[Archived] The Not A Build Up To The Ashes Thread

[jim mk2]

To be fair Jim, we don't always get it right. Didn't we also invent Australians?

No. The real Australians are those nice dark-skinned chaps in the bush.

[T4E]

I know Jim, I know. I nearly said "white Australians" but thought that might get the mice-fearing housewives all in a tizz.

[American]

Does someone know a link to a place to learn the basics of 20/20? I've been able to figure out that it is 20 overs per side, but is it either 20 overs or x number of wickets, or is it 20 overs no matter what? What's a decent per ball average? I've been turning it on and it will say, whichever country needs 118 from 90 balls.

[Flopsy]

Its cricket but reduced to 20 overs, therefore you have 20 overs of 6 balls to score as much as you can, with the 11 wickets (batsmen). If you lose all the wickets before the 20 overs are up, then thats teh end of the innings and the opposition have to try and score more.

In regards to balls per run - in Test match cricket (90 overs for 5 days) 4 an over is an excellent match winning rate, in 50 overs a run a ball is usually a good average as it would give you 300, and in T20 a score of 8 an over is usually a decent get.

If its 6 an over or less, then its 80% likely that the side needing that run rate will win.

Try the ECB or cricinfo for more info

[broadsword]

: CRICKET: AS EXPLAINED TO A FOREIGNER...

: You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.

: When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game.

: Simple!

[Billy Castell]

Siddle is a big strong Victorian who has bowled well in his career so far. Johnson is our new #1 fast bowler.

We don't have a spinner.

Ponting captained well against South Africa in South Africa. I think getting rid of the last members of the 'old team' mean that he could lead the new players with more authority.

Intresting stuff. Perhaps the old guard helped Punter make the right decisions and had that intensity that made Australia so successful. Now he is on his own, as a single legendary figure dominating a less experienced team, the faults in his captaincy may be more exposed. There is no Warne or McGrath to throw on and bowl a team out, and the batting, whilst still very good, doesn't hold that sense of dread when the opposition look at it.

Personally, I think all the bull he comes out with is just bluster and he is believing that if he says something, its true. He's been a good captain, a great batsman but it seems the inner nob is taking over. What odds that he'll go on about winning 5-0 again, that Flintoff is a crock but still is England's only hope etc. The last time Ponting sounded this arrogant before the Ashes was 2005.

Now come on groundsmen, lets not have dull, tedious flat pitches unless you want to kill off test cricket. Lets have really spin friendly pitches so we may even play Monty and Swann.

[Flopsy]

Intresting stuff. Perhaps the old guard helped Punter make the right decisions and had that intensity that made Australia so successful. Now he is on his own, as a single legendary figure dominating a less experienced team, the faults in his captaincy may be more exposed. There is no Warne or McGrath to throw on and bowl a team out, and the batting, whilst still very good, doesn't hold that sense of dread when the opposition look at it.

Personally, I think all the bull he comes out with is just bluster and he is believing that if he says something, its true. He's been a good captain, a great batsman but it seems the inner nob is taking over. What odds that he'll go on about winning 5-0 again, that Flintoff is a crock but still is England's only hope etc. The last time Ponting sounded this arrogant before the Ashes was 2005.

Now come on groundsmen, lets not have dull, tedious flat pitches unless you want to kill off test cricket. Lets have really spin friendly pitches so we may even play Monty and Swann.

I'd play Rashid before Monty at the moment

[modes98]

Siddle is a big strong Victorian

Here's his team photo

Rashid is an ok player, but I think it is a bit early to throw him into an Ashes series. Stick with Swann. Bell should be due a recall as well, he always does well against Aus.

[ABBEY]

All the Aussies comments on T20 are really quite laughable.

Its a bit of fun, no one ever said it was massively important or as interesting as a test series, but its here and everyone is trying to win it , including the Aussies. Just because your boys are bobbins at it is no reason to sound so condescending.

cricket for the unwashed 20/20 its like having a penalty shootout world cup at footy or one handed boxing match on one leg.. Its everything proper cricket isnt about.

