England v Australia, Champions Trophy, Group A, Edgbaston June 8, 2013

Bell's groundwork sets up Anderson record

202

England 269 for 6 (Bell 91, Bopara 46*, Trott 43) beat Australia 221 for 9 (Bailey 55, Faulkner 54*, Anderson 3-30) by 48 runs
Scorecard and ball-by-ball details

England and Australia locked horns for the first time this summer and Edgbaston, basking in golden sunshine for its 100th international match, was able to celebrate the start of the sequence with an emphatic England victory. The Champions Trophy tie - or Ashes prelim, if you prefer - fell to England by 48 runs.

Until England took control, it was a cagey, tactical affair - for the neutral perhaps the least enthralling match in the tournament so far. But who knows, it might be that England have already made an impact on the Ashes summer.

Australia had imagined that a powerful statement in the Champions Trophy might be a catalyst, but their performance was limp, their captain Michael Clarke is injured, and their hold on the Champions Trophy - as ESPNcricinfo's ball-by-ball commentary put it "the last trinket on Australia's mantelpiece" - is now in danger of falling into the fireplace.

For much of the day the Edgbaston crowd was able to soak up the pleasurable sight of two of its own proceeding calmly along, although it was only when victory was achieved that confidence reigned that Ian Bell and Jonathan Trott, as two Warwickshire batsmen should, had perfectly assessed batting requirements.

When Trott was caught at the wicket for 43 from 56 balls, chasing a wide one delivered around the wicket by the left-armer, Mitchell Starc, England's second-wicket pair had put on 111 in 22 overs and uncertainty hung around the ground about whether their programmed approach, on a day when Alastair Cook's decision to bat first was a straightforward one, would yield the desired outcome.

Bell departed four overs later, his 91 occupying 115 balls, as James Faulkner bowled him with a straight ball which kept a little low, a fact the batsman communicated somewhat theatrically by falling to his knees after his stumps were broken. He has seemed slightly out of sorts in recent months, but this proved to be a match-winning innings of consummate judgment.

Bell's contribution was neat and discerning, studded by occasionally pleasing drives, Trott occupied himself diligently in that self-absorbed way of his, his innings containing a solitary boundary.

He was shaken out of his cocoon of contentment only once when he seemed entirely taken aback to find Australia's keeper, Matthew Wade, raging at him after the pair got in a tangle as Wade chased an inaccurate return. A few minutes later, having contemplated the mix up, he allowed himself a slightly disturbing smile.

England's plan was to take advantage of the last 15 overs, beginning with the batting Powerplay. But batting Powerplays are not often to England's tastes. It is as if they are contrary to the national character, resented for artificially intruding on the normal order of things, about as popular as a wind turbine in a Cotswold village, both having the potential to bring energy but often bringing resentment.

Instead, they stalled. The late-order marauders, Eoin Morgan and Jos Buttler, fell cheaply within three balls of each other and it took a judicious 46 not out from 37 balls from Ravi Bopara to heal the breach. The average score at Edgbaston in ODIs was 224 but as the sun blazed down, this was not an average batting day.

Things might have turned out differently if Bell had been run-out without scoring. When Cook played Starc to backward point, David Warner pulled off a diving stop and sprung to his feet to throw down the stumps, with both batsmen at the wicketkeeper's end. Cook was just in his ground and Bell was a yard alongside him, but the ball careered into the leg side and, much kerfuffle later, England had stolen two overthrows.

Australia's bowling attack sorely lacked a specialist spinner on such a gripping surface and, among the pace bowlers, Mitchell Starc was a disappointment.

Then with the bat they never got going. David Warner and Shane Watson constitute as destructive an opening pair as exists in one-day cricket, but there was barely a whimper from either as they fell by the 15th over with the scoring rate barely three runs an over.

Warner's feet were fast as he carved at a ball angled across him from Stuart Broad and presented a diving catch to Buttler. Broad almost removed Watson, too, as a leading edge flew beyond Cook's grasp, diving to his left at slip. But Watson soon fell, his inside edge caught by Cook at gully, after the ball arced gently off the pad.

The balance of England's side gave Australia a chance with fifth-bowling duties to be shared between Ravi Bopara and the callow offspin of Joe Root, the latter with only one ODI wicket to his name. But this was a somewhat abrasive pitch which aided their chances of survival release and Hughes, losing patience, tried to pull Root off a length and was lbw.

The wicket which as good as confirmed England's victory - Mitchell Marsh rattling one into Eoin Morgan's midriff at backward point - also took James Anderson past Darren Gough as England's leading wicket-taker in ODIs. Five balls later, Matthew Wade followed, albeit reluctantly, initially hoping that Hot Spot would not reveal his thin edge, then plotting an escape because the ball might have dropped short of Buttler's gloves, but umpire Dharmasena's decision was upheld.

Bailey's half-century tried to hold Australia together, but he was wading through sand and his desperate attempt to go big against James Tredwell's offspin caused his downfall at long-on.

No Finn, no Swann. It was easy to believe that England were deliberately keeping two of their most potent bowlers out of sight of the Australians ahead of the Investec Ashes series.

England insisted that it was not the case. But they would, wouldn't they?

Swann had a none-too-serious sore back which had not prevented him bowling in the nets; Finn was omitted purely for reasons of form, perhaps influenced by the fact that now he is back on his long run, and comfortable with it, and the last thing England need is any long run, short run confusion ahead of the Ashes. Tim Bresnan's ability to draw life from the dry surface, most marked when he cut one back to bowl Adam Voges, justified the choice.

The Champions Trophy is a valid tournament in itself, not just some sort of Ashes points-scoring contest. That said, when Australia began their minimum of 13 meetings against England this summer with a gentle leg-stump half volley from Starc, which Cook flipped through backward square for four.

The roars of approval from the Eric Hollies Stand possessed a significance that England supporters hoped would last all summer long. By the end of the day they were even more convinced that it would.

David Hopps is the UK editor of ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • cric_J on June 9, 2013, 5:12 GMT

    A pretty professional win for England.Good batting. Excellent bowling. And a much better fielding effort than the NZ series.

    Bell and Trott were good although, as I have said before, I would like Bell to be more aggressive. He looks more comfortable that way. It would also take the pressure off Buttler and Morgs and and help the team get to a higher score which should be necessary in the coming games. I had a gut feeling that we should go with Bopara and I guess I wasn't wrong. He did well with the bat , if not so well with the bowl.

    I was really impressed with the bowlers. Jimmy, Bres and Broady were superb. Good lines , lengths and control from these lads. Tredwell was fine although I would go for Swanny in the next match if he is fit. And Root and Bopara filled up the fifth bowler's void perfectly.

    They may not have played a particulary interesting match, but England got what matters the most. A WIN. And a good one.I prefer England winning than having an intersting match ,anyday.

  • Meety on June 10, 2013, 23:27 GMT

    Didn't see any of the game - & have only just got back last night from a mobile/internet black spot - so really only have 2 comments. Well played England seemed to have the match wrapped about midway thru Oz's 2nd innings. 2ndly - why o why no Doherty? He is not a great spinner - but really, an all out pace attack? Yes there was a bit of variety in the pace options, but we could of at least played Maxwell ahead of Marsh. @SirViv1973 on (June 10, 2013, 12:12 GMT) "...it's the EC rate which really matters in this form of the game..." - absolutely NOT. Strike Rate is the KEY aspect of a pace bowler. The BEST way to slow the R/Rate is to take wickets. That is the mode the best teams in ODI cricket have always used - (WI thru the 80s, Oz 99-07). Oz's W/Cup wins were on the back of strike bowlers like Lee & Tait, with good variety. NOWHERE was E/R preferred over S/R - except maybe Warne & Hogg v MacGill - but that was more for batting & fielding options.

  • AKS286 on June 10, 2013, 18:36 GMT

    OMG How many discussions are here but at the end if the day ENG beat Aus by 48 runs. Different game plan & playing style for different teams. Sometimes they attack in 10 overs sometimes they play steady in 10 overs.

  • ScottStevo on June 10, 2013, 15:26 GMT

    @SirViv, If you're referring to my post regarding poor selections, you can head backwards through the old articles and see that I'd stated this prior to a ball being bowled in India, before this CT and I've been screaming/hoping they make changes before the Ashes... Though I agree that a lot of others thought the squads selected were decent - not me though. It's not an excuse when you leave a bloke with a 41 ODI avg at home when your team can't buy a run - it's just a ludicrous omission.

  • cric_J on June 10, 2013, 13:50 GMT

    All of my suggestions here would vary according to the match situaations - if we are chasing/ setting the score , what the total is , who are the no.s 7 and 8 for the day etc.

    England need to be faster.I totally agree. Burt I don't want them to go all crash-boom-bang and then end up like SA, Pak,SL or NZ did in their opening matches.

    ( cont...)

    The opening stand against Aus was pretty close to perfect in terms of pace by Bell and Cook.But Bell needed to accelarate once he got to 60 or so.And so did Trott after he faced his first 20 odd balls. With the new rules , it will be easier for set batsmen to be aggressive than for the new one , more times than not. Let's see what lads dish out in the next one.

    Also , I would like to clarify that I am not one of those who considered Aus to be the easiest group game. Certainly not. I feel Group A is a more close group than Gr -B , with nothing much but a diiference of 0.5 between the 4 teams.

  • cric_J on June 10, 2013, 13:37 GMT

    Quite a discussion going on here about the batting pace of the England top 3 batsmen.

    Now , IMO we can't have an absolute blueprint of things that so-and-so should be going at a SR of this-and-this. The batting style or pace differs (and it should) from match to match. Pitch, bowling conditions, weather conditions, the opposition bowlers, the batsman's current form are just a few attributes that influence the batsman's game.

    However , I believe that since Cook , Bell and Trott are pretty different types of batsmen , their respective roles to set the total should be different as well.

    IMO Bell should (and he could do that most convincingly of the 3 on most days if he chooses to) bat around an SR of 80 to 90 or so, with Cook being at around 70.Now if a wicket falls early, Trott could be around 55 (but not lesser). If there is a stand of about 70 for the first wicket , then he MUST go at 85 or more. (cont...)

  • SirViv1973 on June 10, 2013, 12:28 GMT

    A lot of Aus fans here complaining about the squad selected, which is very familiar to what we saw from them when things went badly in Ind. If things go wrong in the ashes will we have to put up with these excuses once again? Other than the usual stuff regarding Steve O'keefe's non selection I didn't see any oz fans bemoaning the selection of the ashes squad, the same way I didn't see too many detractors when this squad was selected given that the Aus A tour would be taking place at the same time & certain players would be better served being in the party in the run up to the ashes. Perhaps it's time to admit that the current crop of Aus players aren't quite up to it & to start looking at how they are going to improve going forward.

  • JG2704 on June 10, 2013, 12:26 GMT

    @landl47 on (June 10, 2013, 11:36 GMT) To be fair , Trott's inns does work most of the time but if Jonny B was relaying messages across to the pair to speed up , it tells you that even the management weren't happy with it. Also when Trott doesn't go on to score big and accelerate we've seen what happens (as in the 1st ODI)

  • JG2704 on June 10, 2013, 12:26 GMT

    @jmcilhinney on (June 10, 2013, 8:52 GMT) Must have missed the comms which said about "against better teams England would have made the effort to score more" , but that would be a very dangerous game to play. I mean 1 - While I think (despite the rankings) I saw Australia as our most winnable match , Australia still have guys like Warner and Watson. On their day either could easily have taken the game away from England 2 - It's dangerous tactics as surely it's not easy to build up the intensity levels as surely it comes naturally England don't have an opener like Gayle or a death bowler like Mallinga but there are things I still believe (tactically and otherwise) there are improvements we could make

  • SirViv1973 on June 10, 2013, 12:12 GMT

    @Jayzuz, In terms of Starc's ave it dosen't mean an awful lot at this stage of of his career as he has only played 19 games, 13 of which have been in at home. However @Landl47 is correct as it's the EC rate which really matters in this form of the game.

  • cric_J on June 9, 2013, 5:12 GMT

    A pretty professional win for England.Good batting. Excellent bowling. And a much better fielding effort than the NZ series.

    Bell and Trott were good although, as I have said before, I would like Bell to be more aggressive. He looks more comfortable that way. It would also take the pressure off Buttler and Morgs and and help the team get to a higher score which should be necessary in the coming games. I had a gut feeling that we should go with Bopara and I guess I wasn't wrong. He did well with the bat , if not so well with the bowl.

    I was really impressed with the bowlers. Jimmy, Bres and Broady were superb. Good lines , lengths and control from these lads. Tredwell was fine although I would go for Swanny in the next match if he is fit. And Root and Bopara filled up the fifth bowler's void perfectly.

    They may not have played a particulary interesting match, but England got what matters the most. A WIN. And a good one.I prefer England winning than having an intersting match ,anyday.

