1st ODI: Australia scrape victory by 4 wickets
Australia won the 1st one dayer against Bangladesh overnight although it was hardly an emphatic victory. Bangladesh were dismissed for 195 which Australia chased down with 4 wickets in hand. Bangladesh were unable to post a reasonable score - you'd think 30 or 40 more would've stretched the Aussies that much more. Then Gilchrist came in and after a few overs of getting his eye in, went ballistic, scoring 76 off 46 balls. At the 10 over mark, Australia were halfway towards the total and looked to wrap things up early. But Gilly's dismissal led to a steady procession of wickets as the spinners came in and tied down the batsmen. If the first 100 took around 10 overs, the next 100 took over 30 overs as Australia limped home. Typically, Mike Hussey and Brett Lee got us over the line - those two are often around at the death for Australia. But in the end, it was Gilchrist's innings that made the difference.
So not the most convincing win by Australia. So far on this tour, Bangladesh have performed creditably - pushing Australia in the 1st Test and giving them a scare here (I'm sure they're trying to forget Gillespie's double century in the 2nd Test). So two more one dayers before Australia begin their 5 month holiday - let's hope they don't break out the tequilas and hawaian shirts until after Friday's match.
| Posted by JC on Mon 24 Apr |  10 comments |
Ive already spoken about this in one of your March threads (titled Groundhog Day). Australia is playing far too much cricket. They play well in excess of any other nation and it is now beyond the ridiculous. The ICC needs to step in and take control away from the respective country boards and their schedules. With the number of teams now playing Test Cricket, a series of 3 Tests and 5 ODI's between each nation home and away over a six year period should be enforced. And that includes the traditional five test series such as the Ashes, The Frank Worrell Trophy (which looks like being the case now) The Wisden Trophy, and whenever England play South Africa. They are the only ones left.
Australia look like a tired team, and are playing as such. I bet they can't wait for these remaining two games to be completed so they can take a well deserved rest.
Just don't abuse the rest over the next 5 months or so by going and playing county cricket. The players can't have their cake and eat it too!!
Posted by Dc_Diesel on 2006-04-24 01:41:21
Australia look like a tired team, and are playing as such. I bet they can't wait for these remaining two games to be completed so they can take a well deserved rest.
Just don't abuse the rest over the next 5 months or so by going and playing county cricket. The players can't have their cake and eat it too!!
Posted by Dc_Diesel on 2006-04-24 01:41:21
One of the differences between the Aussie team now and the West Indies of the 1980s is that you could be pretty sure that most of their players would fire most times they walked out onto the paddock. I'm yet to see a game recently when everyone performs ont he same day.
Posted by TA on 2006-04-24 05:03:46
Posted by TA on 2006-04-24 05:03:46
Well Timothy, there is one very good reason for that. The Windies did not play any where near the amount of cricket during their time at the top as compared to Australia, therefore there were no "burnout" issues. Between 1976 and 1995 which the West Indies played a total of 146 test matches in that period (19 years). By contrast, Australia since 1995/96 to 2005/06 (up to and including Bangladesh) have played in 124 test matches. So Australia have played 85% of test matches it took the Windies double the time to play. Its impossible with that amount of cricket to be able to perform day in day out at peak performance.
Further more on comparisons. Do not tell me that Windies side was better than this current Aussie side, because it was not. If you thought four fast bowlers struggling to bowl 80 overs in a days cricket, of which each over consisted of 4 bouncers was good and exciting cricket, then you need your head read. They were a completely one dimensional cricket side. They also benefited from Australia?s turmoil of the 80's where the fallout of World Series Cricket and then Rebel Tours to South Africa really hurt the Aussie cause. Go and have a look at some of the teams Australia fielded in the 80's and you will see it did not come close at any stage with the exception of the 1989 Ashes tour, to fielding their strongest team.
The Australia of the last decade have a far more balanced side than what the Windies had, with obviously our world class spin option (Warne), and indeed Macgill, something the Windies lacked. Not to mention a pace attack lead by one of the greats in McGrath. As far as Australia's batting is concerned, well they were the first country to start scoring 300 runs in a day at test level, something the even the Windies in their halcyon days could not do.
