Quotehanger

  • "The fact is that once I was playing again I was automatically available for everything on the schedule and that meant Stanford. I make no apologies for that and, as for the suggestion that I should waive the fee or give it to charity, I don't see why I should be a special case."
    Steve Harmison feels strongly about suggestions that he came out of one-day retirement in order to play the Stanford Twenty20 for 20

    Sep 7, 2008

    • Recent Posts

    Try DVD rental for £3.99 per month!

    The headlines

    The news

    TWC



    Same old England…

    By Emma 2 years ago, at the end of August Leave a comment on this post

    England and limited overs games don’t seem to be a good mix. I wouldn’t like to take anything away from Pakistan, who played the unfamiliar format extremely well, especially when put in the context of what has happened off the field in the last week. However, anyone who has ever so much as glanced in the direction of a Twenty20 match could tell you that 144 after electing to bat is not enough.

    I don’t like to appear jaded, though, so instead of listing what went wrong, I’m going to pick up a couple of positives. After several months of shuffling various opening partners around the ever-present Trescothick, Bell’s promotion to number two seemed one of the more convincing attempts to find two styles that compliment each other. Before Bell misjudged a late cut to Younis Khan in a wide slip, the England innings had looked to be fairly secure. Good to see Trescothick find a bit of form. The only other batting of positive note belonged to Michael Yardy, who did well to provide some impetus in the last over.

    In the bowling department, it was nice to see my concerns over introducing Stuart Broad to the big stage too quickly seem to have been unfounded. With confirmation that Harmison is going to miss the entire one day series, he is certain to be given another outing tomorrow. Yardy, too, might also make the mark after contributing well to what was a generally good fielding performance by England.

    Oh, and, after losing a tooth in the domestic finals at Trent Bridge, I’m glad Chris Read has decided to wear a helmet when standing up to the stumps. But I’m not sure that counts…

    Tags: , , , , , |

    8 Responses to “Same old England…”

  • Nabeel wrote:
    August 29th, 2006 at 1.37 pm

    Pakistan looked great with all players fit and firing. Almost everyone contributed to the victory…Shoaib though looked a bit rusty…and Rana Naveed started off with a nightmare delivery which Trescothick wasted…it was amazing to see Razzaq NOT getting thrashed around…I was expecting him to be slaughtered! the batting from pakistan was largely satisfactory well and the players look good for the odis…

    England’s bowling wasn’t too terrible but Afridi certainly took away the momentum Stuart Broad had created…and after his cameo it was simple enough for the Pakistanis to milk the bowling…

    Yardy’s stance was a shocker..at least for me,who hasn’t seen him before…very unusual,reminiscent of Chanderpaul…even though he played very well to boost England’s score..but come on this was a Twenty20…in a Test environment I think some flaws might be discovered….for one thing he stands too far away from the stumps…and a full,quick ball on leg stump might get rid of him early on…or maybe a bouncer with an angle delivered from around the wicket directed at his neck…think Makhaya Ntini….just a thought..

    Pakistani fielding was not at its best (as is so often the case),but Shoaib Akhtar of all people turned in a good performance…Afridi dropping a sitter was another shock moment…

    good match overall, excellent as an appetiser for the one-dayers!

  • Emma wrote:
    August 29th, 2006 at 6.15 pm

    As you said, England didn’t bowl particularly badly - Twenty20 is a batsmen’s game, and it was in this department that England really failed. Pakistan bowled well. Slower balls were put to good use, and there was little width offered after a couple of looseners. As for Yardy - his stance is certainly unorthodox. But he has a good record in First Class cricket, with a double hundred to his name, as well as in limited overs games. His actual strokes looked to be fair secure and well balanced, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. If he is picked and can perform against Shoaib Akhtar, then I think doubts against pace could be safely dropped. Except, the World Cup will be played on fast, bouncy wickets… We shall see, I suppose.

    As a match, it wasn’t bad. But England’s innings lacked fireworks, and those provided by Afridi removed any kind of suspense from the result.

  • suraj wrote:
    August 29th, 2006 at 6.46 pm

    Very surprising to see how quickly Pak adapted their bowling to 20-20 while England which should have more experience in this version of the game bombed.

    Will be curious to see, however, if Pak can really bat if set to score or chasing a high total.

  • suraj wrote:
    August 29th, 2006 at 6.50 pm

    If England lose the one-day series against Pak badly- what will be the startegt for WC? If they are really serious, which might not be the case knowing the penchant for test vs one-day cricket, a re-vamp might be neccessary for any chance at WC.

    The talent pool, however, seems shallow to do that.

  • Mani wrote:
    August 30th, 2006 at 12.03 am

    Emma wrote = “Except, the World Cup will be played on fast, bouncy wickets… We shall see, I suppose. ”
    wait a minute.. do you have your facts straight?
    the world cup pitches in WI are going to be slow paced and will lack bounce!!
    where did u get the bouncy fast wickets from??

  • Emma wrote:
    August 30th, 2006 at 12.40 am

    In recent years, you’re right Mani, many of the West Indies’ pitches have lost their bowling edge. But, considering so many of these cricket squares are being built from scratch, I’m hoping some will resemble Caribbean wickets of old ;)

    As for Twenty20 bowling, Suvraj, I think it’s fair to say England lost the game on their batting performance. That, and a little help from Boom Boom himself. After wickets two, three, four and five went down for so little, the rest of England’s lineup couldn’t be expected to pull the score up against an accurate Pakistan attack. Not to mention the fact that this was the least experienced half the team, none of which played in Pakistan in the winter.

  • Woody wrote:
    August 30th, 2006 at 10.08 am

    Does anyone really care about all these tip and giggle variants? Test cricket isn’t just the gold standard, it’s the only standard.

    Champions trophy, World cup, blah blah. Junk cricket.

    I’ll be in my ivory tower awaiting the start of the ashes.

  • Emma wrote:
    August 30th, 2006 at 12.46 pm

    I prefer Test cricket, too, but it’s impossible to deny that one day cricket hasn’t improved the spectacle of the longer form of the game. Test run-rates just keep getting higher. That aside, one-day cricket is a good way into the game for people like me, who failed to be interested in a 5-day game before being acquainted to the game in a shorter form.

    Naturally, my interest in Championship cricket came the year *after* my team won the thing. Typical.

    • Comments

    Receive email updates on new comments


    « A return to cricket…at last | Main | Warne survives the boot-camp (just) »