Australia had no motivation to win this tournament. Winning the ashes 5-0, and handing out the mother of all beltings on Australia Day seemed to be enough for the Australians. Since that game they went off the boil. Bowlers during the last ten overs started to concede too many runs. McGrath, Lee and Bracken leaked too many runs that enabled the opposition to score in excess of 260 on numerous occassions where it looked like they could keep them to 240. The bowlers definetley need to work on a bowling plan for the last ten overs. Maybe the C/H trophy will be a good time to get that right.



The selection of Watson was also a bit strange. I keep hearing about all this terrific talent that he has. A world-class all-rounder the media keep telling us. But where was it when we needed him? His batting was dissapointing (Maybe he is more suited to opening the innings?), and his bowling looked innocuous. The fact that he was coming back from an injury probably didn't help. But one has to wonder about his selection for the finals. Why bring a player who hasn't played international cricket for a couple of months into the squad? Did the selectors not take the finals seriously? Did they think that it was some kind of hit and giggle tournament that had no meaning? Whatever it was, the inclusion of Watson was wrong because of his lack of match fitness.



The batting has fallen away in the past few matches. Gilchrist started with a blaze of glory, but he keeps getting bowled through the gate, or getting caught after wildly slashing at a delivery. Hayden has had a productive summer, but needs to consolidate that during the C/H trophy. Ponting has batted like I expected he would. Clarke has been very inconsistent. I expect better scores for a man of his talents. Symonds, before he was injured, did not really have a one-day summer he would care to tell the grand-kids. Hussey played really well when chasing in a couple of games. Though the fact that he failed in the finals might give him some concern. Hodge looked overawed batting at number three and showed with some low scores. But his 99 not out gave a glimpse of his talents. Inconsistent batting by team, losing wickets in clumps, not assessing the situation, relying too much on our top players, and underestimating the quality of England's bowling were the reasons for our poor batting display in the finals.



England, after falling so low during the ashes series and first half of the tournament, picked themselves up nicely. After the Adelaide debacle there was only one way they could go, and that was up. Their fielding suddenly became a lot sharper. Catches were taken, run-outs were executed, runs were saved by desperate, griity English fielders. It looked like they wanted to be out there. That they wanted to win something from this horrid trip. Their huddles before they disperse throughout the field shows team unity. That even when the chips are down they still supported each other.



The batting of England over the past ten days has been amazing. They have discovered the joy of scoring two's, one's and three's instead of waiting for the bad ball to come (Which Australian rarely gives anyway) so they can belt it away for four. This gradual buildup of the innings has meant that the total could become a defendable score of 250+. Players like Joyce, who showed his natural talet and skill with the bat, and Collingwood (Who I will write about later.) showed what could be done against Australia with hard-work, dedication and skill. Ian Bell, although not the most fashionable of batsmen, showed grit and determination, but he never capitalised on his oppurtunities. Flintoff provided support in the finals with Collingwood. Same with Nixon, whose batting improved once he started to bat more conventionally. None of those dinky little sweep shots that had plauged his batting. Strauss had a tour he would rather forget, and Loye will hopefully not play in the World Cup.



Collingwood has had a golden period with both bat and ball, and on the field. His return to form seems to have mirrored England's. He may not be the most pleasing batsmen to watch in term of entertainment, but he is a worker. He didn't hit many boundaries during his matches, instead he worked on finding the gap, placing it between fielders, and running two when one would have sufficed. That does show his fitness. Running up and down the pitch must have been a strain on the knees! However, his attitude, grace, finesse, timing, brain, heart, hands and pure stubborness went a long way in helping England salvage something from the tour.



Englands bowlers have slowly but surely shown great leaps and bounds during the tournament. Although Lewis (Who I thought troubled the Australian batsmen), and Anderson (Great finish, pity he had to get injured when England were running into some form) both had to go home early, the other bowlers such as Plunkett and Mahmood really picked it up. Mahmood has shown himself to be a bowler of the future for England. Same with Plunkett, who has shown that he could be ready to lead the bowling attack. His control, pace, ability to swing it away from both the right and left handers meabns that he is a dangerous proposition for all batsmen. Flintoff bowled with plenty of fire and spirit. Although he wasn't able to capture some of his 2005 form, he still bowled his heart out. Panasear, and Dalrymple both bowled tidely and effectively. The spinners did not have a big impact on the result of the competion. It was the fast men who decided it.



Well done England, you played fantastic cricket. You have improved your batting, bowling, fielding in leaps and bounds. You showed fight, determination and grit to win. As for Australia, some question do need to be asked, and hopefully they will be answered in next week's C/H trophy. Panic should not set in, but it should ensure that compleacency does not set in. We are not a done side. The injury to symonds will hurt us. But the team is bigger than the individual and should ensure that we will....



WIN THE WORLD CUP!

ODI cricket is always a bit of a lottery.. and the margins between seeming hopeless and seeming invincible are (as England's resurgence has shown) small: sure, the better teams by and large get the better results... but I really don't see that Australia played BADLY to {a} reach the finals; and {b} concede the finals.

The Aussie fielding has in general been stunning: any side will make the odd mistake. The Aussie batting has also, on the whole, been excellent. The Aussie bowling has, over the series, been far superior to that of the other teams. The only surprise is that tension crept in to create jittery performances... not unlike some of the England performances of the Test series.

