Pakistan v England 1st ODI

[Vrock]

England played very well in a lot of areas today. Jimmy Anderson was economical and it looked like he was not going to get a bowl at the death. He was the only reason that Pakistan didn't have an absolutely huge score by 15 overs. I thought England batted well against a very good seam attack although I don't think Danish Kaneria should have started. Make him the sub if pakistan bowl second. Great inswinging Yorker by Freddie to dismiss kaneria!

[Collyisamackem]

I feel vindicated for having said pre-game that England are a better ODI side than people give them credit for. However, it is a 5-game series so we will have to fight long and hard, but this is a better side than the one that played in South Africa, as was shown against the Aussies this summer. I felt Harmy and Freddie looked tired bowling, a consequence of the tests, which is probably why they got carted. Plunkett was exceptional along with Blackwell and Collingwood in the bowling stakes (removing Inzi is a tough task). As for the batting, contributions from everyone except Trescothick, but he is still our most proven ODI batsman and did a good job as captain today, holding back the powerplay to regain control of the game, and trusting Blackwell, Plunkett and Collingwood to control the game. Strauss proved just why he is a must for the ODI side, accumulating well and at an excellent stirke rate, and Prior, Pietersen and Flintoff did just what they are known for in finding the boundary time and again.

Well done England, let's keep this up.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Vrock7

Make him the sub if pakistan bowl second.

I've made the point somewhere else today that you don't have that choice: you have to name your super-sub before the toss. His name must be the twelfth name on the team sheet.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

Trescothick ... did a good job as captain today, holding back the powerplay to regain control of the game ...

I read this in the match report (though it would have been a lucky man who would have spotted it from the Cricinfo text commentary unless he were following line by line, and of course there is no easy way to convey information about times of fielding restrictions to radio listeners who are dipping in and out of the coverage). It certainly worked for England today, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that most skippers are still using the fielding restrictionsin the first overs of the innings. Does anyone know how many captains have actually split up the restricted fielding periods as Trescothick did today? (And I suppose I should also ask if I am understanding the term "power play" correctly here: I assume this is what we're talking about, but if I have misunderstood that I need some education, please!)

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Rachael

KP played well... but Flintoff was a mess ... he ended up allowing 25 dot balls.... that's a dot ball to nearly 40% of deliveries faced... and for quite a few of the runs he scored he'd really got no idea where the ball had gone.

Rachael, were you watching the match. It sounds like you were listening, in which case you'd not be well placed to say a guy who scored 72 at 6.5 an over was 'a mess'. I watched Flintoff's innings. The dot balls were because he got some good ones. And rather than trying to smack them, he patiently played them with a straight bat and waiting for a ball he could score off.

Freddie showed the ideal combination of restraint and selective aggression today, and he and Collingwood were absolutely magnificent in the last 10 overs.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Mongoose

I watched Flintoff's innings. The dot balls were because he got some good ones. And rather than trying to smack them, he patiently played them with a straight bat and waiting for a ball he could score off.

With all due respect... I kinda rate Boycott's view fairly highly... and he was tearing his hair out at Freddie's repeated attempts at slogging: as Boycott said "he's better than that".

The real nadir came in an over from Shoaib Akhtar... I think it was the 43rd of the innings... when Flintoff kept looking for the slog instead of trying to rotate the strike. The talk was of Flintoff getting drawn into a battle of egos... with Flintoff losing because... at the end of the over... Shoaib had conceded 3 off 6 balls.

I appreciate that Flintoff hasn't got the touch that Collingwood has got and tends to end up looking a bit daft if he tries anything too delicate... but Inzi had set a field that allowed reasonably easy singles and Flintoff just turned them down - not impressive.

Note: I'm not suggesting Flintoff is incapable of doing a lot better... as I'm with Boycott on that one: the lad is a great ODI batsman. All Boycott was arguing (and I'm repeating) is that in today's innings Flintoff rather lost the plot.

[Vrock]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

I've made the point somewhere else today that you don't have that choice: you have to name your super-sub before the toss. His name must be the twelfth name on the team sheet.

OF, I wasn't implying that they should choose him if they bowled second as I do know the law that you must select you supersub before the toss. I was simply saying that Pakistan should use Kaneria as their sub in the hope that they bowl second and also that their side is full of all-rounders that they can afford to lose a bowler.

[cliff gladwin]

A good controlled aggressive performance from us..........mightily pleased to see KP & Fred enforcing the good work of Strauss.

the initial bowling spells of Fred & Harmison did look tired...but they both fought back & contibuted.

pakistan were very much in it at 160 odd for 2.... great game of cricket though...&..er.. with the right result!!!

I saw alot of the NZ/aussie game too.............but this just seemed to be a contest between 2 batting sides against 2 terrible bowling sides.......... The England/pakistan game....had good batting against good bowling for the most part....... far better.

[Shaka]

Originally Posted by Rachael

For all the attention that Shahid Afridi might get... a great ODI innings is more likely to come from the control and touch of Yousuf and Inzi.

Afridi isn't a patch on those two as a batsman, but he isn't just a bat. He's a very effective bowler in restricted overs, a fine fielder, and is a real driving force of this team. His inclusion allows us so many more options.

[Occasional Fan]

Sorry, I misunderstood you, Vrock7. The poster who made a similar comment earlier clealry didn't know the rule - and in fact, to judge from comments here and on other boards, he's not alone by a long way.