  • Meety on June 10, 2013, 23:27 GMT

    Didn't see any of the game - & have only just got back last night from a mobile/internet black spot - so really only have 2 comments. Well played England seemed to have the match wrapped about midway thru Oz's 2nd innings. 2ndly - why o why no Doherty? He is not a great spinner - but really, an all out pace attack? Yes there was a bit of variety in the pace options, but we could of at least played Maxwell ahead of Marsh. @SirViv1973 on (June 10, 2013, 12:12 GMT) "...it's the EC rate which really matters in this form of the game..." - absolutely NOT. Strike Rate is the KEY aspect of a pace bowler. The BEST way to slow the R/Rate is to take wickets. That is the mode the best teams in ODI cricket have always used - (WI thru the 80s, Oz 99-07). Oz's W/Cup wins were on the back of strike bowlers like Lee & Tait, with good variety. NOWHERE was E/R preferred over S/R - except maybe Warne & Hogg v MacGill - but that was more for batting & fielding options.

  • AKS286 on June 10, 2013, 18:36 GMT

    OMG How many discussions are here but at the end if the day ENG beat Aus by 48 runs. Different game plan & playing style for different teams. Sometimes they attack in 10 overs sometimes they play steady in 10 overs.

  • ScottStevo on June 10, 2013, 15:26 GMT

    @SirViv, If you're referring to my post regarding poor selections, you can head backwards through the old articles and see that I'd stated this prior to a ball being bowled in India, before this CT and I've been screaming/hoping they make changes before the Ashes... Though I agree that a lot of others thought the squads selected were decent - not me though. It's not an excuse when you leave a bloke with a 41 ODI avg at home when your team can't buy a run - it's just a ludicrous omission.

  • cric_J on June 10, 2013, 13:50 GMT

    All of my suggestions here would vary according to the match situaations - if we are chasing/ setting the score , what the total is , who are the no.s 7 and 8 for the day etc.

    England need to be faster.I totally agree. Burt I don't want them to go all crash-boom-bang and then end up like SA, Pak,SL or NZ did in their opening matches.

    ( cont...)

    The opening stand against Aus was pretty close to perfect in terms of pace by Bell and Cook.But Bell needed to accelarate once he got to 60 or so.And so did Trott after he faced his first 20 odd balls. With the new rules , it will be easier for set batsmen to be aggressive than for the new one , more times than not. Let's see what lads dish out in the next one.

    Also , I would like to clarify that I am not one of those who considered Aus to be the easiest group game. Certainly not. I feel Group A is a more close group than Gr -B , with nothing much but a diiference of 0.5 between the 4 teams.

  • cric_J on June 10, 2013, 13:37 GMT

    Quite a discussion going on here about the batting pace of the England top 3 batsmen.

    Now , IMO we can't have an absolute blueprint of things that so-and-so should be going at a SR of this-and-this. The batting style or pace differs (and it should) from match to match. Pitch, bowling conditions, weather conditions, the opposition bowlers, the batsman's current form are just a few attributes that influence the batsman's game.

    However , I believe that since Cook , Bell and Trott are pretty different types of batsmen , their respective roles to set the total should be different as well.

    IMO Bell should (and he could do that most convincingly of the 3 on most days if he chooses to) bat around an SR of 80 to 90 or so, with Cook being at around 70.Now if a wicket falls early, Trott could be around 55 (but not lesser). If there is a stand of about 70 for the first wicket , then he MUST go at 85 or more. (cont...)

  • SirViv1973 on June 10, 2013, 12:28 GMT

    A lot of Aus fans here complaining about the squad selected, which is very familiar to what we saw from them when things went badly in Ind. If things go wrong in the ashes will we have to put up with these excuses once again? Other than the usual stuff regarding Steve O'keefe's non selection I didn't see any oz fans bemoaning the selection of the ashes squad, the same way I didn't see too many detractors when this squad was selected given that the Aus A tour would be taking place at the same time & certain players would be better served being in the party in the run up to the ashes. Perhaps it's time to admit that the current crop of Aus players aren't quite up to it & to start looking at how they are going to improve going forward.

  • JG2704 on June 10, 2013, 12:26 GMT

    @landl47 on (June 10, 2013, 11:36 GMT) To be fair , Trott's inns does work most of the time but if Jonny B was relaying messages across to the pair to speed up , it tells you that even the management weren't happy with it. Also when Trott doesn't go on to score big and accelerate we've seen what happens (as in the 1st ODI)

  • JG2704 on June 10, 2013, 12:26 GMT

    @jmcilhinney on (June 10, 2013, 8:52 GMT) Must have missed the comms which said about "against better teams England would have made the effort to score more" , but that would be a very dangerous game to play. I mean 1 - While I think (despite the rankings) I saw Australia as our most winnable match , Australia still have guys like Warner and Watson. On their day either could easily have taken the game away from England 2 - It's dangerous tactics as surely it's not easy to build up the intensity levels as surely it comes naturally England don't have an opener like Gayle or a death bowler like Mallinga but there are things I still believe (tactically and otherwise) there are improvements we could make

  • SirViv1973 on June 10, 2013, 12:12 GMT

    @Jayzuz, In terms of Starc's ave it dosen't mean an awful lot at this stage of of his career as he has only played 19 games, 13 of which have been in at home. However @Landl47 is correct as it's the EC rate which really matters in this form of the game.

  • SirViv1973 on June 10, 2013, 11:47 GMT

    A little criticism here for Eng failure to accelerate & post 300 plus. Personally I was a little disappointed we weren't able to get a bit closer to the 300 mark but was fairly happy with 270. Going forward we are set to see conditions change over the next couple of days where we are likely to see damper cloudier conditions which will almost certainly mean 300 plus totals are taken out of the equation. If in such conditions we are able to post scores of 250 plus I would back our bowlers to do the rest against any of the other teams I have seen.

  • SirViv1973 on June 10, 2013, 11:40 GMT

    @Jayzuz, I don't think the rankings count for much at the moment. It not like a few years ago when Aus were dominating & were miles ahead of anyone else. There is little to choose from between the top 8 & it wouldn't be a huge shock to see say WI(6) & NZL (8) reach the final. You should also realize that NZL recently beat Eng when Dernbach & Woakes playing so although NZL thoroughly deserved to win those 2 matches this Eng side is a far different proposition with the likes of Broad & Finn available to it.

  • landl47 on June 10, 2013, 11:36 GMT

    Hey, we actually have a sensible discussion going here!

    @Jayzuz: I said that England and Australia were pretty close in economy rate. I think Aus has a good seam attack. However, Swann actually has the best economy rate of anyone in the two squads- 4.54 to Mackay's 4.63. Then there's a group of Finn, Doherty (tell me again why he was left out?) and Bopara. Of the players who bowled in the match, Voges has the worst economy rate and average. Wicket-taking is important, but on that basis 4 of the Aus bowlers in this game would be better than Steyn, whose average is about the same as Anderson's. I'd pick Anderson and Steyn before any of the Aussies, wouldn't you?

    @JG2704: Trott batted slowly at first; Bell kept up a steady rate. In their first 17 overs together Bell made 48 to Trott's 19. Then Trott speeded up and in the next 5 overs made another 24. It's how he plays- and it works.

  • jmcilhinney on June 10, 2013, 8:52 GMT

    @JG2704 on (June 10, 2013, 8:23 GMT), quite so. The partnership between Bell and Trott may have ended up at ~5rpo but that was due to acceleration at the end. If they kept up a better run rate for the first 10 or 15 overs then they would have finished up with 6rpo or more. Obviously 269 was more than enough on this occasion but noone could know that at the time. Surely it's just better to get as many runs as you can regardless of the opposition and coasting for 10-15 overs will not do that. A few people have said that 269 may well not be enough against better teams and someone refuted that by saying that against better teams England would have made the effort to score more but I don't believe that. There's no reason to believe that Bell and Trott thought "we could bat faster here but it's only Australia so we won't bother". That would be stupid anyway because there's still the possibility that NRR could come into the equation so winning by an extra 20-30 runs could still be important.

  • JG2704 on June 10, 2013, 8:23 GMT

    @Jayzuz on (June 10, 2013, 7:10 GMT) This is not meant to be disrespectful but I did feel that (despite Aus being ranked where they are etc) that this would be Eng's most winnable game. And despite the fact that I criticised our batting , I still felt that 269 vs Australia would be just about good enough. Maybe it's because Eng beat Aus 4-0 last year and most of the games were comfortable - I'm not sure? As for the bowlers stats - In this particular match , which I think Landl is referring to Eng's pacers economy was better

  • JG2704 on June 10, 2013, 8:23 GMT

    @landl47 on (June 10, 2013, 3:41 GMT) TBH , I didn't watch the game live but between 11 and 20 Trott and Bell went at 3 rpo. I heard on the radio that they sent Jonny out with a message to speed things up - which I guess they did - but should our players not be able to think on their feet? I still think Australia with their "Anything you can do , we can do worse" display flattered England. And no - this is not the way England HAS to play without KP in the side - it's the way they CHOSE to play. Reckon Buttler's promising talent will not be fulfilled with the way they use him which is a real shame. Despite Bopara's inns today - how often would he do that for Eng? The other day he scored 28 off 40 which is more the norm. I'd rather Eng let Jos go back to Somerset where he is used correctly

  • YorkshirePudding on June 10, 2013, 8:02 GMT

    @ashes61,I think the issue CAhave had is that for 20 years they had a very strong depth in talent there was a time they could have fielded at least 2 full test teams, and probably 3 who would have beaten most sides in the world. The problem was that the states didnt continue to develop and nuture talent towards the end, just like the counties in England during the 90's, mediocrity won (with a few excpetions), especially when it came to selecting the International sides.

    CA will get it together but it will take 3-4 years at least, and the current team can be best viewed as a stop gap until the fresh talent starts coming through the system, already we see a few shoots in the A side.

  • Jayzuz on June 10, 2013, 7:10 GMT

    @LandL47, check out the stats. England's seamers have no better economy rates than Australia's. Of all of them McKay has the best, Bresnan the worst. The rest scattered fairly evenly in between. What England do have, overall, is more experience. We pretty much know what to expect from all England's bowlers. Starc and Faulkner are still developing. At any rate I don't buy the argument that bowling averages don't count. It is clear that getting a couple of wickets in the first ten overs of an ODI game makes a huge difference to the innings, and bowlers with 19 and 22 averages like Starc and McKay get more wickets than guys with 30-35 averages like Anderson and Bresnan. Results/stats tell a v different story from some of the inaccurate silliness written here. No problem with a little banter, but I get annoyed when people bash teams and players while making totally false statements which bear little relationship to reality (you are not one of these, Landl47. You are just biased - like me!)

  • vigneshvinu on June 10, 2013, 6:47 GMT

    Arthur has created a worst aussie squad,it is ridiculous decision by not having a spinner in they playing eleven. they batting looks very worst what does the batting coach doing there. clarke was the lone fighter in indian series,now it seems bailey turn. It seems that coach gives suggestions only to the captain.

  • landl47 on June 10, 2013, 3:41 GMT

    Comments on comments: @JG2704: I'm not suggesting my maths is brilliant, but you say in your reply to cric-J that 5rpo for Cook and Bell is perfectly acceptable but it was Bell and Trott where it slowed down. Bell and Trott put on 111 in exactly 22 overs. Isn't that just a trifle over 5rpo? They had a slow period, but in the end they went at a respectable pace. Trott was out at 33.4 overs with the score 168 and Bell at 37.4/189, so Root, Morgan, Bopara and Buttler had 12.2 overs. If 2 of them had come off, England would have scored at 8 an over for a total of about 290. Only one (Bopara) did, so it was 269. England missed their target, but not by much. It wasn't a poor game plan; in fact, it's the way England without KP has to play.

    @Jayzuz: thanks for the compliment, but your analysis is a bit flawed. It's economy rate, not average, which counts in short-format cricket. Eng and Aus are pretty close in that area, but with Swann and Finn in the side Eng would be better than Aus.

  • Jayzuz on June 10, 2013, 1:16 GMT

    A lot of armchair commentators really losing the plot here. Eng just lost their last ODI series at home, but after 1 win they are suddenly "formidable". Australia just came off 6 consecutive ODI wins, are ranked #2, but suddenly they are "the worst team in 30 years" and "the easy game in the group" (as opposed to the tougher games vs SL/ NZ, both of whom have much poorer ODI records!). AUS would likely be #1 if not for the stupid rotation policy whereby they changed half the team as soon as they had a massive win in the 1st game vs SL last series, completely destroying team cohesion . As for LandL47s outrageous comment that AUS have a good seam attack, just look at the bowling averages 4 the ENG attack vs the AUS attack - the Aussies are head-to-head typically ten odd runs a wicket BETTER. That's a massive difference. Landl47 seems to be one of the few posters here who doesn't shift his entire view of reality based on the most recent game or even the most recent series.

  • The_bowlers_Holding on June 10, 2013, 0:38 GMT

    After the 1st set of matches it is interesting reading about perceptions of the performances only WI and India are looking good- WI just about made 170 and India conceded over 300. NZ just about made 130 and only England with the biggest winning margin were underwhelming amongst the winning teams, all the teams seem to have frailties and it will be fascinating with many twists and turns to come. I know it will be grating for associate teams like Zim, Ireland and Bangradesh but it is so much better to watch without those first round mis matches (with the occasional surprise).

