ODI cricket and general cricketing discussion [self - mod]

[Haunebu]

Why does everyone think that Australia can't win without Steve Smith? In ODI matches Australia performed well without Smith when he was banned from cricket for 12 months. Yes I do think he makes a big difference in test match cricket but in ODI and T20 Australia have performed well without him playing. I think people need to stop saying that Australia can't win without Smith in the shorter format of the game as they can.

Because of his consistency across all formats just like Kohli which is uncommon to be honest. A very small percentage of people expected Australia to win this one after losing so many wickets simultaneously, but they somehow bounced back.

This game is clearly an exception. England messed up big time here. Australia can win games without Smith, but the winning percentile increases drastically when he is a part of the squad.

This was a great series overall. England and Australia performed well and delivered a great dose of entertainment. The finale was full of fireworks. Excited for IPL 2020.

[1714480046]

1714480046

[1714480046]

1714480046

[1714480046]

1714480046

[1714480046]

1714480046

[pakhitheboss]

By the time the match ended, it was 4:15 am here. I was too tired, else I would have posted immediately. Never expected Australia to recover from 73/5. The target was more than 300, and in the previous matches the Australian lower-middle order had failed. The England captain made some crucial mistakes yesterday. He allowed the pressure to be released, by continuing with Rashid and Curran. Had he used Wood/Woakes, then there was a good chance that Australia could have lost another couple of wickets. Archer, as usual was unimpressive.

I felt England deliberately lost the match because they were over confident. It was bad bowling with bad fielding that caused Australia to win this match and the series. This was a match that was given away by the English team.

[BitSat19]

By the time the match ended, it was 4:15 am here. I was too tired, else I would have posted immediately. Never expected Australia to recover from 73/5. The target was more than 300, and in the previous matches the Australian lower-middle order had failed. The England captain made some crucial mistakes yesterday. He allowed the pressure to be released, by continuing with Rashid and Curran. Had he used Wood/Woakes, then there was a good chance that Australia could have lost another couple of wickets. Archer, as usual was unimpressive.

I felt England deliberately lost the match because they were over confident. It was bad bowling with bad fielding that caused Australia to win this match and the series. This was a match that was given away by the English team.

This lost was not deliberately just bad bowling and few bad decisions cost them this match Buttler is also very poor behind wickets as he lost many catches on crucial times this is also going against them but still they fight good and have very entertaining end of this series and summer for them now they are going to rest for very long time.

[Vishnu.Reang]

These 3 matches were the first ones for Australia in the 2020–22 ICC Cricket World Cup Super League. They are still at the second spot, since England has a total of 3 wins compared to 2 for Australia (England played 6 matches, 3 against Australia and another 3 against Ireland). The next matches may be from the series between India and England (but I heard that this series was also postponed).

[Mr.Scott]

By the time the match ended, it was 4:15 am here. I was too tired, else I would have posted immediately. Never expected Australia to recover from 73/5. The target was more than 300, and in the previous matches the Australian lower-middle order had failed. The England captain made some crucial mistakes yesterday. He allowed the pressure to be released, by continuing with Rashid and Curran. Had he used Wood/Woakes, then there was a good chance that Australia could have lost another couple of wickets. Archer, as usual was unimpressive.

I felt England deliberately lost the match because they were over confident. It was bad bowling with bad fielding that caused Australia to win this match and the series. This was a match that was given away by the English team.

Very poor performance from England. Eoin Morgan were failed to maintain his bowling unit in order, deliberately give too many overs Adil Rashid when both batsman( Maxwell and Carey ) playing well against him, great job by these batsman that helped Aussies won the series.

[MFahad]

By the time the match ended, it was 4:15 am here. I was too tired, else I would have posted immediately. Never expected Australia to recover from 73/5. The target was more than 300, and in the previous matches the Australian lower-middle order had failed. The England captain made some crucial mistakes yesterday. He allowed the pressure to be released, by continuing with Rashid and Curran. Had he used Wood/Woakes, then there was a good chance that Australia could have lost another couple of wickets. Archer, as usual was unimpressive.

I felt England deliberately lost the match because they were over confident. It was bad bowling with bad fielding that caused Australia to win this match and the series. This was a match that was given away by the English team.

