England v SA, Champions Trophy, semi-final, The Oval June 19, 2013

Anderson the catalyst for crushing win

The day could hardly have gone more smoothly for Alastair Cook as England moved one step closer to a major achievement that has eluded them for so long
32

It was not, perhaps, the scenario spectators expected when they bought their tickets. The result was hardly in doubt by 11am; the result was decided before 5pm and several snoozed in the sun for long periods in the afternoon. For the impartial onlooker, this was probably a rather boring game.

But from an England perspective, this was wonderfully, gloriously, beautifully boring game. After many years where success in ODI cricket has been a brief interlude in a general drama of pain, England secured their place in the final of a global ODI competition for the first time since 2004 and the second time since 1992. They may never have a better chance of shedding the embarrassing tag as the only team in this competition not to have won such a title.

The uncharacteristic show of emotion from Jonathan Trott upon hitting the winning runs was telling. It has been an ambition of his for some time to play in the final of this competition at his home ground of Edgbaston and here he produced a typically calm innings to ensure it will happen.

Nerveless and apparently unhurried, he still managed to score at close to a run-a-ball and, in his last 12 ODIs, has now registered one century, five half-centuries and been dismissed for under 37 only once. He has averaged 75.77 in that time. He will never win over all his critics but, in this situation, there is no more reassuring sight in English cricket than Trott scrapping his mark.

It would be easy to take Trott's runs for granted. But, when Alastair Cook and Ian Bell fell, England were 41 for 2 and only another wicket away from seeing their slightly vulnerable middle-order exposed. Pressure appears to bring the best out of Trott, though, and he led the run chase with the remorselessness of a hunter pursuing its prey. "It was quite a high pressure situation," Cook said afterwards. "Trotty played a great innings,"

But this was not a victory set-up by England's batsmen. It was set-up by England's excellence in the field and a woefully poor performance with the bat from South Africa. Winning the toss on a humid morning was, doubtless, an advantage and James Anderson, in particular, exploited it expertly. But there is no getting away from the fact that South Africa's top-order folded with pathetic weakness.

So England were fortunate. They were fortunate that South Africa were without Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel and Graeme Smith and Jacques Kallis. They were fortunate to win the toss. And they were fortunate their opposition played so badly.

But they were also fortunate when New Zealand dropped Alastair Cook three times on the way to his match-defining contribution in the previous game. And they were fortunate when Australia batted so poorly against them in their opening match of the tournament.

Good fortune tends to follow when a team plays consistently good cricket. It tends to follow when a team applies consistent pressure. It exploits any weakness and forces mistakes. The very best teams may not always be beaten by such a tactic, but it is the best plan England have and they follow it with precision. They will not start the final as favourites, but there are certainly not no-hopers either.

If Anderson were the sort to care about such trifles, he might consider himself unfortunate not to be named the Man of the Match. He bowled an excellent first spell that set the tone for the entire game.

There has been precious little conventional swing available in this competition, but Anderson found just enough to account for Colin Ingram and Robin Peterson, both of whom were set up by out swing and trapped by deliveries that swung in amid a spell that threatened consistently and offered the batsmen almost nothing.

While Steven Finn and Stuart Broad were disappointing, James Tredwell sustained the pressure with a spell that won him the match award. While only the odd delivery turned, it was enough to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of the batsmen and Tredwell, varying his pace subtly and bowling a tight line, benefitted as the ball sometimes turned but more often skidded on to batsmen playing without conviction.

There were other impressive performers for England. Jos Buttler, who has enjoyed a fine tournament as a wicketkeeper to date, equalled the England record for the most dismissals in an ODI by claiming six catches - one an excellent diving catch down the legside; another a good diving catch to his right to dismiss Hashim Amla and a couple of neat efforts standing up to Tredwell - while Cook captained with ever increasing confidence and individuality.

It would be premature to compare Cook to Mike Brearley or similar but, just as he improved as a Test and then ODI batsman, he showed here that he is developing into far more than a 'captain by numbers.' His decision to allow Anderson a seven-over opening spell was unusual, if hardly groundbreaking, while his use of three slips at times showed a welcome desire to attack when appropriate.

England may face some tricky selection decisions ahead of the final. Tim Bresnan, his baby now safely delivered, will be available and may well replace Steven Finn, while Tredwell will be hard to omit even if Graeme Swann is fully recovered. They are not the worst issues with which to wrestle.

