TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yahso they jelly
Yahso they jelly
It's strange how much of a difference a cricket ball can make. There is a rare case in Dale Steyn who would spit fire with the kookaburra but struggled with the duke balls, Mitchell Johnson too!anderson isn't trash, he's an excellent swing bowler in home conditions and has had a few very good away series, but the true test of a swing bowler is using the kookaburra and he averages 33 with it. that's middling.
the duke ruins english cricket by turning every domestic 115-120kph trundler into a county demon and ensuring the english are more disadvantaged bowling away from home.
i just can't take the atg chat seriously. hazlewood is obviously the better all conditions bowler.
this is a bit of a weird way to go about proving his superiority. anderson does average over 30 with the kookaburra and his record is heavily reliant on the duke and the h4x english schedule. it's pretty fair to say if he played for someone else like sri lanka he'd retire with 300 odd at 27-28 and no one would really care 10 years later i.e. chaminda vaas.I like Southee but a comparison of their respective records does not favour him. If you were to adjust Southee's record so that he played the same relative mix of opponents as Anderson (both home and away), Southee would be averaging 33.18. Southee also averages 34 with the 'cheat ball' so you can't really point to that as a reason for the difference. Now I think there are several reasons why that probably exaggerates the gap between the two, but crapping on about how Anderson is rubbish, or even about how Anderson and Southee are on the same level just makes you look like a bit of a dickhead.
Oh yeah.Wasim Akram has (not unsurprisingly considering the number of tests he has played, but even 'per test' it's a high number) the most number of dropped catches too off his bowling as I recall.
That's true, test cricket isn't all that popular in nz outside this forum looks like.If the kiwi supporters actually bothered to go and watch the tests then maybe they would schedule more. Some lovely grounds they have with the traditional grass banks and only ever half full.
England have 8+ home tests each summer because we sell our tickets. Same as aus
It's nothing compared to what you get in England and AUS. They do get more crowds for Tests than SL, WI, BD etc. Test cricket in those countries is in a sorry state.dunno what you guys have been watching because nz do get good crowds at the traditional grounds (did you see mt maunganui, hagley, the basin and seddon this summer?) but ground sales don't pay the bills, broadcasting rights do. the only way i see that turning around is keeping the side competitive and fun to watch for multiple generations rather than boom bust cycle nz have had since hadlee debuted.
scale though. millions of people live in london and melbourne, whereas wellington is about 400k and the other cities with traditional venues are much smaller (mt maunganui has a resident population of 19k, yet they packed into the 10k bay oval over the holidays thanks to the tourists). of course those larger cities will fill stadiums.It's nothing compared to what you get in England and NZ. They do get more crowds for Tests than SL, WI, BD etc. Test cricket in those countries is in a sorry state.
That's trueHaving capacity crowds definately brings in good revenue. It's not just the tickets sales it's the sponsorships and the broadcasters love it when the stadium looks full
Fixed.While Anderson is a legit ATVG, Hazlewood is an all conditions bowler.
No one has answered my question re: NZ tests. Not you, specifically, but the argument posed was that NZ tests, even when playing India, don't get great TV viewership because they're at strange times - thus they only play 2-test series.scale though. millions of people live in london and melbourne, whereas wellington is about 400k and the other cities with traditional venues are much smaller (mt maunganui has a resident population of 19k, yet they packed into the 10k bay oval over the holidays thanks to the tourists). of course those larger cities will fill stadiums.
Isn't that generally a home country decision? A perception that home India tests against New Zealand are not a particularly commercially attractive proposition, so they offer the bare minimum under ICC requirements for the test championship etc. Even for the larger cricket boards i think that often longer series (outside of the Ashes) have historically been a consequence of bilateral agreements based on "you offer us 4/5 tests we'll do the same in return" etc.No one has answered my question re: NZ tests. Not you, specifically, but the argument posed was that NZ tests, even when playing India, don't get great TV viewership because they're at strange times - thus they only play 2-test series.
So how come:
- They don't tour India more often
- And even when they do, they still only play barely any tests?