"When England win a World Cup, we can take the way they play" : Aussie coach Lehmann

[Slog]

ENGLAND was brave, Australia wasn’t.

That was the blunt assessment from Aussie coach Darren Lehmann after his side was booted from the Champions Trophy by a ruthless batting display from the tournament favourites.

The “new England” made light work of Australia’s paltry 9/277 in Saturday’s final pool match ad Edgbaston, ended 10 overs early by more rain, the weather having washed out the Aussies opening two games.

English skipper Eoin Morgan smashed more sixes (5) than the whole Australian team (2) and Ben Stokes blasted 15 boundaries in his 102 not out as the home team marched in to the semi-finals undefeated.

Much has been made of England’s attack-at-all-costs playing style, and their capacity to “go big” and rack up large scores at will.

Lehmann said all Morgan and his men had done was copy the brilliant, near-unbeatable cricket Australia played at the 2015 World Cup.

And the Aussie coach said his side had to get back to playing like that, and fast, if they want to keep up with the old enemy.

“We certainly want to get back to playing brave cricket. We certainly weren’t brave enough, or smart enough in this tournament,” Lehmann said.

“I would like us to play with a lot more freedom and bravery.”

Local media would have you believe England’s brave playing style, which is pushed heavily by Morgan, has been highly influenced by the way fearless New Zealand skipper Brendon McCullum turned the Kiwis around.

Lehmann however was having none of that, and said his side which blitzed the 2015 World Cup was the template for one-day domination.

“I think England and New Zealand took the way we played in the last World Cup. We played with bravery, we smashed every side bar New Zealand in Auckland,” he said.

“They are starting to take the way we played, not vice-versa. When they win a World Cup, then we can take the way they play.”

Lehmann conceded the experiment of Moises Henriques batting at number four, which came after a heavy push from captain Steve Smith, playing ahead of Marcus Stoinis who smashed 146 not out against the Kiwis in February “probably didn’t work”.

“Marcus was very good in New Zealand, so that was a tough selection call,” he said.

“But you take advice from everyone and you make a call, and the skipper was quite keen for him to bat at four. He looked good, he just probably didn’t capitalise.”

And despite little going right for Australia at a tournament it was never really a factor in, owing to two-washed out games and no momentum, Lehmann said there were no excuses and his side just wasn’t good enough.

“Blokes had been playing IPL, we had enough games before we played the first game against New Zealand. The rain didn’t help, but there’s no excuses from our end. We were poor, deserved to lose,” he said.

“We’ve got to get better at playing the game of cricket. It’s an old analogy, I’ve said it a lot, but we have to get better.“

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/c...k=e9824ae6b7c988f0b6d5d7fc9bfd515c-1497195248

 

[JaDed]

Lol,he is not wrong though but in that logic maybe they should play the way England does in T20 WC,Eng look much more promising.

 

[James]

Boo hoo Darren, have a nice flight home.

 

[Buffet]

A bitter statement. Eng is playing well with their new approach. They may not win the next WC, but no need to criticize their approach. Anyway, it looks like just one statement here, what is the full context?

 

[The_Odd_One]

England is a better ODI team than Australia at the moment.

 

[Zeshan547]

These Aussie are too easy to rile up. But ball is in Poms court to prove this arrogant Aussie wrong.

 

[bujhee kom]

England is a better ODI team than Australia at the moment.

Simply no. Aus are champs and 2 wash outs doesnt prove anything against them.

 

[dauntless]

Angoor khattay hain!!

 

[Fire Bird]

Boo hoo Darren, have a nice flight home.

A case of sour grapes from DL

 

[Rikaz]

Agree with this guy, england loves to glorify themselves even though they are always known to be bottlers in big events too.

 

[IAJ]

When England talked about this new approach right after 2015 WC, Haddin came and said that Aus have just won the WC and England went missing so why talk so big about the new approach.
Haddin had a good point.

But Lehman, your team has been destroyed in an ICC tournament ny England now so your comments are not on sour grapes.

 

[Madplayer]

The fact that he didnt use rain as an excuse should be an eye opener for a lot of teams who would have surely cursed the rain gods for ruining their chances. This is the attitude which makes Aussies so great.

 

[cricketfanfirst]

What he said is not off the mark, no one has to show what fighting spirit is in cricket to Aussies. The most consistently mentally tough team. They have been the most consistently good team throughout cricketing history with very few lean spells, and I'm sure they will come back strongly sooner rather than later.