Statistics don't lie. In the two periods I have talked about, the Windies won 71 of their 146 tests with a win % of 48.5. They also drew 55 tests at a % of 37.5. Australia in the last 10 years have won 83 of their 124 tests for a win % of 67% and have drawn only 19 at a % of 15%. Australia have not only proven they were more dominant courtesy of their winning %, but they smashed the myth that the Windies were an exciting cricket team by virtue that 85% of test matches they compete in, a result will ensue.
Posted by Dc_Diesel on 2006-04-24 16:41:49
Further more on comparisons. Do not tell me that Windies side was better than this current Aussie side, because it was not. If you thought four fast bowlers struggling to bowl 80 overs in a days cricket, of which each over consisted of 4 bouncers was good and exciting cricket, then you need your head read. They were a completely one dimensional cricket side. They also benefited from Australia?s turmoil of the 80's where the fallout of World Series Cricket and then Rebel Tours to South Africa really hurt the Aussie cause. Go and have a look at some of the teams Australia fielded in the 80's and you will see it did not come close at any stage with the exception of the 1989 Ashes tour, to fielding their strongest team.
The Australia of the last decade have a far more balanced side than what the Windies had, with obviously our world class spin option (Warne), and indeed Macgill, something the Windies lacked. Not to mention a pace attack lead by one of the greats in McGrath. As far as Australia's batting is concerned, well they were the first country to start scoring 300 runs in a day at test level, something the even the Windies in their halcyon days could not do.
Statistics don't lie. In the two periods I have talked about, the Windies won 71 of their 146 tests with a win % of 48.5. They also drew 55 tests at a % of 37.5. Australia in the last 10 years have won 83 of their 124 tests for a win % of 67% and have drawn only 19 at a % of 15%. Australia have not only proven they were more dominant courtesy of their winning %, but they smashed the myth that the Windies were an exciting cricket team by virtue that 85% of test matches they compete in, a result will ensue.
Posted by Dc_Diesel on 2006-04-24 16:41:49
Today's Australia is better than the 80's Windies? That's cricket heresy, even to an Australian! I used to wonder how the current Australian team would fare against the Windies at their best. The answer came when we finally faced a bowling attack with a bit of speed and skill - Flintoff, Harmison & Jones (okay, the other floppy haired guy isn't bad either). Our batsmen have dominated against lesser bowling attacks but as soon as we faced a side that could sustain bowling pressure from both ends over a whole session, we just couldn't handle it. So how would we go against 4 express pace bowlers. Not well, I imagine. Would love to see it though - it would be worth inventing a time machine just to see that (in fact, I'd travel through history and pluck all the best players - mmmmmm, Bradman against the West Indies).
So statistics can lie. You have to factor in the opposition too - the West Indies back then faced more formidable opposition than Australia has these days. But I do agree that modern cricket is played at a faster pace, in part thanks to all the one day cricket, for which I'm grateful.
Posted by JC on 2006-04-24 17:32:42
So statistics can lie. You have to factor in the opposition too - the West Indies back then faced more formidable opposition than Australia has these days. But I do agree that modern cricket is played at a faster pace, in part thanks to all the one day cricket, for which I'm grateful.
Posted by JC on 2006-04-24 17:32:42
JC, Im afraid I have to disagree with you on that. The current Australian team I believe is superior in every way from those Windies sides, the reason's of which I have stated above. I dont think you can say that Flintoff, Harmison & Jones (the floppy haired guy is Hoggard) stitched up Australia. Australia were flat plus they had their fair share of injury problems. Lets see what happens when the Poms are in Australia at the end of the year. If this quartet of fast bowlers are any good, then the fast pitches in Australia should suit them to a tee.
I myself think a well rested Australin team that has had their batteries re-charged will re-claim the Ashes quite comfortably. It is with out doubt Australia is the leading test playing nation by quite some distance. The one day game however represents a different scenario altogether and I think certain problems need to be addressed asap if Australia wish to have a successfull defence of the World Cup.
