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?
@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.
-
@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.
@mariner4life Spot on, I think.
The big opening was when Kane could/should have run out Labuschagne. We could have had them 79/3 with the front line bowlers still relatively fresh and Wade, Head and Paine all under real pressure to make runs.
We might have been able to mow through the middle order and get ahead of the game.
Oz well ahead now - we're already pretty much playing for a draw.