You can call this bad luck for England that they miss out on this match but you can't call that they deliberately lost the match. Who will want to lose the match and series ?
Anyhow, this English cricket season has come to an end and it was England who resumed the cricket after the covid-19 and now we will see many more cricket matches through the world.

[vella85]

Why does everyone think that Australia can't win without Steve Smith? In ODI matches Australia performed well without Smith when he was banned from cricket for 12 months. Yes I do think he makes a big difference in test match cricket but in ODI and T20 Australia have performed well without him playing. I think people need to stop saying that Australia can't win without Smith in the shorter format of the game as they can.

Because of his consistency across all formats just like Kohli which is uncommon to be honest. A very small percentage of people expected Australia to win this one after losing so many wickets simultaneously, but they somehow bounced back.

This game is clearly an exception. England messed up big time here. Australia can win games without Smith, but the winning percentile increases drastically when he is a part of the squad.

This was a great series overall. England and Australia performed well and delivered a great dose of entertainment. The finale was full of fireworks. Excited for IPL 2020.

Yes I understand this but some said just because Smith wasn't playing that Australia would lose and that is not the case in the shorter form of the game as Australia have won many times in ODI and T20 without Smith in the team. When it comes to test matches, that's another story as I do think that Australia need Smith in the team as he is that solid rock in test matches.

[bryant.coleman]

Yes I understand this but some said just because Smith wasn't playing that Australia would lose and that is not the case in the shorter form of the game as Australia have won many times in ODI and T20 without Smith in the team. When it comes to test matches, that's another story as I do think that Australia need Smith in the team as he is that solid rock in test matches.

I don't agree. Even in ODI format, the absence of Steve Smith can be a major handicap for Australia. He is their most consistent batsman, by some distance. Marnus Labuschagne can be considered as the second best, but even he is not as good as Smith. None of the remaining batsmen are consistent enough, including Warner, Finch, Maxwell and Stoinis.

[pakhitheboss]

By the time the match ended, it was 4:15 am here. I was too tired, else I would have posted immediately. Never expected Australia to recover from 73/5. The target was more than 300, and in the previous matches the Australian lower-middle order had failed. The England captain made some crucial mistakes yesterday. He allowed the pressure to be released, by continuing with Rashid and Curran. Had he used Wood/Woakes, then there was a good chance that Australia could have lost another couple of wickets. Archer, as usual was unimpressive.

I felt England deliberately lost the match because they were over confident. It was bad bowling with bad fielding that caused Australia to win this match and the series. This was a match that was given away by the English team.

You can call this bad luck for England that they miss out on this match but you can't call that they deliberately lost the match. Who will want to lose the match and series ?
Anyhow, this English cricket season has come to an end and it was England who resumed the cricket after the covid-19 and now we will see many more cricket matches through the world.

I doubt it was Bad luck.

I do not think the Australian team was lucky when they were struggling at 73/5. With 5 wickets down and all the top batsmen out they were still able to win the match that is not considered luck.

Yes cricket has started and from tomorrow for more than a month will be able to watch IPL.

[JohnBitCo]

Yes I understand this but some said just because Smith wasn't playing that Australia would lose and that is not the case in the shorter form of the game as Australia have won many times in ODI and T20 without Smith in the team. When it comes to test matches, that's another story as I do think that Australia need Smith in the team as he is that solid rock in test matches.

I don't agree. Even in ODI format, the absence of Steve Smith can be a major handicap for Australia. He is their most consistent batsman, by some distance. Marnus Labuschagne can be considered as the second best, but even he is not as good as Smith. None of the remaining batsmen are consistent enough, including Warner, Finch, Maxwell and Stoinis.

Do they have to depend upon Steve Smith to win  always ? What is the roles of  other 10 players in the team ?
A team which is dependent on one player can never be successful because that formula of one man show cannot work in cricket. The other batsmen need to develop themselves too so that they could also take their team to the winning stage.

[Juggy777]

Yes I understand this but some said just because Smith wasn't playing that Australia would lose and that is not the case in the shorter form of the game as Australia have won many times in ODI and T20 without Smith in the team. When it comes to test matches, that's another story as I do think that Australia need Smith in the team as he is that solid rock in test matches.

I don't agree. Even in ODI format, the absence of Steve Smith can be a major handicap for Australia. He is their most consistent batsman, by some distance. Marnus Labuschagne can be considered as the second best, but even he is not as good as Smith. None of the remaining batsmen are consistent enough, including Warner, Finch, Maxwell and Stoinis.

