He's a lot less comfortable and ergo a lot better behaved when he works in Oz IMO. Behaves like a guest, which reigns in his more annoying tendencies and offers pretty good insight on cricket.Since he was on TV, and especially since he became a mouthpiece on morning TV, yep. He did a stint on radio when he was still playing for Auckland, and was outstanding. Got on TV, then just started spouting whatever contradictory nonsense he could find. Read also: M.Vaughan. Very similar commentary personas.
why are you and pews replying seriously to obvioustrollinerYes as everyone knows our seam attack is actually very bad
We've been caught on the hop without having played much cricket by a fairly disciplined Bangladeshi bowling and batting outfit, but apparently it's the end of times and we're back to being number 8 in the world and not 2.Incidentally, it is quite funny to see NZ posters suddenly decry us as rubbish. It's a flat deck, we've bowled a bit of rubbish, they've been quite arsey at times but also batted very well at times. Might need to relax a bit on the epitaph for NZ in the new WTC window.
Not even sure Patel would've made a massive difference, it's a very slow deck. I know their spinners took wickets but that was our average approach to batting moreso - which felt embarrassingly like 'oh well it's Bangladesh, we'll roll them'
But it wasn’t serious. I think our seam attack is good.why are you and pews replying seriously to obvioustrolliner
Also why did you reply seriously when I said we were bad now ?why are you and pews replying seriously to obvioustrolliner
No AM tweets for a whole hour. I was bored.why are you and pews replying seriously to obvioustrolliner
Bay Oval is normal size. Nothing small about it. It's not one of our postage stamps.Also **** me, I'd forgotten how small your grounds are lads. This is basically a velodrome.
Oooft... that is not a good spot to be hit by a cricket ball.
Yeah I figured he was referring to the actual ‘stadium’/small grass embankment? Because it’s an above-average sized ground. I think maybe confusion between the size of the playing area and the surrounds might explain a lot of erroneous talk about small NZ grounds?Bay Oval is normal size. Nothing small about it. It's not one of our postage stamps.
We only need one gnske and that's debatableBlundell making some of the same noises in response to Ravindra's bowling as he does when he gets pegged
Dunno, it just looked small compared to the grounds the last two tests I watched were played on. Namely Centurion and the MCG. Fair enough if it's actually above-average sized.Yeah I figured he was referring to the actual ‘stadium’/small grass embankment? Because it’s an above-average sized ground. I think maybe confusion between the size of the playing area and the surrounds might explain a lot of erroneous talk about small NZ grounds?
Agree about NZ batting, should have been 400+.Incidentally, it is quite funny to see NZ posters suddenly decry us as rubbish. It's a flat deck, we've bowled a bit of rubbish, they've been quite arsey at times but also batted very well at times. Might need to relax a bit on the epitaph for NZ in the new WTC window.
Not even sure Patel would've made a massive difference, it's a very slow deck. I know their spinners took wickets but that was our average approach to batting moreso - which felt embarrassingly like 'oh well it's Bangladesh, we'll roll them'
Yeah I figure they just wanted the match to last more than two and a half days, having determined, accurately, that you'll still win no matter what the wicket's like.Agree about NZ batting, should have been 400+.
I am still not a fan of the Mount pitch for test cricket. I watched Watling nudge and nurdle for 2 days against England, didn't make for good watching, and took some dumb England play for them to lose the game.
Seems strange that we give Bangladesh the flatest pitch of the summer, and host the South African quicks at the Basin and Hagley. Perhaps crowd numbers matter more than WTC points?