Australia show ruthless streak
Rain and a dire performance from West Indies made for an anti-climactic end to a Champions Trophy tournament that lacked sparkle, but that should not detract from Australia’s victory.
Their ruthless will to win is undiminished and there is little more they could have achieved since losing the Ashes in England last year.
They have won 11 and drawn one of their 12 Tests and they have triumphed in all but one of their five one-day competitions since then. Not bad for a side supposedly in decline.
Most of Australia’s star players are well into their 30s, but their fierce competitive spirit is compensating for ageing limbs, for now at least. Since losing to West Indies in their opening group match, Australia were effectively playing knockout matches and despite the pressure, they were never seriously threatened.
Their bowlers maintained a stranglehold on pitches that have inhibited batsmen. It is not an intimidating attack, but it is disciplined and relentless, the perfect virtues for one-day success.
With the Ashes series imminent, there was inevitable scrutiny of Glenn McGrath’s progress. He produced some more impressive figures and dismissed Brian Lara in the final, but that masks the full story.
His first two overs were clattered for 22 runs with Chris Gayle in brutal form, but once the excellent Nathan Bracken had sent back Gayle, McGrath benefited from West Indies’ caution.
McGrath could have done no more than he has in this tournament, but there are still questions to be answered. There is a big difference between bowling 44 overs in three weeks and being forced to bowl the same number over three or four days in a Test match.
When he is allowed to dominate, however, he is still a formidable opponent and West Indies’ batting was spineless after the thrilling start to their innings.
Lara welcomed the pre-match description of his side as unpredictable. Having been impressively uncompromising on their way to the final, however, they displayed the fallibility that has plagued them in Tests for so long.
Lara also talked about the need for ‘smart cricket’. But after the loss of Gayle, West Indies appeared to lose their belief. To be dismissed inside 31 overs was crass. The pitch was not a minefield. It simply required patience and discipline, like every other surface in this tournament.
The disappointing aspect is that West Indies have been shaping up convincingly in the lead-up to the World Cup.
There are no longer overly dependent on Lara – they reached the final despite only one significant contribution from him. Chris Gayle, fast-bowler Jerome Taylor and all-rounder Dwayne Bravo have all been excellent and they are developing a stronger core to their team.
Having made progress, it would be dispiriting for the game in the Caribbean if West Indies failed to thrive in front of their own supporters when the next big test comes around next spring.
The West Indies made the mistake that most sides do when batting first, they panicked. They suddenly changed from a positive, aggressive game plan which was working ( Gayle, C'paul, Sarwan) to a defensive, cautious approach, where staying in, rather than scoring runs, was the plan ( Lara, Bravo, Samuels, Morton ...) An utter failure. Why? Because they lost 3 wickets. ODI batting is about scoring runs quickly, not about staying in. Unfortunately most teams are obsessed with keeping wickets hand at the expense of scoring runs at a consistently high rate (5rpo+). I'm convinced that the West Indies would have scored more than 138 today if the match had been a Twenty20 game because they would have adopted a positive mindset throughout. Batting 50 overs is not as important as everyone thinks. The sight of Lara leaving the ball and making McGrath look unplayable was painful to watch, a bowler who didn't look so crash hot when he was being tonked for 22 runs in his first 2 overs.
England are guilty of the same mistakes when they bat first, as we saw against both India and Aus. South Africa were too cautious in the semi-final against WI. Australia is just about the only country that recognises the need to score runs at all times. Not surprisingly they're the best side in the world.
Complain about this postI'm sorry John but that was just complete rubbish. Cricket is about analysing situations and making the right decisions. Windies were off to a flyer, once they lost a couple of wickets they did the right thing in trying to rebuild as they were going along at some rate. It was just unfortunate that they lost some more wickets. Alaister Cook - the greatest
Complain about this postIt was unfortunate they lost some more wickets!
When Brian Lara came to the crease the last thing that the Australians would have wanted was for him to have carried on in the same vein as Gayle and Chanderpaul. Instead they got his best Boycott impersonation. If you think that scoring 2 runs off 18 balls, the majority of which were off McGrath who had been belted to all parts of Mumbai in his first 2 overs, was the right decision then you know nothing about cricket. West Indies didn't lose today because they got bowled out; plenty of sides get bowled out batting first and win matches. They lost because they scored too few runs. Why did they score too few runs because they made a conscious effort at 80-3 to stop scoring runs quickly. When a side loses a wicket it needs to counter attack, not rebuild, a euphemism for scoring slowly, not pressurising the bowler and wasting deliveries.
