Context

This morning's thriller means that England have won three one-day internationals in a row, only the second time that has happened against proper opposition (ie, not Zimbabwe, Bangladesh or worse) since Adam Hollioake captained England to the Champions Trophy win in Sharjah in 1998. The other time was in 2003 when they beat Pakistan twice and South Africa once (although they lost to Zimbabwe in the middle of that run).

Last time they won three matches against anyone was in 2005, twice vs Bangladesh and once vs Australia, 39 matches ago.

Comments

[Mathew Gullick]

Everyone is eagerly anticipating England's second victory tomorrow... even if they are 3-1 against in a two horse race!

20 years ago, of course, in the 1986-87 World Series, England beat Australia 2-0 in the finals. Will history repeat itself?

That series was between three excellent batting sides - Australia with the likes of Geoff Marsh, Alan Border, Dean Jones and Steve Waugh; England's top order was Broad, Botham, Athey, Gower, Lamb, Gatting; and the West Indies could boast batsmen of the calibre of Richards, Greenidge, Haynes and Richardson.

What is surprising therefore is that in that series, where 14 matches were played, the overall rate at which runs were scored was precisely 4.0 per over (5396 runs scored off 1348.4 overs) - i.e. an average score, in a 50 over game, of just 200. The highest score of the series was just 261, and in fewer than half the matches did the team batting first exceed 200.

In the current Commonwealth Bank series, where 13 matches have been played, the average scoring rate is 5.2 per over (5706 runs from 1104.5 overs), the highest score batting first is 343, and at least 200 has been posted by the team batting first in 10 of the 13 games.

20 years ago, the average score in a 50 over match in the World Series was 200, yet today it is 260. Are Gilchrist, Ponting, Oram, Flintoff, Collingwood and their ilk really better batsmen than Botham, Richards, Jones, Gower and Greenidge?

Has bowling got that much easier to play in the last 20 years, or is it that the rules (especially fielding restrictions) have been tilted in favour of the batsmen? And is it really better to have a high scoring game where one side bats the other out of it by scoring well over 300 rather than a 200 runs-per-side last over thriller of the sort that England and Australia played out in the last World Cup?