Cricket: NZ vs England
-
Not offering a shot to a yorker that hits leg.
Yep, all those balls getting your eye in worked a treat.
-
Amazing what some 'dibbly dobbly' bowling can do ....
I am amazed the Poms arent 200 ahead without loss on this pitch so bad it has let down this test match occasion.....
-
@Donsteppa said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
Barmy Army have been strangely quiet today.
Thankfully.
I like them, but they were getting very repetitive and annoying late in the day. -
-
@KiwiPie said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@KiwiPie said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@KiwiPie said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@KiwiPie said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@KiwiPie said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
I can see why they're digging in. Flailing and being all out for 440 makes no sense given the slowness of the pitch. If they can occupy the crease then the runs will come - still think this is heading for a draw though and the pitch has let down the grand occasion of Bay Oval's first test
Wow... That's a terrible post. This pitch has made a game of it heading into day 5. That's the main goal of a test pitch.
No that's just one of the goals of a test pitch. Not sure what your point is - the pitch lacks pace and bounce, hence why the chosen method of bowling has been dibblies bowling straight and waiting for a mistake. Which makes for dull cricket. It's not a disastrous pitch but it could be better and I'm fairly sure the groundsman will be told that.
You literally said the pitch has ruined the test....
No if that was the case I would have said "the pitch has ruined the test" - that is what literal means. What you're looking for is "implied" I think.
OK I suppose it has bounce but lacks pace - so the bounce is rather gentle. Santner was fending them off as he appears to have no technique to play the short ball.
What the test has showed is that England appears to be very poor at having a plan to take wickets and sticking to it. They let the test drift on and 2 middle to lower order players bat for a very long time.
Well we are getting somewhere I guess... Now you are just complaining about a supposed lack of pace letting down the test. Which is still nonsense .
So is it the pitch or bowlers fault that the 2 batsmen batted a long time? Personally I think it was good batting and sub-par bowling.
And the pitch has already had good feedback from both camps.
Why are you so defensive about the pitch - it is slow, full stop, nothing supposed about it. It has contributed to some anaemic cricket at times. Similar to a pitch on the sub-continent, although with not so much turn. It was striking how ineffective Leach looked though when there was some turn there for Santner.
Because your over the top criticism of the pitch was stupid, and you have been walking it back ever since . A pitch supposedly being a little slow has not let down the test. All results are on the table. Bowlers have had to work for wickets and batsmen have had to work for runs. Why are you being so negative and churlish about the pitch?
Actually your interpretation of my criticism of the pitch was that it was over the top - I've got nothing to walk back whereas you keep saying the pitch is "supposedly" slow where it is in fact slow as many pundits have stated. But we can keep going if you still want to argue that the pitch isn't slow ....
No I am more interested in your nonsense that the pitch has let down the occasion and reduced the bowlers to bowling dibbly dobblies.
As for pundits... So what? I disagree it is slow, so does the groundsman and at least one of the bowlers. NZC is also very happy with the pitch@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@KiwiPie said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@KiwiPie said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@KiwiPie said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@KiwiPie said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@KiwiPie said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
I can see why they're digging in. Flailing and being all out for 440 makes no sense given the slowness of the pitch. If they can occupy the crease then the runs will come - still think this is heading for a draw though and the pitch has let down the grand occasion of Bay Oval's first test
Wow... That's a terrible post. This pitch has made a game of it heading into day 5. That's the main goal of a test pitch.
No that's just one of the goals of a test pitch. Not sure what your point is - the pitch lacks pace and bounce, hence why the chosen method of bowling has been dibblies bowling straight and waiting for a mistake. Which makes for dull cricket. It's not a disastrous pitch but it could be better and I'm fairly sure the groundsman will be told that.
You literally said the pitch has ruined the test....
No if that was the case I would have said "the pitch has ruined the test" - that is what literal means. What you're looking for is "implied" I think.
OK I suppose it has bounce but lacks pace - so the bounce is rather gentle. Santner was fending them off as he appears to have no technique to play the short ball.
