27th Match - England v Sri Lanka

[Dan]

Can you be a cricket team who has not won any ICC event? They choked in the champs trophy final in 2015,the semi in 2017 and were abysmal in the 2015 world cup.

They're great insofar as they keep winning games of ODI cricket. I'm not making any comment as to where they sit in some hypothetical pantheon of teams considered 'great'.

 

[Ulzan69]

Wow 2 Asian teams beat England in England in 2019 WC

Not new for Srilanka as they beat eng 5th time in World cup.( WI /Aus and Pakistan other teams who beat England 5 times each in World cup history

Not new for me 'cause England never win world cup during 1975-2019*

My first post

 

[quincywagstaff]

Can you be a cricket team who has not won any ICC event? They choked in the champs trophy final in 2015,the semi in 2017 and were abysmal in the 2015 world cup.

If they do fail at this WC, can't wait from the plethora of articles from Dobell and other English journos saying how the Bayliss ODI era wasn't a failure because they changed how ODI cricket was played.

 

[vandem]

Moeen Ali proving that experiences means **** all in Cricket. I mean I remember at least half a dozen similar dismissals of his in situations where the only thing required of him is to not be dismissed. If you are a dumb ass, you are going to do dumb ass things. They just can't help it. Moeen Ali and Ravi Jadeja of the same club. At least Moeen doesn't pull the "this is totally the first time this is ever happening to me" headshake.

e.g. Neesham caught at long off when NZ needed 27 (40) vs Bang. Left NZ 7 wickets down, and gave Bang a sniff. Turns out to have been an important game in the race to the 4th semi final spot, lucky that Santner guided the NZ to the win.

 

[Spark]

They're great insofar as they keep winning games of ODI cricket. I'm not making any comment as to where they sit in some hypothetical pantheon of teams considered 'great'.

Against understrength sides, against teams for whom winning is not necessarily the only priority. I don't know that winning JAMODIs is honestly that impressive.

---

"Chucking" sour grapes are the sourest grapes of all. A "Guardian pick" indeed.

 

[shifty_eyes]

They’ve passed 300 in 8 or their last 9 ODI’s. The odd dropped game aside, why would they worry about the possibility of needing to dig in?

Today was a massive choke, one of the worst. Still massive favourites to take the tournament, in my view.

This^

Batting lineups this WC imo
#1 England
#2 India
#3 NZ
#4 Aus
#5 Ban
#6 WI
#7 Pak
#8 SA
#9 SL
#10 Afg

 

[Dan]

Yeah, I suppose that's kinda my point - they're a great JAMODI side and that's still something. Even if it isn't the greatest strategy for a WC, it's still probably a better starting point than every previous England ODI World Cup strategy.

 

[Spark]

I don't think you have to win a WC to be a great ODI side to be clear, but I do think you have to do more than just bash 400+ scores when no one is really watching.

 

[morgieb]

Yeah, I suppose that's kinda my point - they're a great JAMODI side and that's still something. Even if it isn't the greatest strategy for a WC, it's still probably a better starting point than every previous England ODI World Cup strategy.

Though even before the last World Cup they were doing great in the JAMODI's. That might just have been a peak before everyone worked out how to best utilise the new rules.

 

[vcs]

But England have done more than just bash the sporadic 400+ score against minnows, they have consistently won bilateral series all over the world in the last 4 years. Yes, their approach probably relies too much on batting depth and power hitting. "Great side" is a subjective term but what they have done still merits praise.

 

[stephen]

England 2019 remind me of South Africa 1999. Clearly the dominant side in world ODI cricket but can they turn that into a trophy?

Honestly I'd rather England or New Zealand win this cup if Australia don't (if England win it means that teams from 4 continents will have won the world cup - as opposed to the soccer world cup which has only ever seen winners from two continents).

 

[stephen]

But it sure is fun to watch something huge crash and burn.

 

[quincywagstaff]

But England have done more than just bash the sporadic 400+ score against minnows, they have consistently won bilateral series all over the world in the last 4 years. Yes, their approach probably relies too much on batting depth and power hitting. "Great side" is a subjective term but what they have done still merits praise.

