**Official** Chappell-Hadlee Series

[BlackCap_Fan]

I believe Pakistan was number three two days ago but will be interesting to see the ranking post tonight's match.

I read somewhere that NZ will go into 3rd if we win this one. I think it was an article on Cricinfo about SA taking the top spot.

 

[social]

Since when did cricket start becoming about gate receipts and stop being about cricket though?

Since time immemorial - this year we've had the Champions Trophy (which even the hosts threatened to pull out of), a ridiculously long CB series and now this, all in the name of revenue rather than cricket

 

[Zinzan]

I can.
Sure, we saw plenty of fours and sixes, but I just didn't find much pleasure in watching the batsmen dominate to such an extent. I liked the close nature of the games and that New Zealand were able to lift to such an extent to beat Australia, but I think the pitches (bar the first ODI) were far too flat and weren't good for cricket as a whole.

I always thought cricket like all professional sports is about entertainment ? Try telling the 30 odd thousand people at Eden Park or how ever many turned up at Hamilton today that the pitch was too flat for absorbing cricket

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Oh gosh what can i say this doesn't seem real i have got to ask, how do the aussies manage to lose such games. I really feel for hayden, just imagine how gutted he would be feeling to be on the losing side after scoring 181*.

How gutted must Lara have been feeling for 3/4 of his career...

 

[social]

It'll be decided in the WC IMO.

If Australia bomb out and South Africa win, I think we'll have seen a changing of the guard in ODIs.

Exactly - let someone else win a meaningful series before the fat lady sings

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I always thought cricket like all professional sports is about entertainment ? Try telling the 30 odd thousand people at Eden Park or how ever many turned up at Hamilton today that the pitch was too flat for absorbing cricket

It's just a matter of opinion really. What one person finds entertaining isn't necessarily so for everyone, and I'd rather watch an evenly matched contest between bat and ball where both teams score 220 odd than the Jo'burg ODI on a road with tiny boundaries.

 

[irfan]

In mentioning the heores for this game, everyone is mentioning McCullum/Macka and Gillespie's cameo - myself included.

But really it was Peter Fulton who got the innings kickstarted when the Kiwis were teetering at 4/40, he is known as a classical batsman but he took the attack to Watson and Johnson and got NZ some sort of momentum which the two Mc's obviously ramped up.

I feel Fulton's contribution was highly understated and not much mention has been made of him.

 

[Somerset]

It's just a matter of opinion really. What one person finds entertaining isn't necessarily so for everyone, and I'd rather watch an evenly matched contest between bat and ball where both teams score 220 odd than the Jo'burg ODI on a road with tiny boundaries.

I don't think pitches should be produced so 2/3 games in a series should produce 700 runs each - but, considering the pithces produced in the past in this country, the two games have been sensational due to their high scoring nature, to which the NZ cricket public has thoroughly enjoyed.

 

[Fiery]

Really? I challenge you to show me the number of times I've responded to your posts outside of this thread, let alone challenged your maturity.

In this thread I've taken note of the maturity of your approach only once. Maybe you're confusing me with Mrs. Mxyzptlk, because you're clearly confused.

I may be exaggerating. We've hardly hit it off have we? Here's one.
We can't we just be friends

 

[Somerset]

In mentioning the heores for this game, everyone is mentioning McCullum/Macka and Gillespie's cameo - myself included.

But really it was Peter Fulton who got the innings kickstarted when the Kiwis were teetering at 4/40, he is known as a classical batsman but he took the attack to Watson and Johnson and got NZ some sort of momentum which the two Mc's obviously ramped up.

I feel Fulton's contribution was highly understated and not much mention has been made of him.

Definitely a valuable contribution; I think people over emphasise his classical style because he is very capable of playing inventive, effective and powerful shots no matter the situation, whether classical or not.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?p=1076092&highlight=maturity#post1076092Here's one You've given me a complex

Waw. Twice.

Exaggerrating, yes. Smith is the only person on here that I truly detest.