What the test has showed is that England appears to be very poor at having a plan to take wickets and sticking to it. They let the test drift on and 2 middle to lower order players bat for a very long time.
Well we are getting somewhere I guess... Now you are just complaining about a supposed lack of pace letting down the test. Which is still nonsense .
So is it the pitch or bowlers fault that the 2 batsmen batted a long time? Personally I think it was good batting and sub-par bowling.
And the pitch has already had good feedback from both camps.
Why are you so defensive about the pitch - it is slow, full stop, nothing supposed about it. It has contributed to some anaemic cricket at times. Similar to a pitch on the sub-continent, although with not so much turn. It was striking how ineffective Leach looked though when there was some turn there for Santner.
Because your over the top criticism of the pitch was stupid, and you have been walking it back ever since . A pitch supposedly being a little slow has not let down the test. All results are on the table. Bowlers have had to work for wickets and batsmen have had to work for runs. Why are you being so negative and churlish about the pitch?
Actually your interpretation of my criticism of the pitch was that it was over the top - I've got nothing to walk back whereas you keep saying the pitch is "supposedly" slow where it is in fact slow as many pundits have stated. But we can keep going if you still want to argue that the pitch isn't slow ....
No I am more interested in your nonsense that the pitch has let down the occasion and reduced the bowlers to bowling dibbly dobblies.
As for pundits... So what? I disagree it is slow, so does the groundsman and at least one of the bowlers. NZC is also very happy with the pitchStick that flag up on your hill Baron, you disagree that it is slow. Well I believe it is slow and according to all the reports I have read, I am correct and you are incorrect. But I know being in a very small minority is not a position you are uncomfortable with ....
-
the delusion of some English cricket tragics is amazing - stating unequivocably that this English team is more talented than NZ
@SynicBast said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
the delusion of some English cricket tragics is amazing - stating unequivocably that this English team is more talented than NZ
Over the past few years, English batsmen have shown a remarkable ability not to play a long innings. Could be linked to picking players based on their performances in ODIs and T20s.
-
@SynicBast said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
the delusion of some English cricket tragics is amazing - stating unequivocably that this English team is more talented than NZ
Over the past few years, English batsmen have shown a remarkable ability not to play a long innings. Could be linked to picking players based on their performances in ODIs and T20s.
@KiwiPie said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@SynicBast said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
the delusion of some English cricket tragics is amazing - stating unequivocably that this English team is more talented than NZ
Over the past few years, English batsmen have shown a remarkable ability not to play a long innings. Could be linked to picking players based on their performances in ODIs and T20s.
I'm not sure their bowlers are much truck outside England or when they don't have the Dukes to provide additional assistance
-
Wait, so we used a review but because Santner overstepped we get it back? I know that's to our benefit (and may prove decisive) but that seems stupid if true.
@Cyclops said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
Wait, so we used a review but because Santner overstepped we get it back? I know that's to our benefit (and may prove decisive) but that seems stupid if true.
It's true - presumably on the basis that if it is a no ball then the umpire should have called it and so there would be no review.
-
Wait, so we used a review but because Santner overstepped we get it back? I know that's to our benefit (and may prove decisive) but that seems stupid if true.
@Cyclops said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
Wait, so we used a review but because Santner overstepped we get it back? I know that's to our benefit (and may prove decisive) but that seems stupid if true.
I see your point, and raise you boundary count backs to decide World Cups
-
@Cyclops said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
Wait, so we used a review but because Santner overstepped we get it back? I know that's to our benefit (and may prove decisive) but that seems stupid if true.
I see your point, and raise you boundary count backs to decide World Cups
@Machpants said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Cyclops said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
Wait, so we used a review but because Santner overstepped we get it back? I know that's to our benefit (and may prove decisive) but that seems stupid if true.
I see your point, and raise you boundary count backs to decide World Cups
I think Archer thinks a drawn test is decided on boundary count.
