England v Australia, 2nd NatWest ODI, Old Trafford

Clarke's ton rewarded with victory

The Report by David Hopps

September 8, 2013

Comments: 135 | Text size: A | A

Australia 315 for 7 (Clarke 105, Bailey 82) beat England 227 (Buttler 75, Pietersen 60, Morgan 54, McKay 3-47) by 88 runs
Scorecard and ball-by-ball details

Michael Clarke goes over the top, England v Australia, 2nd NatWest ODI, Old Trafford, September 8, 2013
Michael Clarke made his second Old Trafford hundred on tour to set up a big Australia win © Getty Images

Michael Clarke has remained in England after a dispiriting Ashes series to seek some one-day solace and, at the start of the NatWest series, Old Trafford provided it in abundance. A graceful first hundred against England in one-day internationals was followed by an overwhelming victory. For Australia's captain, it was a rare visit this summer to the pleasure palace.

England's pursuit of 316 for victory was a non-event, their defeat every bit as comprehensive as the 88-run margin indicates. They had never chased down such a total in ODIs, their best effort being 306 for 5 against Pakistan in Karachi 13 years ago. They had also never conceded such a large total to Australia in an ODI in England. They were not about to challenge such statistics.

The balance of England's side was weighted towards an extra batsman, a shift in policy from a Champions Trophy campaign earlier this summer in which they were beaten finalists, and the captain, Eoin Morgan, time and again found himself playing a limited hand in the field, never more so than when Clarke and George Bailey were compiling a fourth-wicket stand of 155 in 22 overs.

Clarke measured up the England attack serenely for his 105 from 102 balls before Boyd Rankin, England's biggest threat, had him caught at the wicket 22 balls from the end of the innings. Bailey, untroubled while making 82 from 67 balls, smiled upon England even as he punished them, as if influenced by some minor religious sect which instructs him forever to spread happiness.

England had a sally firstly through Kevin Pietersen, who made 60 from 66 balls before he drove Shane Watson to cover, and later Jos Buttler, who had the rare luxury of more than half the innings to bat and took advantage of more time at the crease with a maiden ODI fifty. He made 75 from 65 balls but became the sole victim of Fawad Ahmed, whose legspin will have more successful days.

The English summer is departing, and the house martins are taking flight, but Australia are still here, seeking to ease memories of their 3-0 defeat in the Test series. That England, influenced by a 10.15am start, inserted them on a benign, grassless pitch, correctly assessed at the toss by Clarke as a "fantastic" batting surface, provided a helping hand. England, 1-0 down with three to play (the first match at Headingley was washed out), must surely re-examine their strategy.

Morgan was in no mood to contemplate error. "We've a very strong batting line-up," he said afterwards, adding that England's bowling attack had "lots of options". But the satisfaction - and the Man-of-the-Match award was Clarke's. "We're here to win the series and we are off to a good start," he said.

Rankin, who is making a good impression at the start of his England career, escaped with 2 for 49 and Ravi Bopara was the most resourceful of England's back-up bowlers, allowing only 32 from his first eight overs, even if he could not quite complete the job. Bopara might have escaped unscathed, however, if Bailey had been caught at deep miswicket when 69, but the ball evaded Stokes, who was in from the boundary; the next ball cleared the rope by a distance.

It was an inconvenient time for James Tredwell to have one of his most unrewarding days in an England shirt - he conceded 37 from his first 22 balls and eventually 60 from eight overs as Australia attacked him from the outset. It was a tough examination, too, for Ben Stokes, the Durham allrounder batting at No. 8, who struggled to fill the role of third seamer on such a surface.

Australia's opening alliance, Aaron Finch and Shaun Marsh, had put on a record partnership against Scotland but produced naught in Manchester, as Marsh poked unconvincingly at a full delivery, the fourth ball of the match, and edged to the wicketkeeper Buttler.

Watson's emotional struggles with DRS could be turned into soap opera. Twice within 13 overs, the umpire Richard Kettleborough had to reverse decisions, with Watson the batsman involved on both occasions. Both were difficult calls for the third umpire, Aleem Dar, and he probably got it right on both occasions.

Watson successfully reviewed after he was given out lbw first ball by Kettleborough. Then, on 38, it was England's turn to overturn Kettleborough's decision, as Bopara had Watson caught at the wicket cutting. Not for the first time this summer, Watson departed with the hurt, pursed-lips expression of an elderly woman imagining herself short-changed at the till.

When Tredwell intervened with the wicket of Finch - a flat catch to Joe Root at long-on - England accepted the third wicket with considerable relief. For a few overs they hinted at a recovery, but soon Clarke and Bailey were killing them with kindness.

There was encouragement for Australia in the field, too: Mitchell Johnson is approaching his best form again. Australia omitted him for this summer's Ashes series but, after observing his new-ball spell, they must have had visions that their most mercurial bowling talent can make an impression in the return Test series. Johnson's rhythm was good, his bowling arm much higher than in recent years and his pace repeatedly above 90mph.

He struck twice in his second over. His first wicket had an element of good fortune as Michael Carberry slapped a catch to Clarke at backward point. But Jonathan Trott's first-baller came via a fiercely rising delivery on a perfect line that he could only fend to the wicketkeeper. Root followed immediately after the Powerplay, trying to run a ball from James Faulkner that sneaked back into him.

Pietersen and Morgan met a mammoth task with invention, enough to see Ahmed withdrawn from the attack after his first two overs cost 23.

But Pietersen's departure was a reality check for a crowd of 25,000. Bopara chipped a return catch to Adam Voges, Morgan succumbed to Clint McKay's slower ball, Stokes made a mess of a pull shot to complete a dismal day and, by the time Buttler brought up his half-century by striking Faulkner's slower ball over square leg for six, the game had long gone.

David Hopps is the UK editor of ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: David Hopps

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (September 12, 2013, 10:35 GMT)

Harmony111- If selective watering was used to not create dusty wickets it hasnt worked. Selective watering was to make certain parts of the pitch dusty. If your able to water why wouldnt you water the entire pitch. Even normal Indian wickets watered correctly will still go dusty but not in the first hour of the game. Again I implied "Dusty" as the wickets are dusty. You have implied the "Proper". As for selectively watering it was done to cater for calls from the Indian captain. You guys could beat us on your normal wickets - I just dont understand why you need to go down the selective watering process.

Posted by Harmony111 on (September 12, 2013, 9:48 GMT)


You did not mention PROPER but that is implied by the way you used the word dustbowl for Indian Wickets. You initially used dustbowl as if Ind Wickets were not good ones to play tests and as if winning on them did not matter. But then you criticized Selective Watering that was done to prevent the wicket from becoming a dustbowl & took the line that the natural nature of a wicket should not be altered. So on one hand you say that India's wins on the natural dustbowls of India don't really matter but at the same time you say that the nature of the wicket should not be altered. Such a confused point.

You quoted me here & say that comment is derogatory. FYI, that quote was a combination of historical fact + Biggus' own opinion. My own role in that comment was merely adhesive. I asked you where is the exact derogation in that quote, no reply came from you. You skipped it. Is this not running here & there? Stick to your points & reply to mine.

Posted by Harmony111 on (September 12, 2013, 9:04 GMT)


Yawn, I expected better but you have merely repeated your old points hoping to somehow present a reply to my pointed questions.

I asked you to show me where was the derogation in that quote but you did not reply to that.

I asked you how was Selective Watering helping a certain team when the Chennai wicket lasted 5 days, Oz batsmen scored 100s/50s on it & an Oz Fast Bowler got 6 wickets but you did not reply to it.

First you suggested that winning on Ind dustbowls wasn't all that special cos you felt Aus can beat Ind away (i.e on PROPER Wickets) but when Aus were given an almost ideal test wicket they still lost. Pls make up your mind, what kind of wicket do you want & also show me how was that Chennai Wicket not a good wicket.

Indeed Eng-Aus have promoted cricket a lot in the last 100+ years - a total of 8.5 test playing nations. Eng-Aus couldn't even get Cricket into Olympics. Then we have ppl here who deride T20 & call its fans as pseudo fans. Oh yes, I got no idea.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (September 11, 2013, 12:34 GMT)

Harmony111; You come across so agressive relax.No matter what I right you are going to take it in a different context. How am I running, you pointed out how poor Australia was and all I said is we will beat you away from India. No mention of the word "PROPER" there is no ranking of importance as you suggest. As for selectively watering I don't agree with altering a strip, as It is altering the traditional strip to suit a certain team. I am just saying if you are truly a great test side you have no need to alter a strip how hard is that to understand. As for your comments you said Australia and England should take responsibility for promoting cricket to the world - I now understand you are not being derogatory you are just clueless with what Australia and England do to promote cricket. Also I just thought you were using outlandish statements in disrespect of us but it seems you were using them once again because you have no idea.

Posted by Harmony111 on (September 11, 2013, 11:43 GMT)

@Shaggy076: Show me where is the exact derogation?

I ask you again --- when did I say that Ashes should not be promoted? Show me pls.

Your initial comment hinted as if winning on dustbowls did not matter as much as winning on so called PROPER wickets of Oz. But now you are clawing back. :-)

Now as per you, dustbowls is merely a natural description for Indian wickets due to local conditions. So why do you have to use it suggestively if Ind have won 4-0 vs Oz? Even if they are dust bowls so what? Come to the point.

