***Official*** Trans-Tasman Twenty20 Tri-Series

[Moss]

Looking at Wheeler's Super Smash performances it's a bit of a stretch to have him in the squad in the first place. Average of 42, ER of over 9. Not exactly impressive stuff.

Adam Milne's actually been a pretty good T20 bowler for us and he's been back playing Ford Trophy cricket for the last three weeks or so. That'd be a much better pick.

Even Mitch M? From memory he got hammered in the BBL but might as well make use of a T20 gun for hire when available. Not the Lesson way I know.

 

[Moss]

yeah and it would be so nz to boot a promising 140+ left armer who swings it with good bounce into the wilderness because he choked in a T20 against oz.

kid has the all physical tools to be trent boults equal in tests, perhaps better #triggerNDfans

I very much doubt he'll be booted out, more worried that his self-belief would've taken a real beating. This is where NZC gets to show its man management chops.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

I think ideally you'd play him in the next game against the sightly less threatening England at the slightly less threatening Seddon Park ... but if Santner is back, and it's a pretty important game for NZC (the difference between a 10,000 crowd and a 40,000 crowd at the final) I don't think there's a chance we'll see him again this series.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Apparently Australia are now the no.2 ranked T20I team and would be no. 1 if they won the final. After winning just like 4 or 5 games? This is why no one takes the T20 rankings seriously

 

[the big bambino]

Brian Waddle on abc grandstand now with his usual butter and twisted take on a NZ-Australia match

"twusted"

 

[S.Kennedy]

When will this end?

 

[Blain]

For England, probably today.

 

[_Ed_]

I see the Eden Park boundaries argument is raging yet again. It would seem that Jim Maxwell has never seen a game at the ground before.

I'm not sure where all these critics go during the games where the ball's swinging around corners. Admittedly I do find those ones more fun too.

 

[Adders]

Can't seem to get statsguru to give me ave 1st and 2nd innings totals for grounds but I did find this which was interesting.....

Eden Park ave runs per wicket - 28.27 @ 4.73 rpo

#MCGISSOBIG ave runs per wicket - 28.90 @ 4.48 rpo

Hardly a significant difference there.

Edit: That's for ODI's

 

[Athlai]

Aggregate/overall records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

Average per ground AU and NZ odi.

Aggregate/overall records | Twenty20 Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

Average per ground NZ and AU t20

 

[Athlai]

Ah bugger lost the host country thing, ah well you still get the picture

 

[Shady Slim]

Can't seem to get statsguru to give me ave 1st and 2nd innings totals for grounds but I did find this which was interesting.....

Eden Park ave runs per wicket - 28.27 @ 4.73 rpo

#MCGISSOBIG ave runs per wicket - 28.90 @ 4.48 rpo

Hardly a significant difference there.

Edit: That's for ODI's

i wonder what the boundary % would be at eden park compared to the mcg because that could tell a different story sort of thing

 

[Athlai]

i wonder what the boundary % would be at eden park compared to the mcg because that could tell a different story sort of thing

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

 

[Days of Grace]

So, that's about 9% total runs in boundary fours for Eden Park vs 7% for the MCG. Not a huge difference.

2% in sixes for Eden Park vs 0.5% for the MCG. Quite a significant difference.

 

[morgieb]

Can't seem to get statsguru to give me ave 1st and 2nd innings totals for grounds but I did find this which was interesting.....

Eden Park ave runs per wicket - 28.27 @ 4.73 rpo

#MCGISSOBIG ave runs per wicket - 28.90 @ 4.48 rpo

Hardly a significant difference there.

Edit: That's for ODI's

RPO difference is fairly large.

Eden Park does hoop a lot, though.

 

[Adders]

RPO difference is fairly large.

Eden Park does hoop a lot, though.

4.73 V's 4.48......That's not really a large difference. It's 12 runs an innings.

It's just annoying like Ed said that pundits that should know better see the small boundaries and think.....wow this is a postage stamp, how will we not see every ball clearing the rope here, when the reality is it's normally a great ground to bowl on and big scores are not overley common.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Can't seem to get statsguru to give me ave 1st and 2nd innings totals for grounds but I did find this which was interesting.....

Eden Park ave runs per wicket - 28.27 @ 4.73 rpo

#MCGISSOBIG ave runs per wicket - 28.90 @ 4.48 rpo

Hardly a significant difference there.

Edit: That's for ODI's

The run rates or average runs per wicket isn't really the main issue people are complaining about I think. It's the boundaries and in particular the sixes. Just quoting the average runs per wicket/runs per over isn't that relevant IMO.

I think where it gets people annoyed is when really sloppy mi****s go for big 6s, or the bowler deceives the batsman with a nice slower ball, bit of flight or quick short ball and it still goes for 6 easily and regularly.

Anyway I don't really care personally. It's not like every game of cricket ever is played at Eden Park. And it's not like every game at Eden Park has huge scores.

 

[Shady Slim]

So, that's about 9% total runs in boundary fours for Eden Park vs 7% for the MCG. Not a huge difference.

2% in sixes for Eden Park vs 0.5% for the MCG. Quite a significant difference.

the way i worked it out i came to 46% of all the runs at eden park coming from boundaries compared to only 31% total runs at the mcg
(1539*4)+(331*4)/17886=46%
(2067*4)+(169*6)/29741=31%
both of those are rounded fwiw

 

[Shady Slim]

the way i worked it out i came to 46% of all the runs at eden park coming from boundaries compared to only 31% total runs at the mcg
(1539*4)+(331*4)/17886=46%
(2067*4)+(169*6)/29741=31%
both of those are rounded fwiw

to me that's a fairly solid disparity

 

[TheJediBrah]

to me that's a fairly solid disparity

Why are we even doing this though? Surely there's no one that doesn't realise that there are going to be a higher proportion of boundaries on a tiny ground than on one of the biggest ground.

Who are we trying to convince? I just don't get the purpose of all this