Posted by Dc_Diesel on 2006-04-25 01:43:12
I myself think a well rested Australin team that has had their batteries re-charged will re-claim the Ashes quite comfortably. It is with out doubt Australia is the leading test playing nation by quite some distance. The one day game however represents a different scenario altogether and I think certain problems need to be addressed asap if Australia wish to have a successfull defence of the World Cup.
Posted by Dc_Diesel on 2006-04-25 01:43:12
I'm afraid I agree with JC. Complete and utter heresy Dc_Diesel.
1. What's to say that more cricket necessarily makes a player underperform? Where do players like McGrath and Warne fit into your nice story? Yes, there are psychological and physical barriers to maintaining a high level of success but these guys have the best motivation possible -- earning big bucks doing what they love.
2. Statistics lie big time -- the biggest debate in cricket is surely how far Bradman's average would have come down if he was playing the modern game!
3. Your caricature of 80s cricket suggests you didn't watch too much of it. Brett Lee and Andrew Flintoff wouldn't even begin to get close to any of the West Indian Fast bowlers of that era. By the way, do you want the real reason for the demise of West Indian cricket -- look at the changes in English policy to headhunting West Indian talent for their domestic league.
5. It is entirely debatable whether the tumultous decades for Aussie cricket were really the cause of our poor performances, let alone West Indian dominance. AB -- one of Australia's greatest ever modern batsman -- got his start as a result of the ODI - Test cricket standoff in the 70s. He would probably not have got a game for many years without this heaven-sent opportunity.
6. You association between success and domination is surely mislead. Don't look at the bolwing figures and averages -- just imagine what its like to be able to open the bowling with Garner and Holding, first change Marshall, and second change Walsh (substitute any of these names with Croft, Roberts, or Ambrose). The only time you really look like scoring fluently is against Gomes, Hooper, or Richards but all of these players' records are pretty impressive too. Australia has never been able to boast this kind of bowling ability.
So Diesel, my friend, in my way of thinking, performing at your best day-in day-out almost entirely depends on how skillful you are, and how much gumption and guts you have. Waugh had it, Ponting and Warney have it, but few else in our recent teams.
Posted by TA on 2006-04-26 17:50:28
1. What's to say that more cricket necessarily makes a player underperform? Where do players like McGrath and Warne fit into your nice story? Yes, there are psychological and physical barriers to maintaining a high level of success but these guys have the best motivation possible -- earning big bucks doing what they love.
2. Statistics lie big time -- the biggest debate in cricket is surely how far Bradman's average would have come down if he was playing the modern game!
3. Your caricature of 80s cricket suggests you didn't watch too much of it. Brett Lee and Andrew Flintoff wouldn't even begin to get close to any of the West Indian Fast bowlers of that era. By the way, do you want the real reason for the demise of West Indian cricket -- look at the changes in English policy to headhunting West Indian talent for their domestic league.
5. It is entirely debatable whether the tumultous decades for Aussie cricket were really the cause of our poor performances, let alone West Indian dominance. AB -- one of Australia's greatest ever modern batsman -- got his start as a result of the ODI - Test cricket standoff in the 70s. He would probably not have got a game for many years without this heaven-sent opportunity.
6. You association between success and domination is surely mislead. Don't look at the bolwing figures and averages -- just imagine what its like to be able to open the bowling with Garner and Holding, first change Marshall, and second change Walsh (substitute any of these names with Croft, Roberts, or Ambrose). The only time you really look like scoring fluently is against Gomes, Hooper, or Richards but all of these players' records are pretty impressive too. Australia has never been able to boast this kind of bowling ability.
So Diesel, my friend, in my way of thinking, performing at your best day-in day-out almost entirely depends on how skillful you are, and how much gumption and guts you have. Waugh had it, Ponting and Warney have it, but few else in our recent teams.
Posted by TA on 2006-04-26 17:50:28
Post New Comment
You need to be logged in to post a comment. If you're new, register here. Existing users, login via the right margin.
