not really surprising for an opening bowler coming into a game fresh off a 7 wicket bag to be first under the spotlightThat 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.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.
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.not really surprising for an opening bowler coming into a game fresh off a 7 wicket bag to be first under the spotlight
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.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.
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.Yeah but he was the gun player that was on fire in the tournament which is why it was interesting. .
I think you're misinterpreting my point really, its about both. I just mentioned Southee.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'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...I think you're misinterpreting my point really, its about both. I just mentioned Southee.
Cancel your plans ffsI'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
We'll see who's on the mark in the end though.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.
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.Yeah our bowling has depth but if you did the same to the batting we would be screwed.