This is the best chance for England to come to party in a major ICC tourney, with current form, home conditions and the team composition of explosive batting, they should win the cup. If they don't win, then they themselves have to blame and take the chokers tag from SA.

 

[Farhansk]

Doesn't make sense, it's obvious that England are playing excellent brand of cricket and no shame in following their style of cricket which is the only way forward.

 

[Slog]

Have to say. This 5 World Cups card is gold for Aussie fans and cricketers

You can always shut up anyone with it

 

[Mamoon]

Thread will be bumped in two years time.

 

[Billy1999]

Yo England won't win a World Cup

Australia have won 5 no point of Nasser Hussain to say to smith have a safe journey back home because England have done it once Australia are half dead because of boredom of destroying England in knock outs

 

[akki]

The fact that he didnt use rain as an excuse should be an eye opener for a lot of teams who would have surely cursed the rain gods for ruining their chances. This is the attitude which makes Aussies so great.[/QUOT
But i think they were lucky against new zealand too and new zealand were unlucky also in that sense.

 

[ToeCrusher2]

The fact that he didnt use rain as an excuse should be an eye opener for a lot of teams who would have surely cursed the rain gods for ruining their chances. This is the attitude which makes Aussies so great.

If they used the rain excuse then NZ would've reminded them of their match

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

Every time the Aussies take the field, against anyone except Pakistan, I back them to win.

I am an elitist so I necessarily don't like other teams breaking the trend that has been set for generations and the Aussie arrogance is something I genuinely appreciate.

Maybe it has to do with the Alpha male mentality we have, but I most certainly dislike meek characters which the Aussies don't seem to have amongst them.....

 

[Madplayer]

If they used the rain excuse then NZ would've reminded them of their match

We have seen in this tournament that teams have chased down totals after losing early wickets so you never know what that Aus vs Nz match would have ended up like. Yes i agree NZ can use the rain excuse because they dont have the attitude of aussies and rely on excuses just like our subcontinent teams who blame everybody and their dog but dont take the blame themselves.

 

[Executioner]

Aussies have had a lean patch in ICC tournaments post 2015 WC after retirement of Shane Watson, Clarke and Johnson.

Fair to say England are a better ODI side right now. England nearly won the WT20 finals and look good for the CT 2017 as well. On the other hand Australia weren't good enough to even qualify for SF of WT20 2016 and this year's CT.

 

[ToeCrusher2]

Australia is the only white team to ever win the odi world cup, no other white team has reached the pinnacle of odi cricket, they will retain the bragging rights for a long time

 

[ToeCrusher2]

We have seen in this tournament that teams have chased down totals after losing early wickets so you never know what that Aus vs Nz match would have ended up like. Yes i agree NZ can use the rain excuse because they dont have the attitude of aussies and rely on excuses just like our subcontinent teams who blame everybody and their dog but dont take the blame themselves.

Indian doesn't blame anyone, don't club us with other subcontinental teams, we are the Australia of South Asia

 

[Chief Destroyer]

Burnt!!!!!!!

 

[Hasan123]

LOL. The wait goes on for England

 

[pakistan cricket fan]

Agree with him

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Lehman was spot on

 

[Slog]

Thread will be bumped in two years time.

Bump :ricky

 

[JaDed]

The statement has sadly aged well.

 

[Hawkeye]

Lehmann, golden words these.

 

[Hasan123]

Thread will be bumped in two years time.

Yes for the reasons you weren’t expecting. Ovverated Aussies eh?

 

[Mp812]

England just one win away from world cup

 

[Mamoon]

Yes for the reasons you weren’t expecting. Ovverated Aussies eh?

Yes, overrated Aussies.

 

[Hasan123]

Yes, overrated Aussies.

Easy to talk now. Went into hiding before.

 

[Mamoon]

Easy to talk now. Went into hiding before.

It is easy to talk now and it was also easy to do bhangra when England had a stutter and this Australian was supposed to be some elite mentality champions based on the invincibility of their predecessors.

As I stated earlier in multiple threads and was accused of crying and making excuses, this England team is comfortably better than this Australian team. Apart from India, no team can stop them when they are on their A game.

That is the reason why I was hopeful that England will eventually get things right because it is a long tournament.

The problem here is that the anti-English bias is very strong. I am not sure if it is the colonial scars or whatever, but people are always eager to see England fail, and that is why they started celebrating as soon as England had a stutter.

