andyc
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Sounds like both teams are getting more than they think.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Australia in New Zealand
- Thread starter James
- Start date
Streetwise
Banned
pasag
RTDAS
dikinee
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
That is an ignorant statement that needs to be set straight for the rest of the non-playing posters who have no idea what actually happens in a game of cricket.
Firstly let me say I think NZ deserved the win just for McCullum`s sake. To play an innings like that and lose just wouldnt be fair. I can appreciate brilliant cricket even when it comes from the opposition.
This is the first time I have seen this super-over put into play and I`ve got to say I don`t like it at all. It is too heavily weighted to the team who bat first in the match. All of their players, batsmen and bowlers are warm and loose from having just spent 20 overs in the field while all but 2 of the other team have been sitting down their bodies are well and truly cooled down. Their bowlers, and especially ones with frequently re-occurring injuries like Tait, as soon as they finish in the field go into their cool down routine. I can just about guarantee that Taity had at least three ice baths while his team was batting. The ice baths are to stop the production of lactic acid which dissolves muscle tissue. There is no way that this system does not disadvantage the team who bat last in the match. I think it should stay as a tie but if they really need to have a winner and a loser then a coin toss would be fairer than that crap, or let the 2 skippers have a foot race for 1 lap of the oval. Anything but that crap.
So it's a disadvantage because Australia put their bowlers into ice baths when there was a possibility there could be a super over? Rubbish. That's poor planning by them, in that case. And I don't believe it happened. And in any case, he would have had 20-odd minutes at the end to warm up once it was becoming a possibility.
Going into a super oval can (and here I emphasise CAN) be an advantage for the batting side, especially in a situation like last night where they had 2-3 batsmen who had been in for long periods of time, had the confidence of scoring runs etc etc. And conversely, Southee had an advantage because he had been hitting the hole brilliantly and had that confidence.
And if you think tossing a coin or running a lap is a fairer way of settling a cricket match than playing cricket, then um...I've lost the logic.
Tait's was a poor over, plain and simple.
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Would've gone with Nannes personally, or if he was playing, Johnners.
Nannes got humped for 51 off 4 overs, mostly at the hands of McCullum (who was always going to open for NZ) so I'd be interested as to what the rationale would be behind choosing him.
Hussey might have worked, might not have but Tait probably would have been my choice as well. Hits the hole better than Nannes (might have worked to Guptill who doesn't play that ridiculous lap that McCullum does) and would even be a better chance of knocking over 2 wickets if you're thinking that way.
End of the day, he was only defending 6 so he was never a chance. Probably tried to rip in and take 2 wickets given he knew one shot could end it. If Australia scored 12 or so, maybe he bowls differently.
Hussey might have worked, might not have but Tait probably would have been my choice as well. Hits the hole better than Nannes (might have worked to Guptill who doesn't play that ridiculous lap that McCullum does) and would even be a better chance of knocking over 2 wickets if you're thinking that way.
End of the day, he was only defending 6 so he was never a chance. Probably tried to rip in and take 2 wickets given he knew one shot could end it. If Australia scored 12 or so, maybe he bowls differently.
andyc
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
McCullum's innings was so awesome last night. Really highlights what Australia is lacking in its batting line-up, Watto and Warner aside, in terms of ability to adapt and improvise. The scoop shot that he was playing really made it look like Australia just had nowhere to bowl to him. Someone like Haddin, on the other hand, who has a great textbook technique, played out four dot balls in a row because they packed the offside field and bowled a foot outside off stump. Watching Clarke and Haddin bat together, I just got the feeling that the two of them were far too orthodox to be willing to try something a bit different, even just in terms of giving themselves more room or moving around in the crease much (at least to the fast bowlers, Clarke obv. very willing to dance around against the spinners).
Streetwise
Banned
You havent mentioned Cam White, how did you rate his innings last night.
andyc
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
White's innings highlighted exactly what Clarke and Haddin were lacking and really showed Clarke up. On a ground as small as last night's, and chasing 210+, there really was no excuse to not be going for big shots. I'm not just trying to sully Clarke's innings here, because it was by far the best he's played in a limited overs game in a while, and hopefully he'll continue on from here, but I fear he can just be a bit too predictable.
pasag
RTDAS
Yeah but we do have the three Ws who can all improvise to an extent so I don't see it as much of an issue. Anyways, making 200+ chasing is something I'm VERY happy with and losing the super over doesn't diminish that in the slightest.
It's funny seeing McCullum "stealing" the shot Ashraful's made famous in the 2007 World Cup. Good on both of them for thinking outside the box and taking those risks and pulling them off.