The top batsmen in ODIs don't have top averages, they have top strike rates. A quick 30 is always better than a slow 50. WI's best 2 batsmen today were their openers and they were the only ones who looked to attack the bowling. Bravo scored 6 runs less than Chanderpaul, yet by your logic he helped his side more by facing 29 extra deliveries. Rubbish.
You mention Cook. In a test match there is no real time pressure. Batsmen can bat slowly and make a slow 50 or 100 without it usually harming the side too much. You can't do that in ODIs. The West Indies took the wrong decisions at 80-3 and paid the ultimate price.
Complain about this postJon, i abosolutely disagree that "a quick 30 is always better than slow 50". The circumstances of the match always must be taken into account, and situations must be analysed, just as Andy wrote. To say that everyone should bat the same way no matter what simply because its a one day game is absurd. Perhaps it is you who knows nothing about cricket.
Complain about this postps - the only thing that will stop the Aussies flogging the Poms in the Ashes will be rain (and perhaps the odd bit of brilliance by that Pieterson bloke)
Hi Jon,
Using your logic Shahid Afridi is the greatest one-day batsman to have ever played the game. I rest my case.
Complain about this postHi,
I am delighted that West Indian cricket is back on track as they remain everyone's second favourite side after their own national team. It was a shame they collapsed in the final after such a sensational start.
Australia were determined to win the one trophy that eluded them since 1998 and they did so with their traditional prepardness and depth.
Pity were they foolish during last year's Ashes series when players like Mike Hussey and Nathan Bracken should have played from the third Test onwards at least.
The disappointments were, of course, the early departures of the Asian giants, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Wonder whom they will blame this time since it was their home ground.
India were hardly worth the hype while Pakistan were hit by the shock banning of Shoaib and Asif. Sri Lanka flattered to deceive and all three countries know they have a lot of work to do before next year's World Cup.
Thank you,
Lawrence Machado
Complain about this postEven though their has been comments on the Aging australian squad their is no stopping this Modern Day Invincibles .The rate at which they win Finals is Phenomenol.The world will not be surprised when the Aussies become the First team in the world to win Three consecutive World cups .
Complain about this postGlenn Mcgrath's Dismisal of Brian Lara in the finals and Sachin Tendulkar in the group stages on subcontinent condition clearly indicates why he is the premier fast bowler in the world .
Damien Martyn abilities to stay till the end saw the Aussies cross the line without a Puff .
I think every member of this Australian squad are special .Add Shane Warne into the scheme of things
ASHES is for the taking here .
Jon - have you ever watched a cricket match?? Are you 12 years old?? Your entire argument is ludicrous!
Of course West Indies had to settle and rebuild. Of course Australia would have done the same, then upped the tempo as the bowling, wicket, batsmen to come, etc etc, dictated.
Of course a quick 30 isn't always better than a slow 50- it's nearly always worse! If three batsmen blast 30 each then get out we are, in that period, 90 for 3 - if two batsmen makes a slow 50, that's 100 for 2. In nearly every context - particularly when prior to this early wickets have tumbled, this is better!
Complain about this postSorry, another little rant:
Jon, I'm going to simplify things even more for you. You talk like someone who has never played or watched cricket but this seems implausible.
Ok, here goes. On a pitch that could go either way, your crazy team goes out and smashes my bowlers around at 6 an over for 35 overs, because that's 'always the best way to bat'. It's spectacular, and for the sake of argument your top order all get a quick 30. That's 180, plus 15 extras, and your tail adds 25 - because they come out all guns blazing too despite all the wickets down, all the overs potentially to score more runs in and the fact they're not that good at batting, because they're bowlers. so you have a total of 220.
My team goes out and, taking advantage of powerplays, scores at 4 and a half runs an over for 20 overs. That's 90, probably for 2 wickets because of the advantage of the new ball. Say one of my openers got 10 and number three got a 'slow 50', at 4 and a half an over (75 balls). The other opener's still there on 20 because he's had less of the strike. I've now got 30 overs to score 130 runs. I lose my other opener for 40 and my number 4 for 30. now i'm 140 for 4 after 32 overs. It's the drinks break. My two new batsmen consolidate for 8 overs, scoring 30 runs. Now i'm 170 for 4 after 40 overs. I need 50 more runs at 5 an over with two batsmen, who are probably two of my biggest hitters, relatively settled and 6 wickets in hand. At no stage has my team scored as fast as yours, needed to, or broken sweat. I'd back me to win from here.
