You missed the part where I acknowledged that England bat deep. So I don't feel I ignored it. Anyway its 1-1 with a decider to come. Can't complain about that!!
:happy:
Completely agree. Warne made a great point after the game that Australia actually didn't do too much wrong. Quality bowling on a dead pitch that was difficult to start on.
Indeed it should, in some part. But to position the Australian bowling lineup as 'letting' England's tail score so many runs, as the original poster did, completely misses a consistent feature of recent English one day success; that of the batting depth it's squad allows. Conversely, batting depth, both in the middle and tail has been a consistent Australian weakness over that period. And even your post, by focusing only on the quality of the Australian bowling lineup available, by inference ignores the quality the English brought in that department.
I stand by my comment; England won that game more by their merits than Australian failures, or the bad luck of a toss.
Any analysis of that game has to focus in some part on the Aussies inability to bowl Eng out for 170 or so, given the position they were in. That is costly. Yes England bat deep, but that quality attack should be able to kill the innings off better than that.
Sgt Pepperoni
Roar Rookie
So Neil did Aus win the final game or did Eng lose it? Oh thats right you only pop up for discussion when it's advantage England
Dexter The Hamster
Roar Rookie
You missed the part where I acknowledged that England bat deep. So I don't feel I ignored it. Anyway its 1-1 with a decider to come. Can't complain about that!! :happy:
BarmyFarmer
Roar Rookie
Completely agree. Warne made a great point after the game that Australia actually didn't do too much wrong. Quality bowling on a dead pitch that was difficult to start on.
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
Indeed it should, in some part. But to position the Australian bowling lineup as 'letting' England's tail score so many runs, as the original poster did, completely misses a consistent feature of recent English one day success; that of the batting depth it's squad allows. Conversely, batting depth, both in the middle and tail has been a consistent Australian weakness over that period. And even your post, by focusing only on the quality of the Australian bowling lineup available, by inference ignores the quality the English brought in that department. I stand by my comment; England won that game more by their merits than Australian failures, or the bad luck of a toss.
Dexter The Hamster
Roar Rookie
Any analysis of that game has to focus in some part on the Aussies inability to bowl Eng out for 170 or so, given the position they were in. That is costly. Yes England bat deep, but that quality attack should be able to kill the innings off better than that.
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
No mate. England won it. Despite their best fielder missing a gift of a run out in the very first over with Finch on one.
Damo
Guest
They lost it when they lost the toss then didn't bowl England but for 170 and let the tail get waaaaay too many runs.