 

[FreePalestine]

It is easy to talk now and it was also easy to do bhangra when England had a stutter and this Australian was supposed to be some elite mentality champions based on the invincibility of their predecessors.

As I stated earlier in multiple threads and was accused of crying and making excuses, this England team is comfortably better than this Australian team. Apart from India, no team can stop them when they are on their A game.

That is the reason why I was hopeful that England will eventually get things right because it is a long tournament.

The problem here is that the anti-English bias is very strong. I am not sure if it is the colonial scars or whatever, but people are always eager to see England fail, and that is why they started celebrating as soon as England had a stutter.

England played well in this wc, but why does the judgement have to be so black and white? My objections to them is the arrogance with which they assumed they had already won the world cup before it started but mainly because they generally need conditions to be heavily in their favour to win. With Jofra Archer and Mark Wood playing consistently, hopefully they can now start competing when there is something in the pitch because without them, they were flat track bullies as most PP’ers have recognized. No point saying England are amazing without contextualizing it with a recognition of how they have sought to eliminate swing and spin to just slog through the line all the time.

 

[silentkiller187]

It is easy to talk now and it was also easy to do bhangra when England had a stutter and this Australian was supposed to be some elite mentality champions based on the invincibility of their predecessors.

As I stated earlier in multiple threads and was accused of crying and making excuses, this England team is comfortably better than this Australian team. Apart from India, no team can stop them when they are on their A game.

That is the reason why I was hopeful that England will eventually get things right because it is a long tournament.

The problem here is that the anti-English bias is very strong. I am not sure if it is the colonial scars or whatever, but people are always eager to see England fail, and that is why they started celebrating as soon as England had a stutter.

They had their A game pretty much on during the Pakistan game, 2 hundreds in their chase still couldn't make it over the line, oooh silly me i forgot that was a fluke. I don't think there is an anti English bias, most people on here would choose England as their second team from what i've read, the reason people celebrated England's demise was because it would have provided Pakistan with the chance to go through, stop this victim mentality, you stated on multiple threads England would recover, well done but this is a place for discussion not you vs everyone else.

 

[Mamoon]

They had their A game pretty much on during the Pakistan game, 2 hundreds in their chase still couldn't make it over the line, oooh silly me i forgot that was a fluke. I don't think there is an anti English bias, most people on here would choose England as their second team from what i've read, the reason people celebrated England's demise was because it would have provided Pakistan with the chance to go through, stop this victim mentality, you stated on multiple threads England would recover, well done but this is a place for discussion not you vs everyone else.

When your 5-6 main players misfire, it is not your A game. Against Pakistan, Roy, Bairstow, Morgan, Stokes and Archer are failed, and that is why Pakistan won. If even half of English players bring their A game, Pakistan does not have the capability to beat them. We saw that in the ODI series before the World Cup and we will see it in the future.

Your reading is wrong I’m afraid. Most people here have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to England, and they were happily waiting for them to crash out of the World Cup so that they can call them chokers.

 

[Mamoon]

England played well in this wc, but why does the judgement have to be so black and white? My objections to them is the arrogance with which they assumed they had already won the world cup before it started but mainly because they generally need conditions to be heavily in their favour to win. With Jofra Archer and Mark Wood playing consistently, hopefully they can now start competing when there is something in the pitch because without them, they were flat track bullies as most PP’ers have recognized. No point saying England are amazing without contextualizing it with a recognition of how they have sought to eliminate swing and spin to just slog through the line all the time.

England like all strong teams needs conditions to favor them. Apart from the great Australian team and perhaps the West Indies of the 70s and 80s, give me example of a few top teams who were dominant in every condition? You won’t find any. Why should England be judged differently?

Also, what arrogance?

 

[silentkiller187]

When your 5-6 main players misfire, it is not your A game. Against Pakistan, Roy, Bairstow, Morgan, Stokes and Archer are failed, and that is why Pakistan won. If even half of English players bring their A game, Pakistan does not have the capability to beat them. We saw that in the ODI series before the World Cup and we will see it in the future.

Your reading is wrong I’m afraid. Most people here have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to England, and they were happily waiting for them to crash out of the World Cup so that they can call them chokers.