Now do you understand?
Complain about this postPsychology comes into play in high pressure qames.I believe the Australians are mentelly and psychologically fit to withstand pressures.
Complain about this postTwo wickets down and The Windies started to crumble under pressure.A marvellous catch by Gilchrist was what turned the match in Australia's favour. There is no good batsman after Lara in top order. So it was almost all over when Lara fell to McGrah.
Clearly Aussies won the game yesterday because of the variety in the bowling Department and their ability to adapt to changing conditions:
Brett Lee : Fast and furious ==> went for runs in the first spell and bowled aggressively to the tailenders not allowing them to score in the end.
Glenn Mcgarth : Mr Consistent Line & Length ==> went for a few runs in his first 2-3 overs but pulled it back after 3 wickets went down. He built the pressure that led to Brian Lara's wicket.
Nathan Brackan : Changed pace of the delivery very well and got 3 important wickets at the start.
Watson : Lucky to get the first wicket. Used the slowness of the pitch to his advantage.
Hogg : tough to handle for the Tailenders.
Plus, all bowlers are well supported by excellent fielding.
The only weakness (if we can call it a weakness) is in the batting department. But WI never had enough runs to defend in the end.
WI weaknesses :
Lack of patience from the top batsman. Also the
ball slowed down considerably after pitching. This was the reason why Chanderpaul got an inside edge. He misread the pace of the ball off the pitch. Gayle was out to a great delivery. But Sarwan made the same mistake.
Lara can not play a defensive innings at the beginning of his own knock. He can adapt once he has settled down and that was one of the reasons for his wicket.
The remaining batsman did not have the required experience and hence they failed.
In the end, its the same old end to an interesting story. Aussies win.
I hope England win (retain) the Ashes!
Complain about this postWell poor Jon! But in his defence he is trying to encourage entertaining cricket. Who realy wants to see boring "rebuilding" in limited overs cricjket? Test matches and 4 day cricket are the place for that not the one day arena.
I'm not great on tactics, but I do appreciate EXCITING one day cricket - not the drab rubbish in this pointless one day tournamount. played on sub standard pitches. Yesterday,s "final" was a joke, and unless International 50 over cricket improves drastically it will all go to 20/20 - and perhaps it should. Just thinkhow many boring World Cup matches there is likely to be!
Any one for the Carribean?
Complain about this postI'm not a big fan of 50 over cricket either Doug, but while we're playing it we might as well do it right. Sometimes you DO need to rebuild; have no doubt about that.
Twenty20 does seem to be the way to go, Doug - and if Jon was peddling his arguments in regard to that much more instant and exciting form of the game, he would be absolutely spot on - but, in my opinion and probably that of most English fans' (to the dismay of Graveney et al no doubt!), it's Test cricket that is my true love.
I will follow the world cup and will celebrate if we win - but i won't particularly care if we don't. On the other hand, i will be on top of the Ashes tour from ball one and my employer probably won't get much value out of me during the series! I can't wait - and i can't describe to you how much more important this series is to English cricket and its fans than the world cup - let alone the champions' trophy!
Complain about this postAfter 10 overs WI were 80/3. In the next 20.4 overs they scored 58 runs and lost 7 wickets. I don't have a problem with batsmen getting out, but why did they score at less than 3 rpo? How was that helping them? I wouldn't have expected them to continue to score at 7, 8 rpo, but to score at less than 3 is criminal. Both England and WI have shown that if you attck great bowlers (i.e McGrath) they tend to look a bit ordinary. However, when you just look to survive against them, they look unstoppable.
Remember Lord's last summer. McGrath bowling to Trescothick, Strauss, Vaughan, Bell and Flintoff, all playing defensively against him, playing from the crease. 21-5 it was off 16.1 overs!!. But you lot say that was good batting because England were re-building after the fall of every wicket. My philosophy, the counter-attack, as shown by Pietersen, was obviously ludicrous, as he only scored 64 and took McGrath to the cleaners. Or the Oval, where Pietersen blocked his way to 158 and a tedious draw that secured us the Ashes, or Flintoff last summer at Edgbaston second innings... The fundamental flaw with re-building is that you can't afford to lose wickets. If a team loses wickets and scores slowly, then they suffer the double whammy, as happened yesterday. Australia did it right. They were always ahead of the required run rate, so even if they'd lost wickets they wouldn't have been under pressure to score at 5, 6 rpo plus.
