20th Match - New Zealand v Australia

[Jono]

Southee is the most interesting observation from yesterday's game which is why I mentioned him. That's all. I also mentioned Mitch bowled tripe somewhere, I'm sure, because someone then responded saying he wasn't so bad. Cbf to look back though.

 

[Zinzan]

That game got the better of most of the players nerves truth be told. To me, there were others as 'Interesting' as Southee in that respect, but each to their own.

 

[Athlai]

I don't think Southee was all that bad after his first over. He was searching for swing and didn't get much until he came back on from Boult's end.

 

[Flem274*]

yeah he was visibly calmer in his second spell. both sides spent the first few overs ****ting themselves. aussie got away with it before settling and taking advantage with better executed strokes.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

That game got the better of most of the players nerves truth be told. To me, there were others as 'Interesting' as Southee in that respect, but each to their own.

not really surprising for an opening bowler coming into a game fresh off a 7 wicket bag to be first under the spotlight

 

[Jono]

That game got the better of most of the players nerves truth be told. To me, there were others as 'Interesting' as Southee in that respect, but each to their own.

Yeah but he was the gun player that was on fire in the tournament which is why it was interesting. Maxwell and Mitch being mediocre wasn't nearly as interesting.

Clarke hitting it straight to cover at a critical moment was, but not sure how much that was cobwebs.

 

[Zinzan]

not really surprising for an opening bowler coming into a game fresh off a 7 wicket bag to be first under the spotlight

That's true, but in a game when the occasion seemed to get the better of almost ALL of the players, it seems more relevant to point out the few who actually did perform well such as; Starc, Boult, McCullum, Wlliamson, Haddin & Vettori....pretty much everyone else failed.

 

[Jono]

That's true, but in a game when the occasion seemed to get the better of almost ALL of the players, it seems more relevant to point out the few who actually did perform well such as; Starc, Boult, McCullum, Wlliamson, Haddin & Vettori....pretty much everyone else failed.

Definitely, but that's where the debate started. I was saying I take that into account the "good" too. Vettori was so gun, really caught me off guard. Just cos this was a "weird" match doesn't mean we shouldn't take away from this that Dan is still gun. Next time a NZ opening bowler gets tonked we will think about Dan coming on super early.

basically, this game wasn't a "hey weird game, good to watch. Can't read anything into it". That's what Spark and I were debating really.

 

[Zinzan]

Yeah but he was the gun player that was on fire in the tournament which is why it was interesting. .

Well, that's the way you've chosen to view it & that's fine. The way I see it is 4 very high profile (very good) fast bowlers (Southee, Starc, Boult & Johnson) were all on display having all come into the WC with a decent amount of hype around them.

Starc and Boult were superb, Southee & Johnson ordinary... nothing more nothing less, but if you want to make it about Southee & not Johnson because he had a good outing against England last week, that's your choice.

 

[Jono]

Starc and Boult were superb, Southee & Johnson ordinary... nothing more nothing less, but if you want to make it about Southee & not Johnson because he had a good outing against England last week, that's you choice.

I think you're misinterpreting my point really, its about both. I just mentioned Southee.

 

[Zinzan]

I think you're misinterpreting my point really, its about both. I just mentioned Southee.

I'm not misinterpreting anything, I'm simply saying it was selctive to mention Southee as one who didn't perform while not mentioning Johnson. I know you mentioned players who performed as well such as Baz & Starc...

Anyway I have to get going so can't debate further

 

[Flem274*]

Here's a question for you all.

These attacks are rightly rated in the top three in the cup. However, if the players in them never existed, where do you think these two attacks would rank?

Harris | Hazlewood | Faulkner | Coulter-Nile | Doherty

Mills | McClenaghan | Henry | McCullum | Neesham

Both second string attacks are top four contenders imo

 

[Athlai]

Yeah our bowling has depth but if you did the same to the batting we would be screwed.

 

[Jono]

I'm not misinterpreting anything, I'm simply saying it was selctive to mention Southee as one who didn't perform while not mentioning Johnson. I know you mentioned players who performed as well such as Baz & Starc...

Anyway I have to get going so can't debate further

Cancel your plans ffs

 

[3703]

Incidentally, haven't Australia had form and momentum as well with the exception of the one rained-out game against Bang? I mean they've played tons of ODIs recently as well, and I can't remember them losing. Therefore, can we also draw a conclusion that Australia can't score runs against a decent bowling attack? Because we could just say, like McCullum, once Watson was dismissed at 1-80, Australia couldn't score.

We'll see who's on the mark in the end though.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah our bowling has depth but if you did the same to the batting we would be screwed.

yeah that's where nz and i'd hesitantly say aussie fall over. SA have similar issues where half the team are absolute guns but they keep needing hacks like parnell.

the other top eight teams have similar depth issues though so these two teams having world class second string bowling units keeps them above the rest depth wise.

 

[jonbrooks]

This thread is still going on? Pfft, that game was so yesterday ... ;-)

 

[cnerd123]

Holy **** WTF was this match.

Can't believe I missed to go hiking FFS.

Amazing game.

 

[OverratedSanity]

This describes NZ yesterday pretty well.

 

[Daemon]

Was Hazlewood injured? Gotta find a spot in the side for him imo.