in a World Cup, the second best in one-day cricket and he passed Shane Keith Warne as Australia's World Cup wicket taker.
- Adam Gilchrist's six catches were the most by a wicketkeeper in a World Cup match
- Lehmann took the most runs (28) off a World Cup over [4, 4, 4, 6, 4, 6]
- Rudi van Vuuren finished with the most expensive wicketless figures in a one dayer (0/92 off 10 overs)
windyhill
28 Feb 2003, 15:30
Did the West indies, in their record run, beat up on any kids ? What a joke.
red+black
28 Feb 2003, 15:35
Originally posted by windyhill
Did the West indies, in their record run, beat up on any kids ? What a joke.
what's the joke? you buying into clive lloyd's whinge as well?
windyhill
28 Feb 2003, 16:00
Absolute joke. Sub-district v Australia, that`s what it`s like, very reminiscent of the "rugby league world cup"..." Who wants a game" ?
True, an 11-win streak which includes Holland, Namibia and England is a hollow victory.
red+black
28 Feb 2003, 16:22
get yer hand off it fellas. Austalia didn't choose it opponents like Mundine would to ensure an easy path. The streak is not a victory, it's just another record, like taking 7-15 or 6 catches, or winning by 256 runs. Records come, records go, we don't have to jerk ourselves off because of them.
The "victory" will be winning the world cup, who cares about the streak? It's the same as if Essendon had have lost in 2000, the record season counts for nothing. 1999 still hurts.
mattyc2422
28 Feb 2003, 16:49
Ooh aah Glenn McGrath....
windyhill
28 Feb 2003, 18:37
Where is the competition, I could get 12 blokes off these boards and they would kill half of the teams going around in this " world cup"
Originally posted by Squeak
True, an 11-win streak which includes Holland, Namibia and England is a hollow victory.
:D
GhostofJimJess
28 Feb 2003, 20:24
Originally posted by Jaymin
... against the Namibian tail...
The Namibian tail ... as opposed to ???
Originally posted by windyhill
Did the West indies, in their record run, beat up on any kids ? What a joke.
So what you're suggesting is, Australia should have let Namibia win so that the record remains with the more worthy team?
windyhill
28 Feb 2003, 21:37
Originally posted by scmods
So what you're suggesting is, Australia should have let Namibia win so that the record remains with the more worthy team?
Headline news on the radio driving to work, lead item..." Aussies smash one day records" blah blah blah.....Have a look at who they were playing boys. Embarassing. Show some humility Australia.
Originally posted by windyhill
Headline news on the radio driving to work, lead item..." Aussies smash one day records" blah blah blah.....Have a look at who they were playing boys. Embarassing. Show some humility Australia.
You can't blame the team for that. Everyone knows the media are full of ****.
And the fact remains - they did set a number of records in that match.
Okay, it was against Namibia. But other teams have played Namibia, Canada, Holland, Kenya et al in World Cup matches without a bowler taking 7 wickets or winning by 267 or whatever it was. They are still records to be proud of because nobody has managed to do them before, no matter who they were playing against.
Originally posted by windyhill
Headline news on the radio driving to work, lead item..." Aussies smash one day records" blah blah blah.....Have a look at who they were playing boys. Embarassing. Show some humility Australia.
I agree. I actually felt sorry for those poor buggers. They must have been devastated. I know we are out there to win, but geez, I thought Australia would have at least taken it easy against them. They are a developing cricket nation and that must have really set them back in confidence.
And as for all those 'records'. How do you judge that against a country like Namibia?
I remember watching The Fat a couple of weeks ago, and Michael Parkinson was on. He said that Australia are not just the best cricket team he has ever seen, but the best sporting team he has ever seen. But, he went on to say, we don't know how to win gracefully. At the time I thought he was mad, and didn't agree with him. Now I see what he meant!
Originally posted by scmods
.
Okay, it was against Namibia. But other teams have played Namibia, Canada, Holland, Kenya et al in World Cup matches without a bowler taking 7 wickets or winning by 267 or whatever it was. They are still records to be proud of because nobody has managed to do them before, no matter who they were playing against.
Oh, come on. Canada, Holland and Kenya aren't exactly world beaters are they? I would appreciate those 'records' more if they were against South Africa or Pakistan etc., not Namibia.
GhostofJimJess
1 Mar 2003, 13:43
The thing that surprised me about the Aussies in that game was how anxious they were to give the likes of Bevan a decent hit by moving him up the order, but not worrying about our bowlers.
