***Official**** Sri Lanka in New Zealand 2014/2015

[Blocky]

At least Neesham was in after 46 overs this innings rather than 36 overs (with pitch still green in the latter too). There should be very little movement for the seamers now and that makes a big difference for Neesham's stand and deliver style. Still has Herath to deal with though.

The ball hasn't seamed at all to be honest. It's just been straight bowling at the stumps waiting for batsman error.

 

[Flem274*]

Sure, in your world where Tinkerbell flies around and it's Neverland with a ticking crocodile hunting a dreaded pirate, that might be the case.

You should write fiction in books rather than on cricket forums. I'd read this.

 

[straw man]

Interesting choice to equate a run with the odd, non-standard decakilogram measure, but each to their own.

Redefining a ton as 90.7 runs tbh. Stephen Fleming would like this.

 

[Blocky]

You should write fiction in books rather than on cricket forums. I'd read this.

You should write private messages to all of your little buddies about me, oh wait, too late... Hrm.

In any case, I'm here to discuss Cricket, not the fantasical world of a boy who believes in Ross Taylor.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

can phlegm and blocky just date already? I know true love when I see it

 

[hendrix]

The main difference in my view has been that the Sri Lankan seamers have mostly attacked the stumps at a good to full length where as we bowled a bit too wide and tried for the miracle ball a bit too much. Have a look at Pradeep and Prasad's pitch map on Cricinfo versus what we bowled in the first innings.

Again I have to question whether you actually watch cricket.
Boult in particular did not try the miracle ball enough. He was too short and Sanga barely needed to drive him at all.
Neesham's wickets were a good example - he actually pitched the ball up.

Boult's superb effort against the Windies on this pitch involved him basically bowling inswinging half volleys. Here he didn't pitch the ball up enough.

 

[Jono]

Waugh wasn't his sides best batsman at any point during his career in terms of pure run output.

Border and Boon had him beat in his earlier years, Boon and Ponting had him beat for the rest of his career.

Waugh, like Border, benefitted from a lot of not outs.

This is massively under-selling Waugh, who was well and truly in the argument of best batsman in the world during 90s with Lara and Sachin. He was definitely the best bat for Australia from 97-2000.

 

[Dan]

It's a forum, not Wikipedia. It's well known in cricketing circles in NZ that Taylor isn't that well liked beyond a few players ( Gup, Ryder )

Well excuse us for not believing a single word you're saying, then. "I'm an anonymous online cricket forum poster making all sorts of often-inconsistent claims about myself and my knowledge while never providing a shred of proof that I'm not actually an angry 15-year-old with an internet connection" is hardly the most convincing back-up to whatever truth-claim you feel like making today.

 

[jonbrooks]

I think a draw is out of the question, so the only thing NZ supporters can hope for is an NZ victory. What sort of target would give NZ some hope of winning? 180?

Let's think about this, if it wasn't for Sanga's magical 200 the SL innings could have folded quite cheaply. That's twice in two tests where we'd have got them out for not many runs.

 

[Athlai]

Interesting choice to equate a run with the odd, non-standard decakilogram measure, but each to their own.

it isn't like he is involved with cricket or anything, lay off.

 

[Dan]

Same logic etc etc

 

[Dan]

I think a draw is out of the question, so the only thing NZ supporters can hope for is an NZ victory. What sort of target would give NZ some hope of winning? 180?

Let's think about this, if it wasn't for Sanga's magical 200 the SL innings could have folded quite cheaply. That's twice in two tests where we'd have got them out for not many runs.

Nah, the pitch isn't going to play the same way it did on Day 1. The SL innings isn't likely to collapse that way again.

240 gives NZ a chance if they bowl out of their skins and SL play some dumb shots here and there. 350 gives you some feeling of safety, IMO.

 

[Zinzan]

Wow Neesham looks like a walking wicket vs. Pradeep. Bad miss only having one-slip. Doesn't appear to be moving that much, seems the angle is doing him.

 

[Prince EWS]

40kg through slips.

 

[Flem274*]

need to cobble together at least a 200 run lead imo. then we tell sangakkara they've changed the venue.

 

[Dan]

40kg through slips.

Nothing on Rob Quiney's brilliant 90kg on day-boo.

 

[Blocky]

Again I have to question whether you actually watch cricket.
Boult in particular did not try the miracle ball enough. He was too short and Sanga barely needed to drive him at all.
Neesham's wickets were a good example - he actually pitched the ball up.

Boult's superb effort against the Windies on this pitch involved him basically bowling inswinging half volleys. Here he didn't pitch the ball up enough.

The whole "You don't watch test cricket" when you state an easily countered point makes me laugh.

According to Cricinfo Match Centre - in the first innings, Boult bowled a total of 23 full balls to left handed batsman, 12 of which were outside off. He went for 23 runs off those balls. He bowled 58 balls on a good length, 33 of them outside off, he went for 21 runs, he bowled 29 balls short and went for 19 runs... remind me again how he was milked for bowling too short? ps - 38 of the 51 runs that Sangakarra scored from Boult came front of square. Remind me again how he was milked for bowling too short?

Do you actually watch test cricket?

 

[Blocky]

Well excuse us for not believing a single word you're saying, then. "I'm an anonymous online cricket forum poster making all sorts of often-inconsistent claims about myself and my knowledge while never providing a shred of proof that I'm not actually an angry 15-year-old with an internet connection" is hardly the most convincing back-up to whatever truth-claim you feel like making today.

See, this would require me to care what you and Flem274 think about what I post and whether or not I care to argue anything other than fact with you.

Kind of similar to the Hendrix "You don't watch test cricket, while you make blatantly true statements that I disagree with and then you prove me wrong over" - the way I post about technique, style and team selections before they're made and make predictions such as Wagner being amazing, Taylor being rubbish due to no training and such coming true are more than enough validation for me and should be more than enough for you.

If not? Too bad, so sad, there is an ignore feature on the forum.

 

[jcas0167]

Well excuse us for not believing a single word you're saying, then. "I'm an anonymous online cricket forum poster making all sorts of often-inconsistent claims about myself and my knowledge while never providing a shred of proof that I'm not actually an angry 15-year-old with an internet connection" is hardly the most convincing back-up to whatever truth-claim you feel like making today.

tbf, what kind of citation do you expect? It's an online forum, you take what people say with a grain of salt. It would be nice if you all could chill out and talk about the test.

 

[jonbrooks]

Nah, the pitch isn't going to play the same way it did on Day 1. The SL innings isn't likely to collapse that way again.

240 gives NZ a chance if they bowl out of their skins and SL play some dumb shots here and there. 350 gives you some feeling of safety, IMO.

Then we're done for cos sure as hell we're not going to get a 240 lead let alone 350.