England limited overs tour of Oz, Jan 14-28

[bigfluffylemon]

Strong team performance from England - pretty much all the bowlers kept it tight, chipped in with key wickets or both, and nearly all the batsmen contributed (apart from Roy). Made it hard to pick PoTM - the obvious standout individual contributions were Starc's 4-fer and Finch's 100, but they were both on the losing side, and the PoTM is seldom from the losing side unless circumstances are very unusual. Spare a thought for Finch in particular - two hundreds, two losses. I'd have given it to Woakes, but Root was a fair pick. Morgan may not have made so many runs, but his use of his bowlers was inspired.

Nothing shows how far England have come as a white ball side since 2015 than the fact that they're now making the 2015 WC champions look off the pace in their own backyard. What's even more impressive is that the batting line-up hasn't been firing on all cylinders - probably only about 80% or so. If it all clicks, Australia are in big trouble. Obviously Australia can still win the series, and if they get Cummins and Hazlewood back things may be different, but it's an uphill struggle for them from here.

[yuppie]

In fairness this Australian team is pretty far away from that world cup team.

That World cup winning team had Clarke, Watson, Haddin, Johnson who have all retired and had a fit Hazelwood and Faulkner and Maxwell who were pretty good back then.

A Bowling line up in the final of Starc, Hazelwood, Johnson, Watson, Faulkner and Maxwell. Compare that today with Starc, Richardson, Tye, Head, Finch, Stonis, and Marsh. Chalk and cheese.

Batting wise in the final Australia had Clarke at 4, today it was Head. Watson at 5, today Stonis. Keeper was Haddin, today it was a debutant.

England are doing well but this team would not get close to the 2015 Australian team.

How Australia could do with those players now. Just seems Australia is very weak in the middle order batting at present and are resting their main bowlers for SA. Oh and are missing a good keeper batsman

[sussexpob]

England are doing well but this team would not get close to the 2015 Australian team

While the point is debatable, the extent of your over confidence in it is clearly not. I am not sure you can state with any certainty that Australias team in 2015 was better than England currently possess, but to say "would not get close" is to put it at an extreme level. Clearly have an advantage in the bowling department, but id say England have an equal advantage in the explosiveness of their batting.

The openers probably cancel out, but favour England on paper. Bairstow gives up a slight SR advantage to Warner, but average 6-7 runs more. Finch and Roy average the same, but Roys Strike rate is 105, Finch in the high 80s. Smith averages more than Hales, but Hales makes up a 10 SR advantage. Clarke gives up another 10 SR to Root, and a significant average loss of another 6-7 runs. Buttler and Maxwell are both extreme hitters, but Buttler has the better run scoring record. Morgan and Watson historically add up well, with Watson the slightly better record on both regards, yet Watson was a spent force and hadnt been at his best for 3 years ( his record as a batter was not great but decent, his record as a bowler late in his career no longer justifies a tag as all rounder, he had become useless)..... Morgan averaged 46 at near 100SR last year, so I know who id favour at this respective time. Faulker v Stokes is very equal. Moeen vs Haddin is equal in runs scored per innings, but again Haddin gives up 25plus SR to Moeen.

It gets worse as you go down the order. With Stokes in, Wood out, there is a distinct possibility that, as has occurred a lot recently, England either have a number 11 who averages over 20 at a plus 100SR coming in, and whats more to boot, its either been a player with nearly 50 first class half-centuries and a sizeable amount of 100s, or another who who has a mere 25 odd with 3 hundreds. Hazlewood has a best score of 11, Rashid and Plunkett both have ODI 50s scored pretty recently (and I believe they were both against the last time round world cup finalists, so no minnow smashing either).

Its arguable if there has ever been a team with such firepower all the way down to 11 in ODIs. And that means that even if you take wickets regularly, this team has the capacity to still score very big. And if you dont take wickets, then the last 20 overs is going to get very messy for you, because you are going to get slaughtered.

Id always back the team with the batting depth and firepower to come through in ODIs, so Id be more inclined to favour England.

England are probably one class ODI bowler away from a period of real ODI prosperity. This current team has the potential to become a truly great ODI team.

[meninblue]

I think England has the batting lineup to win the 2019 WC which will be hosted in England. The bowling which is weaker than their batting will be covered up to some extent by the pace friendly wickets and conditions.

Australia had the best teams for World Cups since 2000 as well with wins in 2003, 2007 and 2015. Next best is India with win in 2011.

NZ, SA , ENG are good ODI teams but somehow they do not manage to be consistent like Australia and India to win the WC.