Reg Selective Watering, you are desperately trying to find traction. Curator has every right to alter the nature of the wicket. I asked you if as per facts the Chennai wicket was bad or not. Answer that, don't run here & there.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (September 11, 2013, 11:20 GMT)

Harmony111 - I quote "You two are happy playing your own bilateral series every 2 year and talk of it as if nothing else matters to you." - How is this not derogotary. The Ashes is the pinnacle for us and has just occured so get over us talking about it. We still play a lot of T20 cricket, one-day cricket and happy to promote it where we play so what harm is there with the promotion of cricket by talking about a century old contest. i would have thought it could only help the game. Then "Dust bowls" - Indian pitches are very dusty due to the Indian climate - it is simply a description. "Selective Watering" - It was the term coined by the curator. The term itself suggests altering the nature of a pitch. I'm only suggesting that if you were confident in your own ability to win on your traditional decks you wouldnt selective water. Why dont you guys trust yourself to win without this? So it looks you have taken offence at me using terms coined by indians to describe there pitches.

Posted by Harmony111 on (September 11, 2013, 10:58 GMT)


You talked of selective watering process as if it was illegal or as if it was meant to harm the wicket or to help India. None of it. If you had bothered to read those articles properly before making an issue out of it then you would have realized that selective watering was actually meant to make the wicket more even.

That Chennai wicket was originally made firm all over. After this, the central part was consistently watered and rolled to ensure good bounce for Fast Bowlers. The lateral part of the wicket was not watered so as to assist Spinners but cos the wicket was not bone-dry so it did not totally crumble and held together till Day 5.

On that wicket, an Oz Fast Bowler took 6 wickets, the Oz Captain got a 100 & the Oz debutant got 2 50s. Indian spinners took 20 wickets & India got a 100 & a 200.

Thus that wicket held for 5 days, helped Fast Bowlers, Spinners & Batsmen & gave a result. Sounds like an ideal wicket to me.

You respond with facts right? Waiting ...

Posted by Harmony111 on (September 11, 2013, 10:01 GMT)


Suppose an Aus captain says that Ind team struggles on wickets that have bounce & so we want these wickets to be like that AND the wickets turn out to be like that.

Suppose an Ind captain says that Aus team struggles on wickets that take turn & so we want these wickets to be like that AND the wickets turn out to be like that.

Now you tell me which one of these is cooking and which one is not.

Oh yes, you are humble enough indeed. I saw a lot of that humility here when your buddy said that he doesn't care about T20s even though they are the best way to spread this very game that you is larger than you.


FOA, Ind fans by & large like Cricket - any format. Rarely when an Ind says he dislikes Tests he gives his own reasons such as too slow or too long. He doesn't ridicule others. Reg T20s, pls read what Biggus said for other T20 fans - they are pseudo fans & got SHORT ATTENTION SPANS.

Posted by Harmony111 on (September 11, 2013, 9:41 GMT)


Whatever I've said is a direct deduction from whatever you'd said in your prev comment. I've tried to post a detailed response but it is not coming up here for some reason. Your usage of dustbowl alone is ample proof for this deduction.

Talking about belittling, someone said that millions of Indians are pseudo fans and have short attention spans? What about that?

Show me where I belittled Tests or Ashes. Your own biases prevent you from being objective yet you pretend as if you are the epitome of objectivity.


Don't twist my words. Did I ever say Ashes is boring? And how come T20 fans are pseudo fans or have short attention spans? What's the basis for that?

When did I ask you to swap Tests with T20s? I said A AND B but you read it as ONLY A NOT B.

Btw Ind got more Test fans than Eng-Aus put together & we also love T20s (& ODIs).

Posted by JG2704 on (September 11, 2013, 7:46 GMT)

@Biggus /Shaggy - I actually quite enjoy some of the shorter formats stuff myself. My issue is that some folk seem to think we need it to be okayed with them re what we choose to watch and what we choose to ignore and I find it funny when someone says they're a test cricket fan and then just basically give reasons for not liking it. We get a regular pest on our threads who always says how dated test cricket is and that he hates it , yet he continues to post on the matter. Baffling

Posted by Chris_P on (September 10, 2013, 14:27 GMT)

@H_Z_O, My bad, shocked if your side was similar, although our side shouldn't be anything like this side. Players such as Hughes, Smith, Henriques, Warner, Hazelwood, Cummins, Starc, Maxwell (plus any other keeper) would be, when in form, selected ahead of most of these guys. Marsh won't be there, nor will Voges & seriously think Fawad will be either. Finch is very much a hot/cold player prone to drastic runs of in/out of form. His performances last summer were poor, & this after a bumper dometic List A season. Can MJ sustain this one day form for 2 seasons when he will be nearing 34 years of age?

Posted by Shaggy076 on (September 10, 2013, 11:14 GMT)

Now you assume that I have insulted you and one-day cricket, try reading the posts. There is only one person that has come on here to belittle others and that was not me. I will watch all formats, I enjoy cricket on all different surfaces and respond with facts unlike your assertion between Australia and SOuth Africa. So in essence when you are refered to "people like you" - Maybe you need to take a good hard look at yourself.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (September 10, 2013, 11:10 GMT)

Harmony111 - First of all I have responded to your post firstly labeling Australia a basket case and 2) Having a go at Australia and Englands in terms of promoting cricket. You have taken so many liberties in making assumptions from what I have written. ie " Ppl like you think that ONLY your type of wickets are the appropriate ones for cricket." - where did I say that. I think cricket on traditional Indian pitches without the selective watering process is fantastic cricket - I love it. "Aus beat India 4-0 & India beat Aus 4-0 yet you see it as being fav to Aus." - Again where did i say Australia were in front of India. I had a go at you claiming Indian superiority. It was 4-0 home and away so I wouldnt give an advantage to either side. Everyone here was commenting on a one-day cricket game between England and Australia before you came on here to belittle both sides and test cricket and the ashes what did you expect us all to sit here and take your sanctimonious response TBC

Posted by Biggus on (September 10, 2013, 10:21 GMT)

@JG2704::-I'm fine with the ODIs mate, it's the hit and giggle that leaves me cold. It's cricket for people who don't really like cricket, a bit of fluff, a trifle. Something that you can take young kids and disinterested females along to, but nothing to be taken seriously. I can hardly remember what happened in the last T20 game I watched, but I can remember all the important details of the first test matches I watches over 40 years ago.

Posted by JG2704 on (September 10, 2013, 9:37 GMT)

@Harmony111 - May I just ask why you cross question the Australian fans about their views of not caring for ODIs/T20s etc , but not ask the Indian fan the same re his/her views re tests?

Posted by JG2704 on (September 10, 2013, 9:34 GMT)

@Srini_Chennai - Maybe in some cases it's true that some Eng fans milk the format which they are better at. But you yourself say you like test cricket and then give reasons not to like cricket. So forgive me for interpretting your post as negative towards test cricket. May I ask what makes you a test cricket fan?

Posted by PrasPunter on (September 10, 2013, 8:58 GMT)

@Harmony111, we never cooked our pitches the way you did when we were there. Just because you repeating that we have sunk low doesn't mean that it is the case. Our fast-bowling stocks are robust, our top-order is getting settled and above all, we are humble enough to admit that the game is bigger than us, unlike yours.

Posted by PrasPunter on (September 10, 2013, 7:47 GMT)

@Biggus, mate that is one real hell of an assessment on what Ashes means to Eng and Aus fans and supporters. Am with you. Let the indian fans think whatever they want - but test cricket is the ultimate.

@Shaggy076 , another perfect assessment on the scheme of things. I dont remember us Aus selectively watering wickets, gifting the pitch curator for preparing a rank-turner and all that stuff, something the indian team is so fond of. The so-called super indian team just couldn't beat a WI team when they needed 85 off 15 overs with 7 wickets in a test last year. So much for their greatness. On the contrary, the all-time low Aus team declared with 40 runs behind and scored a pretty-good test-victory against the same WI team.

Posted by Shan156 on (September 10, 2013, 5:43 GMT)

@Dravid_Gravitas,:-) I don't mind both ODIs and T20s. They can be quiet fun actually. But, I enjoy test cricket the most. Even a draw can be thrilling (like the final test in NZ earlier this year). People are free to watch what they want. But, I think test cricket, at least between Eng. and Aus., will continue to enthrall people. I have been following it for quiet a long time and have seldom been bored. To some of us, it is the best format and will continue to be so.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (September 10, 2013, 3:55 GMT)

Harmony111 - That is the most patronising post I have ever read. How can you have a go at both Australia and England for not promoting cricket with all they have done for the game. They have started the game, promoted it outside there boundaries, particularly in the sub continent and your enjoying the fruits of these countries attempts to bring the game to people all over the world. Both countries love test cricket and will forever play it, they have a right to keep there own fans happy as well as the global environment. T20 was started in England, both countries run domestic competitions and partake in T20 games as well to promote the sport. So get off your high horse and let the fans of AUstralia and England enjoy the Ashes and if you don't care about it then why do you always feel the need to comment on it.

