**Official** New Zealand in Australia 2015

[Zinzan]

Ian Smith fits in so well in the box.

Please keep him, utterly sick of his biased whining commentary. The recent English tour and this one in particular. Nasser Hussian sounded like he was sick of him after the first 5 mins of being in the box with him.

 

[Gob]

What the **** was that Mark Nicholas?

 

[ajdude]

always rated chris cairns' commentary, wonder what he's up to these days

 

[adub]

Yea while I think it's a good idea to not lose a review if it goes to umpire's call, I also think sides should understand the flaws in the system and work around them. Save the reviews for the really bad calls.

Not since the margin on umps calls has been widened. Balls taking leg stump out of the ground are getting not given on umps call because only 49% of the ball is in line with the middle of the stump.

That's fair enough, but to call that a poor review and cost the reviewer so that later they can't review a real shocker is bull****. Leaving the loss of review for clear wrong calls is fine, taking a review for something that isn't a 50:50 call, but really just helping keep the umpire central (which I'm happy to support) is too much.

 

[Gob]

lowl

 

[straw man]

This would be a much more handy innings at 480/9 on day two of the next match.

 

[Zinzan]

In all honesty our top 3 and to a lesser extent Baz with the bat all kind of get a pass here. (Williamson obviously was great)

The rest of the batting was either below average or bad, but it's the bowling that got us slaughtered here.

Thought we would lose this match by much much more.

Depends how you look at it...One school of thought is that Guppy was involved in a 56 & a 44 1st wicket stands and saw off the new ball. The other school of thought is he scored 23 & 23 on a close to a perfect batting pitch. Objectively speaking If we accept this a pass, we're well & truly accepting mediocrity. If Warner or Cook had two scores of 23 (as an example), it would be considered an utter failure.

 

[cnerd123]

Not since the margin on umps calls has been widened. Balls taking leg stump out of the ground are getting not given on umps call because only 49% of the ball is in line with the middle of the stump.

That's fair enough, but to call that a poor review and cost the reviewer so that later they can't review a real shocker is bull****. Leaving the loss of review for clear wrong calls is fine, taking a review for something that isn't a 50:50 call, but really just helping keep the umpire central (which I'm happy to support) is too much.

I agree with you; just saying that the rules are what they are and the players should just cop it and deal with it. They can't be making bad reviews and then complaining about how the rules should be. Play within the rules as they are, not under a hypothetical set of rules that would be better.

 

[adub]

Would prefer listening to Healy commentate than Dirk Nannes

#thereisaidit

 

[cnerd123]

At this rate NZ should be able to wrap the game up with a few overs to spare.

 

[adub]

I agree with you; just saying that the rules are what they are and the players should just cop it and deal with it. They can't be making bad reviews and then complaining about how the rules should be. Play within the rules as they are, not under a hypothetical set of rules that would be better.

Who's they? A radio commentator and some nobody on the net (me) are saying the rule should change. I don't think the Kiwahs are moaning too much are they? They won't be saying Baz getting sawn off cost them the game or anything. DRS is very good in many ways - letting teams hang on to a review that doesn't get overturned when it's umps call would make it a bit better.

 

[Dan]

Yeah the batting comes out of this with quite a bit of credit IMO. The bowling was the big let-down.

NZ Ratings:
Latham -- 7: good solid game, showed he belonged at this level, but needed to kick on more in both innings
Guptill -- 6: credit where credit is due, he performed above what I think most expected from him and his grafting in the second dig helped NZ immeasurably
Williamson -- 9: near-flawless, but being LBW getting hit in the box when he needed to bat d33p was a problem. -1 for that.
Taylor -- 4: scratchy and out in the first innings, fought to survive in the second but got out softly. +1 for his first innings catch.
McCullum -- 6: the 80 was very good and I have no issues with him batting aggressively per se. But the captaincy on the first morning and his first innings dismissal were poor. He gets a pass.
Neesham -- 3: given his back, arguably shouldn't have played. His bowling was all over the place, his batting not helpful at all. Poor game from him but I'm not going to be too harsh given the injury.
Watling -- 6: good behind the stumps as always (no byes in 180 overs), and his first innings 32 was useful. Second innings needed a patented Beej rearguard, and he wasn't undone by a good piece of bowling. Pass.
Craig -- 3: mostly for his batting, which was more "well at least he ground it out" than actually being good. Second innings figures flatter him, obvs. Bonus point for being a finger spinner in Australia who isn't Lyon.
Bracewell -- 3: I think he bowled better than 0/170, insofar as he got a few to take off and looked threatening in patches, but too much was pedestrian. Gets a point for his important partnership with KW.
Southee -- 7: opening spell was good, was the only bowler to consistently keep it tight and test the batsmen. His presence will be sorely missed if he doesn't play at the WACA.
Boult -- 4: looked veeeery underdone. Showed what he was capable of in patches, but, like Bracewell, was pedestrian for the most part. +1 for ridiculous back defence batting technique.

 

[Gob]

****ing last

 

[Spikey]

i will never know joy to the level nev enjoys after every catch

 

[Jono]

God that was poop. With WI to follow, NZ better step the **** up or this could be one of the ****test summers ever.

 

[Dan]

Not since the margin on umps calls has been widened. Balls taking leg stump out of the ground are getting not given on umps call because only 49% of the ball is in line with the middle of the stump.

That's fair enough, but to call that a poor review and cost the reviewer so that later they can't review a real shocker is bull****. Leaving the loss of review for clear wrong calls is fine, taking a review for something that isn't a 50:50 call, but really just helping keep the umpire central (which I'm happy to support) is too much.

Well, don't gamble your review on a marginal decision. Simple.

Yes, the margin of error needs to change (I've gone on about it ad nauseum), but don't review marginal decisions ffs.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not since the margin on umps calls has been widened. Balls taking leg stump out of the ground are getting not given on umps call because only 49% of the ball is in line with the middle of the stump.

That's fair enough, but to call that a poor review and cost the reviewer so that later they can't review a real shocker is bull****. Leaving the loss of review for clear wrong calls is fine, taking a review for something that isn't a 50:50 call, but really just helping keep the umpire central (which I'm happy to support) is too much.

This should be a no-brainer. I've been saying this for years.

Simple really: "Umpire's Call" remains with the umpire's decision, but should be no loss of review.

Also the margin for UC should definitely be reduced. As you said, 49% of the ball knocking out leg stump remaining not out is stupid.

Other than that I feel the system is about as perfect as can be.

 

[Moss]

Well what a scorecard to wake up to #NZBrandOfCricket. Expected them to take it to the second session at least. Did McCullum actually play-to-win-by-preparing-to-lose or was he just helping himself against loose bowling?

 

[Gnske]

I really wish we just had the Windies for all 6 tests now

 

[Midwinter]

At least the game got to the fifth day.