Trent Boult

[slippy888]

Everyone knows he a champion fast bowler and one of the greats of our generation but he got he adjustments wrong why give stokes a ball in his arc when he bowled 2 perfect wide Yorkers, why change when the requirement is 15 runs off 4 balls.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Great bowler, shocking game. Feel for the guy, when it mattered most he went missing, like his chin.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Should have got Jono Boult to bowl that over

 

[NZTailender]

Maybe he was tired. Give him a break.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

His final two balls of the regular game were epic, to save the game in those circumstances.

The catch wasn’t easy, could have happened to anyone ... he was going backwards and had virtually no time to get his bearings or balance after the catch.

Any bowler is on a hiding to nothing in a super over, I’m not convinced anyone else would have done any better.

Very harsh thread.

 

[cnerd123]

Boult had the bad combination of luck not going his way and not being able to execute his skills to perfection

He had a shocking game but it wasn't entirely his doing. Feel bad for the guy more than I feel that he let NZ down.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

Boult had the bad combination of luck not going his way and not being able to execute his skills to perfection

He had a shocking game but it wasn't entirely his doing. Feel bad for the guy more than I feel that he let NZ down.

It was far from shocking ...

 

[cnerd123]

It was far from shocking ...

It was a horrific game going off the stats is what I meant. 0/67 in a 240 vs 240 game. 15 in the super-over. Dropped catch for 6. He actually did not bowl as badly as his numbers suggest, and he was fantastic in the field for the most part. But he did miss his lengths quite often, and I'd expect a fielder of his caliber to take that catch 9/10 times

On another day Erasmus gives Roy out LBW first ball and he's MOTM in a WC victory.

 

[straw man]

It was a bad day. Don't want to dwell on it for one of our best and hardest working players, but it was.

Aside from the obvious catch thing ("you just dropped caught the world cup... and then handed it to England") I didn't like how he went searching too much in his opening spell. Most of his career he's been good at hitting a length, bowling the usual mix of inswingers and straight ones to keep the batsman guessing, and it works very well. But in the final he was clearly frustrated, knew we needed early wickets, having had the first lbw turned down and with England's openers having a lot of luck, and so he started trying things. Didn't work - only bled runs and stopped threatening the edges and pads.

But.... that can happen.

 

[Bahnz]

His final two balls of the regular game were epic, to save the game in those circumstances.

The catch wasn’t easy, could have happened to anyone ... he was going backwards and had virtually no time to get his bearings or balance after the catch.

Any bowler is on a hiding to nothing in a super over, I’m not convinced anyone else would have done any better.

Very harsh thread.

i do still think NZ should've bowled Ferguson for the super over. He was regularly beating the bat of Stokes with pace throughout his spell, and his slower ball was the undoing of Buttler. I guess they opted for Boult because he's done it for us so many times in the past, and that's fair enough, hard to be too critical.

 

[OverratedSanity]

He bowled well without reward in his first spell.

The catch though, wasn't as tough as people are making out. He just didn't realize how close he was to the rope, which is criminal imo.

 

[thierry henry]

Yeah Boult trying to bowl yorkers in the 50th and the super over wasn't really in keeping with what was happening in the match to that point. Neesham, Ferguson and even Henry to an extent were having success bowling into the pitch.

However, I fully understand why we went to our #1 bowler and asked him to execute his core skill (yorkers) with a World Cup on the line. That's what you plan and train for.

 

[vandem]

i do still think NZ should've bowled Ferguson for the super over. He was regularly beating the bat of Stokes with pace throughout his spell, and his slower ball was the undoing of Buttler. I guess they opted for Boult because he's done it for us so many times in the past, and that's fair enough, hard to be too critical.

I suspect Boult was given 1st option, probably due to experience rather than on-the-day form. Kane appears to be a big believer in his senior players.

 

[TheBrand]

I almost would have been tempted to throw the super over to Jimmy Neesham, has been a revelation at the death in this tournament with his changes of pace and bouncers, just go back and watch the Windies over to Brathwaite.

 

[NZTailender]

We can only say this with hindsight though. I thought give it to Ferguson because Boult looked a bit tired, and Ferguson had looked dangerous all game. But I also thought it made sense, because he's our best and most experienced bowler.

 

[Flem274*]

His first spell and death spell were all class. England should have won with 3 from 2 needed. His second spell was pretty bad, he went searching.

Overall it was a perfectly fine game for him thats under the microscope because final/greatest game of all time

 

[Uppercut]

Worst thing he did was sit on his bat instead of trying to run a bye last ball of the NZ innings.

 

[ScottyMuser]

I thought he had, by his high standards, an average tournament - you could make arguments that Henry/Ferguson/CDG/Neesham all had better tournaments with the ball then he did, which compared to in the past where he had been practically the only bowler who has won matches for NZ is a good thing for NZ. In the final himself, he was definitely the weakest link in the NZ side, with just the delivery to Roy that really did anything and threatened a wicket, but his economy was just terrible (even without the 15 from the last, his economy was still 5.8 an over, without a wicket, for 9 overs), and then he committed the cardinal sin in the field of not knowing where he was on a dolly. For reference, for me, the arguments about the other bowlers are:

1) Henry has a virtually identical economy and average, and only took fewer wickets than Boult due to bowling 20 fewer overs; in the two games where it really mattered, Henry was MOTM in the semi final, and out-bowled Boult by a margin in the final.
2) Ferguson - leading wicket taker for NZ, taking 4 more wickets in 16 fewer overs, at an almost identical economy. Bowled equally as well in the SF as Boult, and better in the final.
3) CDG - best economy of any bowler who bowled min. 25 overs by a mile, and in the final had insane figures.
4) Neesham - not a great economy, but an insane SR - taking 15 wickets in just 53 overs is utterly remarkable, and easily the best SR of anyone; bowled equally as expensively as Boult in the final, but with 3 wickets. Then did well with the bat in games as well.

 

[Bahnz]

Worst thing he did was sit on his bat instead of trying to run a bye last ball of the NZ innings.

Tbf if he did we wouldn't have got a run. Santner was off in cloud ****oo land for that ball.

 

[Hicheal Michael]

Should have had a wicket first ball. I have seen the replay many times - Poor decision from Erasmus.