2nd June - Group A - Australia v New Zealand

[Black_Warrior]

England should not have invented cricket if they can't provide us with the weather to support the game

 

[Howsie]

Or for Broom, forgot he existed there for a minute. I've come round to the idea of Neesh at 5 instead of 6.

Yep, something I mentioned myself last week. Broom just isn't good enough against this level of bowling, he's a waste of space really. Whilst Neesham isn't really a 'come in and clear the ropes batsman' at this level either, so he's wasted at six. When he was given a chance up the order he really did show a thing or two (or given time to play himself in) Neesham at five really would improve this team quite a lot I reckon.

In saying that though, that would mean de Grandhomme would come in and what's he going to bring to the table, a quick 10-15 at best.

 

[Howsie]

I can't wait to see Milne bat for a length of time one day either. He genuinely looked to have a better technique then both Neesham and Anderson against the short ball. I guess I can see why he bats at seven in FC cricket sometimes.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

Yep, something I mentioned myself last week. Broom just isn't good enough against this level of bowling, he's a waste of space really. Whilst Neesham isn't really a 'come in and clear the ropes batsman' at this level either, so he's wasted at six. When he was given a chance up the order he really did show a thing or two (or given time to play himself in) Neesham at five really would improve this team quite a lot I reckon.

In saying that though, that would mean de Grandhomme would come in and what's he going to bring to the table, a quick 10-15 at best.

Broom did score a 73 off 75 against Aus earlier this year ... but he's not really the come in and bash it around type of player, either. Move Neesham up and I think you've got even more of a problem of the batting falling away completely after the five is out. I'm not sure I really see a solution in the current squad.

 

[Howsie]

Broom did score a 73 off 75 against Aus earlier this year ... but he's not really the come in and bash it around type of player, either. Move Neesham up and I think you've got even more of a problem of the batting falling away completely after the five is out. I'm not sure I really see a solution in the current squad.

Yep, but that's been his only score against a team that wasn't Bangladesh or Ireland since he's come back. It's enough innings imo against South Africa and Australia to prove he isn't up to this level anyway.....

Yeah, perhaps. But Anderson six, CdG seven, Santner eight and Milne nine wouldn't be the worst 6-9 we've ever fielded.

 

[Athlai]

We could break the kneecaps of someone and bring in Munro

 

[morgieb]

**** we got lucky there.

 

[Howsie]

Play some more batsman ffs.

Smith and Warner, is that really all Australia have? Finch is a scrub, as is Maxwell. Henriques isn't a number four, I haven't seen enough of Head but last I saw he was opening, and Wade is a joke.

 

[Burgey]

**** we got lucky there.

You can't say that with TPC still at the crease. Warner was always going to miss out because it's not being played in Australia. Disappointing Finch didn't get many but Henriqiues getting out really isn't that big a deal tbh and there was still Maxwell, Head and Wade to come. We'd have chased it down inside 40 overs if it hadn't rained. Bowlers will be better for the run too. Good to see an obligatory lolWade moment with that missed run out too. A typical Australian away from home LO performance tbh, just tragically cut short of an inevitable victory.

Not that I watched it.

 

[Burgey]

Play some more batsman ffs.

Smith and Warner, is that really all Australia have? Finch is a scrub, as is Maxwell. Henriques isn't a number four, I haven't seen enough of Head but last I saw he was opening, and Wade is a joke.

Would all walk one-legged into the NZ team tbh.

 

[Prince EWS]

I can't wait to see Milne bat for a length of time one day either. He genuinely looked to have a better technique then both Neesham and Anderson against the short ball. I guess I can see why he bats at seven in FC cricket sometimes.

He actually had a go at six this season. He can seriously bat; he plays the world's prettiest cricket IMO.

 

[Howsie]

Would all walk one-legged into the NZ team tbh.

Well yeah, but our opener/slash keeper is also a scrub so that isn't saying a lot.

 

[Howsie]

He actually had a go at six this season. He can seriously bat; he plays the world's prettiest cricket IMO.

