20th Match - New Zealand v Australia

[Jono]

Sure, but that's more evidence of potential mental frailty under big match and crunch situation pressure rather than anything that other teams can exploit cricketing wise.

Like, some people are saying that this makes SA favourites, somehow.

That's still something you can take out of this game though. Same with Southee first up too. Maybe they'll be better for it, but I didn't only walk away from this match thinking "oh those were two awesome bowling line-ups". I definitely thought the bowling was gun. But I also walked away thinking "well some of these ****ers are flat out dumb as bat ****" when it comes to making decisions at crucial times.

 

[Jono]

Sure, but that's more evidence of potential mental frailty under big match and crunch situation pressure rather than anything that other teams can exploit cricketing wise.

Like, some people are saying that this makes SA favourites, somehow.

Oh and India are obviously now favs, duh. The only team who doesn't bat like a bunch of dumb ****s.

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't really get the idea of being happier with playing well at the end and **** at the start than the other way around.

Both teams played extremely similar games -- bowled poorly up front but dragged it back and had their left arm swing bowler run through the middle order, and batted poorly.

If you think Australia would be happy having almost won a game in which they batted poorly and started to bowl poorly in, why wouldn't be New Zealand be happy for actually doing that?

I tend to think we're just over-analysing it. New Zealand won a flawed but exciting game that will have ramifications as to the match-ups in the quarters and semis but realistically little beyond that.

 

[Zinzan]

Which team got the most out of this game ?

NZ for winning by just falling across the line or Oz coming back from the dead ?

I think Oz would be happier, having almost saved a game that they batted and started to bowl poorly in.

NZ would not be happy, firstly with letting the Oz last wicket pair put on 40 runs and then not controlling the game after being 1/70 odd when chasing. A win with 2/152 or even 5/152 would have given them confidence they could do it again.
They would think they were lucky to get the win, not that they could roll Oz next time they played them.

The side who won will be happier than the side who lost.

 

[Antihippy]

Why would australia be happy about its ****house batting display?

Does it even matter?

We can only hope that both teams take what they learnt today and correct their mistakes, just so the quality of the world cup matches can raise yet again.

 

[Jono]

I don't really get the idea of being happier with playing well at the end and **** at the start than the other way around.

Both teams played extremely similar games -- bowled poorly up front but dragged it back and had their left arm swing bowler run through the middle order, and batted poorly.

If you think Australia would be happy having almost won a game in which they batted poorly and started to bowl poorly in, why wouldn't be New Zealand be happy for actually doing that?

I tend to think we're just over-analysing it. New Zealand won a flawed but exciting game that will have ramifications as to the match-ups in the quarters and semis but realistically little beyond that.

Well, we'll see how Southee bowls his first over when (and it is when) NZ play the WC final.

I don't care who is happier or not and all that rubbish. But people saying its just a random match which means nothing in terms of judging the players is oversimplying it. You know Starc is capable of delivering at the crunch now (I guess we already did but this is something else). You know Vettori still has it in him to dry up runs if the frontliners get caned. You know that Baz can beast it against the best, and not just minnows like England. You know Elliott is a piece of luggage. We know Southee gets nervous etc.

I actually think this will be good for Southee. He won't be all over the place bowling with nerves in his next big game, he'll be far more calmer. Zaheer needed something like that in 2003 when he bottled it.

 

[Spark]

That's what I'm saying though. The takeaways from this match are basically who's good under pressure and who isn't, not "objective" considerations about the quality of the batting and bowling being what we already knew.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well, we'll see how Southee bowls his first over when (and it is when) NZ play the WC final.

I don't care who is happier or not and all that rubbish. But people saying its just a random match which means nothing in terms of judging the players is oversimplying it. You know Starc is capable of delivering at the crunch now (I guess we already did but this is something else). You know Vettori still has it in him to dry up runs if the frontliners get caned. You know that Baz can beast it against the best, and not just minnows like England. You know Elliott is a piece of luggage. We know Southee gets nervous etc.

I actually think this will be good for Southee. He won't be all over the place bowling with nerves in his next big game, he'll be far more calmer. Zaheer needed something like that in 2003 when he bottled it.

Ramifications and insights aren't the same thing. You can take some insights from certain things; I just don't think endless discussions about whether this will help or hinder each team, or which team will be happier to the point of suggesting that "not only did we lose in a heartbreakingly close game, but we batted like **** as well!" can be spun as a positive are anything more than mental masturbation.

But tbh I think people are over-doing it with analysis on the things you just posted about too. While you can take more from it than pretty much any other game we've seen since probably the last WC, it still has the intrinsic problem of being a one-off cricket game. There's lots of variance in cricket, especially batting. Elliott is a great example -- he faced one delivery, didn't pick it up and got bowled. **** like that can happen first ball in cricket. I don't think it really tells us much at all.

 

[Jono]

That's what I'm saying though. The takeaways from this match are basically who's good under pressure and who isn't, not "objective" considerations about the quality of the batting and bowling being what we already knew.

PEWS isn't saying that though. He reckons even that is minimal. I reckon those are good take-aways.

