England v Australia, 4th NatWest ODI, Cardiff September 14, 2013

England feel vindicated in victory

  shares 28

England's new-look one-day side, without five first-choice players, has come in for some harsh dissection in recent weeks. Does it devalue the game? Is the balance right? Are the selections consistent, or verging on stubborn? After victory in Cardiff to level the series, albeit just a single win in the bigger picture, Eoin Morgan was fully justified in his satisfaction at not just the win but the way it came about.

The insistence on a deep batting order enabled England to overcome the shock of a third-over hat-trick and another middle-order wobble to win by three wickets, through a crucial stand by their Nos. 7 and 8 batsmen. Another specialist bowler could well have enabled them to keep Australia to fewer than 227, but the chase will allow Morgan and Ashley Giles, England's coach, to feel some vindication.

"It's hugely satisfying, obviously, our backs were against the wall," Morgan said. "The guys can take a lot of confidence from this game, particularly the young guys coming through."

While the performances of Stokes (with bat and ball), Boyd Rankin and Michael Carberry will help their fledgling England careers, it was no surprise to see Jos Buttler as the central figure in the closing overs. His reputation precedes him on the county circuit when it comes to such skilful finishes and now he is bringing that into the international arena, having been given a run as England's limited-overs wicketkeeper by Giles.

"We were always confident, as long as we were there at the end and took the game deep," Buttler said. "The run rate wasn't too out of hand, and I knew if I was there at the end we wouldn't be very far away. I've played enough cricket now to know when it's getting out of hand. It's just 'pick your bowlers, pick your moments' and hope it comes off in your favour."

Buttler and Stokes, like every young England player these days, have come through the Lions set-up and this stand was another example of the value of that system, as they were familiar with each other - although Buttler acknowledged it wasn't perfect.

"We could have improved on our calling," he said. "We had a few near run-outs. But I think we were quite calm. I've played quite a bit of cricket with Ben, growing up."

Buttler, however, did have his heart in his mouth when he called for a review having been given lbw to Shane Watson on 8. He was not convinced the system would save him, but after chatting to Ravi Bopara decided it was worth a chance, with the match so finely balanced. "I wasn't sure ... It was obviously a big moment, and luckily the review system saved me."

The DRS worked in England's favour a short while later, too, when Stokes gloved a hook shot but was given not out. Australia had wasted their review on a speculative caught-behind appeal against Morgan.

Michael Clarke just shrugged his shoulders - it is not the first time DRS has featured on this tour - and it was clear to him where Australia had fallen short. "We lost five for 18 at the end of our innings, so we needed to make some more runs," he said. "When you only make that many runs, you know you have to bowl the opposition out. We knew we had to take 10 wickets to win the game, and unfortunately we didn't do that."

Andrew McGlashan is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • JG2704 on September 16, 2013, 10:41 GMT

    @Anand Vanchion (September 16, 2013, 5:22 GMT) The English team aren't gloating about anything but how was it a hyper lucky win and what decisions are you on about? Clarke was given out and Eng were maybe fortunate that the onfield umpire gave it but it was shown to be clipping the stumps so how is a decision where a ball is clipping the stumps a bad decision. If you are bowled by a ball which clips the stumps you are still out. Re the Buttler reversal - the ball was shown to be missing the stumps so again the correct decision had been reached - so where are the issues here?

    @R_U_4_REAL_NICK on (September 16, 2013, 8:32 GMT) To be fair , you're one of the few who isn't afraid to go against the grain and criticise a player even if you feel it'll be frowned upon by others

  • trav29 on September 16, 2013, 9:08 GMT

    @Guernica buttler top scored and arguably England's best batsman on last winter's lions tour. not saying he was playing against quality spin as you describe it , but he showed that in very favourable conditions for spin bowling, and teams who rely heavily on spin, that he can still score runs.

  • Guernica on September 16, 2013, 8:58 GMT

    Very pleased for JB. Loved the way he took it upon himself to get the job done. We don't have many players like that. However, still worried about his technique against quality spinners on slow wickets. This may not be a concern for the next world cup as that's in Australia, but it's something he needs to sort if he is going to be a fixture in the side (same with Jonny Bairstow and Ben Stokes - I'm sure there are more).