Maybe Bichel could have been given 5 or 6 overs, as McGrath and Lee have had plenty of the ball so far. Seemed to be double standards in there somewhere ....
red+black
1 Mar 2003, 15:39
Originally posted by windyhill
Headline news on the radio driving to work, lead item..." Aussies smash one day records" blah blah blah.....Have a look at who they were playing boys. Embarassing. Show some humility Australia.
The team don't write the newspaper headlines. Qualify your vitriole: "Show some humility (Australian press)".
red+black
1 Mar 2003, 15:43
Originally posted by Bee
I agree. I actually felt sorry for those poor buggers. They must have been devastated. I know we are out there to win, but geez, I thought Australia would have at least taken it easy against them. They are a developing cricket nation and that must have really set them back in confidence.
And as for all those 'records'. How do you judge that against a country like Namibia?
I remember watching The Fat a couple of weeks ago, and Michael Parkinson was on. He said that Australia are not just the best cricket team he has ever seen, but the best sporting team he has ever seen. But, he went on to say, we don't know how to win gracefully. At the time I thought he was mad, and didn't agree with him. Now I see what he meant!
We went easy on Holland, that's good enough. I agree about the Parko thing, but you obviously haven't watched much cricket in recent years if you thought the Aussie team were gentlemen on the field. Anyway, what's this about not winning gracefully? How should we have beaten Namibia? Oh that's right, we should have let them score 290 shouldn't we?
Kenny_01
1 Mar 2003, 15:44
Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
The thing that surprised me about the Aussies in that game was how anxious they were to give the likes of Bevan a decent hit by moving him up the order, but not worrying about our bowlers.
Maybe Bichel could have been given 5 or 6 overs, as McGrath and Lee have had plenty of the ball so far. Seemed to be double standards in there somewhere ....
Bevan is in our first 11, Bichel is not.
Kenny_01
1 Mar 2003, 15:47
What do some of you (windyhill, Bee) expect Australia to do? They didn't know of any records while they were playing, they just played to the best of their ability (which they should be doing). Namibia would rather us play to our best to see where they are at, rather than us give a 2nd rate performance. We didn't flog them to set records, it is just the way it turned out.
Originally posted by Kenny_01
What do some of you (windyhill, Bee) expect Australia to do? They didn't know of any records while they were playing, they just played to the best of their ability (which they should be doing). Namibia would rather us play to our best to see where they are at, rather than us give a 2nd rate performance. We didn't flog them to set records, it is just the way it turned out.
So you think the 'records' against Namibia are credible? For Christ's sake we are the best cricketing nation in the world, we were playing a country that most people have never even heard of. Talk about school yard bullies. Frankly I am embarrassed that we have those 'records' against that country. Even bloody England could have achieved records against them!
Originally posted by red+black
We went easy on Holland, that's good enough. I agree about the Parko thing, but you obviously haven't watched much cricket in recent years if you thought the Aussie team were gentlemen on the field. Anyway, what's this about not winning gracefully? How should we have beaten Namibia? Oh that's right, we should have let them score 290 shouldn't we?
Pardon me? I've probably watched more cricket that you in recent years. I wasn't talking about Australians on the field, I was talking about how they acted after they had won a game. I would agree that Australia don't know how to lose gracefully, i.e Matthew Hayden, Darren Lehmann, but I have never noticed that winning was a problem. Until now!
As for Namibia, why go all out like they did, pelting the batsmen with balls to their body etc., and in general just making them look stupid? But then again I suppose Namibia felt so privilged to be playing the all conquering Aussies that anything was acceptable!
red+black
1 Mar 2003, 16:10
Originally posted by Bee
So you think the 'records' against Namibia are credible? For Christ's sake we are the best cricketing nation in the world, we were playing a country that most people have never even heard of. Talk about school yard bullies. Frankly I am embarrassed that we have those 'records' against that country. Even bloody England could have achieved records against them!
You're quite funny, no really. Do you know anything about cricket at all? You seem to be complaining more than the Namibians who I'm sure are greatful for the opportunity. Will the result hurt Namibian cricket? No, quite the opposite in fact. Did John Davison take the Sri Lankan game to heart? Obviously not.
McGrath said that he will take 8 against the Poms anyway, so that should wipe out his 7-15 record at least. School yard bullies? Get yer hand of it.