This winter I don't think that Australia will be scared of Alistair Cook. He will probably score runs, but he'll score them so slowly that he'll never be taking the game away from them, unlike Pietersen, Flintoff, maybe Trescothick and Strauss. England won the Ashes by being aggressive as a unit. For every Shahid Afridi who fails, I could name you Simon Katich, Boeta Dippenaar, Ian Bell, Jacques Kallis, Rahul Dravid, Mohammed Yousuf as players who score lots of runs but far too slowly.
Top 10 ODI batsmen:
1) Hussey s/r 94.22 Ave 77.11
2) Gayle s/r 79.96 Ave 40.11
3) Pietersen s/r 95.17 Ave 55.55
4) Gilchrist s/r 96.32 Ave 36.20
5) Symonds s/r 91.49 Ave 38.63
6) Dhoni s/r 98.51 Ave 44.33
6) Ponting s/r 79.25 Ave 41.64
8) Sarwan s/r 76.79 Ave 44.33
9) Smith s/r 78.85 Ave 38.87
10) Sangakkara s/r 74.20 Ave 35.90
Great averages, but even better strike rates. Look at WI's s/r from yesterday. Only the top 3 match had decent s/r. They managed 80-3 of 10 overs. That equates to 240-9 off 30 overs, only 102 more runs than they managed through blocking.
Lastly, think back to 1996. Subcontinent conditions. How did Sri Lanka win the World Cup? Was it by blocking after they lost both openers caught at third man in the first over of the semi-final? Was it by scoring slowly and keeping wickets in hand for the last few overs? No it was by continuously counter-attacking, regardless of how many wickets they lost. That is the way to play at all times.
Complain about this postAlan,
My top order has 8 batsmen in it. 8 x 30 off 35 balls = 240 off 280 balls, plus tail, plus extras = 260 total.
50 off 75 balls equates to 200 off 300 balls. Your side would accelerate of course, but your side is no more likely to not get out than my batsmen. Also, you make it sound so easy that batsmen can suddenly score at 5, 6 rpo when they choose to. I agree. So my point is that they should do it sooner. They don't need to waste so many deliveries rebuilding.
At Trent Bridge this summer we saw Razzaq go ballistic at the end of an ODI innings. In the last 3 overs he scored 45 runs off just 16 balls. My point is this. He ran out of overs, not partners. Therefore he left it too late. Off his first 56 balls he scored 30 runs. How on earth can such a discrepancy be justified by anything other than the fact that he waited far too long to start wreaking havoc. Nobody at the time criticised him for this. Pakistan lost by 8 wickets. He waited until the 48th over to start his assault. Why? My guess is that he was scared of getting out and Pakistan being criticised for not batting 50 overs. That is muddled thinking.
If attacking the bowling all the time is so hard, why don't teams get bowled out cheaply, but quickly?
Zim 85 ao v WI off 30.1 overs
Zim 141 ao v SL off 42.4 overs
Zim 130 a0 v Ban off 44.4 overs
WI 80 ao v SL off 30.1 overs
Eng 125 ao v Ind off 37 overs
SA 108 ao v NZ off 34.1 overs
SL 141 ao v SA off 39.1 overs
Pak 89 ao v SA off 25 overs
WI 138 ao v Aus off 30.4 overs
Those are all the scores under 150 in the recent ICC Champions Trophy. Look at the run rates. Only one is above 4. I don't see sides getting bowled out for 140 in 20 overs. If they were you could say that they were batting too quickly. I see sides losing early wickets, panicking and getting slower and slower.
Complain about this posti just love riky ponting i think he is the greatest of the all ,ICC shud get Hair back as he is a superb umpire.
Complain about this postaussies ur the greatest pls keep the good work on.
rolland
Jon, my little friend, you are living in a fantasy world. How can you take yourself seriously when you use phrases like 'this is the way to play at all times'??
No-one is saying that scoring slowly and losing wickets is good batting. No-one is suggesting that having a good strike-rate is a bad thing. Do you seriously not understand this? Take a look at those batsmen you have mentioned - they all average over 35. Averages aren't important?? Of course you have to score quickly in ODIs and sometimes in test cricket, but giving a few examples of when blasting your way out of trouble does not, in any way, justify ridiculous and ill-informed comments such as 'you must always try to score as quickly as possible no matter the situation'!!
Jon, Jon, Jon...
I was referring to a theoretical team in which the top 6 are the best batsmen and all got a quick 30.