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on September 16, 2013, 8:32 GMT

    @JG2704: I've been posting all series I can't stand KP opening. Give me Bell and Cook any day! I'm not too bothered about Carberry being given a chance, but KP at 3 if the openers set a platform, or at 4 if they don't would be the sensible thing to do. You can't teach a lion to eat vegetables; similarly KP is not the best at grafting in short formats.

  • JG2704 on September 16, 2013, 7:58 GMT

    @jmcilhinney on (September 16, 2013, 2:46 GMT) Re 8-3 - fair enough but they were similar when opening in the other 2 and Wright was the same when he came in at 3 vs Ireland. I , like many others was really looking forward to some positive intent from opening with KP and Carbs but it's not happening. Bell and Cook have often been criticised on here for the platform building mindset they've shown but I've not seen any criticism for the current pair for doing exactly the same , only with less success. At least with Bell/Cook opening you expect that type of start

  • on September 16, 2013, 5:22 GMT

    Again mindless gloating over a hyper lucky win. Typical of England team and English cricket media. A very crucial toss to win and also getting key umpiring decisions in their favour. With everything going their way, they had to huff and puff like a middle aged guy climbing everest. No wonder they never do anything worthwhile in the world stage when it comes to One day games

  • jmcilhinney on September 16, 2013, 2:46 GMT

    @JG2704 on (September 15, 2013, 19:52 GMT), I agree that opening with KP and Carberry and then having them play like Cook and Bell is silly. As you said yourself, if that's the way they want to start the innings then Cook and Bell will likely do it better anyway. If they're going to open with naturally aggressive batsmen then they should play their naturally aggressive game. That said, I don't think playing too aggressively at 8-3 is a good idea either. Like I said, neither Morgan nor Carberry seemed to be stroking it all that well anyway, so they did fairly well to stay as long as they did and I give them credit for battling to dig England out of a BIG hole. I definitely credit Buttler most of all for the win and he's a deserving MoM but he wouldn't even have had the chance if not for the other two.

  • JG2704 on September 15, 2013, 19:52 GMT

    @jmcilhinney on (September 15, 2013, 14:54 GMT) I see why they should get credit for steadying the ship but to me they both lose something by not staying in to bring the RR (Which was still rising down) before they got out. I still think we're missing a trick by not being more positive up front when we are playing a longer batting line up. If we're not going to use that depth to be more aggressive then we may as well have the extra bowler. There's no point in just experimenting with the selection and formation if you're just going to play the same old defensive game

  • jmcilhinney on September 15, 2013, 14:54 GMT

    @JG2704 on (September 15, 2013, 14:29 GMT), I think that you're being a little bit hard on Morgan and Carberry. At 8-3, they had no choice but to play carefully so the RR was always going to rise. Without their partnership, England wouldn;t have got close and Buttler would likely have played another good innings on a losing side. That said, neither Morgan nor Carberry looked especially fluent for most of their innings so, while it was good to see them tough it out, they didn't inspire a great deal of confidence in me at least. Of course, as was said about Bell during the Ashes, runs don't have to be pretty; they just have to be runs. I do agree that it was really crucial for Carberry to stick around once Morgan went though, and his dismissal wasn't pretty. Leaving two new, inexperienced batsman with that task was far from ideal. They were up to the task for the most part though and, if this series is about learning what these players can do, this game was a success.

