Cricket: NZ vs Aus
-
Yuck. This is looking ominously familiar
They only need another 150 to be in a position where they won't lose.
Fair enough having a crack, and like day 1 in Perth, we haven't done much wrong and, Santner aside, bowled pretty well, but it's fine margins against oz in oz - you gotta get special run outs.
Australia got great, patient service from it's big 3 and have batted with incredible determination and steadfastness. Really impressive. Just what's needed to get the job done against our decent attack
The big news today is we have to set about getting 400 plus whatever the game situation, so that's something that has to happen lest the series gets dunny flushed right here and now.
Oz are hard to beat at home and this wicket will be a cnut to bat on last.
There's no daring to dream, but winning some sessions would be nice
-
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@No-Quarter Yeah - probably not a good decision, but it might just have been if Kane had made that runout.
Unfortunately, we need to play out of our skins and take everything to beat Australia.
The unfortunate thing is that while our batting line-up might almost edge theirs, their bowling is so much better than ours - to win we need a flattish track and to take everything.
The upside is that I haven't seen anything in this track that will make it as difficult as Perth, so we need to bat fucking well when we get our first dig and not give Lyon a chance to spin us out on the last day.
To ram the point home - my Australasian team - Latham, Warner, Labuschagne, Williamson (c), Smith, Taylor, Watling, Cummins, Starc, Hazelwood, Lyon.
Aussies look a lot better now they have Labuschagne. Out of nowhere they have another batsman who is seemingly world class. Warner is also very good when not facing Broad. Hard to argue with your bowling attack in their conditions. Their guys are quicker than ours - Boult/Southee generally need a bit of swing. In some conditions, I think we could take the Aussies but not on a pitch like this.
@hydro11 Yeah - it's not really a reflection on our guys.
If you were picking a World XI to play in Australia it probably wouldn't change much from the team I've named above.
Kohli would definitely come in.
Maybe Bumrah or Rabada. Maybe Ashwin or Jadeja for Lyon. Maybe Rohit for Latham. But all these guys would be marginal improvements, if at all.
-
Under 3 an over and 4 down is an even day, not clearly better for one side. Hopefully we can clean them up under 350, but let's see.
@Godder said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Under 3 an over and 4 down is an even day, not clearly better for one side. Hopefully we can clean them up under 350, but let's see.
Hmm - I don't really agree. Especially given that we have to win this test. If we can't clean them up for under 350 then I don't think we can win this series. 400 in the first innings is quite a lot these days given that batsmen aren't so dominant - 10 years ago you might be right.
-
They have just shown the Dick French "not out" call from 30 years ago. All I can say is fck that was so wrong. Michael Vaughn was spot on "well it wasn't hitting leg, and it wasn't hitting off..."
It was Whitney batting wasn't it?
@Snowy said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
They have just shown the Dick French "not out" call from 30 years ago. All I can say is fck that was so wrong. Michael Vaughn was spot on "well it wasn't hitting leg, and it wasn't hitting off..."
It was Whitney batting wasn't it?
McDermott i think.
-
also, our attack of gallant, accurate swing bowlers just isn't quick enough in Australia. So we can apply pressure, but lack the threat to get the wickets. Australia are playing us so well, showing a heap of patience.
Aus will come in, with 3 blokes bowling 10-15kms faster and run through us. Awesome.
-
Yeah - I think 220/4 was evens, so by stumps Australia were probably a wicket in hand ahead of the game. Now they've pressed on and are significantly ahead.
But, it's a bit worse, because we've inserted the Aussies and we know that their attack will be tougher than ours.
I think yesterday morning Kane wouldn't have taken 350 (though he'd think, at least we're in the game) - he'd have hoped for significantly better. Now he'd bite your hand off for 350.
On reflection, though - he possibly had to put them in. Conditions were overcast and likely to swing, so he had to give our bowlers that prospect while it was there.
-
@Snowy said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
They have just shown the Dick French "not out" call from 30 years ago. All I can say is fck that was so wrong. Michael Vaughn was spot on "well it wasn't hitting leg, and it wasn't hitting off..."
It was Whitney batting wasn't it?
McDermott i think.
@mariner4life said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Snowy said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
They have just shown the Dick French "not out" call from 30 years ago. All I can say is fck that was so wrong. Michael Vaughn was spot on "well it wasn't hitting leg, and it wasn't hitting off..."
It was Whitney batting wasn't it?
McDermott i think.
Right you are. Whitney held up the other end.
-
Watching Santner & CdG bowl in tandem is pretty uninspiring stuff.
Why the hell do they persist with Santner, he’s not a test bowler. I wish they’d go on the attack and pick a guy who’s going to take some wickets, rather than this defensive spinner bullshit.
-
Watching Santner & CdG bowl in tandem is pretty uninspiring stuff.
Why the hell do they persist with Santner, he’s not a test bowler. I wish they’d go on the attack and pick a guy who’s going to take some wickets, rather than this defensive spinner bullshit.
@Gunner said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
rather than this defensive spinner bullshit.
this defensive spinner going at almost 5 an over...
Edit: Sorry, almost 5.5 an over now. fucking hopeless.
-
To show how good conditions are, a bog-average player like Paine just smacked an effortless 33 at a quick clip.
-
@Godder said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
I think if Aussie had won the toss and batted anyway, we'd be happy with ~250/4 at stumps.
I was going to contradict you but looking at the last few boxing day tests, the team batting first basically always made over 350. Australia did the worst with just 327 versus England. Still the odds on us winning were a lot longer at the end of day one than they were at the start.
-
@Godder said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
I think if Aussie had won the toss and batted anyway, we'd be happy with ~250/4 at stumps.
I was going to contradict you but looking at the last few boxing day tests, the team batting first basically always made over 350. Australia did the worst with just 327 versus England. Still the odds on us winning were a lot longer at the end of day one than they were at the start.
@hydro11 said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Godder said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
I think if Aussie had won the toss and batted anyway, we'd be happy with ~250/4 at stumps.
I was going to contradict you but looking at the last few boxing day tests, the team batting first basically always made over 350. Australia did the worst with just 327 versus England. Still the odds on us winning were a lot longer at the end of day one than they were at the start.
yep, if you are going to send the opposition in, you want more in return than what we have.
When you consider we took a wicket in the first over, to only have 5 at the end of 4 sessions is not good enough.
I still think the decision to bowl was the right one. And i actually think we've bowled well for the most part, the fact the Aussies have had to earn their runs is proof of that. It's just been really tough test cricket.
It will now come down to the batsmen matching the Aussies.
