| 
Posts and words
Loading ...Oh, I don’t know Scott — to me the series has got more interesting as it’s gone along.
England take on New Zealand for a place in the finals
By Scott 3 years ago, at the start of February Add your comment below
So, for one of the two sides, it is judgement day, and not a moment too soon. The Australian triangular series drags on forever, and it gets rather stale by the end, don’t you agree?
I’m going to hope that England win, not for the reason that I think Australia can beat them, but rather because if Australia play New Zealand in the finals, we could have a situation where Australia play New Zealand six times in two weeks (for the two sides meet in New Zealand for the Chappell Hadlee trophy straight after this).
New Zealand is a great team, and I’m sure New Zealanders are a swell bunch of people, but six times in two weeks is too much.
One a totally different topic, did you see that South Africa piled on 392 against Pakistan in an ODI game? What’s notable about that is that it isn’t even in the top five ODI scores anymore. But South Africa has gone past 400 twice now as well as this effort in the last 12 months or so. This sort of batting firepower has to make one stand up and take notice at the World Cup.
Tags: 2007-world-cup, australia, chappell-hadlee-trophy, commonwealth-bank-series, england, high-scoring, new-zealand, ODI, pakistan, records, south-africa |
28 Responses to “England take on New Zealand for a place in the finals”
February 5th, 2007 at 8.07 pm
February 5th, 2007 at 9.06 pm
Wouldn’t it just be hilarious if England defeat NZ, then Australia in the finals? Isn’t gonna happen, though, I know.
February 5th, 2007 at 9.17 pm
Much better than the format in 2005 Scott… do you remember? That summer was dragging before the Ashes even begun. Nah, I much prefer this 8 game Triangular series after the Main Event (Tests) have concluded.
Besides, they’ve tried changing the number of games to both 6 and 10, 8 seems to be the accepted number.
If you think it’s too long, you could always, oh I don’t know, get ready for pre-season rugby?
Boundaries are short in South Africa aren’t they…? 
February 5th, 2007 at 9.21 pm
One thing to note, in those top 6 team scores (making up 5 games) only 1 game occurred between two teams that deserved ODI status at the time. That was AUS v SAF.
Sri Lanka beating up on Holland is simply a disgrace that it be called an ODI. Zimbabwe… well, they have beaten England a few times over the years haven’t they But they should not have ODI or Test status at present day.
Kenya didn’t deserve ODI status in 1995, although I think they do now.
February 5th, 2007 at 10.59 pm
I’d rather watch the Kiwis six times in two weeks than watch England for the nth time. What is it? 3 months they’ve been trundling around in Oz? the Kiwis are a great team and always a good opponent. They will help us iron out some of our niggling problems. England are too wayward for that.
I don’t know if the boundaries are short in SA but the Pakistanis reckon it’s something about the pitches. The Caribbean won’t be like that.
February 5th, 2007 at 11.18 pm
What time does this thing start tomorrow anyway? Been travelling with my work so I’m lagged to pieces. Managed to grab some Sky coverage in the UK at the weekend and had a fight with the boyfriend who was rooting for the Ozzies but I stil have a heart for NZ as my second favourite team.
Hope to be with you all later.
February 5th, 2007 at 11.20 pm
Starts in 4 hours. From right now. Good luck!
February 5th, 2007 at 11.52 pm
Michael, I hope you’re not questioning Bangladesh’s ODI status since they did manage to thrash Australia in 2005…
February 6th, 2007 at 12.06 am
Digging deep aren’t we?
4 balls to spare for an improbable victory, man, I am glad we didn’t lose by a hundred runs or 10 overs to spare. You’d run out of adjectives to describe it. Hey, they did manage to beat India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka as well…
I’m leaving ODI status and Test status alone for now, as they seem to have sporadic days of brilliance. How often they play very well for a while in a Test before falling apart… and they do have a tremendous coach.
What was the question again?
February 6th, 2007 at 12.25 am
On that basis, Kathy, you could say the Prime Minister’s 1X could have ODI status, since they thrashed England by 161 runs on 10 Nov last year. Or does beating Australia carry more points than beating England? Certainly it has more status!
Not that I’m questioning Bangladesh’s ODI status. But why bring it up? N-one was questioning it, til you did…
February 6th, 2007 at 12.29 am
I just happened to be questioning the ODI Team Score records as Scott wrote about South Africa passing 400 twice in an ODI. My argument was based around teams unfairly having ODI status. Like the current series in Kenya. I mean, what the hell…?
Kathy was taking a dig (obviously) but I am more than willing to riposte. Thanks for the support Caro!
February 6th, 2007 at 12.32 am
XI, I mean. There goes my computer dysphasia again!
February 6th, 2007 at 12.49 am
Back to Scott’s original point – I always used to think the one-dayers were too long, but this has actually allowed England to play themselves into a bit better form. When you don’t have a team that automatically gels into the one-day format, it has probably been as useful a lead-up to the World Cup as England could expect.
But this brings another question to mind – many people have suggested that the preparation for the Ashes was too short in terms of first-class warm-up games. How long would this tour be if we did it all properly?! I can understand the ECB not wanting to add too many more games at the start. It just gets ridiculously long, otherwise. So what’s the solution? Have a tour that concentrates on tests, and come back another time for some one-dayers? Cut something out? Certainly don’t make it six tests long!!!