Ha, well there you go.

But seriously, get fit ****, we need you in the test team.

 

[Spark]

Play some more batsman ffs.

Smith and Warner, is that really all Australia have? Finch is a scrub, as is Maxwell. Henriques isn't a number four, I haven't seen enough of Head but last I saw he was opening, and Wade is a joke.

Welcome to following Australian ODI cricket for the last two years.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Where's Stoinis?

 

[Long-Hop]

England were the winners yesterday, how come they aren't in the poll............?

Said before the game that the organisers who've cancelled a number of peace ups in breweries in their time, would fudge it with a ridiculous approach to dealing with the weather. For every hour lost they should reduce the overs by 10 per side, this isn't hindsight it's fairly logical. You need to bowl more than 15 overs in an hour so taking out 20 makes a fair degree of sense, not trying to play the maximum might be bowled without further interruptions.

Last time they played here they managed SIXTY FIVE overs between them and no result, this time it was 54 overs and still no result despite both games managing more than the 40 overs that would give you a minimum 20 per side and therefore a result...... I appreciate the paying spectator and probably s*y would not be happy unless as much cricket as possible were played, but I'd suggest a result and losing a few overs is better than seeing one side bat and the game fizzle into a draw.




Yesterday also reminded me how much I hate Duckworth Lewis, not in its use to determine a result but in the fact that everyone knows what the target is at any given point during the chase so sides can use it like a map showing where they need to be and at what time. Wasn't there a bit of a farce when England played India (?) some years ago and there was some shenanigans, possibly delaying tactics because one of the sides was at the DL score/wickets they needed to be to win and then possible somehow it was gotten wrong and that was only the score to tie or something.

Sides should play to win by batting to the planned conclusion of the match not playing to "be ahead"

 

[Daemon]

Yesterday also reminded me how much I hate Duckworth Lewis, not in its use to determine a result but in the fact that everyone knows what the target is at any given point during the chase so sides can use it like a map showing where they need to be and at what time. Wasn't there a bit of a farce when England played India (?) some years ago and there was some shenanigans, possibly delaying tactics because one of the sides was at the DL score/wickets they needed to be to win and then possible somehow it was gotten wrong and that was only the score to tie or something.

Sides should play to win by batting to the planned conclusion of the match not playing to "be ahead"

I don't like it either, but what's the alternative?

 

[Spark]

England were the winners yesterday, how come they aren't in the poll............?

Said before the game that the organisers who've cancelled a number of peace ups in breweries in their time, would fudge it with a ridiculous approach to dealing with the weather. For every hour lost they should reduce the overs by 10 per side, this isn't hindsight it's fairly logical. You need to bowl more than 15 overs in an hour so taking out 20 makes a fair degree of sense, not trying to play the maximum might be bowled without further interruptions.

Last time they played here they managed SIXTY FIVE overs between them and no result, this time it was 54 overs and still no result despite both games managing more than the 40 overs that would give you a minimum 20 per side and therefore a result...... I appreciate the paying spectator and probably s*y would not be happy unless as much cricket as possible were played, but I'd suggest a result and losing a few overs is better than seeing one side bat and the game fizzle into a draw.




Yesterday also reminded me how much I hate Duckworth Lewis, not in its use to determine a result but in the fact that everyone knows what the target is at any given point during the chase so sides can use it like a map showing where they need to be and at what time. Wasn't there a bit of a farce when England played India (?) some years ago and there was some shenanigans, possibly delaying tactics because one of the sides was at the DL score/wickets they needed to be to win and then possible somehow it was gotten wrong and that was only the score to tie or something.

Sides should play to win by batting to the planned conclusion of the match not playing to "be ahead"

We aren't Americans; there's nothing wrong with a draw if you can't reach a result in a fair manner.

 

[NUFAN]

Cummins seems to get absolutely smashed every other game. The amount of times he'll get hit for back-to-back boundaries seems so high for a front line quick.

 

[Burgey]

Just enjoy that he isn't busted for a change