England are 'Eaps Good.......

[Exar Kun]

It'll be funny if it comes down to a third final and England win it. We'll have won 5, England 3 and the poms would walk away with the trophy.

[Nigel]

Be even better if England wins on Sunday

[Hz-Lab]

Be even better if England wins on Sunday

England won the other night purely to make the 3rd final a possibility, With how much $$$ Adelaide lost out on last game when england collapsed, Its only fair they return for the 3rd final to make up for the lost revenue... and so they should.. pathetic they was..

[Exar Kun]

Wow, what a come back for England. Looks like they'll have this one - I wonder what the odds were at the start of the CB series for an England win?

[Montey]

I think there has to be something dramatically wrong in the Australian camp.

There is no doubt that England has improved somewhat over this one-day series, but Australia went from complete domination to barely holding it together, to loosing consistently in the space of only about 3 matches. Such a dramatic fall almost requires that something has occurred.

Time will tell, but it is very concerning.

[Exar Kun]

Can only imagine what England would have been like had Pieterson and Vaughn been fit at this stage.

[Righteous]

TBH I think it's good that the aussies have been shown up now. Better before the world cup than during. At least now they know they can be beaten. It will mean that they are on top of their game for the world cup........... hopefully.

[Nigel]

Bah the bloody weather is gonna save Australia for humiliation.

[Exar Kun]

Bah the bloody weather is gonna save Australia for humiliation.

I doubt it. England only have to bowl four more overs. At that point it comes under the ridiculous Duckworth-Lewis calculation. I hope they get to bat out a decent amount of overs but I'd say the run rate has probably already been pushed up to 6.5 or 7. It's a shame the game can't be played out properly. I'd rather see Australia beaten fair and square than because they didn't get some crazy 7 or 8 run per over target that they didn't know about at the start of the innings.

[Nigel]

Yeah but to be honest, losing 4 of 40 didn't really set up much of a batting effort. Even before the rain they were in a bit of trouble.

[Montey]

The commentators (Ch.9 AUS) were commenting on the Duckworth-Lewis systems calculation that said that statistically batsmen were less likely to go out when chasing a smaller number of overs versus chasing more overs I think the calculations missaccount for the increased chance of the batsmen going out due to the constantly going on and off as rain comes through.

Think of both the England and Australian innings, in both cases batsmen lost their wickets shortly after play resumed. So yes, the reduced overs means the batsmen don't have to last as long so they can swing the bat more, but every time they resume play they have to get settled again. I think this game is showing that the calculation system is still critically flawed.

The only outcome of this game is going to be England winning the series, but knowing in reality they were massively assisted by rain and the D.L. system and that no one in the world is going to give them full, 100% credit for the result.

[Righteous]

Good on em Bring on the world cup.

[Exar Kun]

Duckworth-Lewis is fine, in my opinion, if the total is revised before the start of the innings. But to get through 10 overs and then be told you're chasing a much higher RPO and then go through another 10 overs and once again have that figure revised isn't really fair. Australia didn't play well today and England did deserve to win but it was hardly much of match after the interuptions.

[Hz-Lab]

The commentators (Ch.9 AUS) were commenting on the Duckworth-Lewis systems calculation that said that statistically batsmen were less likely to go out when chasing a smaller number of overs versus chasing more overs I think the calculations missaccount for the increased chance of the batsmen going out due to the constantly going on and off as rain comes through.

Think of both the England and Australian innings, in both cases batsmen lost their wickets shortly after play resumed. So yes, the reduced overs means the batsmen don't have to last as long so they can swing the bat more, but every time they resume play they have to get settled again. I think this game is showing that the calculation system is still critically flawed.

The only outcome of this game is going to be England winning the series, but knowing in reality they were massively assisted by rain and the D.L. system and that no one in the world is going to give them full, 100% credit for the result.

I will, England had our measure straight up, Wasn't Hard to see. They would've won anyway.... i'm not gonna make excuses.

Having said that.. our finals team is poo..... the selectors baffle me some times

[Nigel]

The only outcome of this game is going to be England winning the series, but knowing in reality they were massively assisted by rain and the D.L. system and that no one in the world is going to give them full, 100% credit for the result.

As I said, since Australia were 4 for 40 BEFORE the rain, it didn't set up a strong showing did it. England would have won the game on the night anyway without being "assisted" by the weather. Not to meantion that England was also (to a lesser extent) hampered by the weather. 100% goes to England for that win.

[Shaun]

i agree england would have won weather interference or not, well played, shame we lost was gonna go to adelaide oval but nooooo aus had to lose

[Big Kev]

That'll be a white-wash then

[Hz-Lab]

That'll be a white-wash then

or a white-wash-out

[Nigel]

When was the last time Australia lost the One Dayers in Australia ??

[Big Kev]

According to the BBC

It was the first time in 14 years that Australia had lost in the finals of their home one-day series - and the first time England have won this particular tournament since 1986-87

[matticooper]

well done to the Poms for the last few games. Good to see you found something. Now get Pieterson and Vaughan back in and it should be real interesting come the World Cup...

[rant]

I can't for the life of me understand the Australian selectors at the moment. Yep, it seems the batsmen are having a few problems getting out at the drop of a hat. Stop doing those stupid frigging chip shots that keeps getting everyone out. You know it don't work... so why do it? Get in there... establish yourself (despite the conditions) and score runs. Not fucking hard you know.

Now for my main gripe. Why the fuck are Stuart Clark and Mitchell Johnson playing state cricket. In the 1-day series alone, Clark is the 2nd highest wicket taker after McGrath. Sure, his bowling style follows the great pidgeon, but if he's getting wickets (and a recent haul of 8-58 against WA or something) then you'd think he'd be better off playing for Australia. But no.. we'll wheel out Brett fucking Lee, who in his last game went for 71... I'm glad he only went for 41 and 53 these times... it might bring down his economy just a little.

And don't start me on Watson... get some match fitness first FFS

I always thought that it was a good idea to put your best team forward....

[/rant]

[Peptis]

There's definitely a lot of personal bias in team selection. Personally, I don't know what Hayden is doing in the one-day team. He doesn't even look to hit singles anymore. He's just waiting for the bad balls to hit to the boundary, test-match style. I think you really need someone who is going to rotate the strike in the one-dayers.

[Vilante]

Why in the world wasn't Clark in the team? We had no strike power. And the batting?

OMG what a horrible performance.

Hopefully it gets their head into gear for the world cup.

Well done to England, they definately stepped up.

[Nigel]

I thought Clark was in the team. Didn't he go out for a duck ?

[Jamo]

Michael Clarke. Bingle boofing Batsman.
Stuart Clark. Solid Fast Medium Bowler.