Posted by Biggus on (September 10, 2013, 1:35 GMT)

@Harmony111:-No we're not going to take the lead in promoting T20 because we really don't rate it as anything other than hit and giggle. You can get as annoyed about that as you like but that's the reality. I'm plainly a lot older than you and I LIKE the fact that test cricket is a contemplative game, and if it doesn't appeal to the millions of pseudo cricket fans who only like T20 I won't lose a lot of sleep over it. So you can complain all you like, the Ashes will continue to be our most important series despite the fact that miilions of Indian kids with short attention spans think it's boring. Get used to it, we don't really care all that much what these fans think, we're fans of a format that's worked well since 1877 and have no intention of swapping the sublime pleasures of test cricket for the lycra, tinsel and dancing girls of the all flash and no substance T20. So India can play the pied piper and try to sell McDonalds to the world while we enjoy our fine dining test cricket.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (September 10, 2013, 1:26 GMT)

Harmony111- Australia at an all time low, yet still with enough ability to white wash India at home, whitewash Sri Lanka at home, beat West Indies away, draw with South Africa away. SO we lost to a great South Africa side, lost on Indian dust bowls and were beaten 3-0 by England in what was a pretty well contested series. Yes we aren't that great but we can still beat India away from your dust bowls. If that wasn't true why did India have to selectively water the pitches to get an edge? Also if your talking about one-day series well we haven't lost a lot of them recently.

Posted by H_Z_O on (September 10, 2013, 0:34 GMT)

@Posted by Steve Back on (September 9, 2013, 19:22 GMT)

"Alex Hales has done well in T20s this year but little else. As for Luke Wright, he is a perennial underachiever. He always has these good seasons for Sussex but in England colours he regularly fails."

On the one hand, you disregard Wright's domestic form by saying he regularly fails for England, but on the other you seem to be suggesting that Carberry's domestic form ought to trump Hales' consistent performances for England.

Which is it?

Hales has proven he can score runs against international bowlers. He has 6 50s in 21 T20 internationals, including an 80*, 94 and 99. That's no mere "hit and giggle".

As for Wright, he's a much improved player of late. His record in T20 internationals in the last 2 years is vastly superior to his record before.

ODIs have far more in common with T20 internationals than the YB40. There's no reason to think a player who can score 50s in T20 internationals can't do so in ODIs.

Posted by Shan156 on (September 9, 2013, 23:19 GMT)

@JG2704, let the Aussie fans here have some fun. After all, they lost the big prize 0-3, so this is some consolation for us. I am actually loving all the comments on how we are no match for the Aussies in any format when we just hammered them 3-0 in the Ashes and also won the CT match against them. All they have to show for their efforts in England is one ODI win and one T20 win and they claim that they are better than us in all formats. They must have been really desperate for that one elusive win, probably more so than Clarke.

As for Sunday's match, yes, we were hammered and Aus. showed that they were superior to us in batting, bowling, and fielding but that was just yesterday. Things can and will change in the next few games. I still think that this Eng. team can pull off a surprise. Our bowling is weak and we need to get one proper bowler in there. After JD's good showing recently, perhaps he should have been given a chance?

Posted by Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on (September 9, 2013, 22:52 GMT)

Not too many have time to sit and watch an ODI the whole day. T20s is the way forward ;)!

Posted by   on (September 9, 2013, 20:22 GMT)

@HZO: "For us, I can't understand why Carberry and Stokes were selected ahead of Hales and Luke Wright".

Alex Hales has done well in T20s this year but little else. As for Luke Wright, he is a perennial underachiever. He always has these good seasons for Sussex but in England colours he regularly fails.

Posted by niazbhi on (September 9, 2013, 15:08 GMT)

@JG2704 you are right England won the series. To me Harris, Starc, Siddle, Watson, Faulkner, Johnson all have bowling/batting that can wow a team. England's best is Anderson. Harris can outdo Anderson. Starc or Siddle can be the second fast bowler and Faulker and Watson combination all rounders are adding enough batting and bowling and variations. Clark does not stick to his good bowlers too much (I remember him taking off Pattinson after getting 3 wickets in 3 overs) and letting india score big. They have found openers, Smith and Clark are good in the middle order. England may be a bit better in the test batting. Australia can cover because they have better tail. England has a better planning and no non-sense captain in Cook. (I disagree with everyone who says Clark is a better captain than Cook. Cook have faith in his players and his players will feel comfortable).

Posted by H_Z_O on (September 9, 2013, 13:09 GMT)

@landl47 on (September 9, 2013, 2:29 GMT)

Don't forget out-captained. Like you said, Morgan was wrong to insert Australia and Clarke said he'd have batted first. Regardless of my concerns about our selection policy, I'm not taking anything away from Australia; they're a very good one-day side. Their bowlers gave us a tough time in the Champions Trophy, and it was only an excellent 91 (at a strike-rate that only Bopara and Bailey, among the specialist batsmen on either side, bettered) by Ian Bell that got us to a decent total (and even then we were probably short 30 runs).

In fact if we look at the players who missed this game, it's funny to note that Starc (who wasn't rested, but might have been had he not already been injured) was Australia's worst front-line bowler in that match, while Bell (who was rested) was our best batsman. Hard to escape the conclusion that England's selection policy for this game was wrong, regardless of how well Australia played.

Posted by Harlequin. on (September 9, 2013, 12:45 GMT)

Let's take this match for what it is: an experiment. Yes, Australia won and well done to them, but I can't see too many people caring about the result. I think what people are interested in during this series are the individual performances, and from this match I can draw the following conclusions:

Bailey should have played the tests, and should be in for the return leg.

Johnson is still capable of excellence, but we'll wait until the end of the series to comment on consistency.

Rankin has started well in English colours, and should be on the plane to Australia.

Stokes was disappointing, although bowled at a decent pace. Much like Carberry, I think he needs to get a big score, settle in and then he will do fine.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (September 9, 2013, 12:43 GMT)

@Int.Curator on (September 9, 2013, 9:57 GMT), not really true. England started their chase slowly, yes, but they knew that they couldn't afford to lose wickets. For a reasonable period, England were very close to Australia's score at the same point in their innings. The issue was wickets. England couldn't afford to lose them and they did. Exactly what plan do you think they should have hatched to counter-attack? They looked a genuine chance while KP and Morgan were together but their chances took a nosedive to almost nil once that partnership was broken. They really needed those two to match Clarke and Bailey if they were to chase down that total but it was never likely.

Posted by H_Z_O on (September 9, 2013, 12:37 GMT)

@Chris_P on (September 9, 2013, 0:05 GMT) I would be shocked if this English side resembled anything like the one that will front up for the WC, same for our side.

I disagree. I wouldn't expect Australia's WC side to be radically different. Finch has featured in every ODI series Australia have played this year, and was probably next in line for a spot in the Champions Trophy had any of the batsmen been ruled out.

With Warner dropped for form reasons and the selectors wanting Watson to bat at 3, the next in line for the opening slot was Marsh. And other than that, this is more or less the same side that played England in the Champions Trophy. Clarke missed that through injury, while Starc misses here through injury, but the rest are all part of Australia's first choice set-up.

For us, I can't understand why Carberry and Stokes were selected ahead of Hales and Luke Wright. Leaving aside the rested players, if we're looking at the guys on the fringes, those two should be next in line.

Posted by Harmony111 on (September 9, 2013, 12:34 GMT)

@Biggus: Since you couldn't see the obvious similarity in that story and what you were talking about, cricket as a game is shrinking rather than expanding. To save the game we need more nations to join us. Now you tell me, do we have more nations playing Tests or ODIs or T20s? To make the game more popular we need to focus on T20s & Eng-Aus should take the lead cos they are the oldest aristocrats of this game but what do we see? You two are happy playing your own bilateral series every 2 year and talk of it as if nothing else matters to you.

Australia are at their lowest point in decades and go lower each day eg 0-8 in India (0-2,0-2,0-4) and now 0-3 in Eng. Eng as #1 couldn't win a series away and could remain #1 for like 90 mins. Aus couldn't defeat 10 men SA at home in 2 tests & lost badly the moment SA got 11 good men. You are no better or worse than India but behave as if India want only T20s while you were forced to carry the test baton.

Posted by Biggus on (September 9, 2013, 12:03 GMT)

@Harmony111:-Not interested in your fairy tales. We will continue playing the Ashes because we like it. India can do as it pleases but that has no bearing on Australia/England test cricket. Had you read my comment properly you would have noted that I made no disparaging remarks about ODIs or T20, merely stating that we would continue to play the Ashes whether India was interested or not. So, to say, " but to say that Ashes is all that matters while ODIs & T20s are nothing is behaving just like these noblemen I told you about," rather misses the point, wouldn't you say? Charming story you told there, but I can't see how it relates to my assertion that we'd continue the series despite subcontinental disinterest.

Posted by whofriggincares on (September 9, 2013, 11:44 GMT)

@BOBMARTIN, talk about stating the obvious , of course the ashes is the most important thing this summer everyone knows it so why even dribble on about it? And keep telling yourself they rested 7 players if it makes you feel better about getting smashed. It really is typical of English cricket in general your comment about the selectors not caring about winning the series. That is the difference between being good and being great like the Windies of the 80's and the all conquering Aussies who won countless ashes and three world cups . The English selectors are trying to find their best 11 but the truth is they have rarely been any good at limited overs cricket. Truly great sides beat anyone anywhere anytime and don't make excuses when they lose.

Posted by salazar555 on (September 9, 2013, 11:32 GMT)

England are using this series to look at new players which probably says more about what they think of 50 over cricket than anything else. Do England care about 50 over cricket? I don't think they do I see England in the future using 50 over games to look at players and see how they go and get them used to the England set up with a view to being involved in test matches.