  • JG2704 on September 15, 2013, 14:29 GMT

    For me , this vindicates nothing and I'm not going to give Carberry and Morgan the credit that others have given them. Harsh maybe , but while they steadied the ship , the required RR climbed from less than 4.5 and both got out leaving 2 relatively inexperinced players to get over 100 at just over a run a ball. For me (battingwise) it was a one man show and was won because of that player alone rather than tactics of building platforms etc. At the moment I'd say we should have learnt that

    1 - JB is better than the pigeon holed slogger role Eng seem to have for him and should come in earlier 2 - Ben Stokes has shown enough promise to at least keep him in the shorter formats sides for a while 3 - At present Boyd Rankin looks more reliable than Finn

    For me - drop all the regular test players and build sides/squads for shorter formats where there can be some continuity and you're not resting players for every series

  • JG2704 on September 16, 2013, 10:41 GMT

    @Anand Vanchion (September 16, 2013, 5:22 GMT) The English team aren't gloating about anything but how was it a hyper lucky win and what decisions are you on about? Clarke was given out and Eng were maybe fortunate that the onfield umpire gave it but it was shown to be clipping the stumps so how is a decision where a ball is clipping the stumps a bad decision. If you are bowled by a ball which clips the stumps you are still out. Re the Buttler reversal - the ball was shown to be missing the stumps so again the correct decision had been reached - so where are the issues here?

    @R_U_4_REAL_NICK on (September 16, 2013, 8:32 GMT) To be fair , you're one of the few who isn't afraid to go against the grain and criticise a player even if you feel it'll be frowned upon by others

  • trav29 on September 16, 2013, 9:08 GMT

    @Guernica buttler top scored and arguably England's best batsman on last winter's lions tour. not saying he was playing against quality spin as you describe it , but he showed that in very favourable conditions for spin bowling, and teams who rely heavily on spin, that he can still score runs.

  • Guernica on September 16, 2013, 8:58 GMT

    Very pleased for JB. Loved the way he took it upon himself to get the job done. We don't have many players like that. However, still worried about his technique against quality spinners on slow wickets. This may not be a concern for the next world cup as that's in Australia, but it's something he needs to sort if he is going to be a fixture in the side (same with Jonny Bairstow and Ben Stokes - I'm sure there are more).

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on September 16, 2013, 8:32 GMT

    @JG2704: I've been posting all series I can't stand KP opening. Give me Bell and Cook any day! I'm not too bothered about Carberry being given a chance, but KP at 3 if the openers set a platform, or at 4 if they don't would be the sensible thing to do. You can't teach a lion to eat vegetables; similarly KP is not the best at grafting in short formats.

  • JG2704 on September 16, 2013, 7:58 GMT

    @jmcilhinney on (September 16, 2013, 2:46 GMT) Re 8-3 - fair enough but they were similar when opening in the other 2 and Wright was the same when he came in at 3 vs Ireland. I , like many others was really looking forward to some positive intent from opening with KP and Carbs but it's not happening. Bell and Cook have often been criticised on here for the platform building mindset they've shown but I've not seen any criticism for the current pair for doing exactly the same , only with less success. At least with Bell/Cook opening you expect that type of start

  • on September 16, 2013, 5:22 GMT

    Again mindless gloating over a hyper lucky win. Typical of England team and English cricket media. A very crucial toss to win and also getting key umpiring decisions in their favour. With everything going their way, they had to huff and puff like a middle aged guy climbing everest. No wonder they never do anything worthwhile in the world stage when it comes to One day games

  • jmcilhinney on September 16, 2013, 2:46 GMT

    @JG2704 on (September 15, 2013, 19:52 GMT), I agree that opening with KP and Carberry and then having them play like Cook and Bell is silly. As you said yourself, if that's the way they want to start the innings then Cook and Bell will likely do it better anyway. If they're going to open with naturally aggressive batsmen then they should play their naturally aggressive game. That said, I don't think playing too aggressively at 8-3 is a good idea either. Like I said, neither Morgan nor Carberry seemed to be stroking it all that well anyway, so they did fairly well to stay as long as they did and I give them credit for battling to dig England out of a BIG hole. I definitely credit Buttler most of all for the win and he's a deserving MoM but he wouldn't even have had the chance if not for the other two.