That's true but if they cant even make the final of a Champions Trophy or World Cup (both at home, a significant advantage) in the Bayliss era for all the quality they've produced they going to be remembered for their failures, not their triumphs.

Even the SA side of the late 1990s managed to win a Champions Trophy.

 

[quincywagstaff]

England 2019 remind me of South Africa 1999. Clearly the dominant side in world ODI cricket but can they turn that into a trophy?

Were SA the dominant ODI side clearly in the late 90s? They won the inaugural Champions Trophy but had lots of flaky moments otherwise.

Lost a home ODI series in 1997 to an Oz side with a captain so ill suited and out of form (Taylor) that he basically dropped himself halfway through.

Dominated a tri series in India in 1996 (third side was Australia)... but lost the final.

Dominated the 97/98 tri series in Oz (NZ third side) winning 7 out of 8 qualifying matches and won the first final... and lost the final two matches and the tournament.

They were a fine ODI side overall but always flaky under pressure even outside WCs.

 

[mr_mister]

Were SA the dominant ODI side clearly in the late 90s? They won the inaugural Champions Trophy but had lots of flaky moments otherwise.

Lost a home ODI series in 1997 to an Oz side with a captain so ill suited and out of form (Taylor) that he basically dropped himself halfway through.

Dominated a tri series in India in 1996 (third side was Australia)... but lost the final.

Dominated the 97/98 tri series in Oz (NZ third side) winning 7 out of 8 qualifying matches and won the first final... and lost the final two matches and the tournament.

They were a fine ODI side overall but always flaky under pressure even outside WCs.

Won the '98 Commonwealth games too but I'm not sure how competitive that was

 

[Bijed]

I don’t get this whole ‘they refuse to dig in and continue to play the same way’ talk - we started behind the run rate and finished up behind the run rate? It’s not like we happy hacked to 180ao off 32

Yeah, that criticism is much more of a thing when we're batting first, since we always try to set 320+ and sometimes selfdestruct if the conditions and/or bowling doesn't allow for it. Yesterday, Root, Morgan and Stokes all played the way they needed to in the situation and we lost because Sri Lanka bowled well and we've let these sort of conditions remain a hole in our game. Some of the dismissals from the lower order and tail were disappointing, mind.

 

[Adders]

That's true but if they cant even make the final of a Champions Trophy or World Cup (both at home, a significant advantage) in the Bayliss era for all the quality they've produced they going to be remembered for their failures, not their triumphs.

Even the SA side of the late 1990s managed to win a Champions Trophy.

Agree with this. England have thrown everything into their One Day side over the last four years in rediness for this World Cup and IMO it has come at the expense of the test team. If they don't lift the trophy at the end of it, it will all have been a waste.

 

[stephen]

Were SA the dominant ODI side clearly in the late 90s? They won the inaugural Champions Trophy but had lots of flaky moments otherwise.

Lost a home ODI series in 1997 to an Oz side with a captain so ill suited and out of form (Taylor) that he basically dropped himself halfway through.

Dominated a tri series in India in 1996 (third side was Australia)... but lost the final.

Dominated the 97/98 tri series in Oz (NZ third side) winning 7 out of 8 qualifying matches and won the first final... and lost the final two matches and the tournament.

They were a fine ODI side overall but always flaky under pressure even outside WCs.

Yeah it definitely was a lot closer in the 90s than it is now - I'd argue that world cricket as a whole in both tests and ODIs was a lot closer in the 90s than any other era. Even Zimbabwe, the weakest side of the time had claim to some very good players in the Flower brothers, Heath Steak and a couple of others.

But SA were definitely the strongest side in the 99 WC until they were eliminated.

 

[Heboric]

Won the '98 Commonwealth games too but I'm not sure how competitive that was

It looks like most of the top teams had decent squads:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_at_the_1998_Commonwealth_Games#Squads

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Brad Young, what a man