February 6th, 2007 at 1.04 am
I lay full blame on the BCCI who’s insatiable appetite to cram in stupid amounts of ODI cricket.
I believe they’ve overpacked the schedule and are inadvertently pressuring other countries to play more and more cricket.
India is at times passing 40 ODI games a year! Most countries settle in somewhere between 20 and 30 ODI’s.
Regarding test series, 5 Tests is a great number. I was engrossed in the Ashes 2005 (and even bought the 3 disc DVD) and was again engrossed this year (and the wife got me the 3 disc DVD, today is my birthday).
Another thing I personally believe is occuring; more ODI’s and less Tests. The ICC needs to cut out this 1-off and 2 Test crap. Even 3 is too short in my opinion. 5 Tests are a true representation of a complete series.
Now watch, Twenty20 cricket schedules will make it even worse. Having one Twenty20 is fine, I’m willing to bet India and a few others will be adopting more games sooner rather than later.
February 6th, 2007 at 11.34 am
Well done England.
Finally something to be proud about.
February 6th, 2007 at 12.34 pm
And….they thought it was all over!
Roll on Friday.
When are they going to get rid of Nixon?……another “Duck.”…..Come back….. Reade… we need you.
On another topic……Michael…..no body is forcing you to watch or listen to cricket….stop whimpering
and go and take an interest in ……collecting car registration numbers? or something!
February 6th, 2007 at 3.40 pm
Graham mate, I love my cricket. It’s why I am here. You are right, no body is forcing me to watch, believe me I’ll watch until the day I die. I have no idea why you’re off ranting about me whimpering, I see no such thing. What I do see is my suggestion in raising the number of tests and lowering the number of ODI’s. So what the hell are you going on about mate?
I have absolutely nothing to whimper about. I passionately follow the best team and best players in the world. I believe though in what I wrote above; there is a real threat of too much cricket. Just ask Trescothic. Who’s whimpering?
Congratulations on the win last night, but I fear all you have done is extended your pain and suffering. I’ll be particularly looking for you in a few days to ask you about England’s upcoming performances…
February 6th, 2007 at 5.15 pm
Michael,
You are too thin skinned…..but it does make good blogging….I do not expect England to win on Friday,but I am hoping that they put up a good fight!
C U Friday.
February 6th, 2007 at 5.27 pm
It certainly does! You can’t fence without a sparring partner can you?
It would be nice if they do put up a good fight… the record breaking paying public deserve it…
February 6th, 2007 at 8.44 pm
I must admit a small part of me had been hoping the Kiwis would win, if only because I’ve had enough of England losing to the Aussies this winter – two more games against them was the last thing I wanted!
But hey, we’re in the final now, and with two wins on the trot behind us. At least Strauss and Collingwood are back in something vaguely resembling ‘form’, although I can’t say I’m optimistic – especially not if Tremlett opens the bowling like that again!
February 6th, 2007 at 8.50 pm
Sorry … that should of course read ‘if Plunkett opens the bowling like that again’!
February 6th, 2007 at 11.45 pm
“Now watch, Twenty20 cricket schedules will make it even worse. Having one Twenty20 is fine, I’m willing to bet India and a few others will be adopting more games sooner rather than later.”
Actually the BCCI aren’t fans of Twenty/20 – they were very much against the World Cup format taking place later on this year. My guess over their dislike is the less game time in Twenty20 equals less advertising dollars for the board.
February 7th, 2007 at 1.09 am
NO, not England in the finals! It’s like Groundhog Day. Everytime you think you’ve killed them off they reappear in some other form and you’ve got to go through the whole scenario again!
what award- winning player will be dropped this time! Rumours of Monty making way for Lewis but they can’t be serious!
February 7th, 2007 at 5.38 am
Yay team!! Well played guys, but bad luck to NZ – they looked really flat at the end, especially Fleming. Good captaincy, if I do say so myself . . . pity about the duck! What a difference in Flintoff under Vaughan – just how much he enjoys his cricket and how much return he gets for his efforts. He seemed to toil for no results during the tests. Not looking forward to playing Australia, but it had to be someone. At least they will get more of a run into the World Cup. And perhaps we should catch some of Vaughan’s optimism. After Edgbaston we should have learned that there is no reason why things can’t go your way at any moment, regardless of what has gone before.
February 8th, 2007 at 12.52 am
You’ll need the one who raises thy crooked finger…
February 8th, 2007 at 12.58 am
Well, the New Zealand newspapers are full of woe about the Black Caps losing out to England. Big analysis in the Dominion Post with the headline: “Not Bad But Not Good at Anything”. The player ratings pick Bond as an improver, particularly with his (their quotes) “ball of the series” to get Michael Vaughan’s wicket. Which makes me feel slightly better about Vaughan’s duck but his captaincy more than made up for it. It’s his fitness that has me swigging the angst bottle again.
February 8th, 2007 at 8.21 am
Well, Kathy, your deepest, darkest fears have come to fruition – Vaughan is out, again, with the hamstring, again. I just hope for England’s sake that this on-again /off-again scenario with him doesn’t go on throughout the World Cup as well. Because, face it, Freddie just isn’t The Man for the job. Even he’s worked that out.
Where’s Strauss? please! (and I’m not even a Pom!)
February 9th, 2007 at 9.02 am
well done England!
Comments
« The ‘throw rotten eggs at the Aussie’ thread | Main | Who makes these rules, and why do we put up with them? »