[brfcshabba]

We really aren't good at this 20:20 lark at all. Can somebody tell the batters bar Pietersen that boundaries are quite helpful when setting a target

[Ozz]

You were saying cookie???

[brfcshabba]

The bowling and India sticking in the youngster before Yuvraj rescued us.

[stuwilky]

To be fair Jim, we don't always get it right. Didn't we also invent Australians?

Priceless!

with the 11 wickets

On a technicality Flopper, a side can only lose 10.

[Flopsy]

Priceless!

On a technicality Flopper, a side can only lose 10.

True, but I'm hoping the MCC will take pity on England and let us have an extra batsman

[Eddie]

Certainly need one. Just not enough hitters in this side. You can't expect to get 170-180 with players like Collingwood, Foster and Swann regularly getting crucial time at the crease when the score needs to be pushed on.

[nowthen]

Agree. Luke Wright isn't up to it at the top of the top of the innings- each time we allow him to do well against weaker sides we have to play him and then see him struggle against the better ones. Would play Napier and move everyone up one from five and also have Rashid dropping out for Mascarenhas. I'd drop Colly for Key or some other decent batsmen but obviously he's fireproof as skipper. And despite his game-turning stumping against India, Foster's batting is too weak for a number six or seven.

We've done well to be still in this competition bearing in mind how many out of form/not good enough players we have.

By the way, the longer it rains the less chance we have against their hitters.

Also Nick Knight talking rubbish as usual by justifying England batting first despite weather forecasts, especially with our short batting line up benefitting from a shortened game.

[Exiled_Rover]

We're going to lose this, they bat all the way down to 10. I think the team we chose was a gamble, but the weather has meant that we've lost it. With 10 wickets to play with I'd be shocked if they can't get 80 runs in 9 overs.

[nowthen]

Our team wasn't a gamble at all.

[brfcshabba]

Again slow batting in the middle overs has cost us. Two boundaries in 9 overs. Not good enough

[Exiled_Rover]

Duckworth Lewis strikes again. It's such an unfair system.

[nowthen]

Don't think we got enough runs irrespective of D-L. It's a better system than what happened before but harsh that wickets don't count when chasing a fixed target.

Colly shouldn't play this form of the game again. He's a great fielder but offers little else. KP to captain England in future.

[DP]

Just as I was beginning to enjoy 20/20......

Blame the weather or the lack of a big hitter in England's middle order, but 9 overs to determine the winner? The American's will be watching it next!

[Eddie]

I actually think the D-L gave England more of a chance. I always think that it favours a side defending a smaller total. 80 off of 90 was harder for that long batting order than 162 off of 20, which was a poor score for that pitch. England just have their team selection all wrong. Why are there 5 specialist bowlers in 20/20 cricket? No other side does that. You can't afford to have 6 specialist players in a side where the better batting almost always wins (if you see what I mean). On top of that Collingwood simply shouldn't be out there. I remain unconvinced of his value at international level, but particularly in the shortened forms of the game. There are plenty of good Englishman in domestic cricket suited to 20/20, England need to realise, much like the Australians, that their test squads simply aren't suited to it.

[Exiled_Rover]

The West Indies only had to score 80 runs from nine overs with 10 wickets to play with. That's hugely unfair; they had license to swing the bat. It'd only be even if the DL method reduced the number of wickets the side has.

Admittedly England probably didn't score enough runs, but the gamble was that they had 5 frontline bowlers to bowl 20 overs, rather than 3 bowlers and 2 'all rounders' like Luke Wright. 162 was very defendable in those circumstances.

[Eddie]

It was never going to be defended. The West Indies have 8 good batters and all 11 know which end to hold, as it was they chased down 80 with two of their best batsmen at the crease and plenty still to come, had you told them to chase another 80 at that point I still would have had my money on them.

England simply haven't figured out the batting for 20/20 cricket and rely entirely on their bowling, it isn't a sound tactic and it is why they only win games when one of the batsmen has great knock (usually Pietersen) or when the other team doesn't really show up for large parts of the match (see Pakistan and India).