Do they have to depend upon Steve Smith to win  always ? What is the roles of  other 10 players in the team ?
A team which is dependent on one player can never be successful because that formula of one man show cannot work in cricket. The other batsmen need to develop themselves too so that they could also take their team to the winning stage.

@JohnBitCo in a way you’re right that all the player’s need to perform for Australia’s victory, but what makes Smith special is that he’s always stepping up even when other's are under performing. Further he inspires lots of confidence in other player’s, and everyone also knows that he can be counted to score those important runs in pressure situations, hence he’s given so much importance while playing for Australia.

Source

https://www.asianage.com/sports/cricket/290819/the-importance-of-steve-smith-for-australia.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2019/08/21/australia-without-steve-smith-question-batsmen-must-now-answer/

[FIFA worldcup]

Yes I understand this but some said just because Smith wasn't playing that Australia would lose and that is not the case in the shorter form of the game as Australia have won many times in ODI and T20 without Smith in the team. When it comes to test matches, that's another story as I do think that Australia need Smith in the team as he is that solid rock in test matches.

I don't agree. Even in ODI format, the absence of Steve Smith can be a major handicap for Australia. He is their most consistent batsman, by some distance. Marnus Labuschagne can be considered as the second best, but even he is not as good as Smith. None of the remaining batsmen are consistent enough, including Warner, Finch, Maxwell and Stoinis.

Do they have to depend upon Steve Smith to win  always ? What is the roles of  other 10 players in the team ?
A team which is dependent on one player can never be successful because that formula of one man show cannot work in cricket. The other batsmen need to develop themselves too so that they could also take their team to the winning stage.

Sometimes even the presence of a top quality player like Steve Smith can make a difference and it can put the other team at the back foot. It also gives confidence to the team and other players when your inform batsmen in included in plying XI. If Steve Smith had played the last match, the results might have been different.

[eaLiTy]

I felt England deliberately lost the match because they were over confident. It was bad bowling with bad fielding that caused Australia to win this match and the series. This was a match that was given away by the English team.

England was confident coming into this match and the way in which they were able to score 300 plus runs from a situation they were struggling to reach anywhere near that score and the fact that Australia failed to chase scores from a strong position, once in the T20 and then in their second match and the way in which they were able to pick up wickets, any captain would be confident but two players changed the match by taking the match deep and that was the difference in winning the series and the match.

[bryant.coleman]

Do they have to depend upon Steve Smith to win  always ? What is the roles of  other 10 players in the team ?
A team which is dependent on one player can never be successful because that formula of one man show cannot work in cricket. The other batsmen need to develop themselves too so that they could also take their team to the winning stage.

Australia is not an exception. Remember India of 1990s? Back then they were too dependent on Sachin Tendulkar. When he was not playing for India, there was a very high chance of India losing the match. Even the current Indian team is not very different. In overseas conditions, they still depend a lot on Virat Kohli. But this is not a very viable system, and can't continue forever.

[JohnBitCo]

Do they have to depend upon Steve Smith to win  always ? What is the roles of  other 10 players in the team ?
A team which is dependent on one player can never be successful because that formula of one man show cannot work in cricket. The other batsmen need to develop themselves too so that they could also take their team to the winning stage.

Australia is not an exception. Remember India of 1990s? Back then they were too dependent on Sachin Tendulkar. When he was not playing for India, there was a very high chance of India losing the match. Even the current Indian team is not very different. In overseas conditions, they still depend a lot on Virat Kohli. But this is not a very viable system, and can't continue forever.

I don't think Indian current team depends on Virat Kohli as much as Australians depends on Steve Smith to win matches for Australia. The moment your team becomes a one man show, the decline start. I think same s happening with Australia at the moment. If they want to regain their status, they have to stop depending on  Steve Smith performance.

[pakhitheboss]

Do they have to depend upon Steve Smith to win  always ? What is the roles of  other 10 players in the team ?
A team which is dependent on one player can never be successful because that formula of one man show cannot work in cricket. The other batsmen need to develop themselves too so that they could also take their team to the winning stage.

Australia is not an exception. Remember India of 1990s? Back then they were too dependent on Sachin Tendulkar. When he was not playing for India, there was a very high chance of India losing the match. Even the current Indian team is not very different. In overseas conditions, they still depend a lot on Virat Kohli. But this is not a very viable system, and can't continue forever.

