***Official*** Australia in New Zealand

[Zinzan]

Obviously Vincent is playing the better cricket but I still think he is too hit and miss (Auckland to Wellington etc). I think back then I under rated his natural talent for sure and he has plenty of it but so do most of the NZ players. We just can't seem to put consistant performances together.

For example lets hope that Vincent (if he plays) can get another half century. He is obviously in decent form so there is no reason (other than if he gets a great ball) why he can't put another score on the board.

As for Marshall well I have already said in this thread that I think his time is up for the short term. He just hasn't fired for a looooooooong time. Maybe when he got batsman of the year he got ahead of himself and started to think he was invincible. I still think he has a lot of talent though and once he finds some form he should be right.

So in summary yeah, you were justified in thinking that Vincent has more natural talent than Vincent and I underestimated his ability (I said he should not be playing ODI's) but I still think Marshall is a special type of player who has bucket loads of talent and is the type of player we need in the batting line up to balance the big hitters.

Good man having said that you were justified in not wanting Vincent in the ODI team, because up til the tour of ZIm he averaged about 22 and had a strike rate of a disgraceful 59.....which is about as bad as you get in ODI's these days. In just a handful of games he has lifted his average to 26 and his strike rate to 66.

 

[Macka]

I never thought we would win that game, even when we needed 7 off the last over (or whatever it was). We just don't have it in us to win those tight games. Australia, however, do. I muttered something to myself like "I bet one of the Aussies will pull something magical off to win them the game; we just don't do that." No real suprise it happened.

 

[Pratters]

No it is not, because India's "good attack" isn't consistently through the whole attack, it's 2 men.

The two men in the series versus Australia would bowl 70%. If you have to have a 90% criteria for a good attack (assuming all bowlers consituting 90% put constant pressure which can never be true) - it is a very strict criteria to get from any attack.

So such attacks occur in rarity and to discount a team like Australia based on one series is flawed. If they had failed in many other stuations like this - which we dont know as such attacks cosntituting 90% take place in rarity - the logic is flawed.

 

[Josh]

Australian team for next match:

Gilchrist
Katich
Ponting
Symonds
Hodge
Clarke
Hussey
White
Clark
Lewis
Bracken
Johnson (Sub)

 

[ohtani's jacket]

I never thought we would win that game, even when we needed 7 off the last over (or whatever it was). We just don't have it in us to win those tight games. Australia, however, do. I muttered something to myself like "I bet one of the Aussies will pull something magical off to win them the game; we just don't do that." No real suprise it happened.

Ever since I began watching sports Australia have been mentally tougher than us.

 

[Blaze]

Ever since I began watching sports Australia have been mentally tougher than us.

When was that?

I watched a dvd the other day called 'battle of the tasman' where Mike Whitney needed 2 to win the match for Aus with 2 balls remaining in an ODI in the 1980's. He tried to go over the top and got caught at mid-on. Now thats what you call a brain explosion.

That is a great example of why we can't get too caught up with the present in sport. There will always be another match to look forward to and in 10 years time we will probably be winning more close ones than we are losing

 

[marc71178]

The two men in the series versus Australia would bowl 70%. If you have to have a 90% criteria for a good attack (assuming all bowlers consituting 90% put constant pressure which can never be true) - it is a very strict criteria to get from any attack.

To be classed as a consistently strong attack (which is what was the initial comment), you can't say you have it with only 2 strong bowlers, especially if neither are new ball bowlers.

I mean by that token, SL's attack can be just as strong, because Vaas (when on form) and Murali will bowl 70% of the overs.

 

[Macka]

Vettori named as captain despite Fleming's return. Great to see. Let's hope it's not just for this game

 

[Pratters]

To be classed as a consistently strong attack (which is what was the initial comment), you can't say you have it with only 2 strong bowlers, especially if neither are new ball bowlers.

I mean by that token, SL's attack can be just as strong, because Vaas (when on form) and Murali will bowl 70% of the overs.

I am not debating what can constitute a strong attack - you feel it has to be 90% like you mentioned - its your judgement.

 

[Nate]

Hope Bracken bowls well. Don`t think Johnson is a good sub at all.

 

[shaka]

Vettori named as captain despite Fleming's return. Great to see. Let's hope it's not just for this game

It'll display his attributes as a fulltime captain, and to see how flexible he is if things do not go his way, I reckon it will just be for the 1 game though.

 

[Josh]

Hope Bracken bowls well. Don`t think Johnson is a good sub at all.

Neither do I.

 

[marc71178]

I am not debating what can constitute a strong attack - you feel it has to be 90% like you mentioned - its your judgement.

No but you are again ignoring what I post to argue a different matter.

 

[aussie]

Neither do I.

yea but its the last game, the series has been one so it really doesn't matter...

 

[Pratters]

No but you are again ignoring what I post to argue a different matter.

I am not ignoring what you are posting. You feel an attack to be strong has to have specific basis. Its your call.

And you are ignoring this comment of mine:

So such attacks occur in rarity and to discount a team like Australia based on one series is flawed. If they had failed in many other stuations like this - which we dont know as such attacks cosntituting 90% take place in rarity - the logic is flawed.

Also, I do not see how it is a different matter as you are in fact discounting Australia when you make the point of them crumbling when facing an 'attack' in the Ashes.

 

[Blaze]

Perhaps take it to a new thread Marc and Pratyush?

 

[marc71178]

I am not ignoring what you are posting. You feel an attack to be strong has to have specific basis. Its your call.

No, I'm talking about a specific strength of attack, and you're even here ignoring that.

 

[Pratters]

No, I'm talking about a specific strength of attack, and you're even here ignoring that.

The strength of attack is the basis you are talking about - I mentioned you can have the basis you want - its your call. So I am not ignoring it.

 

[marc71178]

No, it's not.

As I seem to have to keep repeating, it's the consistency of the strength.

 

[Blaze]

So... how bout that NZ vs Aus series?