  • dunger.bob on June 10, 2013, 0:17 GMT

    @ Ashes61: "What baffles a lot of us Poms - and, quite honestly, shocks us really - is the standard of these blokes coming through to the AUS international squads." .. There are no obvious standouts among our FC batsmen. No towering talents ala Ponting, Hayden, Clarke etc among the young guys at this stage. I have no doubt in my mind that the overall standard has dropped since the days of Michael Hussey having to wait 10 years for a spot. How else could Ponting come back to Shield cricket and still look head and shoulders above the rest? .... Why has this happened?.. Well, there are lots of reasons including, and we shouldn't forget this, the normal cyclic behaviour of sport. There are peaks and troughs and that's natural ... besides, we actually have thousands upon thousands of world class batsmen, young guys who rack up huge runs time and time again .. on their Playstations, not real cricket of course. God forbid, they might get sunburnt or something if they went outside.

  • 5wombats on June 9, 2013, 21:59 GMT

    @ashes61 hello again mate! Yeah I'm with you on this Aus have lost the plot. They lost the plot quite a while ago. Alot of my best friends are Aussies and we wombats spend a lot of time out there. I can tell you that the regular sensible Aus cricket follower has the same mindset we English used to have in the 1990's - eg OMG whatever happened to cricket in my country?! I took constant workplace beatings from Aussies during the 1990's and like Agnew all I could do was apologise whilst cringing. What went wrong with English cricket in the 1990's? No talent management. No vision. No plan. English cricket in the 1990's was absolutely dire. Australians play to win always. They are remorseless, crushing and implacable. Hit or be hit. War. We expected no sympathy from Aussie in the 90's and we got none - so now - feel no sympathy. What goes around comes around. When we come to The Ashes we will crush the Australians and when we do I'll LOVE IT....

  • JG2704 on June 9, 2013, 20:49 GMT

    @cric_J on (June 9, 2013, 10:00 GMT) The Bell and Cook partnership yesterday went at about 5rpo which is perfectly acceptable - it was Trott/Bell where it slowed down. I also agree there should be more urgency in the running.

  • JG2704 on June 9, 2013, 20:49 GMT

    @Greatest_Game on (June 9, 2013, 9:56 GMT) Yeah , you're right in that there's no point in getting worked up about it , but sometimes you can't help it. I see flaws and try to voice them when we're winning as much as when losing. So you're a SA fan? I thought they put up a good fight vs India especially after they lost AB with so much still to do. I do however feel they could have fielded one less pace bowler and added another. The 2 I like are Botha and Van De Merwe but I know the latter is nowhere near the squad and maybe neither are much cop these days. But I like what I see from Phangiso. I think there's too much emphasis on needing pace in Eng but right now I'd say decent spinners/slow bowlers are just as important

  • Optic on June 9, 2013, 19:58 GMT

    @Mitty2 Well if England's batting has deficiencies that will be found out more often than not, why do we win so many one day series. Not only in England either, we've beat Pakistan in the UAE 4-0, we beat SA when we last played there as well as NZ a couple of months ago. Fact is we win far more than we lose playing this way, which has been made far too much out of because it's no different than anyone else. The only thing we're really missing is KP and his attacking game and that changes the balance of the side a little.

  • Optic on June 9, 2013, 19:45 GMT

    @CricketingStargazer Well tbh I'd be very disappointed if didn't put away both of these sides . Even though England made Aus look ordinary they were ranked higher than both, 2nd I believe, so they're not as bad as most people make out. People imo have lost a bit of perspective due to the recent series loss against NZ. Fact is we beat them comfortably in their own back yard a few months ago & the reason we lost at home is because we put out such a poor bowling attack with Dernbach & Woakes.

    No matter what anyone says, England at home are a formidable side and they have the results to back it up. Out of all the sides I feel England have a really good balance to it, with good batting and very good bowling. All the others seem to have holes like Pakistan's batting is poor, SA bowling is village without S & M, India's bowling, WI batting, SL batting & bowling seem average imo with just a couple of class players like Malinga & Sanga thrown in, NZ batting is not that strong. Aus are lol.

  • ashes61 on June 9, 2013, 17:25 GMT

    What baffles a lot of us Poms - and, quite honestly, shocks us really - is the standard of these blokes coming through to the AUS international squads.None of our business really, and we're not as well informed as our AUS friends are on the actual details, but AUS cricket fans must be as worried as we were in the '90s when we were getting hammered by all & sundry.We've always seen a lot of criticism here of the AUS selectors & CA but you've just had an enquiry, a wide ranging report, a clear-out & installation of a different system & management team! So it can't all be Inverarity's & Arthur's fault - what about the players they inherited? CA seems to be as leaderless & rudderless as the ECB in the early 90s. What I ask is: even allowing for the passing of a great team, where are all the tough, no-nonsense cricketers who seemed to know already what it was all about by the time AUS picked them? Too much easy BB money? Technique? Hard to see how AUS will even draw a single 2013 Test

  • on June 9, 2013, 16:40 GMT

    England beat the worst Australian side in 30 years wow..... i am an english fan but i wont get excited until we stuffed them in the ashes

  • ashes61 on June 9, 2013, 16:03 GMT

    Well, it was only yet another ODI & nothing to get worked up about. But Bell & Trott know that pitch better than anyone, quickly recognised its limitations, saw that it would get lower & slower as the game progressed, so played accordingly - and were proved 100% correct. "Can't play like that against the stronger sides" they say. Who says they will? It's "horse for courses" - another pitch, another opponent & they are perfectly equipped for a different approach. AUS? Well, well, I really don't know. Can we deduce much from this performance? The Ashes will feature several different players. But even so! I've been watching them since Benaud brought his side here 52 years ago. Previously the post-Packer group was understandably the worst in this time, but this lot are way, way worse than that. Clarke is Test standard, possibly world class. None of the others - including Watson these days - is even Test standard. Botham says 10-0 in the Ashes, rain permitting - & its hard to disagree.

  • AKS286 on June 9, 2013, 15:02 GMT

    Pleasure to see TT Bresnan in the action.Both the double "OO" (Cook & Root) looks very confident. Jimmy bowling was superb. Tredwell in place Swanny that really surprises me. last time Morgan fulfill the gap of KP some good innings will boost his confidence, I miss Hales in ODIs. for Australia nice to see that they can bat 50 overs. What are the Excuses & blames like pitch, Use of DRS, pizza,coffee, etc. Well done ENG !

  • ScottStevo on June 9, 2013, 14:15 GMT

    This was a shocking loss for Aus. Of all the games we needed to perform well in, this was it. But, it's gone a long way in highlighting the glaringly obvious issues in CA at present. The management and selectors are killing us. Arthur has to go first, then Invers. We need to reassess our tour squad for the Ashes now as they've got it horribly wrong, just as they've got this squad horrendously wrong. I don't get how we can have issue with our batting, yet continually bring in all rounders to assist our bowling. If we play Watson, he is our all rounder! Warner can't buy a run at the moment and is constantly being dismissed in the same manner, yet nothing is being done about it. With players like S Marsh, C Ferguson sitting out, it's hard to understand what goes through the minds of those in charge. I'm mostly upset with the intent Aus showed yesterday - it was completely lacklustre. There are huge changes to be made, but they need to happen right now, or this could be the worst tour ever

  • whatawicket on June 9, 2013, 13:23 GMT

    i wonder why people seem to want to dissect the performance of England even fans for and against. with Trott the guy most seem to want to blame of the top 3 but when you look at his average and strike rate baring in mind half his odis are played in England his record are good. conditions at the moment of sun is ok, but looking ahead rain and overcast conditions for the next 10 days or so. then our top 3 looks good, with 2 bowls used. England so i heard yesterday use a points system within the team to show which player be it batter or bowler is the most important to the team ethics with Trott heading that list. when you look at the WI v Pak and todays NZ v SL games, Trotts would have gone down a storm. so if England do happen to get to the final and he repeats those types of innings and England win. well you know the rest. lol

  • latecut_04 on June 9, 2013, 12:55 GMT

    @landl47 on (June 9, 2013, 12:10 GMT) -I usually agree with most of your comments but here I should say I beg to differ a bit.you have stated "aus have a strong seam attack". well even i had thought that was the case BUT yesterday did we really see a STRONG opening bowling with batsmen constantly getting beaten and edges flying?This is not to downplay Eng top order batting but i differ regarding your asessment about Aus bowling.Aus did well to pull things backmid-way and restrict Eng to 269(which was largely due to Bopara's late flourish otherwise Aus bowling would have looked much better BUT that would not be because of attacking bowling right from the beginning,esp Starc)Also you say Eng have a decent bowling attack..I would say they have the most balanced and disciplined attack .(if you add Fiinn/Swann to the pack).Please note I agree with your view that solid,steady batting at the top is the need of the hour BUT not quite about your assessment of bowling units of Eng and Aus.

  • landl47 on June 9, 2013, 12:10 GMT

    This game seems to have produced, from the comments, a complete lack of perspective about the England side. People seem to think that all that is needed is to decide to score faster and it will happen, It doesn't work that way.

    Aus has a stroing seam attack (and they played 6 of them in this game). That needs quality batsmen to build a platform, not big hitters coming in early. Yes, the rate isn't going to be 6 an over, but wickets in hand and a respectable score after 35 overs beats a fast run rate and 6 down in 25 overs every time. Bell, Cook and Trott make runs and make them consistently. It's for the middle order to push the rate in the last 15 overs. Root, Morgan, Buttler and Bppara are all busy batsmen and if only 2 of them come off England gets a good score.

    Eng has a decent bowling attack, when the selectors don't lost their minds and pick Dernbach. Give them a reasonable score and they'll have a chance.

    P.S. Check out NZ v. SL to see whether Eng need 300.

  • MaruthuDelft on June 9, 2013, 11:47 GMT

    Watson seems to score only if the opposition is poor or if the occasion is not really important.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on June 9, 2013, 11:47 GMT

    The current SL - NZ match is showing why you can't just go out and start swishing from ball 1 in ODI's. SL are in tatters!

    I have nothing against Cook and Bell coming out and being slow but solid; I just think if they've both already set a good platform, there is no necessity for Trott to then always come in at 3! Move him down to 4 or 5 if the shine's already off the ball and there's a decent platform. The team is great - I just think England can/should be more flexible with the batting order depending on match circumstances. Aus. on the other hand have neither the right players nor the correct order and will struggle until this is solved.

  • on June 9, 2013, 11:44 GMT

    Warner obviously needs to be dropped, he's in horrible form. Wade needs to be dropped as well... horrible keeper, horrible batsmen. Bring in Paine - he can even open in ODIs.

  • Jayzuz on June 9, 2013, 10:48 GMT

    In the end all talk is just banter. The only thing that matters is whether you won or not. England won this first game, Australia lost. AUS just weren't good enough. I'll be surprised if they stay down for too long though. There's plenty of talent and determination in the team. Still a good shot at the semis, I reckon.

  • Hammond on June 9, 2013, 10:17 GMT

    @CricketingStargazer- I 100% agree with you. England had it easy against a bog average Aussie team and now they have to play against some of the actually decent sides in the CL. Ashes doesn't look good hey?

  • YorkshirePudding on June 9, 2013, 10:04 GMT

    @Greatest_Game, to be honest as an egnland fan of 30 years I can say I think England where snatching defeat from the jaws of vicotry long before SA came back onto the scene.

    I was a good win for england, and comprehensive. Australia never looked in the game.

  • cric_J on June 9, 2013, 10:00 GMT

    @JG2704 @jmcilhinney : I totally get what you mean. I myself don't think that it was a perfect performance by England.

    The batting especially needs to be better. By better I mean one of Cook or Bell has to be more aggressive. I would prefer Bell to do that as (I am saying it for the nth time) he looks more comfortable that way. Mind you aggression doesn't mean hitting hard at everything or always having a +100 SR. But England could atleast improve their running between the wickets and back themselves to take a few risks early on in the innings. They need to have 280 in their minds as a minimum score for good batting pitches and 260 for not so good ones.

    Sri Lanka when in form have one of the better ODI batting lineups and can easily set or chase 300+. It will be then that England's batting and bowling potential will be tested properly. I feel the SL match would be our toughest match of the group stage eventhough NZ just beat us. But I may be wrong. I hope I am.

  • Greatest_Game on June 9, 2013, 9:56 GMT

    @ JG2704 Having just watched SA throw away a game, I understand the frustration. Tsotsobe had a good run a while back, but lost it. Lacks application, is overweight, fields like a dinosaur. Kleinveldt is no better, but SA trot them out to the endless frustration of SA fans. Meanwhile Philander is kept out, and more talented bowlers don't get a chance.

    The SA ODI side keeps the quota filled so the test team remains undisturbed, & is picked largely on merit. The ODI & T20 squads are sacrificed for political expediency. Kallis is reluctant to play ODIs because he sees no point in bailing out 2nd string players.

    I cite these examples to demonstrate the frustrations Saffers live with. Getting worked up about it changes nothing. I learned to let it go, and only get wrapped up in tests. It's just not worth the effort, and that was the message for my posts.

    I agree with you about Eng's bat order. Pair an anchor & a striker all the time: runs will come, & stability will be maintained.

  • CricketingStargazer on June 9, 2013, 9:40 GMT

    @Hammond England have to play New Zealand and Sri Lanka, the two sides with the best records in ODIs in England over the last ten years. Australia was the easy game in the group: it only gets harder from here.

