NatWest Challenge, The Brit Oval: England v Australia Tuesday 11th July.

[Ernest]

Well the final one dayer before cricket starts in earnest with the Ashes series, so this match might be just a form pointer.

England thrashed the Aussies at Headingly, but the problem for England was:--
Australia thrashed England at Lords.

That makes it interesting, can England pull themselves up, had the ball that bowled Gillchrist early on by Gough not have been a no ball, would that have changed the outcome.

Well Australia managed to come back in style after their Headingly drubbing, so their is no reason England can't.

Will be tough though, I think the team that wins the toss will win.

Can you please post your match comments here on this thread,
Thanks.

[Collyisamackem]

I think we'll see a change in the bowling from England, with Gough bowling more at the death and Harmy bowling earlier. If our batting is more disciplined we can win.

At the oval, it's a great wicket, so bat first!

[Ernest]

Yes I don't see the point of playing your no1 bowler 1st or second change.

However Gough was unlucky to bowl Gillchrist with a no ball, but no he should not open the bowling.

[Aussie-Yank]

I think why the English team have not used Harmison as the opining bowler is that they are afraid that Gilchrest / Hayden if they play him off for his 5 or 6 overs. They would have there eye in and then wait to smash the change up bowlers to make up for the slow scoring against Harmison.

[oz100no]

Is there a thought amongst the English team that Harrmison can't bowl with a new white ball? Coming from an Aussie point of view I'm glad he doesn't open the bowling. Gough's been a great competitor for England but doesn't have the stike power of Harrmison. Best way to contain Gilchrist/Hayden is to get them out and Harrmison is best option.

[Irish Left Armer]

I'm not sure England should bat first, they still don't have much idea what sort of score to aim for and if the rate drops then they end up throwing their wickets away playing shots. Better to put the Aussies in and chase using a batsman as supersub. If they win the toss of course.

[Victor Frankenstein]

I predict that whoever wins the toss will win the game, unless the oval produces a flat wicket. We really need to sort out this ballsing up thing whenever we bat first though. Hmm, in consideration, I actually want us to bat first, the only way to improve is to learn from our mistakes, we know we can chase scores reasonably well, so we need to start learning how to set scores in preparation for the world cup. This match means nothing* so just use it as a practice match and try and set a score (assuming we win the toss).



*before anyone says it does mean something, if we win today and australia win the ashes, will anyone post "yeah, but at least we won the natwest challange!".. and vice versa if england win the ashes but lose today. one day cricket other than the world cup is meaningless.

[Goatman]

There's no doubt that if ENG wanted to maximise thier strike power in the first overs, they would not only go with Harmison but also with Flintoff. The fact that they don't go with either indicates that they don't have any real worry about Harmison with the new ball, but supports thier claim that it is tactical. Duncan Fletcher reckons (he may be right or wrong) that SP Jones and Gough are good enough bowlers to exert pressure with the new ball. Rather than putting all thier eggs in one basket and giving the new ball to the two strike bowlers (as AUS do), they are therefore looking to maintain pressure and take wickets for all of the first 20-25 overs by leaving Harmison and Fred until the first change spell.

Its an interesting tactic, and its hardly been a disaster as the summers AUS-ENG ODI's are currently standing at 2-2 - which is infinately better than any ENG supporter had any right to expect. Jones is a new boy in the ODI team and will probably get better with more experience. I'd love to see Tremlett given a series alongside him, together they could be seriously effective. But in this game I'm happy to see Goughy in the XI for two reasons: 1) its a big pressure game for a very inexperienced new ball partnership (which is what Jones-Tremlett would be) to handle 2) ENG have no better bowler at the death.

And therein lies the rub; ENG cannot ditch Goughy until they have a bowler to partner Fred at the death. And to put Fletchers theory into practice, that means Goughy has to take the new ball until that happens.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Victor Frankenstein

*before anyone says it does mean something, if we win today and australia win the ashes, will anyone post "yeah, but at least we won the natwest challange!".. and vice versa if england win the ashes but lose today. one day cricket other than the world cup is meaningless.

Well I for one would not think or say that, one day cricket IMHO is for entertainment only, and has no bearing on real cricket.

So I would have a seperate team for ODIs, with a seperate coach and captain, I have said this many times, but to be it still holds good.

What does it matter if we win an experimental series (dont get me wrong I hope we do), with "Power Times" or whatever, and "super subs", it was bad enough with the 20/20.

To me this England side, would have been better playing county games, just like Warne is doing really.

I think we should bat 2nd, and open with our best bowler Harmison, first change our second best bowler Flintoff.

[Notts Exile]

Lost the toss and bat first - again. Looks like we need a huge total as the Aussies will have an extra batsman, stupid rule!