Most people that i have entered into discussion with wanted England to crash out so Pakistan could go through, this is a Pakistani forum after all. I am not denying England don't deserve to win the world cup the quality of cricket they have been playing has been amazing, but you can apply the sae logic with Pakistan, if there team was to bring their A game mark my words they would win 9 times out of 10. The only problem with that is they are far from consistent so your logic can pretty much be applied to any team.

 

[Mamoon]

Most people that i have entered into discussion with wanted England to crash out so Pakistan could go through, this is a Pakistani forum after all. I am not denying England don't deserve to win the world cup the quality of cricket they have been playing has been amazing, but you can apply the sae logic with Pakistan, if there team was to bring their A game mark my words they would win 9 times out of 10. The only problem with that is they are far from consistent so your logic can pretty much be applied to any team.

Pakistan's A game is inferior to the A game of the top sides. If Pakistan bring their A game and so does India, England and Australia, Pakistan will still lose.

Also, I wasn't talking about the World Cup only. You have been around long enough to note that there is a strong anti-English bias here.

 

[Kianig89]

Lehmann should be given free entry to Lords for final

 

[Hasan123]

It is easy to talk now and it was also easy to do bhangra when England had a stutter and this Australian was supposed to be some elite mentality champions based on the invincibility of their predecessors.

As I stated earlier in multiple threads and was accused of crying and making excuses, this England team is comfortably better than this Australian team. Apart from India, no team can stop them when they are on their A game.

That is the reason why I was hopeful that England will eventually get things right because it is a long tournament.

The problem here is that the anti-English bias is very strong. I am not sure if it is the colonial scars or whatever, but people are always eager to see England fail, and that is why they started celebrating as soon as England had a stutter.

Well I don’t have the bias against England. I just think you ott with your praise of them. When I made the point they was struggling against De Silva you never ever replied to that post. They are a good team and will probably win the WC.

Australia had a off day which England took advantage of. I don’t think the gap is as much as you are making out as shown in the Lords game. England are not the only team who are allowed off days.

 

[Mamoon]

Well I don’t have the bias against England. I just think you ott with your praise of them. When I made the point they was struggling against De Silva you never ever replied to that post. They are a good team and will probably win the WC.

Australia had a off day which England took advantage of. I don’t think the gap is as much as you are making out as shown in the Lords game. England are not the only team who are allowed off days.

What should I have said? Yes they struggled but they are far better than that.

Australia didn’t have an off-day. This Australian team is no match to an English team at their best. The results of their last two series prove it. 8/10 times they will be beaten to a pulp.

 

[Hasan123]

What should I have said? Yes they struggled but they are far better than that.

Australia didn’t have an off-day. This Australian team is no match to an English team at their best. The results of their last two series prove it. 8/10 times they will be beaten to a pulp.

It just shows they have weaknesses which you refuse to see and instead of pointing them out, all you will say it’s a bad day etc.


I wouldn’t read too much into last year series in England, Australia had most of their main player missing. Don’t think England would run them close in the same situation to them.

 

[szundercover]

England, and the Importance of Faith and Strategies.

(Long post. TLDR: Strategies are important. England abandoned theirs in the 2015 World Cup, but have stuck with a new one since. Also remember to back your players, which England did now but didn’t at the last World Cup.)

Cricket is a team sport. That’s why you can’t just be content with picking your best players, they need to have synergy, complement each others’ strengths, and cover their weaknesses. To succeed, you need to play to a strategy. This does sound a bit like football or T20 league talk, but it’s true. Having the best players won’t always be enough, to go the extra mile, you need a plan to win. A quick example is Australia, who are overloaded with top order batsmen. David Warner, Aaron Finch, Usman Khawaja, and Shaun Marsh are all openers. Alex Carey would also open for South Australia. Steve Smith is a number 3 batsman. Carey has batted this whole tournament at 5, 6, or 7, while at least 4 of the rest have played in every game except the semi final. At least one of them is always out of position, and coming out to bat at a time that doesn’t suit their batting style. The talent is there, but the synergy and planning isn’t.

