New Zealand doom and gloom thread

[Prince EWS]

Coriander Sun

I'm so glad this is taking off.

 

[Flem274*]

cw is doing that thing again where pews has the last post (probably telling me off) but i can only see zinzans

edit - can see it now

 

[Zinzan]

Wow! I had no idea this thread existed! Talk about a topic I can't get into!!!

My thoughts:

* South Africa were the more deserving side to be in the Final. Their team has more depth and more class to handle the big stage.

* McCullum's dismissal didn't surprise me. He's not much more than a risk-taker - sometimes it works, and other times it doesn't. That it didn't work in the Final surprised me. For what it's worth, he didn't have the intelligence to at least play a few balls and make contact. He didn't hit a ball once! I did feel a bit bad for him that the commentators and every made a big deal over it. You know there are other players who lost the game for New Zealand? They were 3-140 at one stage! Even Mark Nicholas asked him about the first over. The first over was crucial, but there's a lot of New Zealanders in that side who should hang their heads in shame.

* Maxwell's dismissal was hilarious.

* The difference between New Zealand compared to Australia and South Africa is that the latter had depth. New Zealand crumbled because of their lack of depth.

* Everything people were saying about the MCG was true. New Zealand couldn't hit the big sixes and fours they could on the small New Zealand grounds. They couldn't swing the ball, either. The game showed their limitations. Also, they didn't have the home ground advantage. Really I think South Africa could have handled the stage better.

* It was an incredibly boring game. It was like driving your car on cruise control. New Zealand weren't close, and Australia cruised in.

I like how you've so brilliantly figured out McCullum's high-risk gamble-like approach as if you're the only one who's noticed.

They've been very open & transparent about McCullum's role at the top & we've shown the ability and the game to be able to perform if he does fail and proved it again today up until the 35th over at 150/3. If things went well from that stage, McCullum's duck would have been a distance memory.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

New Zealand has had it's fun. They can now go back to punching above their weight and winning spirit of cricket awards.

 

[Francis]

You all make very valid points.

 

[Spark]

SA are, as far as good teams go, a very mediocre good team.

 

[Furball]

South Africa are rubbish. 3-4 world class players, rest of the team are absolute spuds that would struggle to get a game for England, nevermind a side that's actually good.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

to label depth as SA's strength is pretty hilarious

 

[Fuller Pilch]

It is not doom & gloom today. It is sorrow & sadness.

In a fortnight it will be pride and honour when we look back at what has been achieved. All around the country people have talking cricket. Kids of all ethnicities have been playing it. There has been a sea change.

And when the lads arrive at Lords in May and face Australia again at the end of the year, it will be hope and expectation.

 

[Francis]

Can I just say this? And I promise I'm not stirring...

New Zealand made the Final for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the conditions in New Zealand suited them. Their swing bowlers (the biggets reason they did well) were able to get great swing in places like Auckland. While their bowlers got good swing in the first six overs yesterday, after that the pitch gave them little. While New Zealand exploited the conditions in NZ better than SA did, I think South Africa's bowlers were better suited in Australia. I think they'd have gotten more out of the wicket than the NZ bowlers.

Much of what was said about the MCG was true. NZ weren't used to playing on such a big ground, they couldn't get the same value for shots, and they couldn't swing the ball as well.

AB de Villiers is the best cricket player in the world. I think he would have at least done something yesterday. The way he handled Australia's pressure last year in the first Test in South Africa showed how he can handle pressure.

South Africa didn't play to their full potential in this tournament, and disappointed at times, but I really think they would have done better against Australia yesterday than New Zealand - I really do!

Lastly, I felt SA were hand done-by, by the rain in Auckland. I don't think New Zealand had the depth to chase down a 330+ score. Yes they were on target in their modified target, but they only had about four wickets left remaining. I felt chasing down a score in 43 overs with 10 wickets suited them more than chasing down a score in 50 overs with 10 wickets.

It could have gone either way, that game. Both teams played well. But SA v Australia would have made a better final, IMO.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Can I just say this? And I promise I'm not stirring...

New Zealand made the Final for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the conditions in New Zealand suited them. Their swing bowlers (the biggets reason they did well) were able to get great swing in places like Auckland. While their bowlers got good swing in the first six overs yesterday, after that the pitch gave them little. While New Zealand exploited the conditions in NZ better than SA did, I think South Africa's bowlers were better suited in Australia. I think they'd have gotten more out of the wicket than the NZ bowlers.