This Australian team is weak in bowling attack. No Josh, no Cummins. Two strike inform bowlers less. The bowling attack for yesterday match was clearly under par imo, atleast on paper. Tye is a world class T20 bowler but he has not at all performed in ODI format. Jhye is surely not as good as Cummins or Josh. Around, Fi check, Travis Head and Marsh had to bowl 20 overs. Almost half of Australian bowling innings is part time class. Surely they will not play such weak bowling attack in WC. Certainly not half overs of part time bowling.

[yuppie]

Its always interesting to have views of how a team would compare to a team from another era.

I guess it comes down to it if this England batting could score enough runs against Starc, Hazelwood, Johnson, Faulkner, Watson and Maxwell and if that Australian batting line up could score enough against Plunkett, Stokes, Woakes, Ali, Rashid and Root.

That Australian bowling line up has SR of 24, 30, 31, 33, 39, 42.
This English bowling line up has SR of 31, 38, 34, 59, 34, 56.

That Australian team had batting depth as well, with Haddin coming it at 8 in the Semi final and Final.

I'm pretty confident of who would win. But that is just my opinion.

[bigfluffylemon]

As you say, it's academic, as we'll never know. I certainly think the current England crop would give the Australian 2015 vintage a run for their money. As opposed to 2015 England, who were a global laughing stock. Australia would have the better bowling (and probably still do if everyone's fit), but the England batting line-up is truly scary.

[yuppie]

England have shown a huge improvement from the 2015 team.

Can they keep it going to finally win the WC next year? Got to think at present they would be massive favorites. But how will they be when the pressure is on. The champions trophy semi final still sticks out for me that when the pressure is on their are questions to be answered.

What it showed was that no matter how good your batting is, occasionally it will fail and you will have to rely on your bowling to get you over the line.

[sussexpob]

In a hypothetical game where everyone plays to their averages in batting, and econ in bowling.

England
Roy ...... 39 in 37 (39 scored in 37 balls down)
Bairstow .... 48 in 50 balls ( total - 87 in 87)
Hales .... 38 in 39 balls ( 125/3 in 126)
Root.... 52 in 59 balls (177/4 in 185)
Morgan ...38 in 42 ( 215/5 in 227)
Buttler .... 37 in 31 ( 252 in 258)
Moeen Ali 29 in 27 (281 in 285)
15 balls left for Woakes which he score 13 off.... 294

Australia
Finch 38 in 42
Warner 44 in 46 (82 in 88)
Smith 43 in 50 (125 in 138)
Clarke 45 in 57 (170 in 188)
Watson 40 in 44 balls (210 in 232)
Maxwell 32 in 26 (242 in 258)
Faulkner 34 in 33 (276 in 291)
Leaves 9 balls for Haddin to score 7.. leaves 283

So 11 runs behind

Bowlers

England average econs.... 5.498 which equates to 275
Australia average econs...5.09 which equates to 255

Australia win by 20 runs saved....

So in theory, Australia are about 9 runs better per innings.

[sussexpob]

I guess you could argue, that Englands batting in a crisis or collapse is far better than Australia. The SR or bowlers matters little because on average, no one bowls out a team everygame, so taking wickets is impacted in the economy rate generally for bowlers.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Captain- Clarke had a strong reputation among the media.

Keeper- probably go for Braddin, though Buttler can pull off the extraordinary.

Fielding- both sides have to hide their donkeys, Hales and Rashid for England and Watson for Australia.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Which is the best anyway? The eighties WI? The Pakistan WC side? The Aussie side of Waugh and Bevan, or the related one of Gilchrist and Hayden?

Few would argue against this being England's best, I think. Although they lose their fair share (especially away) and they are on a credibility spike just now after a couple of impressive chases.

[Gingerfinch]

This is our best side on paper, but still got to do it in a major tournament.

From our 92 world cup final side, only Hick and maybe De-Freitas get in to this one.

[Arthur Crabtree]

There have been better attacks. Flintoff, Gough, Harmison and Giles for instance (plus when fit, Simon Jones, though actually more likely, Alex Wharf, Anderson or even Colly).

[yuppie]

I think England will need better bowlers for the world cup.

[bigfluffylemon]

On the subject of better attacks, the golden trio of Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins will be back for today's game. Should prove a sterner test for England's batting, despite the depth. I think Australia may well bounce back today - despite issues they still have a lot of good players, and any side with strong bowling has the possibility of running through the opposition.

England have definitely been going well lately, but it's still 18 months to the WC. We've been in places before when England have had a decent ODI team (believe it or not, we have been competitive at times in the format since 1992, just not consistently so - briefly ranked number 1 around 2011/12), but Australia have a habit of getting everything to come together and peaking at the right time in major tournaments. So do India. England not so much...