Before the 2015 World Cup, England had a plan. Their plan might have been outdated, but it was at least something. The idea was to have one opener take advantage of the first powerplay’s fielding restrictions and be aggressive, while the other opener and the batsmen at 3, 4, and even 5 accumulated runs throughout the innings. Then at the end, maybe the last 5 to 10 overs, the batsmen would up the tempo. Hopefully they’d end up with 250. On a good day, even 300. Their bowlers would bowl test match lines with the new balls, maybe getting some early wickets. After that it was about stemming the flow of runs. It may be an outdated plan, one that wouldn’t work on flat pitches, as they had an upper limit on their score and their bowlers were one dimensional and helpless without assistance from the pitch, but it was something. It would work on pitches which assisted pace bowling, as England usually went with 4 pacers and one spinner, and batted without much risk. England had shown their willingness to play to this plan. Once they found an opener who could play in that “aggressive” role, they decided that one of Cook or Bell was surplus. So they dropped the more out of form Cook on the eve of the Cup. Not ideal, but they were sticking to their guns. There was a tri series with Australia and India that preceded that World Cup. And England didn’t do too badly in it. They beat India twice, both times on pitches with some life in it, and ran Australia close enough twice. While they got thrashed in the final, they had done well enough before to be optimistic enough for the World Cup. Sure, they weren’t going to win, but they would do alright. Surely a quarter final spot at least. Maybe even a semi final spot too if things go extremely well. Moeen Ali was the aggressor up top. Ian Bell, James Taylor, and Joe Root would accumulate in the middle. Eoin Morgan, Ravi Bopara, Jos Buttler, and Chris Woakes would make quick runs at the end. James Anderson, Stuart Broad, Steven Finn, and Woakes could bowl what was required of them. Moeen and Root would sneak in 10 overs in the middle while being cheap. They had picked a side that could play to their strategy. But then, when they played the first game of that World Cup, they didn’t enter with that 11. Crucially, they played Gary Ballance instead of Ravi Bopara, and had Ballance bat at 3 while Taylor got shunted to 6. Taylor wasn’t built for that “final flourish” role, while Ballance wasn’t part of the planning beforehand. He was in the side as a backup to one of the accumulators. Now he was playing with all of them in the same 11. The balance (get it?) of the side was upset. At the last possible second, England had betrayed their plan.

Now, keeping the 11 that had finished second in the tri series wouldn’t have won England that World Cup. They still may not have made the quarter finals with it. But at least they would’ve shown faith in themselves. They abandoned their thinking at, quite literally, the last moment, and played that World Cup, one which broke new batting ground, as a muddled mess. It was so bad that they hit the reset button on their ODI cricket after it. New plan, and this time they would stick with it.

Morgan, Andrew Strauss, and Paul Farbrace got together to discuss what they’d do next. What approach should they take by the time the next World Cup rolled around on home soil? The approach they picked was much like the one Brendon McCullum and Mike Hesson’s New Zealand used in that World Cup: score quick runs throughout the innings, and keep taking wickets. So they adjusted the squad to play to this plan. There are a ton of players playing senior cricket in England. Finding people to fill the roles the thinktank created wasn’t hard. Gone was Ian Bell, too slow for the role of scoring quickly up front. In came Jason Roy and Alex Hales, largely of T20 fame. Joe Root and James Taylor wouldn’t play in the same 11. They both had the same role, and one of them batting at 4 would only be of use if 2 wickets fell quickly at the start of the innings. England had faith in their top 3 to last a while, so having another accumulator at 4 was unnecessary. Root would start, and Taylor was his backup. Morgan would now be at 4, a more attacking option in the middle but able to play the long haul if needed. The hard hitting Ben Stokes was recalled and played at 5. He also added with the ball (more on that later). Then, more quick scorers, with Buttler at 6, and Sam Billings at 7, followed by the bowling line up of Adil Rashid, Chris Jordan, Liam Plunkett, and Finn. That was a batting line up that would look to attack throughout, and would always keep the runs flowing. The bowlers were less one dimensional than the ones that had played in the World Cup. Rashid was an attacking option that spun the ball both ways, Plunkett had variations, while Stokes and Finn could bowl quick. They would always be looking for wickets, even if they went for runs doing so. The batting lineup allowed them to not worry about being expensive, as the batsmen would cover it. The bowlers just needed to take wickets. England chose this strategy to follow, now they just needed to show some faith and stick with it.