Posted by Biggus on (September 9, 2013, 11:25 GMT)

@manish gogna:-Funniest thing I've heard in ages champ, equating ANY Indian team with the legendary Windies and Oz teams. To be a great team you have to win away I'd reckon and India won't start to do that with any regularity until they stop preparing dust bowls, and we know that won't happen since they'll lose their home advantage.

Posted by Srini_Indian on (September 9, 2013, 11:09 GMT)

@xtrafalgarx: It turns out to be you the one who don't have a clue. Ashes is the pinnacle of test cricket? How can a test series being watched by less than 10% of the cricket population be termed pinnacle? Not even the whole England people follow any cricket, let alone the Ashes. Ashes is just about 1 team thrashing the other poor team. Except 2005, when was the series thoroughly contested? If Aussie and Brit media hypes it up, it doesn't mean its a pinnacle. Lets face it, more than 90% of cricket community would be yawning!

Posted by Harmony111 on (September 9, 2013, 11:00 GMT)

@Biggus: Your comment reminds me of a movie Shatranj Ke Khiladi i.e. The Chess Players. It is a story of two minor aristocrats of Lucknow city in India who were so much obsessed with their daily game of chess that they neglected their families, wives and even the attack of the British Army on their princely state of Awadh and its imminent annexation. When the British Troops entered the city, they ran away cowardly from their ancestral homes to resume their beloved game of chess in the city outskirts living in some ruins.

Ashes is a legacy and should be given the respect it deserves but to say that Ashes is all that matters while ODIs & T20s are nothing is behaving just like these noblemen I told you about. I am a huge cricket fan and will watch any cricket match anywhere but even for me following tests diligently is getting tough. Even if you watch all 5 tests 8 hrs a day all 5 days you still should look for unity instead of taking split stands. We are only 9-10 nations anyways.

Posted by Int.Curator on (September 9, 2013, 10:57 GMT)

Predictable England

It doesn't matter the format,the team, the captain, the players or venue the Australian team has dictated how the game will be played on every occasion of this tour.

It doesn't seem to be in English nature to hatch a plan of a "counter attack' rather England choose to be slow and steady with a wait and see attitude.

With English assistance Australia are finding their form just in time for the more important leg of the Ashes.

Posted by PrasPunter on (September 9, 2013, 10:49 GMT)

@manish gogna, inida's test team was as good as the WI and Aus teams of the past ? Not even one series victory away from home in that period 2008-2011 - managed to be No 1 only because of the flawed ranking system and nothing else. Get your facts right !!

Posted by JG2704 on (September 9, 2013, 10:25 GMT)

@niazbhi on (September 9, 2013, 8:43 GMT)

So what exactly are you basing the "No match for the Aussies" on?

England just beat Australia 3-0 in the test series (admittedly a flattering scoreline) but surely it at least suggests that England are a match for the Aussies in that dept.

In ODI's - Australia thrashed England yesterday but in the previous meeting England comfortably beat Australia and in the previous 4 meetings Eng won all 4.

In T20 - the scoreline was 1-1

Australia may beat Eng 4-0 but as it stands they are 1-0 up.

Posted by Biggus on (September 9, 2013, 10:21 GMT)

@RednWhiteArmy:-So England are focussed on the big prize eh? The Ashes. Funny thing old chap is that when we had a good team we just won everything, with no need to focus on any one format, but I guess that's the difference between having a really good team and merely the best you've had in a while. So enjoy this legendary team of your's mate cause you're not better than us all that often. Not much more often than you beat us on the hallowed ground of Lord's in fact, once or twice a century.

Posted by Front-Foot-Lunge- on (September 9, 2013, 10:00 GMT)

Australia seem to be building on the momentum of the back end of the ashes and England seem to be a team in decline. After a very fortunate series of weather events and a freakish session of bowling by Broad flattered England in the last 3 tests, this ODI result reflects the recent standings of the two teams. Grave concerns over the decline of the English team performance in recent times...

Posted by   on (September 9, 2013, 9:52 GMT)

Good for Clarke and Australia. But not an unexpected result at all against a second string England team. England's match winners in recent matches have been Anderson, Broad, Swann, Bell and Cook, and right now they are without them. Yes, Cook needed this break after a lean period with the bat, but you just don't give a break to all your match winners at the same time? It is ridiculous!

Posted by niazbhi on (September 9, 2013, 9:43 GMT)

Aussies have too much talent. Walson, Johnson, Harris.. even with a full team england is no match for aussies. Specially in ODI or 2020s. England's test batting is a little better. But aus can cover that by their long tail. England also have better management and captain. Players are relaxed. Bowlers gets to settle on rhythms. May be thats way England won the series. Seriously England need Onion or tremlett in a good form (in addition to Anderson and Broad) to make an impact.

Posted by Jamie-1212 on (September 9, 2013, 9:38 GMT)

Bottom line is England got the balance of their side wrong, they were a bowler light and that's why they lost the game. Stokes is a 4th seamer and not a 3rd seamer. Therefore, you need to pick a bowling all-rounder (Jordan or Overton) instead of one of the batsmen. Pietersen, Morgan and Trott are untouchable. Which leaves Carberry, Bopara and Root. Ravi's been bowling well in ODI cricket, meaning the selectors would need to drop Carberry or Root to accommodate a Jordan or an Overton. I would suggest England want to have a look at what Carberry can do, so he would play this whole series and Root would be dropped despite his very good average.

For a better balance for the next ODI, the team may look like this: 1) Carberry 2) Pietersen 3)Trott 4)Morgan 5)Bopara 6)Buttler 7) Stokes 8)Jordan 9)Tredwell 10)Finn 11)Rankin

Hats off to George Bailey yesterday, that was a very impressive innings.

Posted by RednWhiteArmy on (September 9, 2013, 9:34 GMT)

England are just focused on the big prize, the ashes. If England win the next Ashes it will be 4 in a row. Also, by the next time australia tours England, it will have been 15 years since they last won a series in England. Thats starting to get dangerously close to two decades!

Posted by R_U_4_REAL_NICK on (September 9, 2013, 9:31 GMT)

That was a really good knock by Clarke; actually it was really well played by Australia on the whole. Not sure why Morgan opted to bowl first on what seemed a pretty hard, no-nonsense pitch - but the way both teams played I don't think it was the deciding factor. Likewise I doubt even the full strength England team could have made a successful chase here; 315 was a great score and but for Rankin's closing spells it looked for all the world to be much more. To be fair on Carberry, that was a cracking spell of bowling from Johnson and the fact that even Trott couldn't handle him suggests the critics should lay off for now.

Posted by android_user on (September 9, 2013, 9:27 GMT)

clarke super stylish innings

Posted by jmcilhinney on (September 9, 2013, 9:27 GMT)

@Patchmaster on (September 8, 2013, 23:04 GMT), that's funny. Carberry did play but wasn't around for very long. Unlike Bopara, he didn't manage to impress against Ireland either. Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to write Carberry off after two games but I'm not sure that you're basing your opinion of Bopara on his actual performances of late.

Posted by Hatter_Mad on (September 9, 2013, 9:14 GMT)

Interesting role reversal form the 1990s when Australia would steam over England in the Tests and the England would get consolation in the ODIs.

Hopefully this series can be a bit more even.

Posted by JG2704 on (September 9, 2013, 9:07 GMT)

@jmcilhinney on (September 9, 2013, 1:50 GMT) I'm sure they've added players to the squad without having to give an injury reason - they could have done this with Dernbach. I'll be surprised if Overton gets used at all and while it's all well to have players having squad experience surely playing experience is better and better to have a player who may get a game in the squad

@ozhog on (September 9, 2013, 2:15 GMT) Battingwise , I'd be just as happy with this side as the regular side even if this side doesn't do as much. Bowlingwise it may be a bit different. Personally I feel we need to develop a totally different ODI/T20 set up without any of the test players. Lack of continuity from continually resting players can't be good for any side to develop

Posted by JG2704 on (September 9, 2013, 9:05 GMT)

@Chris_P - Oh indeed. Bailey impressed immensely and Mckay was impressive as ever. I think England use some of these ODIs as a way of integrating potential future test players into the international side but IMO they'd still be better off learning their craft at county level when there are county games in progress.

@Patchmaster- Carberry did play although you could be mistaken for thinking it was Cook at the crease with the amount of balls he didn't score off.

@josphe - I still thought Jos's inns was scratchy. The one good thing was that he didn't go too early but he still needs to learn to farm the strike more when in with the tail. To take 2 runs off the last ball of the over when he was facing and 1 off the last ball of the over when Finn was facing (meaning Finn started the next over on each occasion) was sloppy thinking. Agree re being a bowler light but I'd like to see 2 of the 3 test batsmen make way for Wright and another bowler

Posted by Lmaotsetung on (September 9, 2013, 8:54 GMT)

Did the weather have any influence on Morgan's choice to field first? I checked the weather report and showed rain in the afternoon so maybe that's why Morgan chose to bowl.../shrug Anyway still waiting for Carberry to show us his domestic form in an England shirt. I don't know if Finn will ever replace Jimmy as the leader of the attack. Right now he looks more like following the footsteps of Broad...can be unplayable at times with the usual inconsistencies.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (September 9, 2013, 8:22 GMT)

I'm not sure what some fans here were expecting from the likes of Carberry, this game was won by Australia with the bat and mostly because England only picked 3 genuine bowlers. Australia always goes in with 4 bowlers and Watson who could easily play one-day cricket as a bowler. Stokes may be ok as a fifth bowler but expecting him and Bopara to get through 20 is asking for trouble. Its all very well to experiment but you should still pick a balanced team.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (September 9, 2013, 8:20 GMT)

It's quite funny - I reckon the same people that have said we don't care about this series as it's the Ashes we are after, are the exact same people who bragged about last years one-day series in England when Australia sent over half a team.