  • whatawicket on June 9, 2013, 9:30 GMT

    some seem to think players can be changed from outside the squads. you just cannot bring someone in. a player has to have an injury for a replacement, not just because a player is not performing

  • Hammond on June 9, 2013, 9:20 GMT

    Easy win in the end against a bog average Aussie unit. Let us see now how the boys go against the better sides in the competition.

  • VinodGupte on June 9, 2013, 9:04 GMT

    AUS minus Clarke = Bangladesh

  • JG2704 on June 9, 2013, 9:01 GMT

    @jmcilhinney on (June 9, 2013, 7:30 GMT) To be fair , I think Cric - J is pointing out the hypocrisy of it all. However , like with so many tactics recently I think we overdo the caution and we could well get found out. Buttler's one off inns basically saved the NZ series from being a whitewash as NZ would have won if the total was 20 runs lighter , but I think we all know that if your top order go at that rate for so long in a game , then if the kamikaze role is expected of Buttler coming in that late in the day , Buttler will more often than not fail and Bopara going at the SR he did yesterday is more of an exception than the norm

  • MATTPHILIP7 on June 9, 2013, 8:58 GMT

    I am hardcore Indian supporter when it comes to Cricket... now lets not take anything away from England side.. a WIN is WIN and England has played to their strength 'bowling'. Now a different opposition batting second would have chased down the total.. how then Fin and Swan wasn't bowling, so with the full strength england attach a score over 275 would be a task. BUT if England batting second and chasing a total of 300+ do they have the middle order to keep up the run rate? We have to wait and see.

  • JG2704 on June 9, 2013, 8:50 GMT

    @Greatest_Game on (June 9, 2013, 1:41 GMT) I stand by Shan's comms (esp re the SR in overs 10-20) 100%. It's very easy to make judgements after the even (like with the declaration issue in the test and the issues we have here) but just because Eng came out on top it doesn't mean Eng came out on top because of these tactics. Vs NZ in the tests - rain could easily have truncated the last day. Vs NZ in the 3rd ODI - had Jos (with the aid of a bit of luck which he'd not have on another day) and Morgan not blitzed the final overs we'd have lost that and the series by whitewash. Time will tell, but if we bat too slowly and decide to leave our most explosive batsman in the hutch til well into the 40-50 overs mark (expecting him to do what he did in the last game) then he is more likely than not to fail and Eng's total may not look so good against a better side.

  • sachin_vvsfan on June 9, 2013, 8:50 GMT

    Congrats to England!! But this game was not even as close as what the Scorecard suggested. Too many passengers in Aus side. RandyOz is right this time. How could CA select some one like Mitch Marsh I watched him in IPL and he was not even IPL material. Too many bits and pieces cricketers. When you have Watson you should have gone with full time batsmen/bowler. Selectors played big part in

    It will be interesting to see how Bell and Trott perform against other sides (particularly chasing high scores)

  • hhillbumper on June 9, 2013, 8:42 GMT

    makes you wonder doesn't it.We didn't pick our best team and yet still Aus lost. What happens when we play test cricket,which lets face it,is what we are best at. Good luck all you Aussies.

  • Greatest_Game on June 9, 2013, 8:32 GMT

    @ Shan156 wrote "I have been following English cricket for a long time and I have seen our team blow many chances to win a global ODI tournament…."

    Shan - I'm a Saffer. As you might have noticed, we sort of specialise in blowing ICC ODI tournaments. One might say we are the all time greats at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. We hold the patent, the trademark, the copyright, the watermark, the record, the all time record, the historical record and the Trans Universe record. Thus I feel I am able to give some sage words of advice. Chill out - it is only a game. Anticipate defeat, & let victory surprise you. Besides, you have a long long summer of Aussie thrashing to look forward to.

    P.S. If you get all worked up over an ODI, what will happen if Aus win the Ashes? I suggest you make advanced medical plans ASAP. Get a defibrillator, stock up on aspirin, send the wife off to 1st aid classes, etc. Probably best if you watch the games in the pub, & not alone! Believe me, I know!

  • CricketingStargazer on June 9, 2013, 8:27 GMT

    I find some of the Australian criticisms very curious. England played at about 90% because the opposition didn't require them to do any more. When I side wins by a large margin without ever doing much more than going through the motions it says a lot about the limitations of the opposition, who were frankly pretty poor. It's just one match and things can change, but this Australian side does not seem to have much room for improvement apart from re-commissioning Michael Clarke and hoping that it somehow energises the team.

    England, in contrast seem to be getting close to their best team. Finn is quite not on song and needs more bowling, so Broad gets the nod and Swann/Tredwell is a toss-up in ODIs: for this match Tredwell would have been my choice anyway. The one obvious change is KP for one of Bell, Trott and Root, with Bopara showing, once again, that in this format he pays his way far more often than not with bat and ball.

  • jb633 on June 9, 2013, 8:01 GMT

    I am not trying to provoke Aussies here as I lived there for a few years and greatly enjoy the country, but they need to wake up and sort themselves out. Yet again they go into an ODI without a spinner, did you even check out Nathan McCullum's figures in the recent series v New Zeland. Secondly where the hell is David Huseey. Ok he may have had the odd issue with the short ball but these pitches are so flat it would hardly make a difference. Thirdly and this is a main one, when can the world stop pretending Warner is a proper player. He is technically awful and comes unstuck against any half decent bowling. I would rather they open with Khwaja. As from our perspective I still think we will get drubbed by any decent side. I agree entirely with Shane Warne that we need to show more urgency in the middle. It is all well and good saying Trott averages 50 but if he makes runs on a flat pitch we normally end up losing. We need to be more positive against sides like India, WI, Sri Lanka.

  • on June 9, 2013, 7:59 GMT

    no way that ball can be reverse so soon.....i'm confuse both hand new balls but still reversing very soon....was there any issue with the ball someone do something with the ball??????no one is focusing on that????if pak will do tht much soon then everyone will notice it.....anyway good win by eng and best of luck to sri lanka

  • on June 9, 2013, 7:57 GMT

    Please don't forget the contributions of Ravi Bopara and Bresnana at the end of England batting .

  • jmcilhinney on June 9, 2013, 7:30 GMT

    @cric_J on (June 9, 2013, 5:12 GMT), "They may not have played a particulary interesting match, but England got what matters the most. A WIN. And a good one.I prefer England winning than having an intersting match ,anyday". Quite true. Some neutrals fans love posting about how boring England are like we, or the England team, could care less what they think. Obviously England aren't boring enough to turn those people off enough, which is a real shame because their whining is what's really boring. Frankly, I have no issue with the way England play as long as they win. My issue with this game is that they were lucky that Australia were so poor with the bat but we can't rely on that being the case against other teams. 269 may well not have been enough on another day and if you have the opportunity to score more, which I believe that England had, why not take it, even if you don't need them?

  • Greatest_Game on June 9, 2013, 7:27 GMT

    @ Sadiq1952 wrote "Apart from Micheal Clark, Shane Watson and David Warner there are no reliable batsmen."

    In the last year, Warner batted in 12 ODIs at an ave of 21.41, with scores of 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 10, 21, 24, 24, 32, 56, 60. 75% of his scores are under 25!

    In 13 innings Clarke averaged 32.46, with 6 scores below 25, 4 below 50, 3 above 50. Better than Warner, but not great.

    Watson batted in 7 ODI's at an ave of 46.85, with scores of 0, 12, 24, 28, 66, 76, 122. That's a lot more reliable.

    George Bailey batted in 16 innings, averaging 49.76, with 6 scores below 25, 5 below 50, 4 below 100 and 1 century of 125* He's the most reliable of the lot!

    In the ICC ODI batting rankings, Watson is 9, Clarke 14, Bailey 21, D Hussey 37, Warner 40. 3 players from Bang, 2 from Ireland & 1 from Zim rank higher than Warner, whose rating has never topped 600 in 4.5 years. It took bailey under 1 year to cross 600.

    Give Bailey his due. He doesn't get all the press, but he's doing pretty well.

  • cric_J on June 9, 2013, 7:27 GMT

    It is really entertaining to see the aussie fans describe England's win as "boring" , "uninteresting", "prodding" and what not ! Even a few England supporters seem to share that view.

    What amazes me is that if the Aus had beaten England by the same margin , the words to describe the win would have been "thrashing","crushing',"one sided","thumping" and what not.

    Agreed that it was the most "boring" match of the tornament so far.And England were far from perfect with the bat. But the players don't play to entertain the crowd with close and well fought matches. They play to WIN. And that they did.

    And if the match wasn't particularly "interesting" to some Aussies , why not blame Australia ? It was they who made a mockery of a not so tough chase against a "trundling" attack.

    You surely can't expect the England bowlers to bowl poorly on intention just to make the match interesting and close !

  • cric_J on June 9, 2013, 7:08 GMT

    @Jayzuz : In your reply to sadiq1952 , you mentioned the averages of the aussie batsmen to imply that just one bad performance doesn't make them a bad team.Totally agree.

    But in your previous comment you yourself mentioned that England were bound to lose one of their coming games and that they wouldn't win "more than 50% " of their games. Well , why not check their record and stats in the past 2 years as well ? They have been more than decent and just like Aus, losing 2 matches to NZ doesn't make them a bad team either.

    You justified your confidence in aus by quoting that they are no. 2 in ODIs. But even England were no. 1 for some time.

    Mind you , in no way am I saying that England are perfect or are favourites. I totally agree that some of their policies are flawed.But saying that they always depend on the other team playing poorly than playing well themselves is simply not justified and rather disgraceful.

  • on June 9, 2013, 6:51 GMT

    Disappointed by the quality of cricket on the show. Australia were already pro-beaten and had resigned. Could not believe that Australia used to be world beater.

  • on June 9, 2013, 6:50 GMT

    Way to go ENGLAND !!!! Aussies your domination is officially over .... Some decent display of batting from the host, specially Ian Bell. Well done Jimmy !!!

  • joerun on June 9, 2013, 6:41 GMT

    Ravi Bopara' 46 made the difference. He is the Unsung hero of the match. Also, great bowling performance by bowlers. A disciplined attack that controlled aussies batting line up throughout the match.

  • latecut_04 on June 9, 2013, 6:38 GMT

    At the risk of being called a "keyboard warrior" or "arm-chair critic" literally I suggest I have a solution for flaky and woeful Aus perf of late."DECODE HUSSEY'S RETIREMENT AND BRING HIM BACK TO INT'L CKT."he is an automatic selection to test and ODi teams so both performances will improve ASTRONOMICALLY.I just think the recent toothless,servile Aussie performances have a lot to do with Mikey-Michael duo.Not saying they are doing this intentionally BUT something is wrong and this needs to be sorted out immediately.Senior and proven players feel unwanted(?)or seem to be so."Noone is bigger than the game" doesn't mean experience and proven record isn't worth a dime.There needs to be a balance.Hussey had to play shield cricket for ages to get his int'l cap and will keep on playing as long as he can stand on his feet.can vouch on that.even yesterday if he was there script would have been different with Faulkner.He is a great finisher and shepherds tail brilliantly,Aus-Hussey=batng woe

  • ygkd on June 9, 2013, 6:35 GMT

    I see Australia were fined for a slow over rate. Maybe some of the remainder should be docked on performance grounds? All the criticism of England's top three is totally unwarranted. They weren't just playing an ODI. They were playing the de facto day one of the Ashes and Australia flunked. Badly. The Ashes are now as good as lost for another series before an official ball has been bowled, and lost spectacularly if Clarke's fitness worries continue. So full marks to Cook, Bell, Trott, Anderson etc for turning a rather meaningless Champion's Trophy game into a successful Ashes decider.

  • Jayzuz on June 9, 2013, 5:59 GMT

    Sadiq1952 "Apart from Micheal Clark, Shane Watson and David Warner there are no reliable batsmen." Hughes averages 50, Bailey averages 45, Voges averages 45, (50 in List A). Just how reliable would you like them to be? Australia are ranked number two because these guys fire most of the tiime, as their averages clearly indicate. Form is temporary, class permanent. It's amazing how some people make ill-informed comments based on zero information - or after one game. It's just a matter of time till these guys score again. Unless you honestly believe that an entire team will suddenly have all batsmen permanently drop their batting averages by 20+ runs an innings as a result of their first loss in 7 ODIs.

  • Jayzuz on June 9, 2013, 5:43 GMT

    A disappointing performance by the top order, even given that the wicket slowed dramatically after the first ten overs of the Eng innings. If any of Watson, Warner or Hughes had got a decent score, the game would have been won easily, as it was a modest Eng total. The good news is that all 3 won't fail often, so Aus should still win the majority of their games, given the make-up of the side (especially if Clarke comes back). Faulkner is another genuine star in the making, & McKay is simply excellent. So there's a v good team in the making here.

    Starc also had a rare misfire, and he is the other genuine match-winner. So all 4 big guns misfired in the one game. I still can't see England winning more than 50% of their games here. The formula requires that everything clicks with their top order, then that NONE of the explosive batsmen in the opposition top order makes a decent score. How often is that going to happen? The answer is probably no more than 50% of the time.

  • Sinhaya on June 9, 2013, 5:35 GMT

    Well played England and congratulations. With Clarke's lingering back problem, concerns are high as to how will the Aussie batting perform in the Ashes. When Australia play NZ, it will be a good battle between 2 teams where batting is the weak link but pace bowling is the strength.