  • JG2704 on September 15, 2013, 19:52 GMT

    @jmcilhinney on (September 15, 2013, 14:54 GMT) I see why they should get credit for steadying the ship but to me they both lose something by not staying in to bring the RR (Which was still rising down) before they got out. I still think we're missing a trick by not being more positive up front when we are playing a longer batting line up. If we're not going to use that depth to be more aggressive then we may as well have the extra bowler. There's no point in just experimenting with the selection and formation if you're just going to play the same old defensive game

  • jmcilhinney on September 15, 2013, 14:54 GMT

    @JG2704 on (September 15, 2013, 14:29 GMT), I think that you're being a little bit hard on Morgan and Carberry. At 8-3, they had no choice but to play carefully so the RR was always going to rise. Without their partnership, England wouldn;t have got close and Buttler would likely have played another good innings on a losing side. That said, neither Morgan nor Carberry looked especially fluent for most of their innings so, while it was good to see them tough it out, they didn't inspire a great deal of confidence in me at least. Of course, as was said about Bell during the Ashes, runs don't have to be pretty; they just have to be runs. I do agree that it was really crucial for Carberry to stick around once Morgan went though, and his dismissal wasn't pretty. Leaving two new, inexperienced batsman with that task was far from ideal. They were up to the task for the most part though and, if this series is about learning what these players can do, this game was a success.

  • JG2704 on September 15, 2013, 14:29 GMT

    For me , this vindicates nothing and I'm not going to give Carberry and Morgan the credit that others have given them. Harsh maybe , but while they steadied the ship , the required RR climbed from less than 4.5 and both got out leaving 2 relatively inexperinced players to get over 100 at just over a run a ball. For me (battingwise) it was a one man show and was won because of that player alone rather than tactics of building platforms etc. At the moment I'd say we should have learnt that

    1 - JB is better than the pigeon holed slogger role Eng seem to have for him and should come in earlier 2 - Ben Stokes has shown enough promise to at least keep him in the shorter formats sides for a while 3 - At present Boyd Rankin looks more reliable than Finn

    For me - drop all the regular test players and build sides/squads for shorter formats where there can be some continuity and you're not resting players for every series

  • voma on September 15, 2013, 14:03 GMT

    I thought it was a very exciting game , either side could of won . You do have to give a lot of credit to England though . Because with this side , i could not really see them winning against quality opposition . That is a compliment to the Aussies , because on paper , they are much stronger .Cook , Bell , Bresnan and Swann back , and this England side looks very good .

  • jamesbin on September 15, 2013, 13:43 GMT

    first of all, Real stunning stuff from Butler.. Australian batsmen themselves are to blame for the lower than par score. They also let down Mckay who got a brilliant hat trick.George Bailey play well. but they should had to play full 50 over. so they had chance to get more 10 or 15 run then they scored. that can be turning point for the Australia side. i think Australia should change their squad for 5th ODI. Glenn maxwell should get back in the first 11. and Nathan Coulter-Nile should give change to bat 6th or 7th position. Like as, Butler did great job for England. totally outstanding..

  • sonicattack on September 15, 2013, 13:41 GMT

    Quite amazing some of the speculation in posted comments. It seems that if England had a fourth seamer Australia could have been held to 160-170, just like that! Of course a top batsman like Bailey would have just thrown up his hands and said 'Oh no, a fourth seamer, we're done for!' Ridiculous, it is just as much the role of the 5 & 6 in the batting order to rescue the innings as push on in the last few overs...Bailey did what was expected of him in that situation just as Carberry and Morgan did for England (Oh, and Australia had a fourth - and fifth - seamer)

  • AKS286 on September 15, 2013, 13:20 GMT

    Well done POMS ! The rain really ruins the ODI series but McKay & Buttler excites all. Again I don't understand why Hales, Taylor & Lumb are not in the squad ? I prefer Tremlett, C.Wright, Roland Jones over Finn. Finn really lost his confidence and Pace. Stokes - The next Bresnan.... hmmm or he is going to replace Woakes ? Clarke don't deserves ODI selection- Kindly don't mention his rare century. Eng- Hales, Lumb/Taylor, Carberry, KP, Morgan, Buttler, Ballance/Wright, Rankin, Tredwell, Tremlett, Roland Jones. Aus- Finch, Watson, Marsh, Smith, Bailey, Voges, Moises, Johnson, Mckay, Cutting, Beer.

