Posted by: tootingtrumpet | February 2, 2011

Australia vs England Sixth ODI – The Final Over of the Day

The latest pilgrim on the well-trodden path from hero to zero

Ball One – Interesting decision for England to take the batting powerplay as the new ball arrives after 34 overs. With the harder ball, captains tend to go to their quicker bowlers, so runs can flow more easily with the batsmen not having to make the pace. If this tactic works in early World Cup matches, we may see it used often and it’ll be a welcome break from milking accumulation in the middle overs.

Ball Two – Jonathan Trott has not looked in the best of health from very early in his innings, which makes his wonderful knock even more impressive. Notwithstanding such praise, he really should not have been given a runner – such should not be allowed in one day cricket. As if to prove my point, shortly after arriving late for fielding duties, Trott was fit enough to take a spectacular catch round the corner to dismiss Haddin.

Ball Three – There is a case for the calling of the bouncer over shoulder height to apply only to the fully blown bumper, rather than the relatively recent innovation of the slower bouncer. Surely the umpires can apply some discretion as the slower bouncer is very hittable – if the batsmen can time it. Limiting bowlers to two such per over seems unnecessarily picky in a game already complicated enough.

Ball Four – Carnage as Watson and Haddin take advantage of some wayward English bowling to the Australian openers who were keen to hit anything off line or short. Orthodox thinking does not suggest spin in first ten overs, but pace off the ball wouldn’t suit Watson in this mood and Strauss soon whistled up Yardy for exactly that reason. Look out for slow stuff early on in the World Cup.

Ball Five – As a clean hitter with quick bat-speed, Mitchell Johnson may be a good option on the slow pitches of the sub-continent. As a trial in a dead rubber, 50-odd at about a run-a-ball, passes the test. Whether delaying Michael Clarke’s arrival until the innings is past the halfway mark, is a good thing, is another matter.

Ball Six – England have learned how to win T20I matches, as their world crown proves, but, after losing matches through weak batting, England lost this match through weak bowling, suggesting that England have also learned how to lose ODI matches. Chief culprits were Anderson and Woakes, who have shown themselves to be wicket-takers, but were just the pace required for Australia to cart sufficiently to pressure them into bowling wide and short – that’s what they did. Australia cashed in for a deserved victory.

The Tooting Trumpet, whom you can often find at and on Twitter at @garynaylor999 and @Fakeadil.



  1. Was watching a bit of this on a video feed, and after KP bowled to White, had an appeal turned down, and then a review turned down, KP was still mouthing off walking back to his mark, and during a lull in the crowd noise, I swear I saw the umpire turn to KP and say “you’ve got no credibility”. It was definitely the umpire who I saw say it. Hard to believe but, but it was there.

    The other hard to believe thing was Prior. Surely, surely he didn’t do what it looked like he did. That would take the cake not only for cynical dishonesty but also stupidity. But at this point I can’t see any real explanation for it.

    What a delight to see Morgan get out again to one of his stupid made-up shots. Just desserts.

    Probably the most solid win Aus have managed in the series yet, with a number of bright spots. Maybe they’re coming along after all. It was always just a matter of time for Clarke.

    • Prior was just behaving like any other thick as shit wicket-keeper. They’ll try anything on, they really will.

      You really hope that both him and Haddin are completely off the ‘who can we trust to refer’ list.

  2. fred, having been taken to task in another place ( for this, I am happy to agree with you re Morgan. He has to be a real concern for England. Just now, he doesn’t look an ODI batsman, never mind a Test one.

    • He struck me as a reasonable batsman, I just wish he’d stick to cricket and not some combined cricket/hurley code. Surprising he’s done so poorly in this test, but as with most instant wonders, the good times rarely last.

  3. I wonder whether you missed it deliberately or unintentionally, but I think Trott missing that catch offered by Clarke on the first ball of the penultimate over played a huge role in the final outcome.

    Not only was Clarke allowed to bat through that over, but more importantly, with the help of that drop, he was allowed to get the equation down to 6 off 6 in the last over. Had he been caught, the equation might well have been about 10 of the last over!

    • I think Trott was stuffed by then. And you can’t blame him – he batted all day in stinking hot conditions.

  4. Anyway, it was an interesting idea to bring Johnson in so early. It meant that they didn’t get bogged down as they so frequently do when Clarke comes in earlier.

    He and Callum Ferguson clicked along keeping the asking rate below 7 nicely.

  5. England have failed to defend 294 and 333 against an Australian team racked with injury and not in the best nick. That must be a concern for Flower and Strauss.

    Batsmen shouldn’t get the benefit of runners. It’s an archaic law. If not fit enough they should retire hurt and let the next bloke have a go.