  • Rafelgibt on June 9, 2013, 5:18 GMT

    What a unfortunate match to be watched!The way both teams were playing that reminds me of 90s ODIs where most of the team didn't know how to play.Such a pathetic match to watch;specially-The Aussie team.AUSSIE team really needs the help of their cricketing GOD to survive next 5 years in international level.

  • latecut_04 on June 9, 2013, 5:17 GMT

    It was a good win for england and once again emphazises their balanced,quality bowling.BUT what in the world are the Aus selectors/team management doing?Where is Shaun Marsh,James Hopes,Ferguson or even White..NOT saying they would have altered results BUT their total absence doesn't make any sense.OK they may not have been in the best of form of late BUT ALL of them replaced by unknon names???(at least to international viewers..i m from India).If i reckon correctly there was a committee headed by Argus after Ashes2010 and the report suggested "selection based on performance" emphatically.If these batsmen have been selected based on performance ie they are the best in Aus limited over domestic circuit now,AUS IN REAL TROUBLE.and they seemed to have resigned to their fate way before the match ended.(CONTRAST TO AUSTRALIANISM we know). "shaking the tree" approach by Aus back room is suicidal.Other than Bailey and Faulkner nothing was encouraging.Even bowling was a let down...

  • batman_gothamcity on June 9, 2013, 5:16 GMT

    For Australia I think to have a opening batsman to play sheet anchors role upto 35 th over and that could be Bailey or Voges seeing there squad . In absence of clarke it is better to have Watson at no 4 he can hit the big shots too in the end . Also it would be worthwile to bring in Maxwell in place of Marsh to have some variety in bowling and also on his day he can smash with the bat . For England i think they are doing fine there bowling is strong enough .

  • GRVJPR on June 9, 2013, 4:58 GMT

    That surely was the most boring match so far. Although bell's was a good patient knock but other batsmen just didn't know where the accellerator was and keep pushing breaks. Anyway the motor moved at a reasonable pace in first innings before the engine failed like an old Indian bus and everything came to halt in second innings. Finally all the passengers went off the road among the bulls in the pavilion.

  • Lovetesh on June 9, 2013, 4:46 GMT

    Bring Finch, Haddin. Clarke must come back asap. Aussie need experience in batting order. Not playing a spinner was a tactical error.

  • on June 9, 2013, 4:22 GMT

    It was a complete lack luster performance by both teams. Australia did not have a game plan, they did not know who will score. England were either too casual or they are equally mediocre. It was like watching the highlights of a 5 day match. THere was not a single stroke of aggression, or a single inspired bowling. Unless these to teams wake up they are going to be mauled by the sub-continent countries.

  • Sadiq1952 on June 9, 2013, 4:13 GMT

    It is amazing how woefully weak is Aussie batting. Apart from Micheal Clark, Shane Watson and David Warner there are no reliable batsmen. Bowling is still good but I dont see how they will face any decent total from the opposition with this depleted batting.

  • Chris_P on June 9, 2013, 4:07 GMT

    @TNAmarkFromIndia. How does Finch miss out on a start? Go look up his record last season when given the opportunity, says it all.

  • on June 9, 2013, 4:01 GMT

    The australia should recall the mr.cricket michael hussey he has played in england. he is now in form player we saw in ipl he is the leading run scorer

  • Romenevans on June 9, 2013, 3:48 GMT

    Micky Arthur and his obsession for home work and all that other stuff he has is the sole reason for Australia's demise. How on earth you can keep on playing Warner and Wade? They look so hopeless. God help Aussies.

  • Shan156 on June 9, 2013, 3:47 GMT

    @Greatest_Game, It may appear I may have panicked unnecessarily. I did mention in one of my later posts that our bowlers may still win the game for us considering the fragility of the Aussie batting. But, do you honestly believe that this strategy would work against any of the better teams? My assessment was not based on this game only and I still believe that our strategy is flawed. We need to do better in the early part of our innings and utilize the power play overs well. I do admit I am a little pessimistic when it comes to Eng's chances but you can hardly blame me. I have been following English cricket for a long time and I have seen our team blow many chances to win a global ODI tournament, the most recent being the 2004 ICCCT when the unlikely pair of Browne and Bradshaw defied us and consigned us to a defeat in the finals. I understand that the team mgmt are better at strategies that an ordinary fan like me but IMHO the ODI game has evolved so much and we are still behind.

  • Rajesh.Kumar on June 9, 2013, 3:42 GMT

    The main problems of Australia are due to the fact that, at present, they don't have even a single decent batsman apart from Michael Clarke. Unless they find batsmen close to the caliber of Clarke, Waugh brothers, Hayden etc., they will not be able to dominate the world cricket again. Lack of good batsmen was the reason behind their 4-0 loss in India, and whatever is happening here. On the positive side of things, they do have a very good bowling unit both in tests and shorter formats. But that is of little use, unless supported by quality batsmen.

  • RednWhiteArmy on June 9, 2013, 3:24 GMT

    Well well well. Im certainly becoming accustomed to being right when it comes to predicting England v australia results. Mind you, im not the only one.

  • TNAmarkFromIndia on June 9, 2013, 3:22 GMT

    Australia need to select Finch at the top of the order. How a guy like him doesn't even get a place in the national side regularly is beyond me.

  • The_bowlers_Holding on June 9, 2013, 3:11 GMT

    Of the last 4 ODI's this was the first one where England won the toss, just a thought (like they only lost ODI's in India when they lost the toss), just a thought. Maddy20 as usual any England win is down to any number of factors other than playing better on the day, the bowlers mentioned weren't picked- yes Clarke is injured so is KP, like for like in my book.

  • VillageBlacksmith on June 9, 2013, 3:04 GMT

    Finally a MOM for bell!! I will put a photo of it on the mantelpiece next to the hen's tooth, just like bell will no doubt, there will be plenty of space on his... A lot of the commentators criticisms of Eng's first 30 overs were very valid... 101 dot balls off 30 overs is a travesty... aussie tho were very poor, other teams will not let Eng get away with that... hughes and warner look in the headlights already and starco was v poor but he will create lots of lovely rough for Tredders & Swanny to mop up... Shot of the day was the one of Arthur's face.. Long may arthurs & Invers continue....

  • popcorn on June 9, 2013, 2:10 GMT

    Once again, the undependable David Warner failed. Just because he is a good fielder it does not warrant him as place in the side. ALL Aussie cricketers, batsmen or bowlers are expected to field well.David Warner is in the side for his batting - he nbetter rember that. And Phil Hughes scratched around for a poor score. Certainly not a Number 3 like Ponting.The Selectors should take the bold step of dropping these two for the remainder of the Group Stage Matches.Let us unearth talent in the middle,not at the nets.

  • Mitty2 on June 9, 2013, 2:09 GMT

    Well looks like everyone's predictions of a 300+ par score didn't eventuate did they! Warne said that the pitch "was as hard as a cat's head" and it seemed like an absolute belter, and considering the very good outfield it was a good bowling performance by Australia but a terrific bowling performance from England. However the ball obviously wasn't coming on to the bat and that's why England were bowling with the cross seam early on so the pitch was definitely not a 300 par score.

    Whatever the deficiencies of the England batting plan (which will be found out more often than not), the had obvious bowling plans and evidently, the bowling plans were very good and even better performed. Tredwell is a brilliant ODI spinner and Root is helpful - why didn't Australia play a spinner? I was surprised that we restricted England to 270 with not a spinner on a track which made spin hard to score against; yet again poor selection. The batting well... Terrible as usual, but Eng bowled superbly IMO.

  • jbminthehouse on June 9, 2013, 2:05 GMT

    This is an excellent England side. Aus needs to select their most experienced players in England conditions for the Ashes. Watson and Rogers must open. Warner is proving he is pretty much clueless in conditions outside Australia. Why? He isn't very smart. Warner mustn't open for Australia in the Ashes.

  • cloudmess on June 9, 2013, 2:05 GMT

    RandyOz and co: Just to commiserate that this rubbish and overrated England have beaten you - again. It is doubly frustrating because - despite misleading statistics like a combined 2-5 Ashes scoreline and 0-4 against India (where England won 2-1) and ODI whitewash this time last year - we all know that really Australia are the much better side. Stats can be made to prove anything after all - and I'd always much prefer to evaluate the true worth of the teams from your comments on here.

  • on June 9, 2013, 1:53 GMT

    Why the hell are Australian selectors persisting with Mitchell Johnston? He is nothing more than a pin-up poster boy...like Torres playing for Chelsea!

  • D-Ascendant on June 9, 2013, 1:53 GMT

    After two good games, a damp squib. Thanks for coming, Australia.

  • Greatest_Game on June 9, 2013, 1:41 GMT

    During Eng's inngs many misread the game, & belted out wayward predictions & unwarranted criticism. Forgotten is "don't judge the pitch before BOTH teams have batted & bowled.

    Shan156: "What are Bell and Trott doing...If we (have) < 250, Aus. can chase it comfortably. Morgan and Buttler have failed ... England are tottering here… We are going to lose ... big." Bob Young: "who decided that the top 3 … spend 30 overs accumulating 142? (If) they think that 300 is too high, they haven't been watching the other games** The game-plan is unfair on the lower-order ... this strategy (failed) ... Eng are going to fall woefully short without Finn and Swann" [**Pak 170, WI 172-8] David Blench: "Another inept & utterly brain-dead Eng one-day innings limps to a close."

    With these fans, Eng fear no one!

    Great comedy from the SC trolls. CoolCharlie: "cricket is not followed in England." GRVJPR: "flattest track so far." gsingh7: "eng prepared flat track to neutralise aussie superior pace attack."

  • on June 9, 2013, 1:37 GMT

    good win for ENG....i think they should play root at no.3 and IMO trott doesn't find a place in ENG XI....he is a solid player but he can't accelerate when needed and it almost seems that he has onle one gear i.e,slow,slow and very slow.... my ENG XI:cook,bell,root,morgan,bairstow,butler,bopara,bresnan,swann,broad,finn,jimmy..

    if ENG play with this team then they will most of their games....

  • Doogius on June 9, 2013, 0:45 GMT

    Embarrassing to say the least. Warner, Hughes send them home NOW. The only chance either of these two are going to score runs is if the poms select a bowling machine. At least it won't spin or swing. Its going to be a long summer.....

  • it_happened_last_in_2001. on June 9, 2013, 0:30 GMT

    The ease with which England controlled the game, particularly in the field, does not bode well for the neutral supporters for this ashes summer as a whole. There seemed an air of inevitabilty about the way Aus approached their chase, with their inability to put any concerted pressure on the bowlers a big concern. Aus going in with no spinner was a big error, or is it a reflection on a complete lack of faith in anyone other than Saint Fawad, the prodigal saviour? Holding Finn & Swann back for the tests will prove a smart move. Aus fans will no doubt revel in super new "all rounder" Siddle's 100 against Scotland, but the big concern should be a lack of fight from all other than Faulkner. The aussies have been so keen to emphasise that what happened in India is behind them, but the way they played suggests different. More homework anyone ??

  • heathrf1974 on June 9, 2013, 0:12 GMT

    England displayed better bowling, better fielding, better batting and are a better team. However, I wish we had a spinner, wouldn't have made a big difference though. Anderson was great.

  • VivGilchrist on June 8, 2013, 23:43 GMT

    If only James Sunderland could utter these words , "Ok, this Mickey Arthur experiment has gone on long enough....... Ladies and Gentlemen, I present you with Darren Lehmann".

  • dunger.bob on June 8, 2013, 23:39 GMT

    No surprises in this result for me. .. this is going to be one very long summer I'm afraid. .. the fact that they didn't play Swann on a dryish pitch hints at a level of contempt for Aus. that I haven't seen for 30 years or so. .. I think England reckon they can canter to victory against us anywhere, any time. ... To have England (and everyone else for that matter) so confident against us is bad enough but the fact that they are probably right is the real killer. ..... There's no point in sugar coating it. The Australian Cricket team is at it's lowest ebb since the mid 80's and is really struggling to get any respect, from anybody. ... my crystal ball foresee's many belly laughs from England supporters this summer. .. Aus. will lurch from one disaster to the next and all the while the press will have a picnic. .. You know what though, I don't really care. Have your fun. Make hay while the sun shines etc because I know that eventually we will rise again and there will be hell to pay.

  • Venkat_Gowrishankar on June 8, 2013, 23:20 GMT

    @TheBigBoodha: I have a suspicion that Aus would be one of the teams eliminated from their group . What say?. Bowling, batting and Fielding look club class. I think they really need to import a few new talents, once that resolution in the parliament is passed.

  • Venkat_Gowrishankar on June 8, 2013, 23:18 GMT

    @BigBoodha: Fantastic effort by the aussies, yup they managed to cross 65.

  • RandyOZ on June 8, 2013, 23:10 GMT

    Honestly the selectors are the real reason why we cannot perform. How do we have a chance when we never pick our best team?

  • OneEyedAussie on June 8, 2013, 22:50 GMT

    I will assume that Clarke would have played in place of M.Marsh had he been fit. Still, there are too many all-rounders in this Australian side. It is the same problem as the past few years - are the selectors learning anything? There is no need to select 4 bowlers, Watson and M.Marsh. Again, lack of a specialist spin option on this pitch hurt Australia.