I'm not sure if you know what fielders are (they are the men who stand around the pitch) but towards the end of a ODI they tend to spread out to prevent boundaries. This means scoring at up to 6 an over becomes more easy.
And if you read my previous post, you will see that i made the point that it is important to have wickets in hand when attempting to increase run rate. Then the 50 off ten overs for the loss of, say, 3 wickets, is very achievable.
Players become more aggressive at the end of the 50 overs as it is, at that point, less important to conserve wickets and more important to get as many runs as possible.
For every instance (Razza) where this has yielded big runs for an individual, ten others have failed. This is fine at the end of the innings, but not before. Do you not grasp this?
Re: your other 'point' about teams scoring slowly and being bowled out cheaply. I'm going to slowly make some very simple points about this. On a pitch on which it is difficult to bat, teams will usually lose wickets and find it hard to score. Do you see the correlation there? When a team loses early wickets, this usually means they are up against a tricky surface, or a potent attack. Occasionally the batting team will launch one of your attacks, and, some of the time that will pay off. That's when you get all excited and a bit burpy probably. Usually, the batting team will exert a bit of caution, and try to rebuild: giving them a better chance of keeping wickets in hand and seeing off early morning conditions/opening bowlers/the new ball. Quoting low scores at low run rates is all very well but isn't it obvious that when a team is losing wickets they are struggling to play the bowlers and therefor are not able to score quickly?? And if they do try to it will usually backfire...?
When conditions/the scorecard is looking a bit better, the run rate picks up. Is this rocket science? I could find countless scorecards for you where wickets fall, run rate is slow, then two batsmen consolidate and accelerate. But that is a lengthy task, and i've already wasted too much of my day taking you through the kind of simple fact that a 14 year old club cricketer's son could have told you.
Complain about this postAndy,
You do not need to look up scorecards, rather look back just a few games to the last time these two sides met.
WI were in trouble at 47-3 and even worse at 63-4. So....they decided to rebuild (which must have had Jon running behind the sofa). Ended up with a very respectable 234 on a difficult wicket and managed to contain the Aus reply and win the match.
And I certainly enjoyed that :)
Complain about this postI don't mind being patronised, so feel free to continue.
Glenn McGrath's first two overs on Sunday went for 22 runs. As the notion of good and bad bowling/batting is utterly subjective we could argue until the cows come home about the quality of those overs. Here's Cricinfo's take on them:
6.1 McGrath to Gayle, 1 wide, short and wide outside leg stump, Gayle goes for the hook but misses, wide called
Slip moves out now.
6.1 McGrath to Gayle, 1 leg bye, pitches outside leg stump, Gayle goes for a heavy whip over midwicket but misses, gets a leg bye for his efforts
Sarwan takes guard again.
6.2 McGrath to Sarwan, 1 run, full outside off stump and moving in, he stands and tries to tickle fine, mistimes and gets a quick single in front of square leg
6.3 McGrath to Gayle, no run, moves around the wicket to the left-hander, lands this bang outside off stump and moves it in, Gayle hurries to get behind and drop the hands
6.4 McGrath to Gayle, no run, lands on a good length on middle and leg and moves down leg, wide not called by Koertzen
6.5 McGrath to Gayle, no run, lands outside off and moves away, sucking Gayle into the forward defensive, he's beaten
6.6 McGrath to Gayle, SIX, hoo hah! Overpitched outside off stump, Gayle frees the arms and smacks that across the line, lifts it high and handsome with sheer brute force over long-on, incredible shot from the big man
8.1 McGrath to Gayle, no run, shortish outside off stump, Gayle moves back and crunches that to mid-on
8.2 McGrath to Gayle, SIX, banged in short again, and this time Gayle rocks into the pull shot in a flash, picking that up from outside off stump for a dinger over deep midwicket, was a perfect ball to pull
8.3 McGrath to Gayle, FOUR, again he drops one short from around the wicket, and Gayle smashes the pull past mid-on this time, ball screams away for four, terrific batting
8.4 McGrath to Gayle, FOUR, this is brutal! A rank halfvolley outside off stump disappears in a flash past a despairing Martyn at mid-off, what a player, what force, four runs
8.5 McGrath to Gayle, no run, shortish again, Gayle shuffles across the stumps and tries to manufacture a cheeky dab past backward point, doesnt time it well though
a wide third slip in place now, and the onside fielders have moved squarer
8.6 McGrath to Gayle, no run, slower ball, fuller outside off stump and moving in, Gayle covers his stumps and shoulders arms
fine over for West Indies
Here are his next 5 overs which produced 3 maidens, 2 wickets and 2 runs.