    The choice of Haddin as a runner for Smith was plain stupid. Further proof that Nielsen is a dunce. The best and most obvious option would have been for Hussey to stay out there with Clarke.

    Johnson did well today but his batting is as inconsistent as his bowling. Chasing 300+ promoting him is low risk but I wouldn’t want to see it too often.

    • Batsmen shouldn’t get the benefit of runners. It’s an archaic law.
      Every major team sport now allows full substitutes. Forcing batsmen to retire hurt or limp runs would be the archaic thing to do.

      • Dave, there is a substitute, the next batsman. Also, no-one is ever forced by the laws to retire hurt. It is entirely the batsman’s decision.

        • The only thing to be said in favour of runners is that they so often add to the gaiety of nations.

        • You know that’s ridiculous. It’s like saying that there’s a substitute for the centre back who just got injured – a defensive midfielder. No other sport requires a team to play a man down because of injury (with the occasional exception of when there’s limited substitutions allowed).

          • Think about it. Cricket teams play a man short every time a bowler breaks down mid-match.

    • Apart from David Hussey, look at the choices. Ferguson still doesn’t look completely fit, White isn’t that fast, Watson as runner? HA, HA, don’t make me laugh. And no-one in their right minds would even consider Mitch.

      How bad are things when you are forced into using an airhead like Haddin as a runner?

      • Apart from other things, why would you punish your wicketkeeper thus? He has done his bit for the day, surely? Keeping for 50 overs and opening the batting.

  6. As the rule used to be in rugby, I’d allow a runner / 12th Man when the batsman is genuinely injured and hobbling and not just tired or slower in taking runs / fielding.

  7. Ball 2 should really say – Well done Australia on showing the true spirit of cricket by letting Trott have a runner when we was only cramped and not actually injured. It was a nice gesture – even if the state of play was that the series was done and dusted. Just try and ask for one during a World Cup knockout game Mr Trott.

    As for a subs rule – I thought allowing a batsman to go off injured but come back, with the catch that he can only come back at the fall of a wicket, was a subs rule?

    • Strauss wouldn’t have done it though. Enough of the nice guy crap.

      • It’s worth noting that Clarke said that he wasn’t happy about it either, but had to go along as that’s the rule nowadays.

        Good knock from him though. Possibly his best since the last WC.

        • Although I should clarify – it was the actual rule itself that Clarke said he wasn’t happy with rather than the specific request.

      • Lou, Ponting wouldnt have done it! One more reason why Aus needs Ponting rather than Clarke at the helm in the World Cup. Pray he recovers fast!

        • It’s the umpire’s call nowadays.

          • Oh I read that after posting the previous comment. Ridiculous. Saeed Anwar made 194* using the rule. Thank God, God himself set that right :)

  8. Excellent over, Gary! 6 fine deliveries.

    I too support the majority opinion here — no runner for cramps (as per the law). At the same time, I still applaud captains, such as Clarke here, who are magnanimous enough to accept a request from the opposition. Unless the batsman in question is a habitual requester…which would suggest abuse of sporting spirit.

    Actually, Clarke really deserves some recognition for his showing in this series…particularly as captain, but also for his last 2 batting efforts. Tremendous innings in this game…and equally impressive gamble with Johnson at 4 (to take on Yardy in the powerplay)…something we unfortunately don’t see often enough these days (perhaps with the exception of Dhoni).

    Lastly…how RIDICULOUS have some of the appeals / semi-appeals / referrals been this summer?! I mean Hughes and Bell were poor enough in the Sydney Test…and now we’ve had Smith and Prior in the last 2 ODIs! Yes, we have technology to sort out close calls…but that’s no excuse for a player to abjure personal accountability and good faith. Unless you have a degree of confidence in your appeal, why take the issure to the umpires? And possibly vitiate relations…and waste time!

  9. And further evidence that Australia are still a team to reckon with in ODIs.

    As I’ve said before…it’s an open tournament for sure, but Australia will take some beating.

  10. Somebody on TMS yesterday pointed out that Trott is still on target to break the record for fastest man to reach 1000 runs in ODIs, currently held by one IVA Richards. Viv did it in 22 matches, Trott has 844 runs from 18, so he needs 156 runs from his next three innings. I can’t quite figure out whether I’d like to see him do it or not. On the one hand it would be a cool achievement, on the other hand it would be completely sacriligious. This is after all Jonathan Trott we’re talking about….

    • That would be quite a feather! Who do England play 1st in the WC?

      Of course, King Viv did it with a SR of over 90…whereas Trott trotts along at ~75, I believe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: