-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** Australia in New Zealand 2016
- Thread starter Spark
- Start date
Flem274*
123/5
Well played Australia. Umpiring error or no, that was so dominant it didn't matter. Really, really well done considering how hard it is to win tests away from home these days and NZ haven't lost a test at home for a long time (and have used some bull**** ICC game esque comebacks to make other teams cry).
The news on the drive home is reporting McHesson thinks there are plenty of positives which I find interesting, because Nicholls being tidy aside all I saw was a good over from Boult, a good catch from Corey, a 50 from Latham and a complete shower of **** for the rest of the game. "One guy bowled well for an over" doesn't really count as a positive.
Taylor, Santner and Wagner in if possible. I'm thinking Henry too but still nervous about making him third seamer now that he's actually bowling well again and his poor form coincided with being promoted to that role.
edit - oh, i see how it is now. if both are out and we're back to 2010 then lets do this properly.
pick Sinclair
The news on the drive home is reporting McHesson thinks there are plenty of positives which I find interesting, because Nicholls being tidy aside all I saw was a good over from Boult, a good catch from Corey, a 50 from Latham and a complete shower of **** for the rest of the game. "One guy bowled well for an over" doesn't really count as a positive.
Taylor, Santner and Wagner in if possible. I'm thinking Henry too but still nervous about making him third seamer now that he's actually bowling well again and his poor form coincided with being promoted to that role.
edit - oh, i see how it is now. if both are out and we're back to 2010 then lets do this properly.
pick Sinclair
Hurricane
Hall of Fame Member
The basin was sold out for three full days and it is a shame that a piece of bad luck stopped it from being a closer contest.
This test really really caught the imagination of the Wellington public.
We could have sold twice as many tickets on the weekend.
If we had'Ve run through them on Saturday big if but if then the place would have been rocking. Instead you could hear a pin drop during most of the match.
Still I ask myself how is this decision any worse than the complete **** we put up with in the 1980s in the days of home town umpires.
For example the Danny Morrison lbw being turned down. That was to win a whole test match.
Kiwiviktor is wrong. Cricket is not a game of skill it is a game of skill and luck. You need both on your side.
The sooner you recognise the fact the better the results you will get
For example, Amir never wants to be called for a no ball and is well behind the line. Tim's foot is also well behind the line while doug chooses to push the envelope and opens himself up to bad luck.
I don't want to call it something fancy like risk management or maximising the odds of success, it is what is.
Bad luck happens in cricket. And you try to account for it. For players of my era that means buckles on the inside part of your legs.
It means when you bat you don't **** around because eventually a ball will have your name on it.
It also means try to be the team with momentum as the umpires are human beings.
That is all
Tldr version there is always next week and control what you can.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yes, but one would think an inch behind wouldn't be called by a good umpire. It's as much as the width of the actual line on the ground.
He certainly does push it though, and that doesn't help, but for that to be called no ball was some 'bad luck' indeed.
Skyliner
International 12th Man
Changes unlikely for Black Caps as Ross Taylor loses race to play second test | Stuff.co.nz
Changes unlikely for the 2nd Test, according to this report.
4 tests against Australia this summer and still we persist in picking erstwhile batsman and part-time spinner Mark Craig. I'd like to see some attacking and aggressive captaincy vis a vis selections and not just keep playing a guy who is cooked. Young legspinner Ish Sodhi must be high on confidence after his man of the match performance in the last ODI of the Chappell Hadlee series......what the hell would we have to lose by playing him??? Doug Bracewell will also apparently get another trundle over the 'aggressive' Wags and the sensational Henry.
What is the batting coach Craig McMillan doing? BJ Watling averages 17.5 from his last 6 tests, Latham's game is not improving, guys are chasing wides like it's a one-dayer....even KW is playing uncharacteristic shots. This is a humiliation....how the hell would we have gone against an attack of Starc, Pattinson, Hazelwood & Lyon(?)
You earn the right to be aggressive by seeing off the new ball, building partnerships, wearing down the bowlers. All the things these BC's don't do. They don't respect the game and they don't respect test cricket. Trying to bat in a test like you are playing ODI cricket won't work...the opposition simply knuckle down & outlast you. This is cricket on steroids, doomed to fail.
There is a huge chasm between beating up on below par sub-continental teams on flat tracks and matching it with this goodish Australian team. We are nowhere near as good as we had thought we were. This summer has proven it. This summer, against tough opposition, has shown that out approach to the game has been hopelessly naïve & undeserving of success. We don't adapt the way the Australian's do. We are straight-jacketed by frankly dumb thinking about how we should play our cricket.
Changes unlikely for the 2nd Test, according to this report.
4 tests against Australia this summer and still we persist in picking erstwhile batsman and part-time spinner Mark Craig. I'd like to see some attacking and aggressive captaincy vis a vis selections and not just keep playing a guy who is cooked. Young legspinner Ish Sodhi must be high on confidence after his man of the match performance in the last ODI of the Chappell Hadlee series......what the hell would we have to lose by playing him??? Doug Bracewell will also apparently get another trundle over the 'aggressive' Wags and the sensational Henry.
What is the batting coach Craig McMillan doing? BJ Watling averages 17.5 from his last 6 tests, Latham's game is not improving, guys are chasing wides like it's a one-dayer....even KW is playing uncharacteristic shots. This is a humiliation....how the hell would we have gone against an attack of Starc, Pattinson, Hazelwood & Lyon(?)
You earn the right to be aggressive by seeing off the new ball, building partnerships, wearing down the bowlers. All the things these BC's don't do. They don't respect the game and they don't respect test cricket. Trying to bat in a test like you are playing ODI cricket won't work...the opposition simply knuckle down & outlast you. This is cricket on steroids, doomed to fail.
There is a huge chasm between beating up on below par sub-continental teams on flat tracks and matching it with this goodish Australian team. We are nowhere near as good as we had thought we were. This summer has proven it. This summer, against tough opposition, has shown that out approach to the game has been hopelessly naïve & undeserving of success. We don't adapt the way the Australian's do. We are straight-jacketed by frankly dumb thinking about how we should play our cricket.
Last edited:
jcas0167
International Debutant
Sodhi just took a 7 wicket bag against Otago so yeah, confidence definitely high.
cnerd123
likes this
That went from 0-100 real quick
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Craig to stay in the team? No Henry or Wagner or any good spinner?
Yeeeeeeeeeees!!
Couldn't be better.
Don't understand the NZ selectors thinking, but totally support it if it allows us to keep winning.
Yeeeeeeeeeees!!
Couldn't be better.
Don't understand the NZ selectors thinking, but totally support it if it allows us to keep winning.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
NZ had their fair share of luck, Burns strangled down leg early, a few NZ batsmen were dropped. Couple of LBWs awarded in our favour that would have been umpires call had the initially decision gone against us.
Voges wicket (just like Lyon in Adelaide) has been overplayed because we weren't good enough to put either of them behind us and make our own luck again.
We're very selective in pointing out the supposed bad luck we have, yet conveniently fail to point out when we gets things going our way.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I don't think the margin of victory accurately represented the difference in the standard of cricket on display from each team, so in the most encompassing sense NZ were more unlucky than they were lucky. In no world did they play anywhere near as well as Australia did though and that has be well and truly recognised before pointing to luck factors.
In a way, this New Zealand side is almost the complete opposite to the usual stereotype of a team gelling together with contributions from everyone to make up for a lack of star power. New Zealand have some world class players but they really need to be all contributing to beat the top teams because they've got some passengers as well.
Last edited:
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
See I do think the innings margin was indicative of the skill levels on displayed, especially the concentration levels with both bat and ball, Australia were well ahead in both disciplines. Perhaps the one area I didn't defend NZ more on which did of course set them on the back-foot from the get-go was losing the toss. However given how poor, loose and irresponsible some the shot selection was, I'm not they deserve so much sympathy for that either.
Last edited:
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Agree & as I said before, I'm almost certain he wouldn't make it in Sheffield Shield cricket if he was Australian.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
There are definitely worse bowlers in the Shield than Bracewell ftr. Whether that's more to do with Bracewell receiving world class coaching and infrastructure than it is him being more talented or driven is hard to say I suppose, but I reckon you're wrong.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It could be there's a few going around who may be worse (who won't last long at that level) , but I couldn't see Bracewell playing top class Sheffield Shield cricket for any decent period of time. The guy averages mid 30s in NZ FC cricket, an environment in which even decent pace bowlers generally average sub 30, and since his Hobart heroics he's averages over 40 in test cricket.
By far and away his greatest ever performance