George Dobell is a senior correspondent at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on June 19, 2013, 20:27 GMT

    A bowler who would out question make it into the world 1st XI team, Anderson demonstrated again today just why he is called the most skillful in the world. He was unlucky not to have double the quantity of his wickets column, but what we witnessed was an master artist at work. And he's form right in time for the Ashes too..

  • the_blue_android on June 21, 2013, 5:43 GMT

    This military medium pacer Andersun will be taken to the cleaners by Dhawan and Rohit come Sunday.

  • jmcilhinney on June 21, 2013, 3:33 GMT

    @RandyUK on (June 20, 2013, 22:03 GMT), good to see you back "fair-weather" Randy. I guess enough time has passed since Australia's ignominious ousting from the tournament for you to show your face again. I'm just wondering one thing: when you talk about "beat up", do you mean when the English press reported on David Warner trying to punch Joe Root? He didn't exactly beat him up so you may be overreacting there.

  • Nampally on June 21, 2013, 0:04 GMT

    Anderson & Swann are the 2 bowlers who consistently Perform a shade above the rest. Today it was Tredwell who replaced Swann just as well. Without Smith, Kallis in batting & Steyn & M.Morkel in bowling, SA looked a shadow of themselves & were completely out played. However Cook's statement about England winning the Final must also be tempered with caution. Indian team is good one - only team that has won all its 4 matches on rout to Final. India beat SL in the Semi Final, a team that surprisingly beat England by 7 Wkts. India has shown their capability of playing the pace bowlers much better than they did when they toured England 2 years back. It is a Young team which will present England with strong challenge. Both Anderson & Jadeja have a tally of 10 wkts. Dhawan is the leading run getter in the 4 matches he played. I think England will face for the first time a balanced side opposing them. This tourney so far was a great one but the best is yet to come in the Final- weather holding

  • RandyOZ on June 20, 2013, 22:03 GMT

    Ahh the English press beat up continues. Will it ever end. 2 wickets and he's the best ever.

  • on June 20, 2013, 18:27 GMT

    Steyn vs Anderson is a very good comparison because they are that good and they are that close. They have different tools but equally effective. Both are masters of conventional swing. Anderson goes one up on reverse swing but Steyn's yorkers and bouncers are more effective due to his greater pace. Philander and Malinga are excellent but I just feel Steyn and Anderson have that extra bit of versatility. Both of them have demonstrated how good they are on flat Indian wickets and there's no greater challenge for a fast bowler these days. I'm glad that we have these guys because they are a dying breed. If you think of the 90s...Ambrose, Walsh, Akram, Younis, Mcgrath, Donald, Pollock...what a time that was for fast bowling. But at least these guys are keeping the legacy alive, although I fear for not very long because they are nearing the end of their careers too. I just love quick bowling.

  • Kak-mal_Khan on June 20, 2013, 17:09 GMT

    @Front Foot Sponge - your compliment of Anderson is rightly so, but as a cricket fan, I feel that there has always been too much made out between the battle of Steyn and Anderson, if we look at what Philander has achieved in the recent past he for me joins Steyn as the leading world XI bowler, despite being overlooked for the CT he is equally as impressive at home against most batting line-ups. He also dismantled the Aussie batting line-up single handed, (nothing amazing considering recent Aus team in decline). Also I wish to make mention as Anderson has done himself, the most recent king of swing had been Mohammad Asif, from whom Anderson studied and gained his new found ability to dart balls both ways, & then there was the baby prodigy Mohammad Amir - these guys were the two MA's, unfortunately could not see it through like the two W's.

  • on June 20, 2013, 16:08 GMT

    realy now this article is about jimmy and england,and comparing jimmy and steyn again gosh people steyn is thee best hands down

  • jmcilhinney on June 20, 2013, 12:15 GMT

    @BlueN on (June 20, 2013, 1:45 GMT), to be precise, a catalyst is not consumed by the reaction. Some catalysts provide an active site for a reaction to take place but some very much take part in the reaction. In some cases, the catalyst is both an input and an output of a reaction.

  • cric_J on June 20, 2013, 11:16 GMT

    @BlueN wrote "A catalyst does not participate in a reaction " in relation to England's win and Anderson's role in it.

