***Official*** England in New Zealand series 2013

[theegyptian]

Finn was really really **** yesterday. You expect that with Dernbach but Finn was god awful- didn't help the umpire calling a non existent no ball. Bit of a worry for the first t20 game.

Finn looked poor in the first game as well. Dernbach looks a little unfit now as well to compound his problems.

Least Broad looked decent although managing to maintain decent pace over a test match is completely different to 4 overs at top pace in t20 cricket.

 

[BeeGee]

I just don't think McHesson will select him.

Does Hesson really want to stir up controversy again?

The only batsmen in the squad (arguably) better than Taylor at T20 are Guptill and McCullum. If he doesn't select him he's an idiot.

 

[Kippax]

Jos Buttler, 51(31) vs. NZ XI - YouTube

 

[Zinzan]

McCullum is the perfect t20 opener.

The most halfwitted idea we ever had was dropping him back down the order.

Agree, surely you want to give him the maximum number of overs possible. He wouldn't have been able to score his 158 batting first or second drop.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Remember this moment in years to come, as it may be your finest.

In all honesty

If I could dernbach time.......

I have already had a while to reflect.

 

[Mike5181]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10863835

Get the feeling this will be the team for the first test:

1. Martin Guptill
2. Peter Fulton
3. Kane Wililamson
4. Ross Taylor
5. Brendon McCullum (c)
6. Dean Brownlie
7. BJ Watling+
8. Doug Bracewell
9. Tim Southee
10. Bruce Martin
11. Trent Boult

 

[straw man]

Probably.

"There's every chance McCullum may bat at No 5," Littlejohn said.

"Mike has some pretty strong views about where he believes Brendon is best suited. We've had some preliminary discussions, nothing is locked and loaded but it's definitely under consideration."

But where does it get taken into consideration that Mike is a ****wit?

"Locked and loaded" ****ing hell

 

[morgieb]

I'd tell McCullum that if he's not opening he can get ****ed. But that won't happen.

 

[Mike5181]

Surely they would consider Ryder's comeback as well. He may not be available for this series, but he'll be back at some point this year.

 

[straw man]

No, before each match Hesson gets out a blank piece of paper with numbers one to eleven and asks McCullum what he'd like to do this week. And if McCullum says "oh this week I think I'll field right next to the umpire, bowl first change and bat left-handed at 8" then Hesson says "good idea Brendon".

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

No, before each match Hesson gets out a blank piece of paper with numbers one to eleven and asks McCullum what he'd like to do this week. And if McCullum says "oh this week I think I'll field right next to the umpire, bowl first change and bat left-handed at 8" then Hesson says "good idea Brendon".

Behave. The Otago Stasi will come down on you like a ton of bricks.

 

[hendrix]

Probably.



But where does it get taken into consideration that Mike is a ****wit?

"Locked and loaded" ****ing hell

Not just that, but if we take a look at the sentence:

"Mike's got some pretty strong views about where Brendon should bat"

then let's think about what it means. Is there a consideration that by moving him to 5 you're putting the rest of the middle order out?

Is there consideration that our other opener is grossly underperforming?

Is there consideration that Ryder may eventually come back into the team, that other young batsmen are pushing for places in the middle order, that Ronchi may eventually take over test keeping and thus free up another specialist middle order batsman?

 

[straw man]

Behave. The Otago Stasi will come down on you like a ton of bricks.

I'm pretty sure I'm already being followed. The walls have ears I tell ya. Cauliflower ears at that.

 

[straw man]

Is there consideration...

No, as far as I can see there is not.

 

[Smudge]

Behave. The Otago Stasi will come down on you like a ton of bricks.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

QED.

x

 

[Hurricane]

Question - how come when the scores were tied at 170 - we then hit a four to win - but we only finished on 171.

Why wasn't it 174?

Sorry for not knowing the rules better - can someone explain this - or is it just how it is.

 

[Prince EWS]

Question - how come when the scores were tied at 170 - we then hit a four to win - but we only finished on 171.

Why wasn't it 174?

Sorry for not knowing the rules better - can someone explain this - or is it just how it is.

If the batsmen complete the single before the ball goes over the boundary rope, the game is over automatically and it's not a four. If they chose not to run it would've been four.

 

[Hurricane]

If the batsmen complete the single before the ball goes over the boundary rope, the game is over automatically and it's not a four. If they chose not to run it would've been four.

Thank you sir.

 

[marc71178]

Should count as 4 IMO as it was Turdbach.