England have not only stuck with this mode of playing, but also the players. The side that will play the World Cup final is very similar to the one that played New Zealand at Edgbaston 4 years ago to kickstart the new era. Roy, Root, Morgan, Stokes, Buttler, Rashid, and Plunkett are still here. Hales has been changed out for Bairstow, for both on field and off field reasons. There’s Chris Woakes in place of Sam Billings, so England now have the luxury of a sixth bowler (7 if you count Root) in case one of the bowlers has a bad day. And there is Jofra Archer and Mark Wood in place of Chris Jordan and Steven Finn. Both bowlers add extreme pace, and each has their own way of attacking the batsmen with it. Even the squad of 15 is close to the one that played that New Zealand series. James Vince replaced Taylor, who was forced into retirement with a heart condition. There’s also Tom Curran instead of David Willey, who had been underperforming for a while and just couldn’t make the final squad, and Liam Dawson and Moeen Ali instead of Jordan, to add more spin options. By sticking with their players, they’ve allowed them to become grow into their roles and cricket at the highest level, and build a healthy team environment. This isn’t a side at war with itself, where everyone is looking over their shoulder, fearful of getting dropped.

England had a good core to implement their strategy in 2015, and the journey since then has been about fine tuning it. The bowling has been beefed up. It has a proper test bowler taking advantage of helpful conditions with good pace and variety to back him up once the movement is gone (Woakes), extreme pace to hurry the batsmen (Archer and Wood), variations in the middle overs to keep the batsmen on their toes (Plunkett), a fifth pacer who’s a bit of all of that (Stokes), and a spinner that can spin it significantly both ways without being too obvious about it (Rashid). It is a solid attack, and it’s had a good time this tournament. The batting has 4 players who primarily take the fight to the bowlers (Roy, Bairstow, Morgan, and Buttler), and 2 capable of grinding out the tough runs (Root and Stokes). All of whom are able to play in the other mode if need be. England also embrace flexibility in their batting line up, promoting their hardest hitter Buttler if they got off to a good start and are, say, 1 or 2 down after 30 overs. It’s a time to attack harder, and they change their batting order to do that. There’s even a seventh option with the ball (Root) if it comes to that, and each of the bowlers has a decent enough ability with the bat (especially Woakes, who’s almost a proper batsman). There are even 2 wicket keepers (Bairstow and Buttler). The depth is there in every department.

This is a quality England side brimming with talent, perhaps their best ever. But all that talent would be wasted without a clear path to follow. England have played to a plan for four years, and, through thick and thin, stuck to that plan. It would have been easy to abandon it after getting rolled over for 100-odd against Australia in the 5th ODI in 2015. It would have been easy to give up on their bowling method when they kept going for runs. It would have been easy to panic after getting thrashed by Pakistan in the 2017 Champions Trophy semi final. It would have been easy to enter their final 2 group games with muddled minds and no clear direction after losing consecutively to Sri Lanka and Australia, where their batting failed them. But they didn’t. They went after India and New Zealand the same way they planned to 4 years ago, and tackled the semi final against Australia the same way. England have shown faith in themselves, their players, and their methods. Their reward is a World Cup final.

The lesson from all this is: identify your strengths, show faith to a core group of players you’ve identified, and plan a strategy around them. Simply having the talent isn’t enough. You also need a strategy.

 

[Mamoon]

It just shows they have weaknesses which you refuse to see and instead of pointing them out, all you will say it’s a bad day etc.


I wouldn’t read too much into last year series in England, Australia had most of their main player missing. Don’t think England would run them close in the same situation to them.

No team is invincible and neither is this England, but the way people talk about their weaknesses is if they are the only team that has those weaknesses.

They are the best team in the world and they have also proved that they have the bottle to perform under pressure.

 

[Hasan123]

No team is invincible and neither is this England, but the way people talk about their weaknesses is if they are the only team that has those weaknesses.

They are the best team in the world and they have also proved that they have the bottle to perform under pressure.

You problem is you see a few posts and you assume every person has the opinion.

I never denied they aren't the best team in the world and can win under pressure.

Your problem is you like over hyping your favourites.

That day you compared Roy with Sehwag. ) . A man who scored in test cricket for fun versus someone who has never even played a test.

Buttler being as good as De Villers. I am a massive fan of Buttler but him getting to that level is very very difficult. Averaging 50 plus for nearly 5/6 years.

You have done this plenty of time for your favourite players and teams. You can find every all faults in teams and players but there's always a defence for who you like.

 

[Mamoon]

You problem is you see a few posts and you assume every person has the opinion.

I never denied they aren't the best team in the world and can win under pressure.

Your problem is you like over hyping your favourites.

That day you compared Roy with Sehwag. ) . A man who scored in test cricket for fun versus someone who has never even played a test.

Buttler being as good as De Villers. I am a massive fan of Buttler but him getting to that level is very very difficult. Averaging 50 plus for nearly 5/6 years.