And as for England being able to achieve such records, that's proof of your ignorance. Namibia batted the 50 overs against England and scored 217, and Namibia, NOT England, achieved, for that game alone:
- the best batsman, AJ Burger with 85 runs
- the best bowler, van Vuuren with 5 for 43
- the best partnership, 97 for the 3rd wicket
- the MOTM award, AJ Burger
Yeah England broke a lot of records that day :rolleyes:
red+black
1 Mar 2003, 16:12
anyway, it's 2 against 1, so you lose
Originally posted by Bee
we were playing a country that most people have never even heard of.
Why do you assume "most people" are as ignorant as yourself?
Kenny_01
1 Mar 2003, 16:23
Originally posted by Bee
So you think the 'records' against Namibia are credible? For Christ's sake we are the best cricketing nation in the world, we were playing a country that most people have never even heard of. Talk about school yard bullies. Frankly I am embarrassed that we have those 'records' against that country. Even bloody England could have achieved records against them!
You are clueless. As I said, Namibia would prefer us to play at our best to see where they are at. Would you have preferred us to block the last few overs to make the final result smaller? Then we would get accused for not taking the game seriously, and it would be an insult to Namibia. Think about it.
Originally posted by red+black
You're quite funny, no really. Do you know anything about cricket at all?
No of course not. I am a woman how the hell would I know anything about cricket? Umm err, let me see now.... Matthew Hayden is a big hunk, Glen McGrath is very tall. Will that do? :rolleyes:
Originally posted by red+black
McGrath said that he will take 8 against the Poms anyway, so that should wipe out his 7-15 record at least. School yard bullies? Get yer hand of it.
Don't have my hand on 'it'. In fact I don't even have an 'it'. But I am sure you do, and I am sure you have a handful of it at the moment.(If you have a very small hand, that is) If you really think that so called records against a country that is worse than second rate are credible then you need a reality check. I am embarrassed about it!
Originally posted by red+black
And as for England being able to achieve such records, that's proof of your ignorance. Namibia batted the 50 overs against England and scored 217, and Namibia, NOT England, achieved, for that game alone:
- the best batsman, AJ Burger with 85 runs
- the best bowler, van Vuuren with 5 for 43
- the best partnership, 97 for the 3rd wicket
- the MOTM award, AJ Burger
Yeah England broke a lot of records that day :rolleyes:
Yes, proof that not all countries have a win at all cost attitude like the Aussies. Maybe England took it easy. Ever think of that?
BTW, is your hand tired yet?
red+black
1 Mar 2003, 16:34
you're very much in the minority, and your argument is a poor one. As if England ever have control of a cricket match? What a joke, England don't have a win at all costs attitude!!! They're happy just to get a win against anyone.
I know ur a F, doesn't mean u ain't got yer hand on it. Did any players brag about the records? McGrath wasn't exactly happy to have such a record and says as much by his intentions to beat the record against stronger opposition.
England took it easy! Still getting over that one.
Originally posted by red+black
you're very much in the minority,
Sorry sunshine, but most people I have spoken to in the last couple of days have agreed with me. I think maybe you are in the minority. If you want to accept records like that, fine, it's up to you.
Kenny_01
1 Mar 2003, 16:44
Originally posted by Bee
Yes, proof that not all countries have a win at all cost attitude like the Aussies. Maybe England took it easy. Ever think of that?
Did you watch the game? I am guessing no. Have you watched any games this world cup? What games have the top nations taken it easy against the minnows?
red+black
1 Mar 2003, 16:44
yeah i guess you're right. when i look up the record books in a few years, i guess any records v namibia just won't be anywhere to be found. Which test team has lost a test by the most number of runs? You wouldn't even know.
funny, people used to think Sri Lanka weren't that good.
you lose, back to the other General Boards.
red+black
1 Mar 2003, 16:51
I wonder if Pakistan v India (the thread or the game) will get as heated as this thread.
Australia 301
Namibia 45
Australia win, McGrath won something too.
End of story. Move on.
Originally posted by red+black
Australia 301
Namibia 45
Australia win, McGrath won something too.
End of story. Move on.
Yeah stand up Australia, be proud, be very proud!
Originally posted by Kenny_01
Did you watch the game? I am guessing no. Have you watched any games this world cup? What games have the top nations taken it easy against the minnows?
Did I watch the game? Yes! Did I watch all of it? No, I do have to get up early and go to work.
Who cares what games they have taken it easy against. The point I am making is those 'records' are not as credible as records made against a recognised cricketing nation. It's a sham!
red+black
1 Mar 2003, 17:02
you're the only one beating the story up. you probably think the team all stood up and did a great big circle jerk for all the records they broke. the final is all that matters, and the players know that, even if you don't.
and why don't you look it up? which team lost a test match by a record margin (number of runs)? poor little defenceless nation really didn't deserve to be humiliated like that, ruined cricket in that country.
i hope you don't have kids.
"No honey, let them win, or else they'll get upset. Don't beat them you big school bully! What chance did they have? They'll never learn unless you let them win!" :rolleyes:
Originally posted by red+black
you're the only one beating the story up. you probably think the team all stood up and did a great big circle jerk for all the records they broke. the final is all that matters, and the players know that, even if you don't.
A circle jerk? Oh, charming and how so unlike you to resort to talk like that!:rolleyes:
Originally posted by red+black
i hope you don't have kids.
Boy, did you get that right. About the only thing you've been right about all day.
Originally posted by red+black
"No honey, let them win, or else they'll get upset. Don't beat them you big school bully! What chance did they have? They'll never learn unless you let them win!" :rolleyes:
Listen up, sweetness. I never said let them win. What I said was, why go in with all guns blazing when it was obvious it was going to be an easy win anyhow. But you be proud of that win, okay?
The Old Dark Navy's
1 Mar 2003, 17:13
I would suggest that there are many sporting records that are broken in favourable conditions so Australia shouldn't feel embarrassed that they played well and won easily. Actually Bevan and Martyn had a slow run rate and the running between the wickets was not the best either so there is still a little work to do. McGrath could hardly bowl tame deliveries outside off stump for 10 overs so that the Namibians had a better chance either. Would have been counter productive to his form.
People shouldn't crow about meaningless records but they exist and we shouldn't be embarassed about the record, just the attitude if we make a big deal out of it.
I remember watching Aust v W.I in the mid 80's where we got absolutely pummelled many times. In fact the only celebrating Australia did back then was when we passed the follow-on target! Nobody let up on us and nor should they have. We gained a lot of character and perhaps the player who suffered the most during this period, Allan Border, helped Australian cricket to learn and bounce back to the top. Strength comes from great adversity and if they love their cricket, the Namibians will not despair and be discouraged but will be a spurred on and work on their game. Australia have shown everybody a blueprint on how to be successful and sooner or later, one country will implement it to the letter.
Kenny_01
1 Mar 2003, 19:14
Originally posted by Bee
Listen up, sweetness. I never said let them win. What I said was, why go in with all guns blazing when it was obvious it was going to be an easy win anyhow. But you be proud of that win, okay?
If we really wanted to, we could have scored a lot more than 300. We played Bevan at no. 3 who had a hit around to get himself some practice and time in the middle for future games. I'd hardly call it 'all guns blazing'.
Originally posted by Kenny_01
If we really wanted to, we could have scored a lot more than 300. We played Bevan at no. 3 who had a hit around to get himself some practice and time in the middle for future games. I'd hardly call it 'all guns blazing'.
Oh puhleeze, spare me! The best cricket nation in the world taking on Namibia. I've told you my opinion and that's it. You are entitled to believe what you want, just as I am.
Originally posted by Bee
Oh puhleeze, spare me! The best cricket nation in the world taking on Namibia. I've told you my opinion and that's it. You are entitled to believe what you want, just as I am.
honestly bee, what are the players meant to do. its not as if they are the ones parading around like they are the greatest thing ever to grace this planet because they beat namibia. i agree we have had better sides than this in recent years, but you really cant expect for australia to do anything less than play to the best of their ability.
the players are vying for selection themselves. a failure against namibia is a huge black mark against their name.
Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's
I remember watching Aust v W.I in the mid 80's where we got absolutely pummelled many times. In fact the only celebrating Australia did back then was when we passed the follow-on target! Nobody let up on us and nor should they have. We gained a lot of character and perhaps the player who suffered the most during this period, Allan Border, helped Australian cricket to learn and bounce back to the top. Strength comes from great adversity and if they love their cricket, the Namibians will not despair and be discouraged but will be a spurred on and work on their game. Australia have shown everybody a blueprint on how to be successful and sooner or later, one country will implement it to the letter.
i think being in the doldrums in the 80's and having a few players from that era in the side that was eventually ranked #1 (unoficially) in 1994, is responsible for the ruthless attidude our team displays when playing other sides. they dont take being on top for granted, because we did spend so long at the bottom.
Originally posted by nicko18
honestly bee, what are the players meant to do. its not as if they are the ones parading around like they are the greatest thing ever to grace this planet because they beat namibia. i agree we have had better sides than this in recent years, but you really cant expect for australia to do anything less than play to the best of their ability.
the players are vying for selection themselves. a failure against namibia is a huge black mark against their name.
That's not my point. My point is the way everyone, well a lot of people anyway, are going around crowing about the 'records'. Big bloody deal, they don't mean anything to me. Of course we were going to get records like that against a country like Namibia. For Christ's sake we are 'The Invincibles' reborn. Honestly, do you think those records mean as much as if they were against South Africa? I don't. Sorry, but I feel embarrassed about it. My opinion and I am not the only one to feel that way.
GhostofJimJess
1 Mar 2003, 20:03
Originally posted by Kenny_01
Bevan is in our first 11, Bichel is not.
Only while our three front-liners are injury-free ... traditionally a hard state to maintain, especially for Gillies Pie.
As for the other argument raging here, it is unrealistic to expect individual players to ease up in the course of a game, not to mention somewhat condescending and even a little insulting to the weaker oppostion.
I think what Bee is implying, however, (and please allow me the power of presumption for a moment Bee) is that overall team planning and selection could be tinkered with to give those on the fringe a game (Watson, Harvey, etc..), those normally down the order a hit up the top (Lee, Bichel, McGrath etc..), and those normally not given much of the ball (Martyn, Lehmann, etc.. ) a chance to get some confidence with the pill ... sorry Shane ... the ball.
As it was, I had the feeling that our top order guys were so concerned about missing out on the run feast with the bat, that they batted with way too much conservatism, and ultimately got themselves out relatively cheaply. Even Hayden was too cautious early, and only he, Lehmann, and to a lesser extent Symonds ever really broke the shackles against inferior bowling.
Personally I think including minor countries in the World Cup is good... I mean it's not really a "world" cup if only 10 or 11 countries are eligible.
It's not good for them to get flogged of course, despite the leaning curves associated with it, all of which can only be gained through experience and through playing against the established countries (from the bottom-ranked team to the top team).
Maybe what this tournament has taught the ICC is that, while including minnows isn't a bad thing, having more than a third of the competition made up of them isn't a good thing.
I think a system should be encouraged whereby the established countries send regular second teams to play unofficial Tests and ODIs (still sanctioned as F/C and List A matches) against Canada, Namibia, Holland, etc.
Every team has been competitive in at least a couple of their games this World Cup, which shows that aside from playing against teams like Australia, they won't necessarily be embarrassed.
A few "A" tours might help these fledgling cricket countries gain experience and maybe even raise the profile of the sport locally... without copping the floggings that the Australian, Sri Lankan and South African first XIs would dish out.
Perhaps the better administered cricketing countries could look at sponsoring/subsidising players from new cricketing nations to play for (e.g.) a grade side in Australia with eligibility for state cricket if merited.
GhostofJimJess
1 Mar 2003, 20:30
Great thinking, Darky.
Originally posted by Darky
Perhaps the better administered cricketing countries could look at sponsoring/subsidising players from new cricketing nations to play for (e.g.) a grade side in Australia with eligibility for state cricket if merited.
Exactly, we should be doing everything we can to help the developing cricketing countries out. Maybe we can offer the better players from those countries a place at the AIS Cricket Academy. Or are we too much a 'school yard bully' to stick out a helping hand?
GhostofJimJess
1 Mar 2003, 22:34
Originally posted by Bee
Exactly, we should be doing everything we can to help the developing cricketing countries out. Maybe we can offer the better players from those countries a place at the AIS Cricket Academy. Or are we too much a 'school yard bully' to stick out a helping hand?
Time will tell, Bee. And the irony of it all is that if cricket is to flourish in this country in the long term, we need to assist our opposition while we have the resources to do so. Like the AFL, the game will be healthy if the lower teams are healthy.
Aussies crowds love to see their team win, but in the long run it requires authentication by a competitive opposition.
And soccer is seriously on our doorstep as a viable summer sport to wrest away our talented youth.
red+black
2 Mar 2003, 01:31
I think Kenya shouldn't be allowed to play in the World Cup. I mean, they don't play tests, no one knows where Kenya is, teams create these massive records against them and brag about them, the players are black, and they get picked on by the big schoolyard bullies aka teams with white players.
Naah, scrap that, somehow everyone gave them a fair go and they qualified for the Super Six. Lucky that big bad Australian team didn't play them.
Yet.