Jump to content

England vs Australia 2015 ODI Series


Van der MoodHoover

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

What nonsense, that's a ridiculous expectation on players. His job is to hold the innings together which he did well. 

As I said before today - 49,43,101 and still people moan.

The problem today was those playing around him, throwing their wickets away by pressing too soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem today was those playing around him, throwing their wickets away by pressing too soon.

They had to push, someone, preferably most , have to score at., at least a run a ball. when Morgan was in it was him, when he got out Taylor should have taken over the mantle, when he did not the others had to try,

Taylor was more bothered about getting three figures than playing for the team, OK in test cricket but limited overs no you must adapt, he was in he should have pushed when Morgan went. , Root goes big he goes fast 9 times out of ten.

 The commentators said as much , fine century ,overdue , but a bit slow .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had to push, someone, preferably most , have to score at., at least a run a ball. when Morgan was in it was him, when he got out Taylor should have taken over the mantle, when he did not the others had to try,

Taylor was more bothered about getting three figures than playing for the team, OK in test cricket but limited overs no you must adapt, he was in he should have pushed when Morgan went. , Root goes big he goes fast 9 times out of ten.

 The commentators said as much , fine century ,overdue , but a bit slow .

If Taylor had pushed straight after Morgan went and been dismissed, England would in all likelihood been all out for 270.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but me being a bit silly, if everyone had scored a fast as Taylor the score would have been 266 :unsure:

Sorry, but that argument is flawed because you are extrapolating backwards to suit your own argument. A fairer way to assess the situation would be to take the moment that Morgan was dismissed as pivotal (the point at which a Taylor acceleration should have come, or the point from which a less reckless approach from the others could have applied), then to apply Taylor's scoring-rate to everything that occurred to the end of the innings.

Morgan was dismissed after 33 overs and 1 ball, leaving 101 deliveries to go.

Of those, Taylor notched up 42 runs from 47 balls, leaving everyone else 54 balls , from which they would have amassed 48 runs themselves. We can also assume that the extras registered in that time would have remained the same, and the number of wickets would have also remained the same.

Applying those rules, England would have scored.....

300-8.

Which is exactly what they did score.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but that argument is flawed because you are extrapolating backwards to suit your own argument. A fairer way to assess the situation would be to take the moment that Morgan was dismissed as pivotal (the point at which a Taylor acceleration should have come, or the point from which a less reckless approach from the others could have applied), then to apply Taylor's scoring-rate to everything that occurred to the end of the innings.

Morgan was dismissed after 33 overs and 1 ball, leaving 101 deliveries to go.

Of those, Taylor notched up 42 runs from 47 balls, leaving everyone else 54 balls , from which they would have amassed 48 runs themselves. We can also assume that the extras registered in that time would have remained the same, and the number of wickets would have also remained the same.

Applying those rules, England would have scored.....

300-8.

Which is exactly what they did score.

 

If England had scored all game as fast as they did after Morgan got out they would have scored 275.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If England had scored all game as fast as they did after Morgan got out they would have scored 275.

The point I was making from far earlier in the thread was that the pivotal moment was the dismissal of Morgan - and that's the point at which the usual suspects started laying all the blame on Taylor, so that's the point from which I extrapolated the 'if everyone played like Taylor' scenario.

Don't you think that the 31 balls Hales spent in accumulating a massive 9 is more of a cause for concern. rather than the fine century that will see England winning and Taylor being voted Man of the Match?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I was making from far earlier in the thread was that the pivotal moment was the dismissal of Morgan - and that's the point at which the usual suspects started laying all the blame on Taylor, so that's the point from which I extrapolated the 'if everyone played like Taylor' scenario.

Don't you think that the 31 balls Hales spent in accumulating a massive 9 is more of a cause for concern. rather than the fine century that will see England winning and Taylor being voted Man of the Match?

When Hales was in they where still scoring over a run a ball.( I am wrong again 52 from 57 when Hales went ):(

Who' s the usual suspects, I thought there was only me.

Nasser  covered himself , before the Aussies fell apart he said if we win Taylor did the right thing, if we lose then maybe he may come in for some criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Hales was in they where still scoring over a run a ball.

Who' s the usual suspects, I thought there was only me.

Nasser  covered himself , before the Aussies fell apart he said if we win Taylor did the right thing, if we lose then maybe he may come in for some criticism.

Doesn't the possibility that he played the way he did due to team orders/instructions register  at all with you? When you have someone blasting away at the other end, like first of all Roy, then Morgan were doing, surely the objective of the guy at the other end is to rotate the strike by taking a single? Then after those two departed, with wickets continuing to fall, it became imperative that someone batted through?

I must be dim then, because it seems obvious to me, but clearly I am wrong otherwise you wouldn't be going to such lengths to make a point, so I'm just going to bow out here and plead stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't the possibility that he played the way he did due to team orders/instructions register  at all with you? When you have someone blasting away at the other end, like first of all Roy, then Morgan were doing, surely the objective of the guy at the other end is to rotate the strike by taking a single? Then after those two departed, with wickets continuing to fall, it became imperative that someone batted through?

I must be dim then, because it seems obvious to me, but clearly I am wrong otherwise you wouldn't be going to such lengths to make a point, so I'm just going to bow out here and plead stupidity.

You always come with that attitude Eddie.

You are talking after the fact I said he was IMO scoring too slowly DURING the game , big difference , take your bow , I will clap :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...