    Well sir , since you have such a wonderful (?) knowledge of chemistry , you may well be aware that THERE ARE CERTAIN REACTIONS WHICH ARE NOT EVEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT A CATALYST. The reaction is England's winning this match and the catalyst is our very own J.M. Anderson.Also as may know, a catalyst initiates a reaction and makes it proceed faster.

    Quite a metaphor there.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on June 19, 2013, 20:27 GMT

    A bowler who would out question make it into the world 1st XI team, Anderson demonstrated again today just why he is called the most skillful in the world. He was unlucky not to have double the quantity of his wickets column, but what we witnessed was an master artist at work. And he's form right in time for the Ashes too..

  • the_blue_android on June 21, 2013, 5:43 GMT

    This military medium pacer Andersun will be taken to the cleaners by Dhawan and Rohit come Sunday.

  • jmcilhinney on June 21, 2013, 3:33 GMT

    @RandyUK on (June 20, 2013, 22:03 GMT), good to see you back "fair-weather" Randy. I guess enough time has passed since Australia's ignominious ousting from the tournament for you to show your face again. I'm just wondering one thing: when you talk about "beat up", do you mean when the English press reported on David Warner trying to punch Joe Root? He didn't exactly beat him up so you may be overreacting there.

  • Nampally on June 21, 2013, 0:04 GMT

    Anderson & Swann are the 2 bowlers who consistently Perform a shade above the rest. Today it was Tredwell who replaced Swann just as well. Without Smith, Kallis in batting & Steyn & M.Morkel in bowling, SA looked a shadow of themselves & were completely out played. However Cook's statement about England winning the Final must also be tempered with caution. Indian team is good one - only team that has won all its 4 matches on rout to Final. India beat SL in the Semi Final, a team that surprisingly beat England by 7 Wkts. India has shown their capability of playing the pace bowlers much better than they did when they toured England 2 years back. It is a Young team which will present England with strong challenge. Both Anderson & Jadeja have a tally of 10 wkts. Dhawan is the leading run getter in the 4 matches he played. I think England will face for the first time a balanced side opposing them. This tourney so far was a great one but the best is yet to come in the Final- weather holding

  • RandyOZ on June 20, 2013, 22:03 GMT

    Ahh the English press beat up continues. Will it ever end. 2 wickets and he's the best ever.

  • on June 20, 2013, 18:27 GMT

    Steyn vs Anderson is a very good comparison because they are that good and they are that close. They have different tools but equally effective. Both are masters of conventional swing. Anderson goes one up on reverse swing but Steyn's yorkers and bouncers are more effective due to his greater pace. Philander and Malinga are excellent but I just feel Steyn and Anderson have that extra bit of versatility. Both of them have demonstrated how good they are on flat Indian wickets and there's no greater challenge for a fast bowler these days. I'm glad that we have these guys because they are a dying breed. If you think of the 90s...Ambrose, Walsh, Akram, Younis, Mcgrath, Donald, Pollock...what a time that was for fast bowling. But at least these guys are keeping the legacy alive, although I fear for not very long because they are nearing the end of their careers too. I just love quick bowling.

  • Kak-mal_Khan on June 20, 2013, 17:09 GMT

    @Front Foot Sponge - your compliment of Anderson is rightly so, but as a cricket fan, I feel that there has always been too much made out between the battle of Steyn and Anderson, if we look at what Philander has achieved in the recent past he for me joins Steyn as the leading world XI bowler, despite being overlooked for the CT he is equally as impressive at home against most batting line-ups. He also dismantled the Aussie batting line-up single handed, (nothing amazing considering recent Aus team in decline). Also I wish to make mention as Anderson has done himself, the most recent king of swing had been Mohammad Asif, from whom Anderson studied and gained his new found ability to dart balls both ways, & then there was the baby prodigy Mohammad Amir - these guys were the two MA's, unfortunately could not see it through like the two W's.

  • on June 20, 2013, 16:08 GMT

    realy now this article is about jimmy and england,and comparing jimmy and steyn again gosh people steyn is thee best hands down

  • jmcilhinney on June 20, 2013, 12:15 GMT

    @BlueN on (June 20, 2013, 1:45 GMT), to be precise, a catalyst is not consumed by the reaction. Some catalysts provide an active site for a reaction to take place but some very much take part in the reaction. In some cases, the catalyst is both an input and an output of a reaction.