10.1 McGrath to Bravo, no run, good ball, pitches outside off stump, Bravo behind it and defends
10.2 McGrath to Bravo, no run, good ball outside off stump, Bravo goes back and defends again
10.3 McGrath to Bravo, no run, a fraction wider and Bravo unleashes the extravagant cut shot, misses by a fair distance
10.4 McGrath to Bravo, no run, lands outside off stump, Bravo again right behind it and defends back to McGrath
10.5 McGrath to Bravo, no run, full outside off stump, he shoulders arms
10.6 McGrath to Bravo, no run, pitches on off stump, Bravo defends, ball rolls to midwicket
12.1 McGrath to Lara, no run, good ball moving across him from off stump, Lara covers off stump and shoulders arms
12.2 McGrath to Lara, no run, another good ball swinging away, Lara gets a stride forward and raises the bat
12.3 McGrath to Lara, no run, fuller this time, Lara gets right on top of that with some exagerrated frontfoot defense
12.4 McGrath to Lara, no run, quicker ball on the stumps, Lara defends
12.5 McGrath to Lara, no run, full and seaming away outside off stump, he shoulders arms
12.6 McGrath to Lara, no run, good length again outside off stump, Lara comes forward and squeezes that to backward point
14.1 McGrath to Lara, no run, full outside off stump, left alone
14.2 McGrath to Lara, no run, moving away from outside off stump, Lara comes forward and shoulders arms, rapped on the front leg, a muted appeal from McGrath
14.3 McGrath to Lara, no run, fullish and moving away from outside off stump, again Lara shoulders arms with a big stride forward
14.4 McGrath to Lara, no run, full outside off stump, Lara drives expansively but straight to cover
14.5 McGrath to Lara, 1 wide, good length on off stump, Lara shuffles and works that straight to midwicket
Hussey moves to the off side ring
14.5 McGrath to Lara, OUT, excellent catch! Amazing! Full and moving away outside off stump, Lara comes well forward and defends, but that little bit of deviation was enough to draw the edge and Gilchrist behind the stumps dived to his left and holds onto a fine one-handed catch, that ball was dipping, bye bye Lara
BC Lara c Gilchrist b McGrath 2 (26m 18b 0x4 0x6) SR: 11.11
Runako Morton's the new man in. Much pressure on him.
14.6 McGrath to Morton, no run, good ball, moves into him from middle and leg, caught on the upper thigh
16.1 McGrath to Bravo, no run, full on off stump, whipped to Ponting at midwicket who fires in a throw at the nonstrikers end, but all safe in the end
16.2 McGrath to Bravo, no run, full outside off stump, squeezed to backward point
16.3 McGrath to Bravo, 1 run, short of a good length outside off stump, Bravo cracks the backfoot drive to backward point, misfield allows the run
16.4 McGrath to Morton, no run, short of a good length ball on off stump, Morton goes back and defends
16.5 McGrath to Morton, no run, good ball nips back from outside off stump, Morton stands and tries to defend, ball takes the inside edge and rolls close to the stumps
16.6 McGrath to Morton, no run, good length outside off stump, driven to cover off the back foot
18.1 McGrath to Morton, no run, lands outside off and raps him on the front leg as he comes forward, a muted appeal from McGrath and Gilchrist
18.2 McGrath to Morton, OUT, gone! Hits the deck on a great length - typical McGrath - and Morton stands and chases it, a regulation thick edge into Gilchrist's gloves and West Indies slip further
RS Morton c Gilchrist b McGrath 2 (16m 9b 0x4 0x6) SR: 22.22
In struts Marlon Samuels, short of runs. Gayle recently rated his unbeaten 108 from 75 balls, against India back in 2002, as the best ODI innings he'd seen.
18.3 McGrath to Samuels, no run, full outside off stump, left alone
18.4 McGrath to Samuels, no run, good length outside off stump, pushed to cover&
18.5 McGrath to Samuels, no run, brings this one into him, he defends and almost gets an inside edge
18.6 McGrath to Samuels, no run, this one's full and moving away, Samuels leaves it alone, fine over from McGrath
Now maybe the pitch became a minefield, maybe McGrath suddenly started bowling 10 mph quicker. Whatever it was, it most definitely wasn't a change in attitude from the batters (that's sarcasm by the way, I learnt it at nursery today), because Gayle scored all his runs by shouldering arms and defending, whereas Bravo, Lara and Morton were whacking balls to the boundary, but those pesky Australian fielders were just too quick for them to take even one run. I bet McGrath was horrified with his third over, a maiden, because he could see the West Indies rebuilding. I'm surprised he didn't walk off the field, petrified at the onslaught that was going to come his way in 35 overs time, once the rebuilding process had ended. He really wanted his over to disappear for another 10 runs.