Posted by   on (September 9, 2013, 8:18 GMT)

Can we draft a few of these ODI players into the test side and revitalize that dull bunch.

Posted by kir.vas on (September 9, 2013, 8:12 GMT)

I still believe why they lost ashes because of their poor selection of batsmen. They kept batsman like George Bailey for one dayers. Even if Michael Clarke fails he is capable of delivering 40 - 50 runs in the middle.

Posted by Biggus on (September 9, 2013, 7:47 GMT)

@Srini_Chennai:-We Aussies and Poms couldn't care less whether you are interested in the Ashes, I can promise you that, and your lack of interest in the aforementioned contest will not lead to it's demise. What do you suppose? That we'll stop playing the Ashes because India isn't interested? I appreciate that Indians have a new pride in the economic progress of their country and success on the cricket field, but some of you guys really need to get some perspective. Indians could take up Origami as a national sport and it wouldn't make any difference to us. We'll keep playing the test series that we've been playing for over a hundred years. India can give up everything except T20 and that's it's choice, but don't expect us to follow suit. As for the "No one has time to watch 5 days of cricket" excuse, well if you were a test fan as you claim you'd do what the rest of us do:Watch a session when you can, catch the score on the radio as you're walking past, ask someone for the score etc.

Posted by milepost on (September 9, 2013, 7:36 GMT)

I also disagree that 'T20 and ODI' are the future. I'd have taken a close win over England in the Ashes for a whitewash by them in the ODIs. There's so much one day cricket played that it almost feels meaningless. The Ashes on the other hand come around infrequently and over 5 matches is a real test of the teams. A good win by Australia but not much to read into it.

Posted by   on (September 9, 2013, 7:19 GMT)

No comments here about domination and other false statements I guess front foot lunge is still at school. Refreshing really to read some sensible comments for a change

Posted by xtrafalgarx on (September 9, 2013, 7:06 GMT)

@Srini_Chennai, you have got no clue. You might personally lose interest in the ashes, but i doubt that will happen in Australia/England. The fact that you think England have done well in the past 8 years shows as much, if you don't like the Ashes don't follow them, but they will always be the pinnacle of test cricket, no matter where you're from.

Anyone who thinks T20's and Onedayers are the future, i doubt is a serious cricket fan.

Posted by Srini_Indian on (September 9, 2013, 6:30 GMT)

Lets face it, "we don't care for ODIs and real cricket is only Tests" from England fans is only because they're doing well in Ashes for last 8 years and unbelievably poor in ODIs. Its just an excuse for the numerous losses. Here is the cold reality, nobody cares about Ashes outside Australia and England and within 10 years Tests will die its inevitable death. I'm a tests fan myself, but who has time to watch 8 hours of cricket in 5 days? I'm sure the people who are shouting "tests are real" are doing the same. ODIs and T20s are the future.

Posted by   on (September 9, 2013, 6:16 GMT)

seems to me you are all making excuses after being completely outplayed by the aussies last night. Australia are rebuilding also and are trying a fair few new faces to see how they might go in the cauldren of top flight cricket. sometimes you click and sometimes you dont. Maybe some aussies pride is starting to come back into the team. its only a small step but I think Australia have always had the approach of this is a 10 match series and we will judge them on whether they can improve in the last 5 test matches. So far England have bested Australia in the longer form of the game but they havent been completely overwhelmed

Posted by   on (September 9, 2013, 6:14 GMT)

Lets hope Lyon gets a game or two later on in the series.

Posted by   on (September 9, 2013, 5:56 GMT)

West Indies was the champ of both ODI's and Tests in 70's and early 80's. Australia did the same in 90's and early 2000's. India occupied the same position in tests in the 2008-11 period in Tests and has been dominating ODI's for a few years now. A great team is the one which is good at both the formats. England has always been mediocre in ODI's so it has never been able to win the World Cup. If its only the Ashes which means something to you then why play other teams and also other formats.

Posted by mondotv on (September 9, 2013, 5:17 GMT)

While Johnson's form with the new ball is encouraging I would still be wary of promoting him as an Ashes contender. At the end of the game when bowling to a no name like Finn he couldn't find the stumps. That's always been Johnson's problem - all the talent but needs the cricketing savvy to understand that when you have a tail ender stepping towards leg that a length delivery on off or middle is what is required. Instead he perhaps got one ball on the stumps.

Posted by unbroken on (September 9, 2013, 3:36 GMT)

Re: Test team - Compton should never have been dropped, leaving Root at 6 which is his natural position on the international stage. It is so blatantly obvious to us all but this conclusion seems to escape England selectors time and time again. Of course, there is a price to pay for monumental mistakes such as these........

Posted by landl47 on (September 9, 2013, 3:29 GMT)

A poor display by England, starting with the inexplicable decision by Morgan to put Australia in. With a side that was short on bowling the only hope was to get a big score and hope the Aussies made a mess of the chase. Clarke must have thought Christmas had come early when he was asked to bat first.

The only glimmers of light were that the 3 pacemen all touched 90mph and both Finn and Rankin looked to have good rhythm. Stokes is a couple of years yet from being a test-class allrounder but he's got the makings. He just needs experience and some fine-tuning. Buttler at last made a substantial score, even though the game was pretty much lost by the time he came in. Let's hope that leads to better things in future.

And that's about it. Well played, Australia- outbatted and outbowled England today.

Posted by ozhog on (September 9, 2013, 3:15 GMT)

Lots of talk here about England resting players and only fielding a "B" team. The fact is the players took to the field as England, not England a or B. If England had won all the talk would have been about how good they were. The reality is that this shows that the England supporters don't feel their country has much depth. Take the defeat for what it was, Australia totally outplaying England, full stop.

Posted by Buggsy on (September 9, 2013, 3:12 GMT)

@bobmartin, that's exactly the kind of attitude that is ruining cricket. England doesn't care about ODIs, and India's contempt for Tests is even worse. Show some respect.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (September 9, 2013, 2:50 GMT)

@JG2704 on (September 8, 2013, 20:37 GMT), I think that Dernbach has performed better in T20Is than ODIs for a while and it's probably only been the last two T20Is that he's looked really good. The ODI squad had already been picked by then so it was always unlikely that he'd play here. If the rest of this series goes the same way then we may yet see him back but for whom? There's so few T20Is played that there's not much chance for Dernbach to prove himself in that format and force his way back into the ODI team based on that.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (September 9, 2013, 2:45 GMT)

Well played Australia. There's always the chance of wickets tumbling when chasing a big total so I'm not too concerned about the big margin. That said, some of the England batsmen really didn't do themselves any favours, e.g. Carberry and Bopara, and if the bowers can't do better then England may find themselves chasing a few big totals. Probably a mistake for Morgan to choose to bowl in hindsight.

Posted by OneEyedAussie on (September 9, 2013, 2:04 GMT)

Regarding the non-selection of certain England bowlers - it was my impression that Anderson and Swann were under injury clouds? Both looked pretty jaded by the end of the test series. Of course England could have played Broad but I don't think he would have influenced the result significantly enough to produce a win.

Australia are still a very good ODI side. I'm surprised England aren't trying harder to win, but meh.

Posted by H_Z_O on (September 9, 2013, 1:51 GMT)

@JG2704 on (September 8, 2013, 20:37 GMT)

Yeah, I felt a bit for Dernbach actually. A bit like Broad and the "bowl fuller" advice, he seems to have finally learned that variations are only variations if you bowl your stock ball accurately and consistently. His variations are a useful weapon that none of our other bowlers bring, but without a solid stock ball, they're weapons that hurt us more than the opposition. He seemed to have finally turned a corner in the T20s, and then got left out of the one-dayers, even with Bresnan injured and Anderson and Broad rested.

I understand your point about "looking at" players, but the Lions just played a series against Bangladesh A, while we also had the Ireland ODI. Buttler and Root are new to the team, while Bopara's selection for the Champions Trophy, even if it did work, was highly criticised at the time. Weakening the batting further while also missing all four first-choice bowlers was only ever going to lead to one result.

Posted by xtrafalgarx on (September 9, 2013, 1:51 GMT)

@bobmartin, What ever helps you sleep at night. You may be right they prefer the ashes trophy, but Australia never want to lose a game of international cricket full stop. The ashes are probably the pinnacle for an Australian and English player, but every game you play for dour country is just as important, it could be your last. Every win is important.

Posted by android_user on (September 9, 2013, 1:11 GMT)

As a matter of fact imagine the criticism Australia would have got if they had lost against this English side. Every Aussie batsman on this side is toe to toe with every English batsman on their full strength team

Posted by josphe on (September 9, 2013, 1:07 GMT)

England were thoroughly outplayed today, and like to many I think they were a bowler light. I guess if any one has to sit out it would probably be stokes for Jordan. In the batting they got of to a poor start and continued losing wicket in clusters making it difficult to get any momentum in the innings. The difference between the batting teams was that England had 3 half centuries with a highest of 75 where as Australia had a score of 85 and 105. Also only 4 english batsmen got into double figures with one of them being Finn. I do believe that with the right changes for the next game England will come back stronger and hopefully level the series.