  • BRUTALANALYST on September 15, 2013, 13:19 GMT

    Carberry really showed his depth and dug deep loved the grit he and Morgan displayed and then Butler was phenomenal. I said among all the negativity this side is still strong enough to win the series and I believe they will do just that on Monday.

  • Mindmeld on September 15, 2013, 13:15 GMT

    Sorry, but this win only disguises the huge dose of luck involved. England won the toss and got unbelievably favourable conditions, favourable umpiring calls. It meant that they were able to hide the fact that they have only three bowlers and struggled to get on top at any point in the game. Tired of seeing this team rewarded for ordinary cricket, while Australia's positive performances get washed away, quite literally. I keep saying it, but sooner or later the cracks will turn into gaping holes.

  • on September 15, 2013, 12:51 GMT

    A solid victory with some good performances but also food for thought. What would be England's best team at the moment? Trott is in a poor run of form, Bopara looks uncertain against good attacks, Tredwell is looking expensive against aggressive batsmen...Also some questions about who should bat where in the order.

    I think Cook slots back in for Carberry, and Pietersen should keep his place at the top of the order. I'd actually have Bell instead of Trott at 3 and would be tempted to put Morgan at 4 to give him more time to shape the innings. Root at 5 and I'd give Stokes time to develop at 6 instead of Bopara. Buttler at 7 for a little more responsibility and then 5 bowlers:- Anderson, Broad, Swann with two of Bresnan, Finn, Rankin (Rankin on form), swopping in Tredwell for the subcontinent. Thus team of Cook, Pietersen, Bell, Morgan, Root, Stokes, Buttler, Broad, Swann, Rankin, Anderson, with Carberry, Trott, Bopara, Taylor, Bairstow, Bresnan, Tredwell and Finn around the squad.

  • whatawicket on September 15, 2013, 9:26 GMT

    PFEL is not the winning of the toss in most case important. it was at Birmingham the other night, with England 3 down 15 overs gone with a 20 overs game on the cards, but then rain, without rain i would guess Australia would have won easy was that fair. in a 20 overs game when all sides start with their 20 over intact is a fairer way. Sept in England, most cases win the toss and you win the game. with the attack England put out i thought they played ok. with the attack we could have had, the Aussies would not have passed 150.

  • Nutcutlet on September 15, 2013, 6:48 GMT

    THe end does not justify the means. This is still an unbalanced side & three specialist seamers are required. Jordan, a genuine specialist bowling all-rounder who's had a magnificent season, must play in the last ODI. Bopara can be dropped/rested; we know all there is to know about Ravi. We know nothing of Jordan on the international stage. Stokes can then return to bat at #6 - surely where he should have been batting all along. When the conditions are not extremely seamer-friendly, Stokes will be found out, as he was at OT.

  • Insult_2_Injury on September 15, 2013, 4:01 GMT

    One win to level a rain affected home series is vindication of new player selection? Your comment not Eng. With the ludicrously long international summer the Pommy players have had to endure, it makes perfect sense for the bulk of the team to be rested. What the hell can you prove in a ODI against Aus at the end of the season that you couldn't prove at the start in the Champions Trophy? Trouble is every game is given ridiculous earth shattering importance by accredited journalists and vested TV networks that some angle has to be taken. It doesn't seem in this day that we can be just pleased for young guys getting a chance and having a satifying game. Apparently there has to be an angle - like vindication. Not to mention bloody press conferences every five minutes now have captains and coaches believing they have to find something to say. At least Ireland...sorry...England captain Morgan kept it in perspective and saw just the experience value for the next generation.

  • ehsanrockss on September 15, 2013, 3:02 GMT

    brilliant innings first from carberry & then from buttler

  • jmcilhinney on September 15, 2013, 1:20 GMT

    I said at the start of this series that I was confident that England were capable of beating Australia but not necessarily confident that it would happen. I don't think that this England team are as bad as a lot of people are saying but it's obviously not their best. If Morgan had batted first in game 2 as he should have then, even if England had lost there, it likely wouldn't have been as comprehensive a defeat as it was. That said, to be successful, you have to be able to win setting a target and chasing one, and they didn't bowl well enough to restrict the target to a gettable one that day. Here today, the pitch obviously offered quite a bit for the bowlers and both sides made good use of that, which made the innings of Bailey and Buttler all the more impressive. Morgan and Carberry played critical innings too but neither ever looked completely fluent. All up, if these two teams played each other 100 times, I suspect that Australia would win the majority but not by a huge margin.