Ramifications and insights aren't the same thing. You can take some insights from certain things; I just don't endless discussions about whether this will help or hinder each team, or which team will be happier to the point of suggesting that "not only did we lose in a heartbreakingly close game, but we batted like **** as well!" can be spun as a positive are anything more than mental masturbation.

But tbh I think people are over-doing it with analysis on the things you just posted about too. While you can take more from it than pretty much any other game we've seen since probably the last WC, it still has the intrinsic problem of being a one-off cricket game. There's lots of variance in cricket, especially batting. Elliott is a great example -- he faced one delivery, didn't pick it up and got bowled. **** like that can happen first ball in cricket. I don't think it really tells us much at all.

Dan told me a lot today. Maybe you thought he still had that ability, but I didn't.

Elliott is a piece of luggage. Nothing to do with his cricketing ability. Just looks like someone you'd put into a backpack.

 

[GGG]

Well, we'll see how Southee bowls his first over when (and it is when) NZ play the WC final.

I don't care who is happier or not and all that rubbish. But people saying its just a random match which means nothing in terms of judging the players is oversimplying it. You know Starc is capable of delivering at the crunch now (I guess we already did but this is something else). You know Vettori still has it in him to dry up runs if the frontliners get caned. You know that Baz can beast it against the best, and not just minnows like England. You know Elliott is a piece of luggage. We know Southee gets nervous etc.

I actually think this will be good for Southee. He won't be all over the place bowling with nerves in his next big game, he'll be far more calmer. Zaheer needed something like that in 2003 when he bottled it.

So the entire Aussie batting line up bar Haddin are walking wickets come finals time?

 

[Jono]

Nah, Warner was robbed remember.

In all seriousness, that's not what I'm saying from that post at all.

 

[Spark]

PEWS isn't saying that though. He reckons even that is minimal. I reckon those are good take-aways.


Dan told me a lot today. Maybe you thought he still had that ability, but I didn't.

Elliott is a piece of luggage. Nothing to do with his cricketing ability. Just looks like someone you'd put into a backpack.

On the flipside the fact that they've had this "dry run" may well mean that by the time the critical matches come, the players of interest perform in exactly the opposite way. No way to tell, tbh. Ultimately the biggest takeaway is that NZ will top this group and we won't.

 

[Jono]

Yeah but a part of cricket is that you watch enough of cricket for years and years and years and then you form an opinion of what is likely after seeing something. There rarely is a way to tell but you can have a view, and someone can disagree with that view.

That is different from saying the team that lost will be happier ftr.

 

[Spark]

Yeah but a part of cricket is that you watch enough of cricket for years and years and years and then you form an opinion of what is likely after seeing something. There rarely is a way to tell but you can have a view, and someone can disagree with that view.

That is different from saying the team that lost will be happier ftr.

sure, but the fact that we were soft this time around could directly make it less likely that we'll be soft come qf/sf time because we won't be so blasé about our approach to quality bowling. so whilst the observation that we were soft is correct, the implication could be one of two diametrically opposite things, which makes any "takeaways" fraught.

 

[Antihippy]

To do that though they have to be unhappy about their performance first.

 

[Jono]

The "opposite" performance scenario you just said could be someone's takeaway though. I just find it weird you and others are hosing down people's interpretations of a cricket match. You're not actually disagreeing with the interpretation which would be fine to do. But you are telling them to bar down and just move on without analysing it at all because it'd be pointless. You're saying just take out of it the fact NZ are topping the group. Well sorry, no.

Its a friggin cricket forum with cricket nerds. Just responding with "yeah well you never know, this may mean nothing" just kills any discussion.

 

[Spark]

The "opposite" performance scenario you just said could be someone's takeaway though. I just find it weird you and others are hosing down people's interpretations of a cricket match. You're not actually disagreeing with the interpretation which would be fine to do. But you are telling them to bar down and just move on without analysing it at all because it'd be pointless. You're saying just take out of it the fact NZ are topping the group. Well sorry, no.

Its a friggin cricket forum with cricket nerds. Just responding with "yeah well you never know, this may mean nothing" just kills any discussion.

...i am, though? i'm really not sure what you're getting with this. it's not like i suddenly starting going "ultimately this game hasn't told us much about the teams that we didn't already know" once the game ended, i said it multiple times as the match was progressing based on how it was playing out. it's, y'know, my takeaway.

 

[Jono]

You said anything other than thinking these two teams can bowl is a weird conclusion. If someone came to a view, even one you disagreed, that Southee is susceptible on the big stage, I'm not sure how you can say that is a weird conclusion. To me, and its just me so feel free to disagree, that was a new insight into how Southee bowls. He may be better for this experience (which is what i strongly think will happen if he bowls the first over of a semi or final with a packed crowd), but I am walking away with new (and imo valuable) info heading further into the tournament about the leading wicket taker. Not really that weird a conclusion at all.

 

[Spark]

that post was very specifically referring to the non-psychological aspects of the game i.e. not how the players coped with pressure -- which i said above is significant, just indeterminate as to whether it'll happen again, for the reasons you just described. stuff like whether the teams are balanced, the technical strengths and weaknesses of each batsman, whether the teams are overreliant on certain individual players, whether they're just plain ****. that sort of thing.

 

[Jono]

I think we can all agree that the one takeaway is Elliott still looks like a piece of luggage.