Cricket: Australia lose by an Innings - in an ODI
Highlights courtesy of the ECB here:
So this was a thing. It was a spectacle for sure. The Australian Captain, Tim Paine, won the toss and decided to bowl. That was the one thing he won yesterday.
Bairstow, Roy and Hales along with Eoin Morgan (who during the game became England's highest run-scorer in ODIs, overtaking Ian Bell) simply demolished the Australian bowling attack.
Beating, correction, demolishing, the previous record (also held by England - achieved at Trent Bridge, which is probably no coincidence) of 444-3 against Pakistan in 2016, England posted a massive total of 481-6. Captain Morgan scored the fasted half-century in an England shirt. That in itself is not the whole story. It seemed entirely conceivable around the 30 over mark that a score of 500+ was on the cards. Yes, read that again. 500 runs in an ODI. As it was... 481 were scored after Australia won the last four overs of the England innings and a clatter of wickets slowed progress.
481 runs. Think about that for a moment. It's not often that kind of score is posted in the first innings of a test match. Very often 481 runs is a reasonable total for both innings of a test match. England scored that in an afternoon of an ODI.
- I'll just leave that there for you to contemplate for a moment.
Unsurprisingly, Australia were not up for the chase, but credit to them. They continued to stay in the game - they did not slump, let heads go down, shoulders droop, give up on the fielding etc all game. They fought back with guts and bravery but they were not just resoundingly beaten, they were, ultimately, thrashed.
This was a match of records.
481 runs is the highest total posted in an ODI in men's cricket. (I believe the Kiwi women have posted higher)
Australia posted 239 in response losing by 242 runs. Australia score fewer runs than the margin of defeat.
Records galore. England's highest margin of victory, Australia's greatest defeat, highest score, etc etc.
But all of this begs one question: Was it good cricket?
There were boundaries galore, over 60 in England's innings alone. But the ball did nothing. The bowlers, in the first 46 overs at least, were there simply to deliver the ball to be hit, and so it was. Commentators of all stripes noted that the ball failed to move through the air, it failed to seam off the pitch and spin was only achievable by politicians and washing machines.
Was it good cricket? Does it benefit the game? For the batsmen who scored so many records, it was an astounding achievement. But for the overall well-being of the game there is significant concern. Whilst a plethora of boundaries is pleasing on occasion, there's a compelling argument that they should remain special and continue to be significant and while a couple of fours or a four and a six is posted most overs, that devalues the currency of the boundary rope. Most spectators also want to see a contest between bat and ball, batsman vs bowler, with an equal chance of the bowler's victory.
If this match is turned on its head for a moment and the balance shifted the other way, it does not take a leap of faith to imagine a team being skittled for 60 runs at the very same venue. Stuart Broad's 8 for 15 was great spectacle precisely because it was not the norm. It was a freak and remains some of the most astounding figures to be seen in modern cricket but it would be little fun for the spectator to watch that every game.
Balance should be the watchword here. Bowlers should always feel they are in with a chance. Pitches should never favour one over the other in an ideal world. Why would a young kid, keen to get into cricket, ever want to pick up a ball knowing he will become fodder for the kid with the plank of wood in his hand?
Continuing to see games like this risks sapping skill and enjoyment from the game and will do long term damage to it. Megalithic scores don't need to make games exciting. Anyone remember Australia vs South Africa in 1999? Hardly a thrashing but a thriller almost every ball.
Let's try and keep this game in some kind of perspective.
As a one off, yes, I do think it was an entertaining game of cricket especially as an Englishman - take every we chance we can to destroy the Australian's because you never know when the next opportunity will arise. However, you wouldn't want to see that every game as it's the competition in any sport that actually makes it interesting.
What I would say is that the English spinners did turn the ball in the 2nd innings of the match. Had the Australian's had a slow bowler who could have done the same then maybe they would gotten themselves back in the game and restricted England to a more manageable total
I'd definitely agree with you there on both counts.
As an occasional spectacle, sure, but the game seems to be becoming increasingly lop-sided and I think some effort needs to be made to restore some parity between bat and ball. Another perfect example of this is the Womens Tri-Series taking place in England currently. First the NZ Women beat the world T20 high score and then the very same day England's women did it again, scoring 250 in a Twenty Over game, a run rate of over 2 runs per ball.
I've no problem wiht England drubbing the Aussies at all, in fact I rather enjoy it but I do want to see a contest. I should also point out that the Aussies must take a lot of credit because they didn't give up during the game. They kept trying to the last and that's to their credit. They didn't lose the game they were resoundingly beaten.