  • Neela80 on June 8, 2013, 22:50 GMT

    It is so very disheartning to see AUS to loose the way they did, even more so when they cant find a spinner. Why cant they include their test match bowlers to the ODI Side ?? I mean they are as good as the English Bowlers. Moreover it will be a good outing for them bowling in england. I am suprised though with the kind of pitches england seem to produce, dry and rough...AUS just looked out of sorts dispite a good wicket to bat on. Hope they can turn it arround in the next match.

  • landl47 on June 8, 2013, 22:27 GMT

    England won despite not having all their boxes ticked. They did get a solid platform courtesy of Bell, Trott and Cook, but Morgan and Buttler didn't make quick runs. Fortunately Bopara played a very sensible innings, supported by Bres, and got them a respectable score. Can you imagine if Dernbach had been selected for this squad and played in Bopara's place in this game?

    In the field Watson was let off when Broad got him completely turned round and the catch went down, but otherwise England bowled well and fielded adequately. A good win, but there's room for improvement and it will probably be needed.

    I'm afraid Aus could really only feel good about Faulkner's performance- he looks a fine young player. Otherwise the best Aus players were Bailey, the ever-reliable McKay and MJ, none of whom is in the Ashes squad. Starc had no rhythm and Warner seems to be nailed in place at the crease, no footwork at all. Marsh looked well out of his depth- he's not ready yet.

  • on June 8, 2013, 22:15 GMT

    so seems like all of a sudden one day cricket matters to England now... so it does not matter when they loose, is it like that?

  • on June 8, 2013, 21:42 GMT

    would be more impressed by England if they could actually win a game/test with 11 Brits (don't even have to be English). instead of pinching the cream of South Africa (Strauss, Pietersen, Prior, Trott, Lumb, Keiswetter, Durnbach, Meaker and Compton) and Ireland (joyce, morgan and Rankin) all the time!

  • TheRisingTeam on June 8, 2013, 21:28 GMT

    Have a funny feeling it will be England-West Indies final again and so far both these teams have been the best teams in this tournament even though its very early. England played really well today especially on the field and with the ball. The problem with their batting is that their top 3 order batsman are all slow batsman and that has been the problem not only again today but in that series loss to New Zealand. There's no way England can put up a 300+ score if that's the batting order but then again, even 250 is enough as long as England can field and bowl well like they have done today. I think the top 3 order batsman of England should be a bit more positive and go for the 4s and rotate the strike so not only you getting runs on the board but even with a bit higher strike rate and out a bit early, it gives the middle order more time to settle in and go for their big shots and get a healthy total for the team. Just take India as an example with Dhawan scoring a 100 at 100+ SR.

  • LALITHKURUWITA on June 8, 2013, 21:24 GMT

    The difference was the experience of Poms Fast bowlers. The class of Anderson, Broad and Bresnan is far ahead of that of Aussies. Even Aussies might struggle against Black Caps. Aussies need to beat both Black Caps and SL. I am now really looking forward to see how Poms play against India if they meet in the semi final or final.

  • PollyJay1 on June 8, 2013, 21:07 GMT

    David Blench - as England bowled second, our bowlers were not in a position to "set up" a win. That was done by the batsmen who made a good score of 269 that our bowlers and fielders made an excellent job of defending. England's total was derided at the time as nowhere near par by people who assumed that Edgbaston today was a batsman's paradise. As both Cook and Bell said at the post-match presentation, this was far from the case. The pitch got slower and slower and high scoring was not as easy as pundits and spectators expected.

    Scores of 300+ do not happen in every game and it's a mistake to think that 270 cannot be defended. It certainly can, especially when the Australian batsmen found it more difficult than the England batsmen to score boundaries. Isn't it about time we had more faith in England's methods and got behind the team instead of the constant carping about slow scoring?

  • Big_Chikka on June 8, 2013, 21:03 GMT

    good win for england, bell, bopara and all. glad to see these two get in the mix.

  • sonicattack on June 8, 2013, 21:01 GMT

    Some of the comments from some England fans seem unfair, Bell and Trott did exactly what they needed to do and did it well, the pity for Australia is that they didn't have anyone who could set such a platform. Where England underperformed (again) is the powerplay, they do not seem to get this right and the 'set' batsmen get out quickly (however, Aus were worse). 213/6 could have been disastrous but Bopara and Bresnan batted sensibly and well. What I did enjoy on the commentary was Shane Warne laying into the England batsmen (me thinking I've got to endure a summer of this) - but halfway through the Australian innings he was laying into the whole of the Australian team for their lack of purpose and commitment!....priceless!

  • JG2704 on June 8, 2013, 20:58 GMT

    To be honest ( this is not meant as disrespectful to Aus fans) but my hunch is that we won the game as much because they were so poor.. TBH I felt this was a game we should win. Not happy with the batting order. Well played Ravi although my hunch is that it will keep Jos behind him in the batting order and that this (re the inns from Ravi) was the exception rather than the norm. I don't think Jos will blossom coming in so late in the day which is a shame as KP won't go on forever and I'm not sure Morgan will continue playing for England - due to IPL and other lucrative competitions he can play. PS Maybe it wasn't a 300+ pitch but the frustrating thing was that the run rate started at 5 (for the 1st 10 overs) and rather than it increasing it dipped from overs 11-20. Maybe I'll be proved wrong but my hunch is that teams like India and SA (and most others) wouldn't have such probs chasing such a total

  • SaadRocx on June 8, 2013, 20:26 GMT

    English bowlers were making the ball to reverse in the 8th over after taking the 2nd new ball??? how in the world is this possible? clearly Eng are the new #1 bowling side in my eyes...brilliant with new ball,brilliant with old PS: There was no cloud cover this time!!!;) Michael Clarke,s presence could have made a big difference tho!!!

  • EnglishCricket on June 8, 2013, 20:20 GMT

    Such a boring match. Unfortunately the one of many between the 2 sides which is far too much.

  • sweet2hrme on June 8, 2013, 20:18 GMT

    This is not the australian cricket team its like more than an ordinary team. No game plans. Poor execution. Its was match between 11 players vs 8 players. What is the use of wade?? Wrost player. Ausies shld find another keeper aftr this series. Phil Hughes & M Marsh also not fit. S Watson was playing in a very defensive mode its very rare. Defence defence n defence finally lost the match. When u dnt know than attack is always good defence. Shun Marsh & Finch shld be in team. I dnt know how ausies selectors pick the team??

  • maddy20 on June 8, 2013, 20:14 GMT

    No Siddle, No Pattinson, Hilfenhaus, Harris or Clarke . No reason to get carried away. Aus simply did not field their best XI. I would pick any of those 4 bowlers over Finn any day. This was the same team that was bowled out for 65 the other day. From the looks of it, seems like Eng and NZ will make it to the Semis and then they will face quality opposition.

  • Lermy on June 8, 2013, 20:12 GMT

    Since England supporters are already writing off Australia, I'll watch the ashes with interest. Things can change very quickly in cricket. A few days ago England were being trounced by New Zealand, remember?

  • kc69 on June 8, 2013, 20:00 GMT

    I guess SA and Aus are having same fate without a few players in their side.

  • 5wombats on June 8, 2013, 19:48 GMT

    Always nice to stick one on the old enemy. But I was throwing hammers at the screen again during Trotts innings. Then I feel asleep (we wombats tend to do that). Not convincing from England but I genuinely did think 250 would be enough. Good innings from Bell with some sweeeeet shots nice work from Ravi too (who btw is not Indian). Aussie DESPERATELY lack a decent spinner who on this dry grassless road might have made a difference. But Aus bowling in the main was made to look ok by ambitionless England batting. Aus batting remains the chief worry for them. Good that England thought they could beat Aus without showing them Swann & Finn. That augers well for The Ashes.

  • hhillbumper on June 8, 2013, 19:38 GMT

    yep.Best bowling attack in history.Best batting line up in history.Yet still Australia lose.Am I missing something or are they just not very good playing the game but great on paper

  • 2nd_Slip on June 8, 2013, 19:33 GMT

    How times have changed :( World cricket is just not the same without an opposition crushing Australian side. Well all good things eventually come to an end, like the Windies I can safely say Aus are down and out in terms of dominating international cricket is concerned.

  • on June 8, 2013, 19:25 GMT

    How nice to be proved wrong. A fine performance by our bowlers set up a comfortable win, but they may struggle to defend below-par totals against the stronger teams.

  • jmcilhinney on June 8, 2013, 19:07 GMT

    While Buttler didn't shine with the bat today, he had a very good game behind the stumps. That was a fine catch to dismiss Warner and a smart piece of work to almost run out Johnson. I think that Johnson probably was short of his ground but i can see why it couldn't be given out. Buttler's opposite number didn't exactly endear himself to anyone today. It's a bit much that he has a go at Trott just because he tripped over his bat when his own fielder made a poor throw and he seemed a bit too reluctant to believe that he was out caught too. You know we'd be hearing about it from at least one person if an England player had done that.

  • Optic on June 8, 2013, 19:02 GMT

    @Bob Young Rubbish, it was a decent score on the pitch they were playing on, the ball simply wasn't coming onto the bat & was generally a slow pitch that didn't favor big hitting. As for the likes of SL & NZ, I think you're overstated how good they are, we've seen that NZ will struggle when we get our proper bowlers on, just like they did in NZ and the final one dayer, we made them look good because we played Dernbach & Woakes, Finn destroyed them a few months ago. SL would also have struggled against that bowling today, they just didn't serve anything short and wide apart from the odd ball all day.

    It always surprises me when England's own fans try to talk down a win and even their chances, especially after such an impressive one. I don't know whether it was the loss against NZ that's caused the knee jerk & loss of perspective but people seem to have forget how good we've been at home & for so long. We've also been in the top 2 in the rankings for the past 18 months.

  • mukesh_LOVE.cricket on June 8, 2013, 19:00 GMT

    Bailey is a fighter , i like that but where is Shaun marsh , Callum Ferguson , Steve smith and Glenn Maxwell ?? Australia was always my second favorite team but i think their team selection is all wrong. also if Ryan Harris is fit he should play in this tournament

  • jmcilhinney on June 8, 2013, 18:58 GMT

    I have to commend England's bowlers though. They did an excellent job of defending what was a par score at best. Australia seemed to make the same mistake as England to a degree, taking it a bit too easy early on and then finding themselves with little to show for it when wickets fell. Australia bowled relatively well but Starc is particular was disappointing and let the pressure off. I don't understand why he was bowled out when Watson and Johnson had overs to spare. There wasn't really a weak link in the England bowling, even though Tredwell and Bopara both had a couple of expensive overs. The pressure just never let up and you could see that there were times that Australia wanted to get on with it but the bowling just wouldn't allow it. Great to see both Broad and Bresnan pretty much back to their best and it's very clear to me now that the recent issues for both were injury-related. To see the team bowl that well without the 3rd-ranked ODI bowler is encouraging.

  • mukesh_LOVE.cricket on June 8, 2013, 18:52 GMT

    How the times have changed !! cant believe Australia was once a team where someone of Michael Hussy's caliber had to wait until his 30s to get into the team. this current team without Clarke is obviously a joke as far as batting is concerned. cant play spin , cant play swing. England have no KP,Finn,Swann and they still ended up winning !

  • jmcilhinney on June 8, 2013, 18:51 GMT

    A good win by England, although not 100% convincing. I still say that they should have been able to score close to 300. Bopara did an excellent job of getting them to a respectable score after Morgan and Buttler failed to fire but, after the start that Cook and Bell provided, the middle was again too soft. Bell and Trott just scored too slowly through overs 15 - 30 and again put undue pressure on those coming in later. If I didn't know better I'd say that the England top order had been given strict instructions not to score too many. Bell and Trott started running quick singles and pushing for twos after 30 overs where they'd just been blocking and ambling before that. They just didn't look like they were trying to score and I feel that they could have put on another 20 without any significant extra risk. 269 was enough against a completely out of sorts Australia today but on many other days against many other opponents, it won't be.

  • starvingcreative on June 8, 2013, 18:50 GMT

    We are in crisis and the sooner cricket australia realize that the better. We need to completely rebuild the coach has to go. He was a failure with a far better SA side what did we expect with an average aussie side. Secondly what was bailey doing bowling starc (completely out of form for 10 overs) when johnson and watson have overs in the bank with far better rythm???? Crazy crazy performance from the aussies its going to be a long summer.

  • on June 8, 2013, 18:47 GMT

    To me, the Aussie side appears the weakest amongst the eight competing for the Champions Trophy. An elimination looms large for them at Edgbaston on June 12 against the Kiwis!

  • jackiethepen on June 8, 2013, 18:25 GMT

    Assessing the Edgbaston pitch was the most important thing. Cook said he thought 269 was a good score. The commentators were all going on about a 350 pitch. Edgbaston? Never. It was very dry and Bell said it slowed up. He should know. It's his home ground. If it had been a belter there would have been far more boundaries and Morgan, Root and Buttler would have found it easier to get the ball away. It was a pleasure to hear Shane Warne make all sorts of claims which turned out to be completely wrong. How satisfying. A good win for England. The Edgbaston crowd were singing away. They loved it. The old enemy have a good bowling attack but the Bears pair dealt with it. As for the Aussie batting. Never got going. Bopara did well at the end with Bressie.