  • cric_J on June 20, 2013, 11:16 GMT

    @BlueN wrote "A catalyst does not participate in a reaction " in relation to England's win and Anderson's role in it.

    Well sir , since you have such a wonderful (?) knowledge of chemistry , you may well be aware that THERE ARE CERTAIN REACTIONS WHICH ARE NOT EVEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT A CATALYST. The reaction is England's winning this match and the catalyst is our very own J.M. Anderson.Also as may know, a catalyst initiates a reaction and makes it proceed faster.

    Quite a metaphor there.

  • on June 20, 2013, 7:33 GMT

    Yes England are so lucky we are without our first choice spinner (Swann) and our best ODI batsman (KP). I'd hate to see us unlucky....

  • on June 20, 2013, 7:24 GMT

    I've never understood why Trott has his critics. If over the years all of England's players had shown his skill and determination we'd have won everything many times over! England's ODI tactics are commendable. 50 Overs is proper cricket. It require an Innings to be built and wickets to be taken. Only for brief periods is Wham, bam, bash necessary. At Trent Bridge recently the foundations of a decent score were put down and Buttler/Morgan did the bashing. Same in other games with Bopara. The task for the top order is to be 150-3 (or so) at 30 overs and for the lower order to double that by the end of the innings. It works!!

  • sundar411 on June 20, 2013, 7:16 GMT

    For all those English scribes and fans who have been berating Trott, this innings should be an eye-opener. Notwithstanding small total, his staying put was crucial for winning this match. I read an article where Trott's strike rate was adversely compared with that of Sangakkara and Jayawardene. Strike rate cannot be the sole indicator of performance. You need a batsman who can bat long enough to lend stability to a team's batting. Dravid did the same for India in ODIs. So thank Trott for being what he is....in fact SA lost because of absence of Kallis who bats much like Trott.

  • on June 20, 2013, 6:51 GMT

    It would be really nice to read an article in cricinfo comparing Dale Steyn and Jimmy Anderson . Anderson has proven his skills with both conventional swing and reverse swing . He dismissed Sachin with a reverse swinging inswinger(outswinger) in Kolkotta 2012 . That's a classic which made MSD to say him as the difference between the sides. But Dale Steyn is yet to prove his skills with inswing and reverse swing . He relied more on conventional swing and outswingers in particular. But Steyn has the ability to bounce out a batsman and he is more pacy than Anderson which makes him more effective than Anderson in flat tracks. So very hard to pick who is better. In my opinion, I feel Jimmy is better as I dont like to compare good bowlers based on their performance in a flat track.

  • Naresh28 on June 20, 2013, 6:43 GMT

    @gsingh - As an Indian supporter to another I would tell you that you have not seen Anderson's bowling. At the moment Anderson and Steyn are the most destructive pace bowlers. Anderson is very accurate and has a great seam position - a real thinking bowler who can make the ball swing to his tune. If you watched some of the slow motion replays in yesterdays game you could see.

  • on June 20, 2013, 6:18 GMT

    simply don't agree of any of your thoughts. then India lucky too!!!! no steyn for them too and morne didn't do too well either so your thought or thinking nor right and only negativity reflecting everywhere :P

  • cric_J on June 20, 2013, 5:43 GMT

    @gsingh7 : Go ask the Aussies how many wickets did Jimmy take the last time he toured there in the Ashes and what was his average and SR ?? The Aussie top order , including the likes of Ponting and Watson , didn't know which way to look.

    And if that doesn't satisfy you , go watch the video of the Ind/Eng Nagpur test post match presentation ceremony , where Dhoni categorically describes Jimmy as being the "difference between the 2 sides".

    A much better idea for a true cricket fan would have been to actually WATCH his spells against India in the Kolkata and Nagpur tests in 2012, against SL when he got a 5 wkt haul in 2012 ,against Australia in the Adelaide,Sidney and Melbourne tests in 2010 , all instances where there was hardly any swing.

    But since I know you haven't watched those matches initially and never will watch them or any others in future , I've given you these 2 shortcut options. Go check them out and then we will talk about Jimmy being ineffective on "baked flat tracks".