I'm glad someone mentioned the earlier Aus v WI game. That'll be the one where Aus needed 64 off 60 balls with 6 wickets in hand. As Alan said easy. Aus won by.. Oh hang on a minute. They lost. Why? Because Clarke scored 47 off 85 balls. How dare he score so quickly. I blame Gilchrist for scoring at a slow rate, pressurising his partner into taking such outrageous risks against the bowlers. I'll refer, m'lud, to the honourable Cricinfo again:
End of over 37 (6 runs) - Australia 162/4 (73 runs required from 13 overs, RR: 4.37, RRR: 5.61)
MJ Clarke 36* (58b 3x4) IDR Bradshaw 9-0-36-2
AC Gilchrist 76* (104b 9x4) CH Gayle 5-0-16-1
Gayle had a long word in Clarke's ear after that over, he followed him all the way down the wicket and chirped in his ear!
37.1 Gayle to Gilchrist, 1 run, tossed up outside off, pushed to point
37.2 Gayle to Clarke, no run, good ball, tossed up outside off, Clarke smothers the spin with a forward defensive
37.3 Gayle to Clarke, no run, again Clarke comes forward and defends watchfully, what did Gayle say to him?
37.4 Gayle to Clarke, no run, and again! Flatter on off stump and Clarke defends with a straight bat
37.5 Gayle to Clarke, no run, you guessed it! Tossed up outside off stump, and....Clarke DEFENDS!
37.6 Gayle to Clarke, no run, tell me you all saw this one coming too? Tossed up outside off stump, Clarke goes right back and defends with a straight bat. Some respect this for Gayle...
End of over 38 (1 run) - Australia 163/4 (72 runs required from 12 overs, RR: 4.28, RRR: 6.00)
Notice again how the words "defend" and "no run" combine. But it was turning square, Gayle does turn the ball the most in World Cricket, Clarke had only been at the crease for 58 balls so he was still getting his eye in and in the end the run rate required had only marginally increased from 6 to 16 per over. Still playing out that maiden helped Australia because he didn't get out. I mean, they only had the number one ODI batsman in the world and International ODI player of the year to bat next. I think depriving him of as much strike as possible and letting the rrr spiral upwards was the right approach to take. Must bat out the 50 overs. Forget scoring runs.
I'll leave you with two thoughts. The WI played out 4 maidens in the final, Aus 1. What do you think Lara's reaction would have been at the toss if he'd been told that his side could only bat for 46 overs max, yet Aus could have 49? I seriously doubt that he'd have been too happy. Yet this is what happened in effect.
Second. Although impossible to prove, there is no way in my mind that South Africa, if they'd batted first in that ODI at Jo'burg, would have score 430 runs plus, because they would not have attempted to. I'm sure that the small boundaries, flat wicket and Aussie inability to bowl yorkers would have resulted in a 300 plus score, but when faced with an almost impossible situation of chasing 430, with no fear of failure holding back the batters, (after all if SA had been bowled out cheaply it would still have been the bowlers' fault for conceding all those runs) look what they achieved, a score of nearly 300 more runs than the WI on Sunday. Rebuilding is important. Don't make me laugh.
Complain about this postI'll keep it brief little jon. you are using one example which backs up your argument pretty well. this does NOT mean 'rebuilding doesn't work' and it does NOT mean 'aggression is always the best policy'. they are statements which are very, very stupid. as, i would suggest, are most ill-informed generalisations.
Complain about this postjon...
you are using one example to justify ill-informed generalisations such as 'it is always best to...' and '... never works'. this is silly and does not constitute a sensible or compelling argument.
Complain about this postI've given countless examples and could give lots more. What you seem to be forgetting is the FACT that WI lost 7-58 in 20.4 overs. I say that this was the wrong approach and you criticise me. Therefore I have to assume that you have no problem with a side losing 7-58 in 20.4 overs, yet I'm the dummy. I've mentioned Razzaq, Pietersen, Flintoff, SL 96, SA 2006, Gayle. I could tell you about a plethora of Gilchrist, Dhoni, Klusener, Symonds etc... counter-attacking innings, where they have scored at 5 runs an over from the word go.