  • 2.14istherunrate on June 8, 2013, 18:23 GMT

    Obviously very assuring to watch Australia getting completely humiliated in their first encounter of the summer as well as watch Wade completely humiliate himself by staying put when so out! Perhaps a bulldozer could be found to remove unwanted object like that. Disgrace! Also this was a massive victory for culture over barbarianism! Hopefully this a sign of times to come. No doubt some Australians are still insisting they won.

  • Happy_hamster on June 8, 2013, 18:20 GMT

    Prior to the late surge of runs I must say I was somewhat in agreement with thinking it would be a sub-par score and still think England need a more high tempo start. For me the biggest bonus overall is Bres, he looks back to something like his best, his reverse swing wlll be a big factor if the dry conditions continue and he adds useful runs. Young Root is getting exposure as an international bowler and this will be invaluable in test matches. Australia lacked any spark and devoid of confidence and as for Starc (78 in 10) well maybe it was an off day as I was reading yesterday of his 'unbelievable' strike rate. I will not gloat though, England are still too formulaic and unlikely to have enough to win the tournament , but likely to win the Ashes - the main course of the summer.

  • on June 8, 2013, 18:18 GMT

    I think England were lucky today... 269 proved more than enough to beat an inept looking Oz batting line-up... but sure as eggs it's not going to be enough to beat SL or NZ... as we have already found out in the case of the latter. And what to do about Bopara ? He's the in-out man of this team, so despite his batting today, when he lifted us to what turned out to be a winning total, will he now be pushed aside again to make way for Finn.. ?

  • Fluffykins on June 8, 2013, 18:15 GMT

    England were not poor, they had a plan, they believed in their bowlers to stick to the plan,they did, job done...sorry people's its no more difficult than that.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on June 8, 2013, 18:13 GMT

    McKay Aus. best bowler again; Aus. top 3 batsmen brittle as ever; Bell silences his critics once again; Wade fails again. Just a normal day at the office then.

  • on June 8, 2013, 18:12 GMT

    @Jayzuz: A one trick pony is better than a no trick pony, which is what Australia have been for quite a long time now. Aus were not even in the contest today. They must be wondering where the next win is going to come from. May be schedule a series against Scotland or Netherlands. I wouldn't say Ireland, because Irish would beat them too..

  • Iddo555 on June 8, 2013, 18:08 GMT

    Anderson, Broad, Swann and Bresnan will be a match for any team. I don't think opposition teams will be wanting to chase big scores with those four bowling

  • on June 8, 2013, 18:07 GMT

    Aussies need new coach to get approach to winning games back on track.coach will ask players to prepare assignments on why they lost 2 matches so terribly and how they will improve in next game.aussies gone downhill since new coach came on board..there was no will to win except from captain and Faulkner.why no shaun marsh,finch,smith and callum furgeson,

  • Cpt.Meanster on June 8, 2013, 18:05 GMT

    Well played England. I think this sets up the tone for the rest of the summer for the English boys. Australia were average in all departments. England perhaps could have scored even more but it turned out 270 was more than enough to beat Australia. England now need another good win and they should make it to the semis. What makes it even more favourable to England is that NZ are in the same group as them, a team England played few days ago. So congratulations England, and tough luck Australia.

  • vsroc on June 8, 2013, 18:04 GMT

    Posted by vsroc on (June 8,2013) Australia's batting is not to our expectation.Their batsmen need to concentrate well in batting which will help them to bounce back in the remaining two matches.Further, some changes are required in their eleven.

  • on June 8, 2013, 18:03 GMT

    Good performance England, a well deserved win. Australia, we have to do better. Just because Michael Clarke is out doesn't mean you give up before a ball is bowled.....it means the new guys will have to step up to the plate. Phil Hughes, David Warner, Adam Voges.....u guys need to show why the selectors choose you. I'm an Aussie fan from 2005, but if this is future of the team, then we might as well give up every trophy we have earned.

  • yogesh.gg on June 8, 2013, 18:00 GMT

    Wade can't bat. I think Aus should give another chance to Tim Paine and make Shane Warne new coach.Hughes has become a liability now. Something is so wrong with this team's attitude and its really painful to see yellow guys to have sunk so low.

  • Harmony1111 on June 8, 2013, 17:54 GMT

    Now it's very clear who will be playing in semis. Group A - England & NZ, Group B- Pakistan & WI. Finals - England v Pakistan. Let's see who will win finals. Looking forward to see some exciting matches.

  • Apocalypse_EX on June 8, 2013, 17:52 GMT

    Easy win and Australia were truly dominated by England. They really do look like the weakest team in the competition and will most likely be knocked out pretty good.

  • on June 8, 2013, 17:52 GMT

    The Aussies aren't gona go far in this tournament if they can't negotiate spin bowling and yet bowl a decent spin bowler. I'm watching from a TV set and see Australia weakness wat does the other team will imply- 3 decent spin bowlers to soak up overs 15 to 45 as the Aussies will not score 5 an over against decent spin. The tail for them starts at 5, England won by using there weakness against them early use tredwell and root to put the pressure on. Mike Hussey to me is a fine batsman watched him the ipl and was superb, his form would do well. I remember watching aus in the Caribbean and elsewhere good spin players and always a good bowler to compliment. If this lack of poor display against spin bowling continue other teams gona keep it coming.

  • CricketingStargazer on June 8, 2013, 17:48 GMT

    Interesting to read the Australian fans criticising England's performance as awful. It looked effective to me. 100 more runs than either side managed at Cardiff and more than enough to win, with Australia never at the races. Power hitters are never going to come off every time and England's tactics looked right to me... take the singles that were offered and hit the bad ball: it was noticeable that before Trott fell he and Bell were scoring at around 7-an-over... a lot faster than people thought and enough to set up the sort of total that will not get beaten too often in England.

  • EnglishCricket on June 8, 2013, 17:48 GMT

    This match was too one-sided. Hopefully the England- Sri Lanka game will be a good battle.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on June 8, 2013, 17:45 GMT

    England thrash Australia just for fun these days, and after enjoying the last 5 + years of total dominance over Aus, England were superior in all facets yet again. They picked up from where they left off from their last year' whitewash of Oz, with the English bowlers just a different class altogether. Anderson, such a frequent destroyer, combined superbly with Bresnan, and England's bowling and top order batting was, as those who have watched the last 5 years of Australia V England will remember, better, stronger and more skillful. Australia were weak, much much weaker. It's a cliche to say about Australia 'This doesn't bode well for the Ashes', but surely it is plain for all to see the obvious: How much more skillful England are, how particular members of the Aus cricket team are truly horrendous (Warner the walking Anderson bunny is one such example), and Oz are letting down their fans hugely by being just so awful on a cricket field. England are just a different class of team.

  • samincolumbia on June 8, 2013, 17:44 GMT

    After an high octane first game followed by a low scoring thriller in the second, England and Australia give us one of the most boring ODI games ever seen in recent times!

  • 64blip on June 8, 2013, 17:38 GMT

    Great quote from TMS commentary earlier: "Are we watching Trott and Bell win the match for England? Or are we watching them lose it?" At the time I was muttering darkly and felt even worse as the wickets clattered. But Bopara and Bresnan batted well and the bowlers have made it more than enough. Glad to see Bresnan bowling so well, he'll get an opportunity in the Ashes at some point.

  • RahulHariharan on June 8, 2013, 17:36 GMT

    From a die hard Ausralian Fan - No more a period for transition Aussies... Its time to settle!!!!!!! The Squad needs Wade,Hughes,Warner out and Paine,Ferguson and Shaun Marsh in.... For Champions Trophy Needs to try our luck with available resources- Starc out Doherty in,If clarke is fit Hughes to go out and Maxwell replacing Marsh...

  • Happy_hamster on June 8, 2013, 17:34 GMT

    GSingh- For the umpteenth time wickets in England are generally good batting tracks (never 'green tops') it is generally atmospheric conditions and the use of that provide swing. If cloudy conditions appear, which they surely will then batting will become much more difficult. I like your claim India can dominate for 4 to 5 decades, the current players will be in their 70's or 80's, splendid.

  • Sunshine_Pom on June 8, 2013, 17:24 GMT

    @whofriggingcares - I know that you put average in quote marks because it was lifted from another comment - my point was that you were insinuating that calling this Australian team average was insulting to them; The truth is that calling them average is doing them a favour. It'd be nice to win the ICC CT, but keeping that little urn where it belongs will obviously be far more satisfying. The worrying thing from an Australian point of view is that it's not like they are poor in one area, but reasonable in others...at least then you can focus on improving your weakness. This Aussie team has no-one who can score a ton of runs, no-one who can really swing or spin the ball and are collectively poor in the field. It is actually astonishing that you have gone from being one of the great cricket sides to fielding this shambles within the space of about 6-7 years.

  • prosanto on June 8, 2013, 17:20 GMT

    Few mistakes that aus made.. 1. Not playing a spinner 2. Letting warner play after having 0, 0 in last two matches. 3 Hughes is no good for ODI. 4 not taking on part timer. 5 keeping Wade at low order

  • Wallruss on June 8, 2013, 17:14 GMT

    Poor game! I thought England were poor but Australia were/are worse. I can't remember seeing an Aussie side fold so easily.

  • on June 8, 2013, 17:10 GMT

    Australia on a horrid run of form right now.

  • TNAmarkFromIndia on June 8, 2013, 17:01 GMT

    This has been really poor batting by Australia. Shame because on paper this side should've chased down this target without a fuss. Bailey and Hughes took too much time in the middle. Warner's not in form. Finch could have been picked in the team as a standby opener. Sad that Michael Hussey retired because he's still in outstanding form. Matthew Wade is a poor batsman but I guess they don't have a better choice for a keeper either.

  • whofriggincares on June 8, 2013, 16:55 GMT

    @sunshine_pom, I put bog average in quotation marks because it was a quote from an earlier post,simple . Very disappointing run chase ,I mean credit where credit is due the English bowlers were superb but there was no intent at all. It is a huge worry the way the poms can extract swing when the aussie bowlers cant . It will be inteersting to see if the English can finally put some silverware in the cabinet from an ODI tournament. But it wouldnt mean anything would it? I mean ODI's dont count do they? Or is that only when you are losing?

  • dabhand on June 8, 2013, 16:47 GMT

    If England were boring can someone tell me what Aus were ?

    For all those who made their predictions - well I guess quite a lot haven't learnt biased opinion is not considered judgement.

  • on June 8, 2013, 16:29 GMT

    England has been the better team all day. Can't believe Aus batting has shrunk to this level, surely if wade stays for a few overs aussies are going to loose :)

  • Hammond on June 8, 2013, 16:27 GMT

    Bit sad as a 100% true blue fair dinkum aussie have to say that I enjoy them putting up a fight, but this is pretty pathetic. Just hope the ashes aren't a cake walk for England. Heard Warney talk about a lack of "power" hitters in the England team, Australia would be happy with just batsman that could keep their wicket..

  • on June 8, 2013, 16:23 GMT

    Right now 35th Over of Aus innings is being bowled and the result seems to be a no brainer.Majority of the comments here lament the lack of runs Eng have made.(mostly posted at the lunch break).BUT the way Aussies have batted 279 seems to be a bit of a luxury.Eng would have won even with 250..it seems.Agree completely with Greatest_Game regarding Warner.Just don't know how and why he is being persisted with.Forget his fast and furious 100 against Indian 'attack' at Perth for God's sake and this is from India who have long suffered by poor Indian bowling.One of these days Watto will fire and Aus batting will look completely different BUT hopefully lessons are learnt especially since Clarke doesn't look a certainity going forward.And to think I had picked Aus as favourites to lift the CT!!!while Aus were bowling commentators and Vaughan were saying pitch resembled Indian tracks and 300+ is a must.Disciplined Eng bowling exposes POOR Aussie bowling performance(another let down)

  • Iddo555 on June 8, 2013, 16:21 GMT

    England now have the best bowlers in this competition with stein and morkel not playing. They won't need 300 to win games the bowling will do it for them

  • Sunshine_Pom on June 8, 2013, 16:09 GMT

    @ whofriggincares - You put "bog average" in quotation marks as if it is up for discussion - calling this woeful Australian side average is being kind in all honesty. If they continue to play like this, it could be a very long summer for the boys in the Baggy Green.

  • Hammond on June 8, 2013, 15:47 GMT

    @Apocalypse_EX- at 3/103 in the 28th over I reckon Australia would be happy with 6/213. They need over 7.5 an over from here and have no decent batsmen in the shed..

  • Haiphong on June 8, 2013, 15:41 GMT

    Australia will lose every match (ok, ok - make it 9 out of every 10) as long as they play Warner and Hughes. How many times have we seen them fail? How many more times do we need to suffer seeing them flounder as they keep better and more deserving batsmen out of the side? Australia deserves this loss also...

  • Greatest_Game on June 8, 2013, 15:40 GMT

    And again, Warner perishes right away. He starts wanting to hit out immediately, & likes to bat off the back foot, so starting with back of a length/short balls & giving him a touch of room to hit a few he thinks he's on top of the bowling right away. Then, cramp him on the back foot with slightly fuller but still back of a length deliveries angled into his body. When feels he's not dominating he gets anxious - ego can't cope, & after not scoring for an over or so, he'll hit out at anything. He won't leave any ball, especially one he's not positioned to play. Still on the back foot, he will slash at a length ball slightly wide of off & moving away from him - the one most batsmen leave at the start. He'll either nick it, or not connect well & spoon it in an arc between point & mid off.

