Cricket: NZ vs England
-
I'm really struggling to understand how they can overturn that decision. It helps us but that knick was after it had passed the bat
-
@Hooroo There was the tiniest of white spots on the bat that wasn't there before the ball passed. Weird how the snick was between frames though.
@Bones said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Hooroo There was the tiniest of white spots on the bat that wasn't there before the ball passed. Weird how the snick was between frames though.
It looked as though that spot was there before the ball reached the bat. I may be wrong but
-
@Bones said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Hooroo There was the tiniest of white spots on the bat that wasn't there before the ball passed. Weird how the snick was between frames though.
It looked as though that spot was there before the ball reached the bat. I may be wrong but
-
@Bones said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Hooroo I couldn't see it before the ball.
@booboo Taylor took a punt on a review for lbw thinking it may have gone down leg. Overturned due to seemingly the slightest of snicks. Doull now saying it was his spikes scraping the ground.
I couldn't see any difference on the bat to before the ball went past it.
-
@Bones said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Hooroo I couldn't see it before the ball.
@booboo Taylor took a punt on a review for lbw thinking it may have gone down leg. Overturned due to seemingly the slightest of snicks. Doull now saying it was his spikes scraping the ground.
I couldn't see any difference on the bat to before the ball went past it.
@Hooroo said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Bones said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Hooroo I couldn't see it before the ball.
@booboo Taylor took a punt on a review for lbw thinking it may have gone down leg. Overturned due to seemingly the slightest of snicks. Doull now saying it was his spikes scraping the ground.
I couldn't see any difference on the bat to before the ball went past it.
I could.
-
-
173/3 at tea, happy with that given we were put in.
Shame Roscoe fell straight after reaching 50 -
At the risk of the jinx, Latham is a bloody special player. He's almost certain to be our best ever test opener by the end of his career (excluding Dempster) , and is possibly there already.
But what really stands out to me is that about two or three years ago when the South Africans were here, he was in a real deep trough form wise, and I can remember watching him gradually pulling back, filing off his edges and getting back into form, particularly around reducing the balls he was flashing at outside off stump.
It was a fantastic display of self awareness and discipline and convinced me that he had what it would take to excel as a test cricketer.
-
@Virgil said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
100 #11 for Latham!
5 tons in 10 successive innings as well.
First kiwi to achieve that.
-
At the risk of the jinx, Latham is a bloody special player. He's almost certain to be our best ever test opener by the end of his career (excluding Dempster) , and is possibly there already.
But what really stands out to me is that about two or three years ago when the South Africans were here, he was in a real deep trough form wise, and I can remember watching him gradually pulling back, filing off his edges and getting back into form, particularly around reducing the balls he was flashing at outside off stump.
It was a fantastic display of self awareness and discipline and convinced me that he had what it would take to excel as a test cricketer.
@Cyclops Yeah - the good thing is that he's putting to bed the idea that Rigor should be in an all time NZ XI.
And I've got nothing at all against Rigor who had a very good and consistent record - based around an excellent average - but 4 test hundreds and a highest score of 145 is a bit embarrassing for us as a country if it's the best we can muster.
So, Tommy with 11 hundreds and a top- score of 264* is a lot more credible - and his average has just scraped past MR's as well.
-
@Cyclops Yeah - the good thing is that he's putting to bed the idea that Rigor should be in an all time NZ XI.
And I've got nothing at all against Rigor who had a very good and consistent record - based around an excellent average - but 4 test hundreds and a highest score of 145 is a bit embarrassing for us as a country if it's the best we can muster.
So, Tommy with 11 hundreds and a top- score of 264* is a lot more credible - and his average has just scraped past MR's as well.
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
And I've got nothing at all against Rigor who had a very good and consistent record - based around an excellent average - but 4 test hundreds and a highest score of 145 is a bit embarrassing for us as a country if it's the best we can muster.
SA would still have Barry Richards in their all time XI on 4 tests - but obviously different circumstances. Many would have Bond still just on peak - however is record is two tests on a greentop against India and mauling the Windies and Zimbabwe.
Going strictly on record if Rig had have performed on the 01/02 or 04/05 Australian tours against 'the best' I think there would still be a good case for him over Latham. On 'feel' I always had a bit more faith that Rig wasn't going to nick out to the new ball, but Latham is close!
-
Latham's innings has been pretty canny so far. Lots of cut shots, just picking off the bowlers, Low risk stuff, but bloody effective. Shame Roscoe fell just after his 50, looked to have a good partnership developing with Latham.
England's bowlers - Woakes apart - seem to have lost much of their bite.. Still puzzled as to why they went with 5 seamers especially if they knew Stokes was carrying an injury. Say what you like about Stokes, but he is still a cock
