Cricket: NZ vs Aus
-
@No-Quarter said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@hydro11 said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@No-Quarter said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Damo said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
CDG is bowling well this series. He's let himself down with the bat (albeit sawn off by a dodge umpiring decision once) but his bowling has been surprisingly effective.
The Aus commentators have been wanking on about pace being the difference, but they're full of shit really. Pace can help provide a point of difference, but some of the greatest seam bowlers of all time didn't get much above 130km.
Vernon Philander is a good modern day example. 220 wickets at 21.99 and barely breaks the 130km mark. Starc could only dream of test stats like that.
Pace is important in Australia because the ball doesn't do much. In New Zealand, it doesn't matter so much.
Take your point, but, I'm not sure it does that much in SA either and NZ pitches haven't exactly been green seamers for quite a while now. There's a lot to be said for someone that can actually bowl a consistent line and length to exploit even the smallest amount of movement from the seam.
That said 120km is obviously too slow to be a frontline seamer.
3 to 6 inches of extra bounce with pace though eh? That's a point of difference
@Siam said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@No-Quarter said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@hydro11 said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@No-Quarter said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Damo said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
CDG is bowling well this series. He's let himself down with the bat (albeit sawn off by a dodge umpiring decision once) but his bowling has been surprisingly effective.
The Aus commentators have been wanking on about pace being the difference, but they're full of shit really. Pace can help provide a point of difference, but some of the greatest seam bowlers of all time didn't get much above 130km.
Vernon Philander is a good modern day example. 220 wickets at 21.99 and barely breaks the 130km mark. Starc could only dream of test stats like that.
Pace is important in Australia because the ball doesn't do much. In New Zealand, it doesn't matter so much.
Take your point, but, I'm not sure it does that much in SA either and NZ pitches haven't exactly been green seamers for quite a while now. There's a lot to be said for someone that can actually bowl a consistent line and length to exploit even the smallest amount of movement from the seam.
That said 120km is obviously too slow to be a frontline seamer.
3 to 6 inches of extra bounce with pace though eh? That's a point of difference
Cummins is really the perfect fast bowler. Bowls above 140km with height and is deadly accurate. Which is why he has a 21 bowling average and is rated number 1.
Starc by comparison doesn't have the same accuracy so averages 27. Still very good, but not an all time great by any stretch despite having the same height and bowling 10km faster on a regular basis.
-
This has been some very impressive fast bowling. Can't complain too much if we fall in a heap.
However the trick is going to be to just bat for as long as we can. Let's bat all tomorrow and until lunch on day 4 and it should get easier.
I'll bet these bowlers won't be as impressive with the third new ball as they are with the first one.
-
As well as Stanlake who won't be sighted - they were just showing this ball from Riley Meredith that cleaned up Stoinis - so yet another tall bowler who gets it through around 150kmh.
https://twitter.com/BBL/status/1211601724382646273?s=20
This is fucking nasty!
-
This has been some very impressive fast bowling. Can't complain too much if we fall in a heap.
However the trick is going to be to just bat for as long as we can. Let's bat all tomorrow and until lunch on day 4 and it should get easier.
I'll bet these bowlers won't be as impressive with the third new ball as they are with the first one.
@Damo fuck scoring, bat for time...something usually alien to BCs batsmen though.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Damo well it was Erasmus...
I think the commentator was just about suggesting that it should have been given out.
FFS. If the stumps had one less coat of varnish the prediction would have been that it would have missed.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Damo well it was Erasmus...
I am shocked he actually turned down an Australian appeal.
-
@Damo fuck scoring, bat for time...something usually alien to BCs batsmen though.
@taniwharugby said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Damo fuck scoring, bat for time...something usually alien to BCs batsmen though.
Need to do both, batting time and not scoring runs does nothing useful this early.
-
Pitch is dodgy as fuck already. If this goes 5 days it might actually get called off.
-
Not really dangerous though. Hard to see it being called off unless the balls are rearing up dangerously. There was one ball that bounced more than the batsman expected - though in itself it wasn't hostile bounce.
Of course if Aussie are battling to save the test on day 5 then the calculus changes.
-
@taniwharugby said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Damo fuck scoring, bat for time...something usually alien to BCs batsmen though.
Need to do both, batting time and not scoring runs does nothing useful this early.
@Godder and playing scoring shots and getting out does even less...bat to stay out there, and the runs will come, look for the runs and the wickets will come
-
Not really dangerous though. Hard to see it being called off unless the balls are rearing up dangerously. There was one ball that bounced more than the batsman expected - though in itself it wasn't hostile bounce.
Of course if Aussie are battling to save the test on day 5 then the calculus changes.
@Damo said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Not really dangerous though. Hard to see it being called off unless the balls are rearing up dangerously. There was one ball that bounced more than the batsman expected - though in itself it wasn't hostile bounce.
Of course if Aussie are battling to save the test on day 5 then the calculus changes.
Did you see Cummins' second ball to Blundell?
-
@Damo said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Not really dangerous though. Hard to see it being called off unless the balls are rearing up dangerously. There was one ball that bounced more than the batsman expected - though in itself it wasn't hostile bounce.
Of course if Aussie are battling to save the test on day 5 then the calculus changes.
Did you see Cummins' second ball to Blundell?
@booboo said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Damo said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Not really dangerous though. Hard to see it being called off unless the balls are rearing up dangerously. There was one ball that bounced more than the batsman expected - though in itself it wasn't hostile bounce.
Of course if Aussie are battling to save the test on day 5 then the calculus changes.
Did you see Cummins' second ball to Blundell?
Yes I did. That is the one I refered to in my post.
That is the only ball that could be described as dangerous. The previous ball kept low. That one didn't. It was not a ball that reared up dangerously, it just bounced more than the previous ball did.
-
@Godder and playing scoring shots and getting out does even less...bat to stay out there, and the runs will come, look for the runs and the wickets will come
@taniwharugby agree that the first order is to not get out, especially not to dumb shots, but unless it is day 5 and very unlikely to win, we still need runs to make a contest of it. Otherwise we are just losing slower.