Posted by Chris_P on (September 9, 2013, 1:05 GMT)

@JG2704. Let's call the game for what it was. Both sides are fiddling around with options they wish to pursue for the big show that is the WC. You take the positives out of games such as these & move on. I would be shocked if this English side resembled anything like the one that will front up for the WC, same for our side. As for the Aussies, Wade continues to show his lack of competency with the gloves & Fawad is not up to scratch at this level. Bailey is starting to show his worth & others are putting their hand up for serious consideration. I really hope people wouldn't use these games as measuring sticks for test call-ups. I rarely see batsmen leaving balls alone, rarely see batsmen trying to slog 6's over deep set fields & rarely see batting strips like this served up. It is a totally different mind-set.

Posted by josphe on (September 9, 2013, 0:55 GMT)

This is one of the few times that Buttler has gotten to bat a substantial amount of time for England and today he showed his worth, doing what he has done for somerset over the past few years. I think that at times England have used his real poorly and usually expected him to come in and blast from ball one, which is not going to come off too many times. Today showed just how he should be used, give him some time to settle in and then he can blast away at the end. I hope that this is a sign of things to come for Jos and he shows the world and his many doubters just the exceptional talent that he is.

Posted by rust01 on (September 9, 2013, 0:43 GMT)

bobmartin you have a very 'English attitude'. When your team doesn't win something then the contest doesn't matter and its ok to put down the efforts of your opponents. You are a sad little man. Well played Clarke.

Posted by android_user on (September 9, 2013, 0:06 GMT)

Can anyone advise why Morgan can play for both Ireland and England?

Posted by Patchmaster on (September 9, 2013, 0:04 GMT)

Why wasn't Carberry playing ? Bopara has pulled off his now annual trick of just beofre he was going to dropped, he makes a big score against a weak side (Ireland) and it's now business as usual, as he under performs against any decent sides for the next year.....sigh......

Posted by android_user on (September 8, 2013, 23:55 GMT)

@bobmartin not sure what coaching stratedy you refer to suggests setting a team up for a flogging is good for their confidence or future of tye so called test players. you blood players not slaughter them. Eng were beaten by a better team, it happens. how about enjoying the potential of a competitive series rather than make slurs against you players.

Posted by android_user on (September 8, 2013, 23:48 GMT)

attacking intent? yes england was 38 runs on powerplay but they were 3 wickets down. show attacking intent and they maybe 6 wickets down by 10 overs. australia bowled well in this game and englands test side needs to be brought back in.

Posted by Harmony111 on (September 8, 2013, 23:41 GMT)

***Slightly outside the topic here***

Today KP field for 50 overs and after that opened the innings chasing a pretty stiff target. He went on to score a fifty at a reasonably acceptable SR but eventually got out before he could turn it into a big score. Morgan & Butler too played similar knocks for England but in the end the total was a bit too large for them. However, I want to talk about KP cos the role KP played today was quite similar to what the role of Sachin had been in the 90s & through much of 00s.

Some ppl casually causally co-relate Sachin's 50s & 100s with India's defeats and say that Sachin played only for his own records and was a selfish batsman. They will talk of those few instances where Sachin scored a 50 or a 100 but Ind lost. They would not see the overwhelming no of matches where he helped his team win by scoring 50s/100s.

Just imagine if today someone were to say that KP played yet another selfish knock today without thinking about his team's benefit ???

Posted by Baundele on (September 8, 2013, 22:55 GMT)

Cricket these days is played more by the umpires, including their cameras and hotspot, than by players.

Posted by PFEL on (September 8, 2013, 22:51 GMT)

I'm surprised with how often Clarke is using Adam Voges as a bowler. He brought him on early against Scotland and bowled 7 overs I think but I figured it was a one off. But after doing the same thing here maybe this will be a new tactic? Interesting. I really like Fawad but he has no place in Australia's national team in any form, that was a terrible selection. If he had a few good seasons under his belt then maybe.

Posted by JG2704 on (September 8, 2013, 22:26 GMT)

Sorry - so carried away with my rant re Buttler and Carberry (which I hope gets published) that I forgot to say well played Australia. Clarke and in particular Bailey were immense with the bat and the more I see of Mckay , the more impressed I am. I'm not one who is going to bemoan being without Bell and Cook but if Carberry and Wright are going to play I want to see them playing like they do and not like Bell and Cook do. I've long wanted to see these sort of players playing for England but if they're going to play like Bell and Cook then waht's the point? We miss Swann and Jimmy but the way Tredwell went for runs , you have to say Aus may well have done similar with Swann.

Posted by JG2704 on (September 8, 2013, 22:10 GMT)

Have a huge issue with 2 county sides being denied their 2 star English players for the semi finals of the one 1 day English domestic tournament because of poor scheduling. Carberry was not even used in the T20s including at his home ground so I wonder why could England not have had Wright opening in this game to enable them to look at Wright and enable Hants to have him for their YB semi? Now I am livid to find that Jos will definitely not be available for Somerset. I genuinely thought that would be possible as he'd have a full day's rest in between the Somerset game and the 3rd ODI and then only have a short distance to travel. I'd like to know how Hants and Somerset fans see this. Personally I see it as extremely selfish and disrespectful to the sides after both have had to play long qualification group campaigns to get to the semis. Personally - because of this , I'll not be at all upset to see England get a thrashing in the rest of series

Posted by JG2704 on (September 8, 2013, 21:50 GMT)

Re our batting - You can't play out a couple of maidens 1st up when you're chasing 300+ and 38 runs after the powerplay overs when you're chasing such a total is pathetic. You kind of expect it with Bell and Cook but not with KP and Carberry opening. It seems we are becoming a defensive ODI batting side too these days. You can show some attacking intent while still showing bowlers respect - no? There seemed to be no spark at all. Watching the Eng/Aus T20s Lydia Greenway seems to have little power but has so much upstairs and half of her quality was her thought process. Eng had none if it. Even with Buttler - when he was in with Finn - at the end there was one over where he took 2 off the last ball meaning Finn faced the 1st ball of the next over and one over where Finn took 1 off the last ball meaning he kept the strike I know all hope was gone but these are bad habbits to get into

all in all a horrid day at the office for England

Posted by bobmartin on (September 8, 2013, 21:46 GMT)

The England selectors are treating this series as a stepping stone for some of the fringe players...Like many of their supporters they couldn't care less about the result...However you could see the look of relief on the Aussie players faces that they'd finally won a game of cricket. If a victory against a side who rested 7 of their best players gives them satifaction...good luck to them.. In the overall scheme of things who cares if we drop a place or two in the ODI rankings. The real series was won.. and that means much much more than a pointless ODI series for some trinket or other.. Ask the Aussies which trophy they'd prefer to be going home with, the Ashes or the ODI one....No prizes for guessing what the answer would be...

Posted by JG2704 on (September 8, 2013, 21:37 GMT)

Re the England side. I have no issues with the selectors resting test players and I like having a look at guys like Carberry and I've also said to have a look at guys like Hales and Wright. I have 2 issues with the selection - 1 which I'll go into more details about on another thread But re the selection for the side for this game , I said beforehand that we looked a bowler light and I wonder if (on paper) because we have such a deep and powerful batting line up - we think we can chase anything down. Dernbach - who has been a liability in Eng colours keeps getting selected and when it finally looks like he's getting somewhere he's out of consideration.

Posted by alexkrish on (September 8, 2013, 21:02 GMT)

Why do people think the best players are rested and than the current England side is an experimental team? I think the current one-day team is the best possible English team and they should start build it.

Posted by Cpt.Meanster on (September 8, 2013, 20:54 GMT)

@BRUTALANALYST: "England are using this ODI series to have a look at guys for the coming Ashes series..." - I think that's a HUGE mistake. For all its history and tradition, the Ashes can never compare to the World Cup. There is nothing satisfying than to represent your nation and winning the World Cup and coming out on top of the world. The Ashes is still about 2 countries fighting it out over a small piece of urn which nobody else cares about. How can a team like England even compromise on their ODI team baffles me. Since the next World Cup is played down under, England need to really strap their minds on and focus on how they can win the event. Unlike the sub-continent, England are serious competitors in Australia-NZ. The last time the World Cup was held there in 1992, England played in the Final. So they need to forget about an Ashes test series, and get serious with their player selections for EVERY ODI series here on in.

Posted by Yevghenny on (September 8, 2013, 20:41 GMT)

Some serious questions will need to be asked of England selectors if this supposed international bowling attack ends up getting hammered every game. The nerve to charge £60 and then field half a team

Posted by Cpt.Meanster on (September 8, 2013, 20:35 GMT)

If England are serious about 'winning' the next world up, then they better get REAL with their ODI selections. Looking at it from the outside, it seems England are feeling merry with their Ashes wins, and are playing half-baked players in ODI cricket. The performance from England today is a testimonial to their progress or lack of it in ODI cricket. ODI cricket includes cricket GREATEST prize - the World Cup, which is 2 years away. But, time can fly quickly and before they know it, England might struggle to pick from a pool of decent players for the show piece event down under. Which is why, it is absolutely imperative that England play their best players all the time. Upon winning a certain series, they may test some younger players. All this talk of specialists hasn't gotten them anywhere over the years, especially in ICC ODI tournaments. Play your best team, if they happen to be exactly the test match XI, so be it.