You have done this plenty of time for your favourite players and teams. You can find every all faults in teams and players but there's always a defence for who you like.

I am open to accepting England’s flaws. The problem is that people focus only on their flaws and downplay their strengths. Calling them FTBs and only good when they win the toss and bat first etc. is lazy analysis.

I didn’t say you doubted England but the way you overrated the mental capabilities of this Australian side based on the exploits of their past players was quite strange.

 

[Hasan123]

I am open to accepting England’s flaws. The problem is that people focus only on their flaws and downplay their strengths. Calling them FTBs and only good when they win the toss and bat first etc. is lazy analysis.

I didn’t say you doubted England but the way you overrated the mental capabilities of this Australian side based on the exploits of their past players was quite strange.

Well England are difficult to beat on such pitches . When it's a more bowling friendly pitch, the game is tighter. I think it's a fair comment.

Why would I underate a team who has experience of winning the WC?

No matter what you say about Australia, even with a so called weak team they have reached the semi finals. England at their weakest could never ever do that. In fact even not a classical Australian team is considered a favourite for the WC before the tournament.

I'll rather ovverate Australia than ovverate a team who has never won a WC. Or got to a semi since 92 until Thursday.

 

[gazza619]

Pakistan's A game is inferior to the A game of the top sides. If Pakistan bring their A game and so does India, England and Australia, Pakistan will still lose.

Also, I wasn't talking about the World Cup only. You have been around long enough to note that there is a strong anti-English bias here.

Your point is a bit confusing.

How can two teams competing against each other bring out their A game in the same game.

If one player succeeds, it means the opponent player has failed.

Its like you are saying that Archer and Wood will pick 4 wickets each (as this is their A game). Babar Azam and Fakhar Zaman will score a hundred (as this is their A game)...who will win in this situation?

Can you give me an example where one team wins and other team loses and 5 players of the loosing team did not fail?

 

[Mamoon]

Well England are difficult to beat on such pitches . When it's a more bowling friendly pitch, the game is tighter. I think it's a fair comment.

Why would I underate a team who has experience of winning the WC?

No matter what you say about Australia, even with a so called weak team they have reached the semi finals. England at their weakest could never ever do that. In fact even not a classical Australian team is considered a favourite for the WC before the tournament.

I'll rather ovverate Australia than ovverate a team who has never won a WC. Or got to a semi since 92 until Thursday.

That is the issue. The past success of Australia and the past failures of England have absolutely nothing to do with the team today, and that is why England smashed when they produced their A game. The past glory of Australia was of no use because their current team is not very good.

Yes they have some players from the 2015 squad but that was a far more balanced team especially for Australian conditions.

This Australian team will not win the World Cup anywhere. It is an imbalanced team with too many passengers and are over-reliant on the individual brilliance of Starc and Warner.

 

[Hasan123]

[/b]

That is the issue. The past success of Australia and the past failures of England have absolutely nothing to do with the team today, and that is why England smashed when they produced their A game. The past glory of Australia was of no use because their current team is not very good.

Yes they have some players from the 2015 squad but that was a far more balanced team especially for Australian conditions.

This Australian team will not win the World Cup anywhere. It is an imbalanced team with too many passengers and are over-reliant on the individual brilliance of Starc and Warner.

Yes in your opinion it is not very good. Hazelwood and Marsh in for Stonis and Berendorff lifts the quality of this team. Their bowling attack is stronger than most teams and they still have 3 world class batters.

It is always going to be impossible to replace 1 ATG never mind a full team that Australia had.

This England team wouldn't win a WC in the subcontinent. What's your point?

Australia have won the WC in every continent. England will never achieve that even if this team was together and in their peaks forever.

 

[Mamoon]

Your point is a bit confusing.

How can two teams competing against each other bring out their A game in the same game.

If one player succeeds, it means the opponent player has failed.

Its like you are saying that Archer and Wood will pick 4 wickets each (as this is their A game). Babar Azam and Fakhar Zaman will score a hundred (as this is their A game)...who will win in this situation?

Can you give me an example where one team wins and other team loses and 5 players of the loosing team did not fail?

If Fakhar and Babar are at their best and so are Starc, Bumrah, Archer etc., then the probability of them getting those two batsmen out cheaply is higher than the probably of those two scoring hundreds.

