Cricket: NZ vs Aus
-
That really is an unbelievable innings in the context of this game and the series. Just awesome.
-
@Godder said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
At least DRS means limited ability to saw us off. Limits blame a bit though...
We've sawn our selves off really, but they have certainly tried their best and should be held accountable.
Adds to the DRS discussion when they are that incompetent.
-
@Godder said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
At least DRS means limited ability to saw us off. Limits blame a bit though...
We've sawn our selves off really, but they have certainly tried their best and should be held accountable.
Adds to the DRS discussion when they are that incompetent.
@Snowy said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Godder said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
At least DRS means limited ability to saw us off. Limits blame a bit though...
We've sawn our selves off really, but they have certainly tried their best and should be held accountable.
Adds to the DRS discussion when they are that incompetent.
For sure, hopefully the umpires' performance reviews make that point.
-
The one glaring positive to come from this 2nd embarrassing hiding in a row is Tom Blundell.
The man who had never opened in a first class match before, brought in to open against a red hot bowling attack and shows up all of our established batsmen.You bloody ripper.
That only leave the spinners spot to sort out. No more persisting with Santner, surely?!?!
-
Well Boult has to go home so if the selectors have any sense they will choose a real spinner not a "batting all rounder".
-
Blundell gets 100. An indictment on the selectors. The guy has 2 tonnes in 3 matches. Now we have keystone cops and Southee gets run out
@canefan said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Blundell gets 100. An indictment on the selectors. The guy has 2 tonnes in 3 matches. Now we have keystone cops and Southee gets run out
Are you saying Blundell should have been selected more and, if so, instead of whom?
-
Blundell doing very well makes the pain of this defeat greater. Really one of Williamson, Taylor or Watling should have scored runs in one of the innings.
If we scored even another 100 in the first innings that adds 2 and a bit sessions to the game and we might hold on.
-
The one glaring positive to come from this 2nd embarrassing hiding in a row is Tom Blundell.
The man who had never opened in a first class match before, brought in to open against a red hot bowling attack and shows up all of our established batsmen.You bloody ripper.
That only leave the spinners spot to sort out. No more persisting with Santner, surely?!?!
@Gunner said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
The one glaring positive to come from this 2nd embarrassing hiding in a row is Tom Blundell.
The man who had never opened in a first class match before, brought in to open against a red hot bowling attack and shows up all of our established batsmen.You bloody ripper.
That only leave the spinners spot to sort out. No more persisting with Santner, surely?!?!
I'll see your Blundell and raise you a Wags.
So that's two.
-
@Gunner said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
The one glaring positive to come from this 2nd embarrassing hiding in a row is Tom Blundell.
The man who had never opened in a first class match before, brought in to open against a red hot bowling attack and shows up all of our established batsmen.You bloody ripper.
That only leave the spinners spot to sort out. No more persisting with Santner, surely?!?!
I'll see your Blundell and raise you a Wags.
So that's two.
@booboo said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Gunner said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
The one glaring positive to come from this 2nd embarrassing hiding in a row is Tom Blundell.
The man who had never opened in a first class match before, brought in to open against a red hot bowling attack and shows up all of our established batsmen.You bloody ripper.
That only leave the spinners spot to sort out. No more persisting with Santner, surely?!?!
I'll see your Blundell and raise you a Wags.
So that's two.
Agreed Wags a definite positive, but Blundell being the really obvious one.