Why the jitters? I'd look no further than concern about living up to the high standards of the past and about the readiness of the newcomers to the team... a problem exacerbated massively by Buchanan's comments, which put pressure on the side to not just win but to completely destroy supposedly pathetic opponents.

Tait's diabolical performance in the 10th game was a reminder that the dependability of senior players is not easily replaced... Hodge's hesitant start was a reminder that experience DOES matter... and with Symonds disappearing and the selectors seemingly unsure about White / Watson as replacements.. and about the final seamer for the WC squad... players like Hussey and McGrath appeared to be feeling rather as Flintoff and Strauss looked in the Test series.. weighed down by concern that they had to "carry" junior colleagues.

That explains the vulnerability... but beyond that I think you have to give credit to Vaughan for masterminding a scarily commanding performance in the 12th game.... and to the way Collingwood's inspired fielding and resolute batting built pressure in a game that had seemed "in the bag".

Well said. This is an important part of ODI batting and its taken England until the last 4 games to realise this! The most pleasing this about todays score was the fact that for the last 30 overs of our innings we didnt hit many 4's but kept the scoreboard ticking over anyway. With the smaller grounds in WI if you are not hitting 4's, taking 1's is vital, if, as a batting team you are to keep the scoreboard moving along.

Englands fielding did improve towards the last few games but to be honest we shouldnt have had many problems. Only Loye and Panesar are "weak" fielders and Panesar has worked so hard he is now a reasonble fielder.

__________________
Mark.

The reason why Australia lost or England won was because firstly England bowled well, also the selection of the side was silly, I would not have played Hogg who has only played one game before the finals and secondly Watson who had not played any games before the finals. Why drop Johnson for Hogg and why didnt they play a better batsman than Watson I would have thought that a bowling line up of McGrath, Lee, Bracken, Johnson and part time from Clarke and Hodge would have been enough. The batting line up looked weaker than usual, Symonds is probally the last player that you want to be injured in the ODI side because he brings balance he is a hard hitting batsman, the best fieldsman in the world, can bowl tight offspin and bowl tidy medium pace, but they should be able to replace him with other players. Watson is a good batsman up the order but he is not the bloke you want coming in down the order, he got no movement with the ball. No excuses England out played Australia and it was a poor performance from Australia.

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

I'm gonna disagree on this point here, the Australians I think have an unquestionable hunger for victory and McGrath and Ponting both admitted the loss at the first final hurt. It was McGrath's farewell match too, they way the Australian threw themselves around the field in the early stages of the England innings showed me just how keen if not desperate they were to win this match.

Dare I say, I think they were simply outplayed by a better side on the day. The Australians have been too used to having so much winning momentum which leads off to the aura of invincibility, this time they were really under pressure for sustained periods and they simply couldn't deliver.

This opens the World Cup up thats for sure !

__________________
- VVVRulz..

I think the world cup was open anyway as all top 8 nations have enough strength and talent to win it. It all boils down to which team happens to be peaking at the right time.

This win by England has done Australia a favor in some ways. Going into a world cup as big favorites is never a good thing especially if you are becoming over-confident as the Aussies were.

__________________

If you compare Australia's VB series averages against the averages of the same series before the last WC the current team doesn't appear as strong as the 2002/03 team. In this series, Gilchrist, Hayden, Hogg and Watson were down with the bat. Neither Hogg or Watson shone with the ball. Hogg appears out of form and Watson is still underdone coming back from injury. Players retired or unwanted since the last WC include Martyn, Lehmann, Bevan, and Bichel. Are the current crop of replacements as good - Hussey, Hodge, Clarke and Watson? On the bowling front, Australia appear to have strong reserves so the main concern is whether to select McGrath? Lee is an automatic choice for his batting. Bracken swings the ball nicely and should also get a spot. That leaves the other seamer between McGrath and Clark.

The final XI might be:

+AC Gilchrist
ML Hayden
*RT Ponting
MJ Clarke
MEK Hussey
A Symonds
BJ Hodge
SR Watson
B Lee
SR Clark
NW Bracken

Which includes England going on the last fortnight and excludes Australia who look exhausted.

Still don't rate our chances to be honest and wouldn't bet against you guys coming back to form.

Australia's batting looks a bit vulnerable, now. Ponting was the best Aussie batsman by far, averaging 65. After that, the next best batsmen were Symonds and Hayden, who averaged 43 each. Hussey averaged only 38, like HOdge, while Clarke was a disappointing 33.

this 2-0 win by England has given a lot of teams hope in the WC. Previously, there were thoughts that Australia were invincible. Now, a lot of teams will be saying, if England, who were bad at ODIs, can beat Australia, so can we.....

__________________
Nobody has a batting stance quite like the mighty Shivnarine....

Australia were so sure that they would win with any combination of players and used the series to see who they would be picking for the World Cup. Players who had a fantastic game were dropped which must have had some impact in the dressing room. Gilchrist, Hayden, Ponting, Clarke, Symonds, Hussey, White, Lee, Bracken, Johnson and either Hilfenhaus or Tait proved to be the winning team and they still persisted in trying others. They were determined to fit in Watson and Hogg. They just didn't realise when they had found their World Cup team. I think the rotation had an effect on the players with players playing for their World Cup places.