  • Tom_Bowler on June 20, 2013, 5:38 GMT

    James Anderson is a wonderful bowler, I think Steyn's extra pace gives him a slight edge but in terms of craft and guile Jimmy has no equal. Recently he seems to love doing whatever he is told he can't; the Kookaburra ball and dry, abrasive pitches were supposed to render him impotent in Australia, 20 odd wickets and three innings victories later that prediction looked a bit silly. India's "master" batsmen were supposed to destroy him last winter, instead they were all terrified of him, not physically (for once), Jimmy doesn't do crude intimidation, but because they knew that he was too good for them and their joke of a team was on its way to another drubbing.

  • skilebow on June 20, 2013, 5:32 GMT

    @ Chris Sun - i think Barnes, Larwood and Trueman might have something to say about your comment!

  • jango_moh on June 20, 2013, 4:21 GMT

    well played to eng.... rooting for ind-eng final!!!

  • on June 20, 2013, 3:26 GMT

    Jimmy is a good bowler, the best England has ever had. Where can we get more of him? We need Stuart Broad to improve as he can be quite inconsistent.

  • BlueN on June 20, 2013, 1:45 GMT

    A catalyst does not take part in the reaction.

  • the_blue_android on June 19, 2013, 23:57 GMT

    Let's all wait till this trundler is shredded to pieces in the final by Dhawan and Kohli. Picking up 2 wickets against C'ers isn't a big deal. English are well known for their hype of all things trivial which is understandable due to the severe lack of silverware in the cupboard.

  • on June 19, 2013, 22:25 GMT

    Root & Bopara did not come on at 80-8. The 1st over bowled by either of them was the 31st and SA lost their 8th wicket in the 23rd over.

    Cook managed his bowling resources as near to perfect as the circumstances permitted. When the conditions favoured his main bowlers he kept them on but when the conditions made batting easier he tried to get through as many of the extra 10 as possible so he wasn't left with a situation that after 40 overs Miller & Kleinveldt were still in and had 10 overs where he had to bowl Bopara, Root & possibly Trott, which would have resulted in 100+ runs being scored.

  • Shan156 on June 19, 2013, 22:24 GMT

    Agree with @Herbet. Cook needs to be more attacking. But, when compared to the SL game when he was annoyingly defensive, this is a marked improvement.

  • landl47 on June 19, 2013, 22:01 GMT

    I disagree with those who say Cook should have bowled his best bowlers out in an attempt to dismiss SA more cheaply. This was not a difficult wicket (I didn't see one ball misbehave the whole day) and Cook had to bowl his 5th bowling unit at some time. If anything, I thought he left it a little late to introduce Bopara.

    I do think that Bopara should be regarded as the 5th bowler, not a part-timer. If a change is needed because someone isn't going well, by all means give Root a try, but Bopara has a good economy rate in ODIs and usually keeps it pretty tight, which is what the 5th bowler must do. In fact, Bopara seems to have found his ideal niche in this side as 5th bowler and middle-order/finisher batsman.

    George, it would be VERY premature to compare Cook with Brearley as a captain. However, Cook does learn quickly and he was more aggressive today, which was necessary after giving SL an easy time. Hopefully, he'll become a good captain in time, but he's not there yet.

  • on June 19, 2013, 21:56 GMT

    It is quite remarkable considering England were humiliated by New Zealand in the recent ODI series. I wouldn't say England are playing consistently good cricket but are doing a good job. Trott and Anderson... these 2 are amazing for us!

  • gsingh7 on June 19, 2013, 21:55 GMT

    cloud cover to rescue. also more dampness left by the curator for english bowlers to exploit . in aus where dampness is rarely seen, jimmy averages 40 there. let him take some wickets on baked flat tracks and we can consider him good bowler. still averages above siddle who is a fringe bowler for aus

  • on June 19, 2013, 21:33 GMT

    I was there and boy it was a painfully boring game. I fell asleep for half an hour or so after they went 8 down. It wasn't that England quicks were unplayable or that Anderson was devastating even though ball swung for first half an hour but it was a relatively flat pitch, its more that South African top order were pathetic. Didn't make any sense sending Peterson at no.3, De Villiers should have taken control and try to construct things with Amla after they went 1 down. All in all, it was a very disappointing South African performance and it was evident in their fielding. I understand 175 isn't something you want to defend but it looked like rather than trying to make things happen, they were waiting for things to happen for them!

  • on June 19, 2013, 20:16 GMT

    When SA were bowled out, England's two best bowlers on the day still had 5 overs left between them - something wrong there - should have turned the screw more at 80/8 as Herbet says.