Much of what was said about the MCG was true. NZ weren't used to playing on such a big ground, they couldn't get the same value for shots, and they couldn't swing the ball as well.

AB de Villiers is the best cricket player in the world. I think he would have at least done something yesterday. The way he handled Australia's pressure last year in the first Test in South Africa showed how he can handle pressure.

South Africa didn't play to their full potential in this tournament, and disappointed at times, but I really think they would have done better against Australia yesterday than New Zealand - I really do!

Lastly, I felt SA were hand done-by, by the rain in Auckland. I don't think New Zealand had the depth to chase down a 330+ score. Yes they were on target in their modified target, but they only had about four wickets left remaining. I felt chasing down a score in 43 overs with 10 wickets suited them more than chasing down a score in 50 overs with 10 wickets.

It could have gone either way, that game. Both teams played well. But SA v Australia would have made a better final, IMO.

It is fine to post it - just would be better in either the thread for the NZ-Aus final or NZ-Saf semi

 

[wellAlbidarned]

The thing is saying that you think SA would've done better than NZ in the final is utterly meaningless. You can't back it up with anything other than blind speculation, and we can't refute it since it never happened. I also think there's a six legged laser eyed cat in the house next door despite never having gone inside.

 

[jonbrooks]

Can I just say this? And I promise I'm not stirring...

New Zealand made the Final for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the conditions in New Zealand suited them. Their swing bowlers (the biggets reason they did well) were able to get great swing in places like Auckland. While their bowlers got good swing in the first six overs yesterday, after that the pitch gave them little. While New Zealand exploited the conditions in NZ better than SA did, I think South Africa's bowlers were better suited in Australia. I think they'd have gotten more out of the wicket than the NZ bowlers.

Much of what was said about the MCG was true. NZ weren't used to playing on such a big ground, they couldn't get the same value for shots, and they couldn't swing the ball as well.

AB de Villiers is the best cricket player in the world. I think he would have at least done something yesterday. The way he handled Australia's pressure last year in the first Test in South Africa showed how he can handle pressure.

South Africa didn't play to their full potential in this tournament, and disappointed at times, but I really think they would have done better against Australia yesterday than New Zealand - I really do!

Lastly, I felt SA were hand done-by, by the rain in Auckland. I don't think New Zealand had the depth to chase down a 330+ score. Yes they were on target in their modified target, but they only had about four wickets left remaining. I felt chasing down a score in 43 overs with 10 wickets suited them more than chasing down a score in 50 overs with 10 wickets.

It could have gone either way, that game. Both teams played well. But SA v Australia would have made a better final, IMO.

I completely agree but that's what happens with home ground advantage! People seem to always forget how big a difference it makes. Case and point Russia at the Sochi Winter Olympics. The predictions had Russia winning only 5 golds. They ended up winning 13 and topping the table.

 

[jcas0167]

Can I just say this? And I promise I'm not stirring...

New Zealand made the Final for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the conditions in New Zealand suited them. Their swing bowlers (the biggets reason they did well) were able to get great swing in places like Auckland. While their bowlers got good swing in the first six overs yesterday, after that the pitch gave them little. While New Zealand exploited the conditions in NZ better than SA did, I think South Africa's bowlers were better suited in Australia. I think they'd have gotten more out of the wicket than the NZ bowlers.

Much of what was said about the MCG was true. NZ weren't used to playing on such a big ground, they couldn't get the same value for shots, and they couldn't swing the ball as well.

AB de Villiers is the best cricket player in the world. I think he would have at least done something yesterday. The way he handled Australia's pressure last year in the first Test in South Africa showed how he can handle pressure.

South Africa didn't play to their full potential in this tournament, and disappointed at times, but I really think they would have done better against Australia yesterday than New Zealand - I really do!

Lastly, I felt SA were hand done-by, by the rain in Auckland. I don't think New Zealand had the depth to chase down a 330+ score. Yes they were on target in their modified target, but they only had about four wickets left remaining. I felt chasing down a score in 43 overs with 10 wickets suited them more than chasing down a score in 50 overs with 10 wickets.

It could have gone either way, that game. Both teams played well. But SA v Australia would have made a better final, IMO.

I don't think the ground size was an issue. No one got caught in the deep. In terms of the conditions the shadow across the pitch may have been a factor as that seemed to coincide with the wickets in the powerplay? The dismissals by Guptill & Williamson were disapointingly soft given they'd survived the Starc & Hazlewood opening.

Boult & Southee seemed to get a bit of movement at the start, unfortunately there was a slip missing when Warner nicked one. And NZ just didn't get enough runs.