In return you overlook one fact. Batsmen get out when they are well set. The two batsmen at the crease are seldom both there at the end of 50 overs. In the ICC trophy it didn't happen once in any of the first innings. (Oh by the way in overs 0-10, 72 wickets were lost but in overs 40-50, 81 wkts were lost. That rather disputes your theory about it being easier to score runs in the last few overs. But you don't want facts.) So you're happy for batsmen to use up balls knowing that in all likelihood they won't be there at the end of the innings and you think that's sensible.
I see that neither of you commented on my points about maiden overs and SA's mindset chasing 430 odd but I wouldn't expect you to back up your out of date thinking with evidence.
Ask yourself this. Why is Twenty20 so popular? One of the reasons is that teams are regularly scoring 150 runs plus off 20 overs. Why? Because their mindset is more positive for longer. That was my criticism of the WI on Sunday. They changed mindset and it cost them, as it has done countless other teams. If someone was beating the living daylights out of you, would you stand there and let them? You could say that the rope-a-dope tactics worked for Ali against Foreman. Or would you try to retaliate, to go down fighting? Most people would choose the sensible option - the latter. I'm not saying that it would alwys work but that is the right approach to take.
Anyway, I fly out soon to watch the Ashes in Australia. I hope I see an England side that counter attacks when it loses wickets ( remember Edgbaston last year, 400 runs in a day, must have been a fluke, eh?) and doesn't fall into your trap of "rebuilding"
Complain about this postI support Jon's views. The Australian cricketers will bounce back if they are given the smallest of the openings. Lara, Bravo and Morton handed the advantage back to the Aussies.
While I can tolerate the 2 batsmen not taking any risks after losing 3 wickets, I can not understand the inability to score singles and twos for such a long period. Brian Lara is probably the best left-handed batsman at present. He curbed his aggression, did not score singles and ended up getting out cheaply. By contrast, the 1st 3 batsmen made it into double figures.
Maybe, Gayle could have been a little cautious after he saw 2 wickets tumble. But he was out to a superb delivery. We can't really blame him for that.
Counter Attack is the best defense against any attack on any pitch.
However, all teams need 1 experienced batsman to play the anchor role in case all the reognised batsmen lose their wickets while trying to play big shots. The role of this batsman is to rotate strike so that batsmen like KP and Andrew Flintoff can do their bit of smashing the ball to or over the boundary.
Also, regarding batting under difficult conditions, we have never seen a high scoring game and playing aggressively will give the batting team a better chance of scoring some extra runs since it puts pressure on the fielders and bowlers and the pressure makes them more susceptible to mistakes. This in turn helps the batsmen.
For batsmen playing at international levels, this should be possible.
India has a strong batting line-up. But only 3 batsmen Sehwag, Yuvaraj Singh and Dhoni play aggressively. When these 3 batsmen fail, India usually lose the game.
That is also the story for England. Unless KP or Flintoff score runs, England usually lose the game. The only other player who scores runs though not very aggressively is Paul Collingwood. But he rotates strike very well and usually plays the anchor role for England.
Complain about this postYes Jon, wickets go down towards the end of an innings because that's when batsmen try to increase run rate and take more risks. That is why aggressive batting isn't always best - because you stand more chance of losing wickets to balls that aren't necessarily there to be hit.
Twenty20 cricket is great to watch; but scores of 170-7, typically, aren't exactly ideal for a 50 over match!
Jon, i now officially give up. You are a lost cause who has somehow managed to recruit another member, Ani, to your 'x is always best no matter what' school of critical thinking.
Enjoy the Ashes; if you take off your silly hat and blinkers, you might actually learn something about cricket.
Complain about this postThe Aussies being very rough & tough & arrogant is quite well known. Their making racial comment at Monty Panesar is nothing new. The Australinan cricket team pusihing out the President of the BCCI of the dias at the prize distribution ceremony at the Champions' Trophy was shameful. What's surprising us is that having known their attitude towards others, nothing apparently is being done to teach them the common etiquettes as they represent their country. Any wrong doing only bring more shame to their country & overshadow their achievements in the field. Cricket, once known as the game of the gentlemen no longer appears so.
Complain about this postI feel like an empty room, but eh. Nothing seems worth doing. I haven't gotten much done today.
Complain about this post