Onions, Sidebottom or Harmison for the Ashes - Page 3

kenyan_cheena · 09-19-2009, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bababui

Thats something thats confusing for me. How could Australia be much better at one days and not be better in the Ashes?

They don't select exactly the same players for one-day matches as they do for tests. Seeing as both are very different types of games (think 100m sprint vs 1000 metres) they choose players who are best suited to each type.

As an example, the following players from Australia's one-day team were not part of the test team squad:

TD Paine
CJ Ferguson
CL White
JR Hopes
NW Bracken

The most important factors in one-day cricket are scoring runs quickly and bowling accurately. This is because there's a limited amount of time available compared to in tests and also wayward bowling is more heavily penalised in one-day matches.

There are also different restrictions on fielding placements in one-day games, which are built in to encourage the batters to be more adventurous in the early and later parts of an inning.

Nathan Bracken is a specialist bowler and has played 116 one-day matches for Australia but only FIVE test matches, so he's regarded as a good one-day bowler but did not do so well when he was in the test team.

It appears that Australia has selected a much better team for the one-dayers than England did, at least in comparison to the tests. Looking at the names of the English players, I don't even know who half of them are.

bababui · 09-19-2009, 10:42 AM

Thanks, man. Do you also find the 1 day matches boring? From your description, it would seem to me that the play would be more daring and exciting.

kenyan_cheena · 09-20-2009, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bababui

Thanks, man. Do you also find the 1 day matches boring? From your description, it would seem to me that the play would be more daring and exciting.

I do find them boring. The problem is each inning follows a pattern. During the first 15 overs the batting team tries to score as many runs as possible because there are restrictions on how many fielders are allowed outside of the inner circle. So the batters can swing for the fences.

Then when the fielders are allowed to spread out more the batters simply nudge the ball around and collect singles. You'll often see six singles scored off an over during this period.

Then as the final overs approach they'll start smashing the ball again simply because they want to maximise their score.

Twenty20 is actually more exciting than 50-overs because they don't really have that middle section when they are scoring singles. It's just 100mph from ball one.

Regardless of all that, test match cricket is and always have been the ultimate form of the game. That will never change.

bababui · 09-28-2009, 01:29 PM

Why wouldnt todays India v Australia match be replayed if its rained out? Seems very unfair to India.

Craig Costello · 09-28-2009, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bababui

Why wouldnt todays India v Australia match be replayed if its rained out? Seems very unfair to India.

Just general logistics of getting all the games in for the tournament in the alloted time.

The last World Cup in the West Indies had 'reserve days' for all matches and was widely chastised for being too long and drawn out.

bababui · 09-28-2009, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig Costello

Just general logistics of getting all the games in for the tournament in the alloted time.

The last World Cup in the West Indies had 'reserve days' for all matches and was widely chastised for being too long and drawn out.

Thank you. I feel its really unfair to the Indians though.

Craig Costello · 09-29-2009, 04:07 PM

Only if they were going to win against the Aussies, which looked dubious.

If they were going to lose, then they would have been out already, whereas now at least they have a chance if Pakistan win and they hamme the West Indies.

bababui · 10-03-2009, 03:14 AM

Im confused. Australia won by wickets but I thought the result was determined by runs??

Craig Costello · 10-03-2009, 06:18 AM

When the team batting last scores enough runs to win, then the result is quoted as "Team B won by x wickets" where x is the number of wickets that they had remaining.

This is the same for Tests, One-dayers and Twenty20s.

View Poll Results: Which Bowler Would You Pick: Onions, Sidebottom or Harmison?
Graham Onions	6	54.55%
Ryan Sidebottom	3	27.27%
Steve Harmison	3	27.27%
A Jiminy Cricket Rodeo	7	63.64%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll

09-19-2009, 10:42 AM	#42
bababui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 14,147 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	Thanks, man. Do you also find the 1 day matches boring? From your description, it would seem to me that the play would be more daring and exciting.

09-28-2009, 01:29 PM	#44
bababui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 14,147 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	Why wouldnt todays India v Australia match be replayed if its rained out? Seems very unfair to India.

09-29-2009, 04:07 PM	#47
Craig Costello Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 295	Only if they were going to win against the Aussies, which looked dubious. If they were going to lose, then they would have been out already, whereas now at least they have a chance if Pakistan win and they hamme the West Indies.

10-03-2009, 03:14 AM	#48
bababui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 14,147 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	Im confused. Australia won by wickets but I thought the result was determined by runs??

10-03-2009, 06:18 AM	#49
Craig Costello Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 295	When the team batting last scores enough runs to win, then the result is quoted as "Team B won by x wickets" where x is the number of wickets that they had remaining. This is the same for Tests, One-dayers and Twenty20s.