 

[Dasa]

I always thought cricket like all professional sports is about entertainment ? Try telling the 30 odd thousand people at Eden Park or how ever many turned up at Hamilton today that the pitch was too flat for absorbing cricket

Haha geez you're defensive. I can't think why, since I already said I liked seeing New Zealand defeat Australia.
I didn't say the pitches were too flat for absorbing cricket - I said in my opinion they weren't good for cricket as a whole because they give the bowlers no assistance....and yes, cricket is about entertainment, but these matches weren't that entertaining for me.
By the way, the fact that 30,000+ people found the games to be very entertaining has no bearing on my opinion.

 

[Fiery]

Waw. Twice.

Exaggerrating, yes. Smith is the only person on her that I truly detest.

Who's Smith?

 

[MoxPearl]

Haha geez you're defensive. I can't think why, since I already said I liked seeing New Zealand defeat Australia.
I didn't say the pitches were too flat for absorbing cricket - I said in my opinion they weren't good for cricket as a whole because they give the bowlers no assistance....and yes, cricket is about entertainment, but these matches weren't that entertaining for me.
By the way, the fact that 30,000+ people found the games to be very entertaining has no bearing on my opinion.

Hey i know what u mean.. i dont think we should be seeing 350+ games all the time.. and i like seeing the odd low scoring bowlers game... both r good..

But the majority dont think that way

 

[Craig]

Who's Smith?

dontcloseyoureyes

 

[Perm]

Fantastic win for New Zealand, especially to do so without Vettori, Bond and Oram who would be three certainties in our World Cup XI. I still maintain that the 1st ODI would be the most encouraging for the Black Caps because it showed that on our day we can bundle a side out for a small total whereas in the past we were almost content to let them build up a big score because we had confidence in our ability to chase down almost anything which was quite evident in the 2nd and 3rd games.

McMillan played a gem of an innings, the fastest ever ODI century for New Zealand and his own individual high score in ODI's. I was really impressed with his maturity aswell when batting with McCullum, he wasn't looking to slog over midwicket and all of his 6's came in the "V" between long off and long on which was good to see. One thing I was suprised about though was the fact that McCullum didn't get his S/R which was quite odd considering how many runs we were chasing, he did help push the other batsman for quick ones and twos which was a good sign.

Bowling though was pretty poor, without Mills we look a bit lost when it comes to keeping the run rate down. Gillespie needs to pick it up, his economy rate will always be reasonably high because he bowls at the death but through the middle overs I feel that Fleming needs to set more attacking fields for him, he has proven that he can bowl some very tight and hostile spells but I don't think he has the full support of his skipper.

 

[PY]

Haha geez you're defensive. I can't think why, since I already said I liked seeing New Zealand defeat Australia.
I didn't say the pitches were too flat for absorbing cricket - I said in my opinion they weren't good for cricket as a whole because they give the bowlers no assistance....and yes, cricket is about entertainment, but these matches weren't that entertaining for me.
By the way, the fact that 30,000+ people found the games to be very entertaining has no bearing on my opinion.

Though you could argue that if it was good for 30,000 people then it was relatively good for cricket?

I don't have any strong opinions on ODI pitches being roads but I'm dead against flat pitches in Test matches for the reasons people have given for ODI here. I think there's different priorities for us as cricket fans wanting to see good cricket and wanting to see cricket grow and it's future secured.

This pitch can't have been that easy if NZ were ~40/4 on it!

 

[Fiery]

dontcloseyoureyes

Ah

 

[social]

Though you could argue that if it was good for 30,000 people then it was relatively good for cricket?

I don't have any strong opinions on ODI pitches being roads but I'm dead against flat pitches in Test matches for the reasons people have given for ODI here. I think there's different priorities for us as cricket fans wanting to see good cricket and wanting to see cricket grow and it's future secured.

This pitch can't have been that easy if NZ were ~40/4 on it!

Pitch was incredibly flat and ground ridiculously small

NZ were 40-4 because they hit a few balls in the air to fieldsmen which they hadnt done before in the series

 

[Prince EWS]

How could you detest dontcloseyoureyes? Top poster IMO.