Similarly if Kohli, Rohit, Warner, Roy etc. are at their best and so are Amir, Shaheen, Hasan etc., then the batsmen are more likely to win the contest.

In terms of series, the ODI series between Pakistan and England before the World Cup is a good example of how Pakistan’s best is not good enough compared to England’s best.

We lost the series 4-0, but we played out of our skins. We scored 361, 358, 340 and 297, but weren’t able to win a single match because England were also firing on all cylinders, but unfortunately their cylinders have more fuel than ours.

 

[Mamoon]

Yes in your opinion it is not very good. Hazelwood and Marsh in for Stonis and Berendorff lifts the quality of this team. Their bowling attack is stronger than most teams and they still have 3 world class batters.

It is always going to be impossible to replace 1 ATG never mind a full team that Australia had.

This England team wouldn't win a WC in the subcontinent. What's your point?

Australia have won the WC in every continent. England will never achieve that even if this team was together and in their peaks forever.

England will be the second favorites after India if there is a World Cup in the subcontinent today.

Australia have won a World Cup in every continent but this current Australian team is not up to the task. They need improvements in all areas. Marsh and Hazlewood improve this team but they are still inferior to England.

The problem is that you are unable to view this Australian team without reflecting on the glory of the previous Australian sides and players that have nothing in common with this team.

You are overrating them based on your perception of what the Australian team is supposed to be like.

 

[FreePalestine]

England like all strong teams needs conditions to favor them. Apart from the great Australian team and perhaps the West Indies of the 70s and 80s, give me example of a few top teams who were dominant in every condition? You won’t find any. Why should England be judged differently?

Also, what arrogance?

Those are the really great teams, and they were great because they were able to adapt to a variety of conditions. I am not saying Eng are a bad side, just not an ATG side, and whichever side is likely to be successful in the highest variety of conditions in the present day is the best side of this time. So I think that would be either Australia or India atm as they can do well on bouncy tracks, in seaming conditions and on slow tracks. England are getting better though with Jofra and Wood providing some high quality bowling, otherwise they just depended on their batsmen to smash their way on flat tracks for ages. I am not stubborn about it, and if they fulfill that criteria of demonstrating they can win on a variety of different tracks, am happy for them to be thought to be the best side in the world.

 

[Hasan123]

England will be the second favorites after India if there is a World Cup in the subcontinent today.

Australia have won a World Cup in every continent but this current Australian team is not up to the task. They need improvements in all areas. Marsh and Hazlewood improve this team but they are still inferior to England.

The problem is that you are unable to view this Australian team without reflecting on the glory of the previous Australian sides and players that have nothing in common with this team.

You are overrating them based on your perception of what the Australian team is supposed to be like.

A team struggling against De Silva would have even more issues on turning tracks. Also you were complaining about England not getting home advantage because you knew they aren’t good on those type of pitches . So even if they were 2nd favourites, they still wouldn’t win the WC in Asia.

 

[Mamoon]

A team struggling against De Silva would have even more issues on turning tracks. Also you were complaining about England not getting home advantage because you knew they aren’t good on those type of pitches . So even if they were 2nd favourites, they still wouldn’t win the WC in Asia.

It was just one match. You and I both know that if England tour Sri Lanka today, they would comfortably win the ODI series no matter how many De Silva and Pereras etc. play.

The ruthless and elite Australians were 30/4 against the West Indian pacers. That doesn't mean that their top-order would struggle against them if they tour West Indies now. They are comfortably better than them and one match doesn't prove anything.

England deserve home advantage because that is how India and Australia won their respective World Cups in 2011 and 2015. Why should England have their home advantage taken away from them?

 

[Mamoon]

Those are the really great teams, and they were great because they were able to adapt to a variety of conditions. I am not saying Eng are a bad side, just not an ATG side, and whichever side is likely to be successful in the highest variety of conditions in the present day is the best side of this time. So I think that would be either Australia or India atm as they can do well on bouncy tracks, in seaming conditions and on slow tracks. England are getting better though with Jofra and Wood providing some high quality bowling, otherwise they just depended on their batsmen to smash their way on flat tracks for ages. I am not stubborn about it, and if they fulfill that criteria of demonstrating they can win on a variety of different tracks, am happy for them to be thought to be the best side in the world.

Australia are rubbish against lateral movement, worse than England on sluggish tracks. Overall, England and India are very close to each other but both are better than this Australian team, who are closer to South Africa and New Zealand than England and India.