Posted by anton1234 on (September 8, 2013, 20:29 GMT)

"For all those criticizing ODI cricket, I would like you to stop and think about the fact, that in T20, luck probably plays the single biggest factor in the game. You have a batsman who goes for the tonk, gets edges everywhere, but they always fall in the gaps verses a player who's middling it, but picks out the one man on the rope. That's the difference between a win and a loss in T20."

I disagree. Jamaica recently won the CPL precisely because Gayle and Andre Russell were middling everything. The 50 over game is a tired version now that we have T20s. Too many 50 over games are one-sided bouts which can make a large chunk of the match unwatchable. T20 has many closer matches, and even the one sided ones are not painful to watch because 20 overs isn't that long. And there is always a chance some belligerent hitting by one or two players could always bring a team back into the match, whether batting first or last.

Posted by anton1234 on (September 8, 2013, 20:19 GMT)

I say give Carberry the entire series. He will come good. People react differently with nerves when they are playing their first few games. Some take it in their stride while others take a bit of time. He is going to be destructive when he settles in.

As for these one sided one dayers played in September when the skies are cloudy, I just can't see how they are good for cricket. They have a very end of season friendly feel to them. ODIs and T20s should be played before the test series and I think the Oval test should the mark the end of the international season. Frankly, I am rather bored of the 50 over game. And good God, do they seriously need to play in those excessively bright clothing where the shirts and trousers are all one colour? Use some common sense.

Posted by   on (September 8, 2013, 20:18 GMT)

@Jono Makim: I agree, with no disrespect to Ben Stokes he definitely isn't a first-change bowler, not by a long stretch. It seems a threadbare attack based on current composition. My point about Carberry, well I'm just unsure whether England are missing a trick with him - he made his name this season in Twenty20 cricket for Hampshire and has generally been a stronger first-class batsman rather than 40/50-over one throughout his long career. Therefore, I think England bizarrely missing him out for the two T20s just after picking him in the squad for those games kind of defeated the object a bit, and has perhaps messed with his mind slightly - what am I doing here? Do I wish I was in the T20s? And so on. Tredwell is a good one-day bowler and performed well in the CT Trophy - but yes he had a bad day today. His own fault or just good batting? I don't really know.

Posted by   on (September 8, 2013, 19:30 GMT)

I find it difficult to see why people are giving Carberry a hard time here, MJ has never been anything but a very good white ball bowler and today he was as good if not better than ever. Tough work for Carbs. What I would do is question the composition of the English team. You guys probably had to chase 30 too many simply because you are expecting all of Tredwell, Bopara and Stokes to get through 10 overs each, for mine that is highly optimistic. I don't really understand why England is putting out such a team against Aus, with all of the mental gains you will have gained over us in the last couple of years... Why not rotate Jimmy, Broad and Swanny? Surely 2-3 games each would not have been too much? Englands batting is really not missing Cook and Bell that much in my opinion, ceratinly not when it means KP is now opening, but the bowling really is way below strength.

Posted by Pyketts on (September 8, 2013, 19:25 GMT)

Who is bothering watching this series (either at the ground or on T.V)? I didn't even realise it was on until I opened up Cricinfo!

Half an England team, the ECB must be laughing at anyone who wastes their time or money on this series.

Perfectly highlights the issue with modern day cricket. If you need to "rest" some key players there are too many games. Please stop watching people and force the cricketing world to realise that we won't be taken advantage of and reduce the number of games but increase the quality.

Posted by 2.14istherunrate on (September 8, 2013, 19:06 GMT)

So austraiia finally won a meaningful game against an expperimentasl side. Clarke and Bailey batted really well, while Tredwell got hammered for once. Morgan did not have a proper bowling attack though-just the absence of a real 3rd seamer made that so. 315 was always too much once 3 wkts were down and the rest is history. This is a largely experimental side to try out new players and rest others, so how the players each shape up is at least as important as the outcome, I suspect. To accommodate a third seamer I would drop Stokes.

Posted by   on (September 8, 2013, 18:54 GMT)

@ chechong0114: I was with you all the way until you said "mighty Australian team". Come on, this was a very good performance from them today, but let's not overhype them now. They beat a bits-and-pieces England team with several of their better players missing. In the Champions Trophy, against full-strength opposition, they failed to win a game.

Posted by vsroc on (September 8, 2013, 18:52 GMT)

Posted by Venkat Sraman It was a well deserved victory for Australia in the first ODI match against England. Michael Clarke played superbly to score a fine century who was given nice support by George Bailey.England's top order failed badly in their batting which enabled Australia to gain upper hand.

Posted by BRUTALANALYST on (September 8, 2013, 18:49 GMT)

Steve Back on (September 8, 2013, 16:45 GMT) " but I fail to see why England have picked Michael Carberry for ODIs rather than the T20s, which is his best format."

I agree that was completely ridiculous he has been the best T20 batsman for couple yrs in FPT20 it obviously crushed him not being selected for either game especially on his home ground and only added more pressure to perform in the ODI's. I think they are having a look to consider taking him on the Ashes tour in 2 months logic being there is going to be faster hard tracks and Carberry is one of the better cutters and players of short ball around.

Posted by BRUTALANALYST on (September 8, 2013, 18:39 GMT)

England are using this ODI series to have a look at guys for the coming Ashes series, this is clear with inclusion of Rankin Jordan Overton and Carbs. I think Joe Root should be rested next game as we know he will be back and let us have a look at Jordan's bowling also not going to throw Carberry out after a game especially v an on fire Mitch Johnson. Have to say Bopara's dismissal was very disappointing especially after that ton and the waste of time referral, Root also getting clean bowled again is definitely a real cause for concern.

Posted by chechong0114 on (September 8, 2013, 18:23 GMT)

Do England really believe that they can will this series with a depleted attack like what they played this game with and beat this mighty Australian team, they better think again.

Posted by Andross on (September 8, 2013, 18:22 GMT)

For all those criticising ODI cricket, I would like you to stop and think about the fact, that in T20, luck probably plays the single biggest factor in the game. You have a batsman who goes for the tonk, gets edges everywhere, but they always fall in the gaps verses a player who's middling it, but picks out the one man on the rope. Thats the difference between a win and a loss in T20. I think that ODIs are a great length, they're long enough that you still have to set up an innings and can play yourself in without having to just swing from the hip. Before a lot of these ridiculous new restrictions came in, there was a better balance with the bowlers in the game too. Bowlers can actually get wickets, rather than relying on the batsman goofing up. T20 is great for exhibition, but I believe that it lacks the tactical side which makes cricket different from baseball, after all it's not much different when all you have to do is stand there and swing. Test Match Cricket and ODIs for ever!

Posted by Captain_Tuk_Tuk on (September 8, 2013, 18:22 GMT)

I must say the way Finch got out was unnecessary shot as they already got 10 from they over but I guess he was playing for team and not for his 50 and Australia had a game plan.

300+ was always going to be a winning total against England as they are playing with same mind set as Pakistan that score 260 and defend it or get opposition out for less than 260 that won't help them 1 bit though Morgan himself is an aggressive player but England lost the match as soon as Peterson fall though some good fight from Butler in the end overall it was an excellent game of modern cricket I am tired of watching my team(Pakistan) playing defensibly and I am afraid England does the same but this was a great show.

Posted by BRUTALANALYST on (September 8, 2013, 18:17 GMT)

England are using this ODI series to have a look at guys for the coming Ashes series, this is clear with inclusion of Jordan and Overton and Carbs. I think Joe Root should be rested next game as we know he will be back and let us have a look at Jordan's bowling also not going to throw Carberry out after a game especially v an on fire Mitch Johnson. Have to say Bopara's dismissal was very disappointing especially after that ton and the watse of time deferral, Root also getting clean bowled again is definitely a real cause for concern.

Posted by   on (September 8, 2013, 18:08 GMT)

I think Eng should bring Alex Hales and Michel Lumb in as the ODI openers so that they can make a flying start and utilize the first power-play efficiently. After that KP, Trott and Eoin Morgan, Root, Butler may come.

Posted by H_Z_O on (September 8, 2013, 18:05 GMT)

@Jadejafan Doesn't help when England demean the contest by resting so many players. Not saying it would have made a difference (I'd have probably rested the bowlers anyway, and that was the department where I think England let themselves down the most) but I'd have picked both Cook and Bell. Cook looked scratchy all series, started finding some fluency at the Oval, and then we rest him. Bell didn't need a hit but I also don't understand why he needed a rest. If Clarke can play, even with his back issues, why can't Bell? Not like either have gone to play County Cricket either, they're just resting. It makes sense with the bowlers, especially with Bresnan's injury, but the batsmen? Nonsense.

It may be a different format, but pummelling England, regardless of the format, will be a huge confidence boost for Australia heading into the return series. After all the hype of the Champions Trophy match-up, why wasn't this afforded as much importance?

Posted by   on (September 8, 2013, 17:55 GMT)

@salazar555: Fair enough comment. Before, I chose Carberry to be in my hypothetical T20 team, as I believe he's been strongest in this format of late, but you're right, he's had a very poor start and just hasn't looked right here, with the bat and in the field. I would still have picked him for the T20s, to see how he went.

But really, a very very very poor and meek performance from England in every respect today.

From Australia's point of view, George Bailey gets a bit of stick for some reason, but I believe he's a very underrated and unheralded stalwart. He's doing very well. Clarke was great, as expected. Wade was shocking as ever. Get Haddin back. He can bat and keep. Clint McKay is a very good one-day bowler. By the way Australian fans, why doesn't Lyon play in one-day cricket for Australia?