  • landl47 on September 15, 2013, 0:59 GMT

    I'm not sure that England should feel vindicated. Pleased by the win, of course, and that two young players did so well, but the selection shortcomings shouldn't be ignored. Finn, Rankin and Stokes had dismissed 4 top Aussies for 57 and established firm control of the game. Had a 4th seamer been selected that control could have been maintained and Aus held to 160-170. Instead, after Morgan had taken it as far as he could by bowling only his 3 top seamers for the first 21 overs, Tredwell and Bopara had to be brought on and the Aussies, admirably led by Bailey, got themselves back in the game. England need to have learned from that.

    Still, the 3 seamers, Rankin in particular, bowled very well. Clarke looked all at sea against him (that was one of the scruffiest innings I've seen from Clarke) and he looks as though Aus conditions will suit him. Stokes had a bad first over but then bowled 5 overs for 6 runs before another shaky one when he was brought back. Finn bowled well, too.

  • PFEL on September 15, 2013, 0:38 GMT

    I think it would be dangerous for England to feel too "vindicated" by the result, their selection is still not a good one. They won today, but relied and a very heavy serving of luck to do it. The toss was enormous to win, and England could easily have been 6 or 7 down in the initial powerplay with the way they were playing and the way Australia was bowling. They had more play and misses in the first 20 overs than they did for the entire Test series! I think it's a case of false economy and England NEED another front-line bowler.

  • 2.14istherunrate on September 15, 2013, 0:10 GMT

    I would have thought a large number of fans should feel quite satisfied at this victory being achieved by an experimental side while so many of the main side take a break. This was great for England given the early position of 8-3.Rather than seeing Anderson and Broad being bowled into the ground they could watch the emergence of Rankin as a useful performer and Finn do what he has done in many ODI matches. Stokes was good today-he has the hardest job in the side almost- and then come back and help take us over the line. Morgan has had the chance to prove his worth as a leader and his knock was a good captain's knock. he and Carberry really had a great stand ful of character while Buttler played beautifully. Credit where it is due, because the Aussie attack was quite potent. Nothing to moan about.

  • on September 14, 2013, 22:09 GMT

    Well done our young one day team it was a very good match.It was worth staying up till 3-30 am.

  • on September 14, 2013, 20:39 GMT

    Very important win. And Buttler looks finally to have come good. I think we have found our wc keeper. Yes!

  • whatawicket on September 14, 2013, 20:14 GMT

    if we had what i would call a proper attack today we would and should have had the Aussies all out for under 150. i never minded Giles as a cricketer but i am sorry i would not have given him the job. further more when Flowers finally ends his coaching of England if he is given the job which looks on the cards as that's how England decide the next one in line, it will all end in tears.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • whatawicket on September 14, 2013, 20:14 GMT

    if we had what i would call a proper attack today we would and should have had the Aussies all out for under 150. i never minded Giles as a cricketer but i am sorry i would not have given him the job. further more when Flowers finally ends his coaching of England if he is given the job which looks on the cards as that's how England decide the next one in line, it will all end in tears.

  • on September 14, 2013, 20:39 GMT

    Very important win. And Buttler looks finally to have come good. I think we have found our wc keeper. Yes!

  • on September 14, 2013, 22:09 GMT

    Well done our young one day team it was a very good match.It was worth staying up till 3-30 am.