  • Herbet on June 19, 2013, 19:43 GMT

    "His decision to allow Anderson a seven-over opening spell was unusual, if hardly groundbreaking, while his use of three slips at times showed a welcome desire to attack when appropriate"

    What about bowling Root and Bopara at 80-8? An attacking captain would have kept his strike bowlers on, or at least bowlers.

  • hhillbumper on June 19, 2013, 18:58 GMT

    you have to think on a cloudy day Jimmy is just about lethal.

  • hhillbumper on June 19, 2013, 18:58 GMT

    you have to think on a cloudy day Jimmy is just about lethal.

  • Herbet on June 19, 2013, 19:43 GMT

    "His decision to allow Anderson a seven-over opening spell was unusual, if hardly groundbreaking, while his use of three slips at times showed a welcome desire to attack when appropriate"

    What about bowling Root and Bopara at 80-8? An attacking captain would have kept his strike bowlers on, or at least bowlers.

  • on June 19, 2013, 20:16 GMT

    When SA were bowled out, England's two best bowlers on the day still had 5 overs left between them - something wrong there - should have turned the screw more at 80/8 as Herbet says.

  • on June 19, 2013, 21:33 GMT

    I was there and boy it was a painfully boring game. I fell asleep for half an hour or so after they went 8 down. It wasn't that England quicks were unplayable or that Anderson was devastating even though ball swung for first half an hour but it was a relatively flat pitch, its more that South African top order were pathetic. Didn't make any sense sending Peterson at no.3, De Villiers should have taken control and try to construct things with Amla after they went 1 down. All in all, it was a very disappointing South African performance and it was evident in their fielding. I understand 175 isn't something you want to defend but it looked like rather than trying to make things happen, they were waiting for things to happen for them!

  • gsingh7 on June 19, 2013, 21:55 GMT

    cloud cover to rescue. also more dampness left by the curator for english bowlers to exploit . in aus where dampness is rarely seen, jimmy averages 40 there. let him take some wickets on baked flat tracks and we can consider him good bowler. still averages above siddle who is a fringe bowler for aus

  • on June 19, 2013, 21:56 GMT

    It is quite remarkable considering England were humiliated by New Zealand in the recent ODI series. I wouldn't say England are playing consistently good cricket but are doing a good job. Trott and Anderson... these 2 are amazing for us!

  • landl47 on June 19, 2013, 22:01 GMT

    I disagree with those who say Cook should have bowled his best bowlers out in an attempt to dismiss SA more cheaply. This was not a difficult wicket (I didn't see one ball misbehave the whole day) and Cook had to bowl his 5th bowling unit at some time. If anything, I thought he left it a little late to introduce Bopara.

    I do think that Bopara should be regarded as the 5th bowler, not a part-timer. If a change is needed because someone isn't going well, by all means give Root a try, but Bopara has a good economy rate in ODIs and usually keeps it pretty tight, which is what the 5th bowler must do. In fact, Bopara seems to have found his ideal niche in this side as 5th bowler and middle-order/finisher batsman.

    George, it would be VERY premature to compare Cook with Brearley as a captain. However, Cook does learn quickly and he was more aggressive today, which was necessary after giving SL an easy time. Hopefully, he'll become a good captain in time, but he's not there yet.

  • Shan156 on June 19, 2013, 22:24 GMT

    Agree with @Herbet. Cook needs to be more attacking. But, when compared to the SL game when he was annoyingly defensive, this is a marked improvement.

  • on June 19, 2013, 22:25 GMT

    Root & Bopara did not come on at 80-8. The 1st over bowled by either of them was the 31st and SA lost their 8th wicket in the 23rd over.

    Cook managed his bowling resources as near to perfect as the circumstances permitted. When the conditions favoured his main bowlers he kept them on but when the conditions made batting easier he tried to get through as many of the extra 10 as possible so he wasn't left with a situation that after 40 overs Miller & Kleinveldt were still in and had 10 overs where he had to bowl Bopara, Root & possibly Trott, which would have resulted in 100+ runs being scored.

  • the_blue_android on June 19, 2013, 23:57 GMT

    Let's all wait till this trundler is shredded to pieces in the final by Dhawan and Kohli. Picking up 2 wickets against C'ers isn't a big deal. English are well known for their hype of all things trivial which is understandable due to the severe lack of silverware in the cupboard.