I think the rain did assist in the semi, also in terms of slipperiness in the outfield. That was a gamble SA took in batting first unfortunately.

It's easy to say now that SA v Australia would have been a better final. I'm sure if SA had played the final and lost I'd be thinking NZ could have done better too Granted, it would have been good to see someone of de Villier's class playing on that stage, but it wasn't to be.

 

[Antihippy]

SA lost to australia 4-1 in the series just before the world cup. I can't see how you can say that they will be better than NZ in the finals.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

SA probably would have played better in the final, but on the other hand, 9 out of 10 times so would we have done. It was an unusually poor game from the BCs, and the Aussie bowling was, let's be fair, absolutely outstanding.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Lastly, I felt SA were hand done-by, by the rain in Auckland. I don't think New Zealand had the depth to chase down a 330+ score. Yes they were on target in their modified target, but they only had about four wickets left remaining. I felt chasing down a score in 43 overs with 10 wickets suited them more than chasing down a score in 50 overs with 10 wickets.

That's pretty harsh.I think the shorter chase helped NZ a bit but they certainly had the depth to cahse 330 in 50 too. I'm not totally 100% convinced they'd have done it but then I wasn't 100% convinced they'd chase 300 in 43 either. And in a shorter, faster and moe concentrated chase you're bound to lose a few wickets because of the Required RR.

People are making too much of the rain trying to find a reason to point to to make SA look even more sympathetic. It was a difference of 7 overs in the end, and if NZ batted as well as they did in the 43 over chase I don't see why they couldn't have kept it up for a mere 7 more overs.

 

[artvandalay]

The thing is saying that you think SA would've done better than NZ in the final is utterly meaningless. You can't back it up with anything other than blind speculation, and we can't refute it since it never happened. I also think there's a six legged laser eyed cat in the house next door despite never having gone inside.

90% of the discussion on a forum is speculation and hypothesis anyway. Not every statement ever being posted is going to be backed up by iron clad empirical evidence. Don't see why there are so many butthurt at the belief that SA would have made better finalists, albeit with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[Frost]

90% of the discussion on a forum is speculation and hypothesis anyway. Not every statement ever being posted is going to be backed up by iron clad empirical evidence. Don't see why there are so many butthurt at the belief that SA would have made better finalists, albeit with the benefit of hindsight.

That's fair enuf but if your gunna use speculation and hypothesis then those who prefer to use statements that can be backed up(in this case,anyway)should be able to without being labeled as "butthurt" I don't really see how that's fair

 

[Zinzan]

Can I just say this? And I promise I'm not stirring...

New Zealand made the Final for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the conditions in New Zealand suited them. Their swing bowlers (the biggets reason they did well) were able to get great swing in places like Auckland. While their bowlers got good swing in the first six overs yesterday, after that the pitch gave them little. While New Zealand exploited the conditions in NZ better than SA did, I think South Africa's bowlers were better suited in Australia. I think they'd have gotten more out of the wicket than the NZ bowlers.

Much of what was said about the MCG was true. NZ weren't used to playing on such a big ground, they couldn't get the same value for shots, and they couldn't swing the ball as well.

AB de Villiers is the best cricket player in the world. I think he would have at least done something yesterday. The way he handled Australia's pressure last year in the first Test in South Africa showed how he can handle pressure.

South Africa didn't play to their full potential in this tournament, and disappointed at times, but I really think they would have done better against Australia yesterday than New Zealand - I really do!

Lastly, I felt SA were hand done-by, by the rain in Auckland. I don't think New Zealand had the depth to chase down a 330+ score. Yes they were on target in their modified target, but they only had about four wickets left remaining. I felt chasing down a score in 43 overs with 10 wickets suited them more than chasing down a score in 50 overs with 10 wickets.

It could have gone either way, that game. Both teams played well. But SA v Australia would have made a better final, IMO.

If SA hadn't lost 3 games, including two in the GS, you might have a ghost of a point, but the fact they were rolled by both the Pakistan and Indian bowling attacks (and the Indian game was an absolute mauling at the MCG itself lost by 130 runs), I'm not sure how you can seriously suggest they would have been up to it against that Australian attack. It's just utterly illogical.

If India rolled them for 177 at the G, what on earth makes you think they would have prospered better against Starc, Johnson & co?

I know you've never be a fan of NZ Francis, and I get that, but the hypothetical argument that SA would have performed better when all the data points the other way is desperate at best.