  • 2.14istherunrate on September 15, 2013, 0:10 GMT

    I would have thought a large number of fans should feel quite satisfied at this victory being achieved by an experimental side while so many of the main side take a break. This was great for England given the early position of 8-3.Rather than seeing Anderson and Broad being bowled into the ground they could watch the emergence of Rankin as a useful performer and Finn do what he has done in many ODI matches. Stokes was good today-he has the hardest job in the side almost- and then come back and help take us over the line. Morgan has had the chance to prove his worth as a leader and his knock was a good captain's knock. he and Carberry really had a great stand ful of character while Buttler played beautifully. Credit where it is due, because the Aussie attack was quite potent. Nothing to moan about.

  • PFEL on September 15, 2013, 0:38 GMT

    I think it would be dangerous for England to feel too "vindicated" by the result, their selection is still not a good one. They won today, but relied and a very heavy serving of luck to do it. The toss was enormous to win, and England could easily have been 6 or 7 down in the initial powerplay with the way they were playing and the way Australia was bowling. They had more play and misses in the first 20 overs than they did for the entire Test series! I think it's a case of false economy and England NEED another front-line bowler.

  • landl47 on September 15, 2013, 0:59 GMT

    I'm not sure that England should feel vindicated. Pleased by the win, of course, and that two young players did so well, but the selection shortcomings shouldn't be ignored. Finn, Rankin and Stokes had dismissed 4 top Aussies for 57 and established firm control of the game. Had a 4th seamer been selected that control could have been maintained and Aus held to 160-170. Instead, after Morgan had taken it as far as he could by bowling only his 3 top seamers for the first 21 overs, Tredwell and Bopara had to be brought on and the Aussies, admirably led by Bailey, got themselves back in the game. England need to have learned from that.

    Still, the 3 seamers, Rankin in particular, bowled very well. Clarke looked all at sea against him (that was one of the scruffiest innings I've seen from Clarke) and he looks as though Aus conditions will suit him. Stokes had a bad first over but then bowled 5 overs for 6 runs before another shaky one when he was brought back. Finn bowled well, too.

  • jmcilhinney on September 15, 2013, 1:20 GMT

    I said at the start of this series that I was confident that England were capable of beating Australia but not necessarily confident that it would happen. I don't think that this England team are as bad as a lot of people are saying but it's obviously not their best. If Morgan had batted first in game 2 as he should have then, even if England had lost there, it likely wouldn't have been as comprehensive a defeat as it was. That said, to be successful, you have to be able to win setting a target and chasing one, and they didn't bowl well enough to restrict the target to a gettable one that day. Here today, the pitch obviously offered quite a bit for the bowlers and both sides made good use of that, which made the innings of Bailey and Buttler all the more impressive. Morgan and Carberry played critical innings too but neither ever looked completely fluent. All up, if these two teams played each other 100 times, I suspect that Australia would win the majority but not by a huge margin.

  • ehsanrockss on September 15, 2013, 3:02 GMT

    brilliant innings first from carberry & then from buttler

  • Insult_2_Injury on September 15, 2013, 4:01 GMT

    One win to level a rain affected home series is vindication of new player selection? Your comment not Eng. With the ludicrously long international summer the Pommy players have had to endure, it makes perfect sense for the bulk of the team to be rested. What the hell can you prove in a ODI against Aus at the end of the season that you couldn't prove at the start in the Champions Trophy? Trouble is every game is given ridiculous earth shattering importance by accredited journalists and vested TV networks that some angle has to be taken. It doesn't seem in this day that we can be just pleased for young guys getting a chance and having a satifying game. Apparently there has to be an angle - like vindication. Not to mention bloody press conferences every five minutes now have captains and coaches believing they have to find something to say. At least Ireland...sorry...England captain Morgan kept it in perspective and saw just the experience value for the next generation.

  • Nutcutlet on September 15, 2013, 6:48 GMT

    THe end does not justify the means. This is still an unbalanced side & three specialist seamers are required. Jordan, a genuine specialist bowling all-rounder who's had a magnificent season, must play in the last ODI. Bopara can be dropped/rested; we know all there is to know about Ravi. We know nothing of Jordan on the international stage. Stokes can then return to bat at #6 - surely where he should have been batting all along. When the conditions are not extremely seamer-friendly, Stokes will be found out, as he was at OT.