Cricket: NZ vs England
-
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
Bit optimistic when they've got a bunch of rookies and we've got:
Williamson 3
Nicholls 6
Latham 8
Rossco 13...in the batting rankings; and
Boult 6
Wagner 8
Southee 13...in the bowling rankings.
They've got Root, Stokes and the absent Jimmy Anderson inside the top 13s.
Maybe getting a bit carried away with the power of Jofra?
-
What a fucking hiding. Take that you phony world champions.
@No-Quarter said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
What a fucking hiding. Take that you phony world champions.
Fill yer boots!
-
an unsurprising home win for the #2 ranked side in world cricket. Very nice to perform to expectations
-
Slightly disappointing that Santner threatened today, but didn't manage to add to his bag of wickets. I think that getting five-for would've done him more good than Wagner.
The good thing is that Southee and Wagner only bowled 20 overs apiece today - so their workload in this test hasn't been horrendous - even though Trent was largely MIA today. Three days rest and they should be good to go on Friday. Santner bowled a lot more, but he shouldn't be required much on Day 1.
Yep - think it's time to Unleash the Ferg-burger! Don't need to risk Boult with a 1-0 lead.
-
Hopefully that working over in the second innings will have weakened the English bowlers ready for the next game
@canefan Wagner and Southee bowled 6 and 4 overs yesterday, so 14 and 16 overs apiece today - that's not too much worse than an ODI.
Even though we bowled more overs in this test than England, ours were nicely spaced, so I reckon significantly more damage to the English bowlers (aside from that Trent probably can't play - but compulsory rotation is not necessarily a bad thing).
And we'll be buoyed by victory, while they'll have the bitter taste of defeat in their mouths!
-
Coney made a good point about how the Duke ball countries really struggle bowling the Kookaburra because they don't have the patience.
Bowl a fast lifting Duke and eventually it will catch the seam and catch a wicket. With the Kooka you have to work the batsman around with length and direction and can't rely on the ball to do the work. -
@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:
@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 ....
No I am more focused on the unmitigated churlish negativity you spouted that the pitch has let down the occasion. You are very keen to avoid discussing that gem. Feel free to share any reports that say the pitch has let down the occasion. I doubt you will.... Maybe you are in the small minority about the pitch being bad.
I did say that it was the one blot on a perfect occasion, great looking Bay Oval, perfect weather etc etc. You construed it as having ruined the occasion and then you dug in deep on the pitch not being slow which it plainly is. A faster pitch would have made a much better spectacle in my opinion.
@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:
@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 ....
No I am more focused on the unmitigated churlish negativity you spouted that the pitch has let down the occasion. You are very keen to avoid discussing that gem. Feel free to share any reports that say the pitch has let down the occasion. I doubt you will.... Maybe you are in the small minority about the pitch being bad.
I did say that it was the one blot on a perfect occasion, great looking Bay Oval, perfect weather etc etc. You construed it as having ruined the occasion and then you dug in deep on the pitch not being slow which it plainly is. A faster pitch would have made a much better spectacle in my opinion.
No, you said that the pitch had let down the occasion. Just admit it did no such thing . Runs were scored by batsmen who worked, wickets were taken by good balls. Ee got a result on the final session of the final day. Both captains said very positive things about the pitch.
The pitch added to the occasion, it did it let the occasion down.
I am still waiting on your reports that the pitch let the occasion down.
Stop distracting about the slowness of the pitch, it is meaningless. Do you stand by the claim that the pitch let down the occasion?
This is what you said@KiwiPie said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
still think this is heading for a draw though and the pitch has let down the grand occasion of Bay Oval's first test
-
@Bovidae said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
Speaking of good catches - Santner takes a screamer to remove Pope.
That'll go in contention for catch of the summer!
-
Saw the highlights on the news.
Was it just me or did there appear to be more people on the field than in the stands?
-
people in NZ still have these things called "jobs". They involve responsibilities on a Monday
-
Saw the highlights on the news.
Was it just me or did there appear to be more people on the field than in the stands?
@MiketheSnow said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
Saw the highlights on the news.
Was it just me or did there appear to be more people on the field than in the stands?
It was only England (and, I think, Wales?).
-
@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.@Snowy said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Donsteppa said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
Barmy Army have been strangely quiet today.
Thankfully.
I like them, but theyweregettingvery repetitive and annoying late in the day. -
Saw the highlights on the news.
Was it just me or did there appear to be more people on the field than in the stands?
@MiketheSnow said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
Saw the highlights on the news.
Was it just me or did there appear to be more people on the field than in the stands?
I think it was just you?
Have been there for parts of every day, the crowds have been good for an early season test while we're all juggling work/using annual leave.
-
the delusion of some English cricket tragics is amazing - stating unequivocably that this English team is more talented than NZ
@SynicBast ploise exploin? Who said such things?
And who are:
Burns
Sibly
Denley
Pope
Curran
Leach
?? -
@SynicBast ploise exploin? Who said such things?
And who are:
Burns
Sibly
Denley
Pope
Curran
Leach
??@booboo said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@SynicBast ploise exploin? Who said such things?
And who are:
Burns
Sibly
Denley
Pope
Curran
Leach
??a fair few fluffybunnies on twitter. I would actually add Root to that list given his batting record as captain is verging on Bothamesque captaincy batting. The only reason he still ranks on the rating board is historical weight of runs but he hasn't scored a century in some time.
-
@SynicBast ploise exploin? Who said such things?
And who are:
Burns
Sibly
Denley
Pope
Curran
Leach
??
