-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** New Zealand in the West Indies 2014
- Thread starter Hurricane
- Start date
Blocky
Banned
Losers mentality.
Bahnz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
And yet in the first innings WI lost their last 6 wickets for 77 runs.
Flem274*
123/5
not often i agree with blocky but nailed it.
if you ever want to lose a game, lose it in your head by imagining everything going drastically wrong before the game.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
That's ridiculous.
The way NZ are going to win the test match is by bowling the West Indies out. The way they lose it is by a sporting declaration followed by some poor bowling and some good batting.
It's possible to significantly reduce the chance of the latter happening by only marginally reducing the chance of the former happening.
You guys may be comfortable with significant risk but I'm not. That has nothing to do with "loser's mentality", it's to do with how much risk you're prepared to accept.
To draw anything else out of it is silly.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
An alternative way of thinking about it is "what would the opposition least want"
1. An un-chaseable target (340) with enough overs (91) to be bowled out in. Potential for draw, loss.
2. An un-chaseable target (400) with too few overs to be bowled out in (80). Potential for draw.
3. A chase able target (307) with enough overs to be bowled out in (98). Potential for win, loss, or draw in the advent of rain.
They would like option three. They would not like option 2, but they'd settle for it. Option 1 is by far their least favourite.
1. An un-chaseable target (340) with enough overs (91) to be bowled out in. Potential for draw, loss.
2. An un-chaseable target (400) with too few overs to be bowled out in (80). Potential for draw.
3. A chase able target (307) with enough overs to be bowled out in (98). Potential for win, loss, or draw in the advent of rain.
They would like option three. They would not like option 2, but they'd settle for it. Option 1 is by far their least favourite.
Bahnz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Maybe not a loser's mentality, but it is an unnecessarily cautious one.
For the first half of the first innings, New Zealand bowled the worst that I've seen since the Southee-Boult-Wagner trifecta became ensconced against England. Despite that, WI still only barely past 300 on a day 3 pitch. There is absolutely no reason why the team shouldn't back themselves to bowl well and bundle WI out for 200ish tops.
For the first half of the first innings, New Zealand bowled the worst that I've seen since the Southee-Boult-Wagner trifecta became ensconced against England. Despite that, WI still only barely past 300 on a day 3 pitch. There is absolutely no reason why the team shouldn't back themselves to bowl well and bundle WI out for 200ish tops.
GotSpin
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I wouldn't be backing the bottom 5 to put on more than 80 combined
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
I'm comfortable with unnecessarily cautious.
Don't get me wrong, I think NZ are odds on to bowl them out tomorrow. I just really don't want to see a loss after the way this series has gone and the way we've turned things around in the second half of the match.
If we're bundling them out for 200 we won't need the extra 7 overs anyway.
Bahnz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
We might well if it rains.
Bahnz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
That's because Shane Warne knows he can call on Shane Warne to bowl.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
I've never understood this argument.
If West Indies beat us by way of a generous declaration than it was a stupid declaration. Sure, well played and all, but a team should never be conceding defeat after a declaration unless they're down in the series and desperately need a win a la Clarke in England.
Last edited:
Athlai
Not Terrible
This isn't the argument though, it's a byproduct of the argument.
The argument is, how do we give ourselves the best chance to win this Test match?
The answer to that is, we declare overnight.
Binkley
U19 Captain
The argument that we should declare overnight to give ourselves a better chance of winning doesn't make much sense to me. There are 98 overs in the day. If we haven't dismissed the West Indies after 88 of those overs - then they have won the game. They will have already got there (only needing 3.4 rpo to do so) or be on the verge. Why give them that chance? Declaring overnight to gain an extra 10 overs with the ball is not going to increase New Zealand's chance of winning by very much at all, and will increase the West Indies chance of winning by tenfold.
Last edited:
Flem274*
123/5
The West Indies won't win unless they play brilliantly.
Setting 340 means you think
-Gayle or someone will hit a fast hundred
-The weather will stay sunny for the entire day
Which is completely at odds with what we know which is
-Gayle or someone might hit a fast hundred, or a normal hundred, or nick off for a duck.
-Rain is forecast by people who study rain for a living and are quite good at it.
Setting 340 means you think
-Gayle or someone will hit a fast hundred
-The weather will stay sunny for the entire day
Which is completely at odds with what we know which is
-Gayle or someone might hit a fast hundred, or a normal hundred, or nick off for a duck.
-Rain is forecast by people who study rain for a living and are quite good at it.