    In 60% of his inngs he is out, caught, within the first 30 balls he faces. He's been found out - can't be only me that has analysed his dismissals. He's a walking wicket. Every time.

  • gsingh7 on June 8, 2013, 15:40 GMT

    england prepared flat track to neutralise aussie superior pace attack, apart from starc (overrated by many). faulkner bowled well. ravi bopara deserves his place in side. he has flair in batting like other indian players.buttler was poor again,also missed stumping. dont know why he was so overrated by press other day,he is flash in pan type player like bairstow.

  • on June 8, 2013, 15:12 GMT

    If I have to pick a weaker team playing this champions league it would be Australia . With mike hussey and ricky ponting retired and injury to Michael Clarke the side looks like they need watson to do all the scoring . Why is shaun marsh , Cameron white not playing ? James Pattinson injury adds to the weakness of team .

  • Romenevans on June 8, 2013, 15:08 GMT

    Can't believe Australia have become so mediocre. May god bless them in back to back ashes.

  • landl47 on June 8, 2013, 14:05 GMT

    England's blueprint relies on Morgan and Buttler making some fast runs. They didn't.

  • jackiethepen on June 8, 2013, 13:55 GMT

    What are you talking about Biggus? Bell was clean bowled. He was asked to wait on the boundary because the umpire was checking for a no-ball. It was close. Just lay off.

  • GRVJPR on June 8, 2013, 13:51 GMT

    The flattest track so far of the tournament. If australia can't do well here they won't do much anywhere. SO best chance for aussies.

  • on June 8, 2013, 13:16 GMT

    Oh dear. Another inept and utterly brain-dead England one-day innings limps to a close.After 40 odd years of one-day failure one would have hoped that some lessons have been learned but the same pattern keeps repeating itself. Basing a strategy on Morgan and Buttler thrashing 12+ runs an over for the last ten is only going to work about once in ten times - ie. against NZ when we'd already lost the series. At the moment I'm at a loss to see where our next one-day win is coming from, even given our fine bowling attack. Agree with previous comments about the frustration that Jonny Bairstow must feel!

  • Harlequin. on June 8, 2013, 13:14 GMT

    @coolcharlie, probably not as boring as your life given that you have commented twice about a match you arent interested in!

  • on June 8, 2013, 13:09 GMT

    Right... who's the genius who decided that the top three batters can spend 30 overs accumulating 142 runs and leave the rest to come in and try to accelerate the run rate to achieve 300 or so... and if they think that 300 is too high a target, then they haven't been watching the other games very closely.. The whole game-plan is unfair on the lower-order batsmen who have to come in and tee-off from ball one. And if, as has just happened this strategy fails, England are going to fall woefully short of setting a defendable total... particularly when we are without Finn and Swann...

  • Apocalypse_EX on June 8, 2013, 13:06 GMT

    @Geoffrey Anthony Plumridge I'm sure Australia wont mind as long as they go to 213/6

  • on June 8, 2013, 13:02 GMT

    Gotta say Faulkner looks like a great prospect

  • on June 8, 2013, 13:01 GMT

    I reckon England couldn't care less about this tournament. No idea why Finn and Swann aren't playing.

  • whofriggincares on June 8, 2013, 13:01 GMT

    I think England better get used to losing 5 for 50 odd in the middle order this year:). Oh and get used to their fans going the early crow of course. I guess we will see if this" bog average " batting lineup can chase 260-270. Warner and Watson arent known for dominating bowling line-ups are they now?

  • Wallruss on June 8, 2013, 12:59 GMT

    England's strategy seems to be stuck in the last century

  • Shan156 on June 8, 2013, 12:58 GMT

    So, there we go. As we feared, both Morgan and Buttler have failed. 1/158 has become 6/213 and England are tottering here. Expecting your big hitters to come in late and score big everytime after scoring at under 5 an over for 40 overs is a totaly flawed tactic. We are going to lose, and lose big, to the weakest of our opposition in our group. Hope Giles gets sacked after we are put out of our misery. I know it is early and our bowlers may yet bail us out considering the brittle Aussie batting line-up but I wish they don't. A total change of strategy is required and our weaknesses should not be masked by us sneaking into the semis.

  • Massey_T on June 8, 2013, 12:51 GMT

    Its better to be boring and grind out the runs. Cant self-destruct just to entertain all of us can you. That being said and due respect given to pommies, wake up aussies, no more of this hankypanky. Win!

  • Biggus on June 8, 2013, 12:32 GMT

    Thought Bell's reactions on his dismissal were a little odd. He does come across as being somewhat 'precious'. On your bike son, and let the umpire do the umpiring I say.

  • Mitty2 on June 8, 2013, 12:31 GMT

    Would it be unfair for me to call that an incredibly selfish innings from Bell? What was he thinking? 91 off 115 and not helping out root at all, how can he expect a batsman to have not faced a bowl to be a finisher? Completely set and not trying to help the team out at all by lifting the run rate. Same with Trott. England need to change their top 3. And if Morgan/root/bopara/butler smash us from here I won't eat my words because more often than not England will get found out with this strategy.

  • Shan156 on June 8, 2013, 12:03 GMT

    I think we might be the only team in the tournament that would not have scored a single 6 till the 35th or 40th overs. I don't mind that as long as we are scoring at a healthy rate but this is just frustrating. The modern ODI game has moved on and we are still stuck behind. As I type this, we are into over 34 and our RR is still under 5. That is so 1980:-(

  • on June 8, 2013, 12:00 GMT

    I think Australia better get used to seeing England at 1/158 this English summer :)

  • siri12345 on June 8, 2013, 11:53 GMT

    after 2 days of cricket from the 4 weaker teams of the tournament now starts the real battle.the battle of group A.actually instead of two semifinals on 19th and 20th all the matches of group A can be classified as virtual semifinals because the two teams that will proceed from this group are definitely going to play the finals and one team from group A will lift the trophy.i cant understand how icc still couldnot rectified their mistake after watching how events in t-20 wc of 2013 occured where strong teams like sl,wi,nz and eng were stacked against each other and as a result two deserving teams like eng n nz(who tied with both world champions and runners up of that tournament ) had to return home while on the other group pak and aus easily proceded to semi by being extremely lucky as they had india in their group.actually any team having india in their group can consider themselves extremely lucky as in that case the equation automatically reduces to 3 teams fighting for 2 spots

  • Jayzuz on June 8, 2013, 11:53 GMT

    Well, it's coming off at present after 30 overs, but this is one trick pony stuff from England. Totally predictable and lacking in imagination. Like an algorithm, one mistake along the way and the programme crashes. It won't work EVERY time, just a matter of time till they crash. If not this game, then the next one or two.

  • Narabavi on June 8, 2013, 11:46 GMT

    England top order is the most boring top order in the world. Even Ireland have way better top order than this.

  • Shan156 on June 8, 2013, 11:43 GMT

    What are Bell and Trott doing there? In these conditions, this go-slow approach is going to cost us big time. I don't rate Aus. highly in tests without Clarke but in ODIs, they have the personnel. With this go-slow approach, we are leaving too much to do for Morgan and Buttler. Buttler is not going to score a 16 ball 47 every time. If we end up with a score < 250, Aus. can chase it comfortably. Remember, we may not have Dernbach today, but it would still be difficult to defend an under-par total in these conditions.

  • CoolCharlie on June 8, 2013, 11:39 GMT

    Man how boring this match is ... yawn yawn . Just waiting for Ind Vs Pak match... Can't wait for it. I find test match between Ban and zim more entertaining. No wonder cricket is not followed in England.

  • Captainman on June 8, 2013, 11:29 GMT

    Too many England v Australia matches.

  • Jayzuz on June 8, 2013, 11:12 GMT

    I have to say strange tactics by England after 20 overs, 1/90. Ticking over at 3 runs an over between 10 and 20th. I might yet be proven wrong, but this looks to be an absolute belter of a track. 330 par, I'd say with the new rules. Maybe they are assuming Watson and Warner are going to have bad days? Or that Joe Butler is going to get 100 in 50 balls.

  • on June 8, 2013, 11:11 GMT

    Even if England get 210 it will be enough. This bog average Aussie batting lineup has no chance.

  • CoolCharlie on June 8, 2013, 10:28 GMT

    English batsmen are so boring to watch' as if emulating test cricket. There is no flair in them except for KP. Who will to watch these boring batsman in ODI?

  • 5wombats on June 8, 2013, 10:21 GMT

    Lovely isn't it - the English summer. The battle of bat V ball, the smell of sweat and toil, the sun shining - Australians running into bowl, Englishmen swinging the bat, Australians chasing leather. Marvellous!

  • JG2704 on June 8, 2013, 9:51 GMT

    Just seen the team.Nas said Eng want to keep Jos at 7 as a finisher and want to keep Morgan and Jos apart.

    If Eng lose 4 wickets any time after the halfway mark and they bring Bopara in above Jos then (even as an Eng fan) I hope they come unstuck.

    Jos was the difference the other day but was fortunate and most of the time if he plays such an inns with having no time to get set it will backfire and he's more likely to succeed if he has time to get set. Ravi scored 28 off 40 balls and if Jos was in earlier he would surely have scored a run a ball or better of 40 balls without taking needless risks and be able to accelerate at the same rate but with more control rather than with reckless abandon. Also if they want Morgan as a finisher why are they bringing in Ravi AFTER him?And why do they want to split Morgan/Jos up? They've had good partnerships already and if both are in full flow they would be the opposition's wost nightmare and isn't this supposed to be about entertainment?

  • on June 8, 2013, 9:48 GMT

    No Jonny Bairstow again. If he doesn't get a game (in any form of cricket) soon he could end up having such a frustrating season that he leaves cricket altogether.

  • Herbet on June 8, 2013, 9:41 GMT

    Warne & Hussein on commentary saying that Swann looked fine and bowled for twenty minutes in the nets. Puzzler. Hopefully tactical and not a serious injury.

  • Herbet on June 8, 2013, 9:41 GMT

    Warne & Hussein on commentary saying that Swann looked fine and bowled for twenty minutes in the nets. Puzzler. Hopefully tactical and not a serious injury.

  • on June 8, 2013, 9:48 GMT

    No Jonny Bairstow again. If he doesn't get a game (in any form of cricket) soon he could end up having such a frustrating season that he leaves cricket altogether.

  • JG2704 on June 8, 2013, 9:51 GMT

    Just seen the team.Nas said Eng want to keep Jos at 7 as a finisher and want to keep Morgan and Jos apart.

    If Eng lose 4 wickets any time after the halfway mark and they bring Bopara in above Jos then (even as an Eng fan) I hope they come unstuck.

    Jos was the difference the other day but was fortunate and most of the time if he plays such an inns with having no time to get set it will backfire and he's more likely to succeed if he has time to get set. Ravi scored 28 off 40 balls and if Jos was in earlier he would surely have scored a run a ball or better of 40 balls without taking needless risks and be able to accelerate at the same rate but with more control rather than with reckless abandon. Also if they want Morgan as a finisher why are they bringing in Ravi AFTER him?And why do they want to split Morgan/Jos up? They've had good partnerships already and if both are in full flow they would be the opposition's wost nightmare and isn't this supposed to be about entertainment?

  • 5wombats on June 8, 2013, 10:21 GMT

    Lovely isn't it - the English summer. The battle of bat V ball, the smell of sweat and toil, the sun shining - Australians running into bowl, Englishmen swinging the bat, Australians chasing leather. Marvellous!

  • CoolCharlie on June 8, 2013, 10:28 GMT

    English batsmen are so boring to watch' as if emulating test cricket. There is no flair in them except for KP. Who will to watch these boring batsman in ODI?

  • on June 8, 2013, 11:11 GMT

    Even if England get 210 it will be enough. This bog average Aussie batting lineup has no chance.

  • Jayzuz on June 8, 2013, 11:12 GMT

    I have to say strange tactics by England after 20 overs, 1/90. Ticking over at 3 runs an over between 10 and 20th. I might yet be proven wrong, but this looks to be an absolute belter of a track. 330 par, I'd say with the new rules. Maybe they are assuming Watson and Warner are going to have bad days? Or that Joe Butler is going to get 100 in 50 balls.

  • Captainman on June 8, 2013, 11:29 GMT

    Too many England v Australia matches.

  • CoolCharlie on June 8, 2013, 11:39 GMT

    Man how boring this match is ... yawn yawn . Just waiting for Ind Vs Pak match... Can't wait for it. I find test match between Ban and zim more entertaining. No wonder cricket is not followed in England.

  • Shan156 on June 8, 2013, 11:43 GMT

    What are Bell and Trott doing there? In these conditions, this go-slow approach is going to cost us big time. I don't rate Aus. highly in tests without Clarke but in ODIs, they have the personnel. With this go-slow approach, we are leaving too much to do for Morgan and Buttler. Buttler is not going to score a 16 ball 47 every time. If we end up with a score < 250, Aus. can chase it comfortably. Remember, we may not have Dernbach today, but it would still be difficult to defend an under-par total in these conditions.