Posted by H_Z_O on (September 8, 2013, 17:49 GMT)

@HatsforBats I actually wouldn't be utterly surprised to see him at the Gabba. That first Test will be crucial for the setting the tone of the series and while he can be a liability, he can also be devastating. With Siddle and Harris there's plenty of control and if things get really bad, Watson's more than capable of drying up the runs too.

Bird, Pattinson and Starc all went home with injuries, and even if they recover (and in Starc's case I believe it was mostly precautionary anyway) they may not be sharp and match-fit. With the second and third and fourth and fifth Tests being played as back-to-back matches, it seems sensible to manage those guys carefully and leave a little in reserve. Mitch looks fired up, give him a go, and if it doesn't work, you've still got those guys to fall back on (and a bit more rest will do them some good).

Not to mention it was his home ground growing up.

Posted by   on (September 8, 2013, 17:45 GMT)

Came back from a family gathering to see how this game's going on. I ought not to have bothered. Australia have made us look like a sixth form team today.

Of course, that is because we are not much better than that at the moment. I shall eat some humble pie over Jos Buttler (for now - let's see how often he can bat like this), but I fail to see why England have picked Michael Carberry for ODIs rather than the T20s, which is his best format. He's had a shocker start to his ODI career with the bat and in the field. Ravi Bopara's dismissal was tamer than a teddy bear and was very disappointing.

I predicted that Australia would thrash our bits-and-pieces team in this series, and it sadly looks to be bearing fruit. England are not giving 50-over cricket enough attention. This "resting" policy makes no sense either - why rest Bell, Cook etc but not Pietersen? Trott? Root? There's no consistency or logic.

Well played Australia, but please, play Lyon or Hauritz or someone rather than Fawad.

Posted by Jadejafan on (September 8, 2013, 17:09 GMT)

A very one-sided game between the teams.

Posted by xtrafalgarx on (September 8, 2013, 16:38 GMT)

To all those criticizing Voges that he wasn't able to accelerate the innings enough, he is in fact a pretty good hitter himself though not the best. But you have to remember, when the side is 100/4 he is the most Hussey like player we have to stop the rot, you can't have a bits and pieces players there who gives it a whack for just the one situation when we are doing well. More often than not he will get the job done as opposed to a Maxwell.

Posted by runout49 on (September 8, 2013, 16:24 GMT)

Full marks to Clarke for his innings, but Bailey is very underrated. 1. Because he comes from an unfashionable state like Tasmania and 2.Because he is Australia's T20 Captain and ODI Vice Captain which rankles with a former Victorian and Australian player who wanted to be both, never was. and who now takes every opportunity to criticize him.

Posted by PrasPunter on (September 8, 2013, 15:36 GMT)

Pathetic to send Voges at that time !! For sure, he can't swing his arm around !! Aus could have easily scored 330+ with a better hitter of the ball than Voges !!

@anton1234, for that matter, 50-over games have lost their relevance. Tests and T20s should do. This way, players careers' can be extended as there will be lot of time available without the very many ODIs. But hold on, it doesnt matter as to what the ODIs mean for others , if it means a lot to india, then ODIs are there to stay !! After all, they call all the shots, isn't it ?

Posted by anton1234 on (September 8, 2013, 15:04 GMT)

Is it just me or do other s think these 50 over a side games are way too long. Australia started their innings at 10:15 AM and ended it at 2PM. There is far too much milking of the bowling going on (nurdling, clipping).

I would prefer it if it was changed to 40 overs a side like they play in England and each team must get all their 40 overs in 2 1/2 hrs or 2hrs 40 mins with 20 minutes break in between innings. We could then have the entire match start to finish done in 5 1/2 hours. Reducing it by 10 overs will mean far fewer of overs of nurdling the ball around and will result in more forceful cricket.

Posted by salazar555 on (September 8, 2013, 14:50 GMT)

Another failure from Carberry, He's finding domestic cricket is not quite the same as international cricket, especially as he plays on a batting paradise at Hampshire. Trott following and England are looking down the barrel after 4 overs

Posted by HatsforBats on (September 8, 2013, 14:41 GMT)

This remodeled Johnson looks deadly.High pace, more control, hints of Elysium on the horizon. Dare we? Nay, should we? Surely a must for Perth. Talisker, Lord of Skye, hath spoken.

Posted by   on (September 8, 2013, 14:25 GMT)

Gotta say the more I see of Bailey and Faulkner at this level/format the more impressed I am. Great to see our guys punish Tredwell, I fail to see anything threatening about his bowling and we need to keep piling the pressure onto him.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (September 8, 2013, 14:12 GMT)

With regards to Watson and the DRS, the fact that some people think that watson was out LBW shows just what the DRS is up against. The front-on replay showed that, if any part of the bat hit the pad, it was the very toe. The side-on HotSpot showed a mark on the inside edge about 6-8 inches up the bat, exactly at the height the ball passed. Those two views together prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Watson inside-edged the ball onto his pad and is therefore not out.

Regarding his caught behind, I'm fairly certain that he did edge the ball so I think that the correct decision was made from that point of view. When they showed Snicko (which is obviously not part of DRS) you can see that the contact was between the toe end of the bat and the seam of the ball. It's not a surprise that HotSpot didn't pick it up. I've said before though, where edges are concerned, I believe that there should be an absolute rule where you need both audio and HotSpot evidence to overturn a decision.

Posted by TheBigBoodha on (September 8, 2013, 14:00 GMT)

Yep, Voges simply can't hit boundaries, and this put pressure on the batsmen at the other end. He cost Australia 15-20 runs, and probably three wickets. Absolutely no need for him to be in a team with Clarke and Bailey. Hughes or Warner would be far, far more useful. Basically England now have a chance, whereas if they were chasing 330+ they'd be very long shots indeed.

Incidentally I saw Voges do the same thing in a T-20 game I attended in Melbourne. It was excruciating to watch him hitting singles for the last 5 overs of a T-20 game, and it cost Australia the game.

Posted by anton1234 on (September 8, 2013, 13:58 GMT)

This is where White would have come in really handy. Voges is a good player but he shouldn't be coming in with 7-8 overs to go.

Although 310 to 320 runs Australia will end up with might seem a lot, its not really a huge total. T20 has led to an increase in the general run rate of all others forms of the game. And with a good start from Carberry and a KP special its actually pretty easily attainable. When Clarke and Bailey were at the crease, a score of 350 looked very possible. The Aussies have fallen away.

Posted by EnglishCricket on (September 8, 2013, 13:54 GMT)

It will be a massive nightmare for Australia if England used later for tests Finn, Tremlett and Rankin together. All 3 more than 6 feet 6 and can bowl 90mph.

Posted by HatsforBats on (September 8, 2013, 13:40 GMT)

Bit of a tactical error by Aus I think to send in Voges after the Bailey dismissal. He usually needs a few overs to get going, perhaps with 15 overs to go Voges would have time to build a good innings, but with just 6 overs to go maybe sending in Wade, Faulkner, or Johnson would have been the better option. Well played by Bailey! I'm one of his critics (his technique just bugs me, similar to DHuss, Voges...), but my word he keeps putting up the performances!

Posted by Reverse_Bat on (September 8, 2013, 13:19 GMT)

Lehman should start thinking about playing George Bailey in Test format. He got the experience and and maturity, I am sure he will be a good middle order batsmen.

Posted by TheBigBoodha on (September 8, 2013, 13:18 GMT)

England missing a trick here. Too one-paced in bowling. I'd say medium pace and spin is the way to go here, especially after the shine is off the ball.

Posted by android_user on (September 8, 2013, 11:37 GMT)

Pietersen will make a comeback in odi's with the series

Posted by verbanonfacta on (September 8, 2013, 10:50 GMT)

Steven Finn has all the physical attributes to be very good indeed. I worry that he's missed an obvious point about the mechanics of his bowling action and that this holds him back. He gets into a side on position by means of leaning back and away from the batter, and it involves both arms and head working in the opposite direction to his run up. Meanwhile, he tries to sprint in. It seems inevitable that he cannot complete either the sprint or the strong body position, so it is hard for him to achieve the requisite repetitiveness of a good action. My advice would be to run in slower, so that his body can take hold. He is a strong body action bowler, not a sprinter. In looking to get the best of both, he's literally falling between. Rock back bowlers cannot run in quick: Rodney Hogg didn't, Rackemann didn't, Trueman didn't. You can't. Can you?

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
David HoppsClose
David Hopps David Hopps joined ESPNcricinfo as UK editor early in 2012. For the previous 20 years he was a senior cricket writer for the Guardian and covered England extensively during that time in all Test-playing nations. He also covered four Olympic Games and has written several cricket books, including collections of cricket quotations. He has been an avid amateur cricketer since he was 12, and so knows the pain of repeated failure only too well. The pile of untouched novels he plans to read, but rarely gets around to, is now almost touching the ceiling. He divides his time between the ESPNcricinfo office in Hammersmith and his beloved Yorkshire.
Tour Results
England v Australia at Southampton - Sep 16, 2013
Australia won by 49 runs
England v Australia at Cardiff - Sep 14, 2013
England won by 3 wickets (with 3 balls remaining)
England v Australia at Birmingham - Sep 11, 2013
No result
England v Australia at Manchester - Sep 8, 2013
Australia won by 88 runs
England v Australia at Leeds - Sep 6, 2013
Match abandoned without a ball bowled
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days