Best spell of the tournament

[Burgey]

I think the three day spell between the quarters and the first semi final has been the one which has caused the most angst on CW for those still with an interest.

 

[Flem274*]

starc. **** me dead that was good. southee second. riaz third. any hamid hassan great spell fourth. haven't seen the boult 4/44 yet.

 

[Spark]

Nah, I reckon NZ played Starc much worse than England played Southee. Elliott, Taylor, Milne and Southee all played truly **** shots, while most of the English batsmen just got done.

Got done by displaying horrible technique against the moving ball, sure. Cuts both ways.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

It'll probably go largely ignored

It seems to me that people are starting to expect that sort of thing from Boult now.

Which is pretty amazing since he was many people's sixth choice fast bowler (me included) before the CWC.

 

[hendrix]

Boult vs Bangladesh for the first 6 or so overs was completely unplayable.

Bangladesh's most impressive feat of he tournament was making it past 250 after watching that spell from the dugout. It was insanely good.

 

[Furball]

Boult's spell vs Australia being really overlooked here. 5 wickets and no runs off the bat for 3 overs is just incredible.

 

[Burgey]

Got done by displaying horrible technique against the moving ball, sure. Cuts both ways.

I watched the highlights of that game again last night. Jeez there was some awesome bowling on display. I don't buy the "they wuz just bad shots" line when it came to Starc's wickets. If you want to go down that path then factor in the streaky edges which shave the stumps or don't go to hand, for both teams.

Seriously, Starc could have had eight or nine wickets. It was that good.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yeah there's only so much you can do against 150kph inswingers.

 

[Shady Slim]

not best however tahir so far has been a gamechanger

 

[OverratedSanity]

I watched the highlights of that game again last night. Jeez there was some awesome bowling on display. I don't buy the "they wuz just bad shots" line when it came to Starc's wickets. If you want to go down that path then factor in the streaky edges which shave the stumps or don't go to hand, for both teams.

Seriously, Starc could have had eight or nine wickets. It was that good.

It was an amazing spell, but Elliott and Taylor's shots... ughhhh.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Nah, I reckon NZ played Starc much worse than England played Southee. Elliott, Taylor, Milne and Southee all played truly **** shots, while most of the English batsmen just got done.

Advantage of swinging it back in. They're just play and misses if a right arm outswing bowler makes them miss it by that far, as a leftie you've knocked the stumps over.

 

[sharu7]

Has to be Wahab's spell versus Australia.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

So which spell has been best in a losing cause this world cup?

Wahab v Australia and Morkel v NZ the obvious candidates. Any more?

 

[Niall]

So which spell has been best in a losing cause this world cup?

Wahab v Australia and Morkel v NZ the obvious candidates. Any more?

Starc v NZ surely?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Forgot that one. Ooops.