I do not believe the currencnt Indian team depends on Virat. If you can check the lineup they do have good players link Rohit Sharma, K L Rahul, Shikhar Dhawan and others to bat for. This team is evenly poised but it is not the same for Australia.

[Vishnu.Reang]

I do not believe the currencnt Indian team depends on Virat. If you can check the lineup they do have good players link Rohit Sharma, K L Rahul, Shikhar Dhawan and others to bat for. This team is evenly poised but it is not the same for Australia.

Outside India, especially when they are touring England, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa.etc, they are still overdependent on him. The players whom you have mentioned are world class, especially Rohit Sharma and Shikhar Dhawan. But they are not very consistent in green and bouncy surfaces. Only Virat has been preforming on a consistent basis, on bouncy and green pitches. 

[JSRAW]

I do not believe the currencnt Indian team depends on Virat. If you can check the lineup they do have good players link Rohit Sharma, K L Rahul, Shikhar Dhawan and others to bat for. This team is evenly poised but it is not the same for Australia.

Outside India, especially when they are touring England, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa.etc, they are still overdependent on him. The players whom you have mentioned are world class, especially Rohit Sharma and Shikhar Dhawan. But they are not very consistent in green and bouncy surfaces. Only Virat has been preforming on a consistent basis, on bouncy and green pitches.  

In test format, yup he helps tremendously but don't forget Rahane's match winning inning in South Africa and 3 tons of pujara in 4 games when India retained the border-gavaskar trophy by winning the series 2-1.

In shorter format especially t-20 India has fair amount of young batting talent. Kohli even used to take breaks during t-20 series so not much dependence on Kohli here.

If you are talking about ODI then again look at the performance of last 5 years. Majority of wins came because of Sikhar-Rohit-Virat, not just Kohli ( home + away)

PS: don't believe me.. check last 2 Championship trophy and World Cup numbers.

[bryant.coleman]

In test format, yup he helps tremendously but don't forget Rahane's match winning inning in South Africa and 3 tons of pujara in 4 games when India retained the border-gavaskar trophy by winning the series 2-1.

In shorter format especially t-20 India has fair amount of young batting talent. Kohli even used to take breaks during t-20 series so not much dependence on Kohli here.

If you are talking about ODI then again look at the performance of last 5 years. Majority of wins came because of Sikhar-Rohit-Virat, not just Kohli ( home + away)

Kohli's impact in ODI and T20 is much smaller than that in test matches. While playing in bowler friendly pitches (such as the WACA or the Kingsmead), you need quality defense skills. Unfortunately, very few of the younger players have such skills, since they spend so much time in the shorter formats. 1-2 decades ago, India had a number of batsmen who were good in this department. The prime example is that of Rahul Dravid. He had the perfect defense skills. However, others such as VVS Laxman and Sachin Tendulkar were also quite skilled in this department.

[JSRAW]

In test format, yup he helps tremendously but don't forget Rahane's match winning inning in South Africa and 3 tons of pujara in 4 games when India retained the border-gavaskar trophy by winning the series 2-1.

In shorter format especially t-20 India has fair amount of young batting talent. Kohli even used to take breaks during t-20 series so not much dependence on Kohli here.

If you are talking about ODI then again look at the performance of last 5 years. Majority of wins came because of Sikhar-Rohit-Virat, not just Kohli ( home + away)

Kohli's impact in ODI and T20 is much smaller than that in test matches. While playing in bowler friendly pitches (such as the WACA or the Kingsmead), you need quality defense skills. Unfortunately, very few of the younger players have such skills, since they spend so much time in the shorter formats. 1-2 decades ago, India had a number of batsmen who were good in this department. The prime example is that of Rahul Dravid. He had the perfect defense skills. However, others such as VVS Laxman and Sachin Tendulkar were also quite skilled in this department.

My response was directed to vishnu's comment, he was implying or exaggerating that Team India depends on Kohli in the limited over cricket.

On test cricket they do depends on him, Everybody knows what happened in last English tour. But there are some other players already exist in the current test team who rise on the occasion time to time, already mentioned 2 examples (Rahane, Pujara) and to add one more name here, Mayank Aggarwal -- no one should forget his inning on Boxing day test match.