Cricket: NZ vs Aus
-
Well it's been disappointing and we could have done a bit better with the bat, but to be honest we're just miles outgunned in the bowling department.
So while the batsmen are being given the stick, in my view it's more in the bowling that the difference lies - when they bat and when we bat it just looks like two different games. You have people like Head and Paine looking comfortable and finding it easy, while people like Rossco and Kane are being worked over.
We're bringing CdG in as first change and they're bringing Starc.
It's unfortunately something we've seen in Oz on numerous occasions including last time we were here.
-
Well it's been disappointing and we could have done a bit better with the bat, but to be honest we're just miles outgunned in the bowling department.
So while the batsmen are being given the stick, in my view it's more in the bowling that the difference lies - when they bat and when we bat it just looks like two different games. You have people like Head and Paine looking comfortable and finding it easy, while people like Rossco and Kane are being worked over.
We're bringing CdG in as first change and they're bringing Starc.
It's unfortunately something we've seen in Oz on numerous occasions including last time we were here.
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Well it's been disappointing and we could have done a bit better with the bat, but to be honest we're just miles outgunned in the bowling department.
So while the batsmen are being given the stick, in my view it's more in the bowling that the difference lies - when they bat and when we bat it just looks like two different games. You have people like Head and Paine looking comfortable and finding it easy, while people like Rossco and Kane are being worked over.
Yep. And actually i'ts a combination isn't it - our 1 and 2 bowlers haven't got wickets, despite bowling really well at times. It's sliding door stuff - pick up a couple of quick wickets and the game is quite different. Then going in to bat after 10 hours in the field is just really really hard.
I'm disappointed in the decision to bowl after winning the toss. Really frustrating, I can kind of understand why we did it, but then bowling Blundell and Santner instead of Wags was unfathomable.
Ah well, hindsight eh. Winning at home is what a lot of teams to. It's winning away that's hard. Play these aussies a year ago and it's a different story, different side and we're more competitive.
Still really frustrated and disappointed though, feels like we didn't get our best selves out there.
-
Could have opened the bowling with Santner and bowled Latham first change - bowling lineup is almost irrelevant when the batsmen can't get an innings total above 170.
Though I've always been 50/50 about CdG being the official first change ahead of Wagner.... the extra swing being traded off for a bigger drop in pace I guess...
-
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Well it's been disappointing and we could have done a bit better with the bat, but to be honest we're just miles outgunned in the bowling department.
So while the batsmen are being given the stick, in my view it's more in the bowling that the difference lies - when they bat and when we bat it just looks like two different games. You have people like Head and Paine looking comfortable and finding it easy, while people like Rossco and Kane are being worked over.
Yep. And actually i'ts a combination isn't it - our 1 and 2 bowlers haven't got wickets, despite bowling really well at times. It's sliding door stuff - pick up a couple of quick wickets and the game is quite different. Then going in to bat after 10 hours in the field is just really really hard.
I'm disappointed in the decision to bowl after winning the toss. Really frustrating, I can kind of understand why we did it, but then bowling Blundell and Santner instead of Wags was unfathomable.
Ah well, hindsight eh. Winning at home is what a lot of teams to. It's winning away that's hard. Play these aussies a year ago and it's a different story, different side and we're more competitive.
Still really frustrated and disappointed though, feels like we didn't get our best selves out there.
@nzzp Yeah - it all compounds.
We really, really needed Kane to do the same as Latham and bat for a few hours - take the shine off the ball, a bit of sting out of the bowlers - and then it gets easier for the batsmen to follow.
I think that one thing we've seen is how much e.g. Henry Nicholls has been the beneficiary of batting behind Latham, Williamson and Taylor (and decent Jeet) over the past few seasons.
Anyway, that's the prescription for the second innings - we've simply got to have our best batsmen survive the first 30-40 overs.
-
@nzzp Yeah - it all compounds.
We really, really needed Kane to do the same as Latham and bat for a few hours - take the shine off the ball, a bit of sting out of the bowlers - and then it gets easier for the batsmen to follow.
I think that one thing we've seen is how much e.g. Henry Nicholls has been the beneficiary of batting behind Latham, Williamson and Taylor (and decent Jeet) over the past few seasons.
Anyway, that's the prescription for the second innings - we've simply got to have our best batsmen survive the first 30-40 overs.
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Anyway, that's the prescription for the second innings - we've simply got to have our best batsmen survive the first 30-40 overs.
It's hard to argue with that for any innings - lose your top 6 in the first 40 overs and the innings will probably be a failure.
Agree that the failure of our bowlers to take wickets has been painful in this match. The biggest symptom of that was Blundell bowling - he's a wicketkeeper, and if we're having to resort to that, someone else needs to be replaced.
-
Sporting declaration from Paine.
Aussies risking that it'll head to Sydney one match a piece and all to play for!
-
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Anyway, that's the prescription for the second innings - we've simply got to have our best batsmen survive the first 30-40 overs.
It's hard to argue with that for any innings - lose your top 6 in the first 40 overs and the innings will probably be a failure.
Agree that the failure of our bowlers to take wickets has been painful in this match. The biggest symptom of that was Blundell bowling - he's a wicketkeeper, and if we're having to resort to that, someone else needs to be replaced.
-
@Damo The TAB odds on us winning have come in from $56 earlier this morning to $41 - so you've obviously hit it hard!
-
Well it's been disappointing and we could have done a bit better with the bat, but to be honest we're just miles outgunned in the bowling department.
So while the batsmen are being given the stick, in my view it's more in the bowling that the difference lies - when they bat and when we bat it just looks like two different games. You have people like Head and Paine looking comfortable and finding it easy, while people like Rossco and Kane are being worked over.
We're bringing CdG in as first change and they're bringing Starc.
It's unfortunately something we've seen in Oz on numerous occasions including last time we were here.
@Chris-B when you have a look our options then we are always going to be outgunned in bowling by what must be the best bowling attack in World Cricket. However they work their plans and can keep us in the game. But the batsmen who were all talked up (Except Jeet) prior have collectively failed in 3 innings in a row. If the batsmen were that good one or more of them would have stood up but they haven’t. Some were picking a bunch of NZ batsmen in their combined teams. So bowlers have performed to expectations bar spinning whereas batsmen todate have been disappointing. Though not all is lost and they have another chance today
. -
@Godder I''m really meaning Latham and Williamson need to be there - or miraculously Blundell.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Another poor error by an NZ batsman.
Poor ball to get out to.
Total lack of discipline from a guy who should know better
-
