*Official* New Zealand in England 2015

[Hurricane]

Yeah was wondering where to post that.

Personally getting a bit sick of ODI cricket especially so soon after the world cup.

I think that summarises my view. And would add to that by saying a bilateral series in the shadow of the world cup seems to lose what little lustre it could otherwise have. I was amped for the world cup and will get up again for the ICC champions trophy if they have another one however.

 

[Antihippy]

I mean I would still watch it and enjoy it because it's 2 gun sides vs each other, but not at the expanse of a test match. Especially if it means making it a 2 test series because **** 2 test series.

 

[Immenso]

wrong thread in all but New Zealand Cricket set to scrap Aussie test for Chappell-Hadlee ODIs | Stuff.co.nz

Oh FFS, that belongs in the doom and gloom thread under a sub heading of "David White: I just don't get it".

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I gave Hurricane the benefit of the doubt of a typgraphical error, but thanks for introducing me to David Mitchell's soapbox.

Watching more episodes as I type.

Thanks.

 

[Zinzan]

The have to play Latham in this ODI series, surely.

Yeah, in some ways I'd prefer someone like Latham other than an aging Elliott at 5, but tbf, Elliott is there & was our star in the business end of the WC.

 

[GGG]

I gave Hurricane the benefit of the doubt of a typgraphical error, but thanks for introducing me to David Mitchell's soapbox.

Watching more episodes as I type.

Thanks.

Yeah he is great, not his soapbox but a cricket skit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUyK_J_W4BI

 

[Hurricane]

When you want to colloquially express that you don’t care at all about something you might say “I couldn’t care less.” This phrase first popped up in British English at the turn of the 20th century and is still popular today. In the 1960s, a controversial American variant of this phase entered popular usage: “I could care less.” Many native English speakers, both in the UK and US, find this expression to be logically flawed. If you couldn’t care less, then you care so little about something that it would be impossible for you to care any less than you do. If you could care less, however, you are saying, literally, that it is possible for you to care less than you care now. Those who take issue with this believe this later variant says very little about your level of caring, and so eschew it.

Etymologists suggest that “I could care less” emerged as a sarcastic variant employing Yiddish humor. They point to the different intonations used in saying “I couldn’t care less” versus “I could care less.” The latter mirrors the intonation of the sarcastic Yiddish-English phrase “I should be so lucky!” where the verb is stressed.

The argument of logic falls apart when you consider the fact that both these phrases are idioms. In English, along with other languages, idioms are not required to follow logic, and to point out the lack of logic in one idiom and not all idioms is…illogical. Take the expression “head over heels,” which makes far less sense than the expression “heels over head” when you think about the physics of a somersault. It turns out “heels over head” entered English around 1400, over 250 years before “head over heels,” however, the “logical” version of this idiom has not been in popular usage since the late Victorian era.

The usage of “couldn’t care less” versus “could care less” is a very polarizing issue as you can see in British comedian David Mitchell’s rant, though both phrases are in popular usage. Because most modern English dictionaries define words and phrases using a descriptive approach, you’ll find both “couldn’t care less” and “could care less” in Dictionary.com. The lexicographers at Dictionary.com aim to record language as it is actually used, without judgment. That said, not everyone you encounter will be a lexicographer, so be aware that those in the camp of David Mitchell will cringe if you use “I could care less” in conversation.

Word Fact: I Couldn?t Care Less vs. I Could Care Less | Dictionary.com Blog

 

[Bahnz]

I concede his batting in the semi was uber important, but was flukey. His batting failure and mode of dismissal in the final was unacceptable even if he wasn't alone as I can think of at least 3 other batsman who also played unacceptable innings.

Why did he even play in the final. On the first ball of the innings it went down to 3rd man and he had no wheels to get to the ball. Obviously that injury didn't happen during his 7 ball batting innings, so if it happened in warm ups why did he play in the final and jeopardise his team's chances of winning.

Also his bowling throughout the tournament was not Dan of old like. It was very good but not as good as he can be. And NMac was stellar in the India tour down here, and could have played an equal role with the ball and a better role with the bat. Dan's catch in the quarterfinal notwithstanding.

What, being bowled be 147k inswinging yorker? Getting a nut like that is one of the few cases which you could definitely term as an acceptable dismissal.

I agree that if Vettori was injured going into the match (rather than say when he was running around the field) then yeah it was a questionable call to play him. But let's be honest, NMac is rubbish. Just because he bowled all right against a fish out of water India a year ago doesn't change that fact. How he's managed to keep himself in the side for as long as he has with a bowling average of 50 and an econ of 5 is an enduring mystery, even for New Zealand. Throw in the fact that he hadn't bowled a ball in anger in nearly 2 months in the run up to the final, and it really wouldn't have been that tough a decision. If NZ were going to replace Vettori with anyone, as ever, they should've gone with Jeets #brokenrecord.

As for the argument that Vettori's bowling wasn't as good as it used to be (it was), that's irrelevant. The pertinent question is whether it was better than what NcCullum would've offered in the same situation, and it was. By miiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllleeeessss.

 

[Bahnz]

Oh FFS, that belongs in the doom and gloom thread under a sub heading of "David White: I just don't get it".

Nah, this is completely understandable. I mean, it's a pity to miss out on a test. But it was always to be expected when you schedule a tour that involves nothing but test matches. What's more, after the World Cup, the public will be absolutely gagging for a few ODI's against Australia. Wouldn't be surprised to see huge crowds turn up (not WC big, but bigger than any other non-India ODI's that we've hosted in the last 20 years). Anyway, we've got 3 tests scheduled in Australia earlier in the summer anyway, so I'm not as bothered about it as I otherwise would be.

 

[Hurricane]

What, being bowled be 147k inswinging yorker? Getting a nut like that is one of the few cases which you could definitely term as an acceptable dismissal.

I agree that if Vettori was injured going into the match (rather than say when he was running around the field) then yeah it was a questionable call to play him. But let's be honest, NMac is rubbish. Just because he bowled all right against a fish out of water India a year ago doesn't change that fact. How he's managed to keep himself in the side for as long as he has with a bowling average of 50 and an econ of 5 is an enduring mystery, even for New Zealand. Throw in the fact that he hadn't bowled a ball in anger in nearly 2 months in the run up to the final, and it really wouldn't have been that tough a decision. If NZ were going to replace Vettori with anyone, as ever, they should've gone with Jeets #brokenrecord.

As for the argument that Vettori's bowling wasn't as good as it used to be (it was), that's irrelevant. The pertinent question is whether it was better than what NcCullum would've offered in the same situation, and it was. By miiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllleeeessss.

Who actually gets out to yorkers...if yorkers were an effective mode of dismissal then Tim Southee would try for them every ball instead of once a day when the ball is 40 overs old.

Any competent batsman should keep out a yorker.

Scoring off a yorker is a different matter.

 

[Bahnz]

Who actually gets out to yorkers...if yorkers were an effective mode of dismissal then Tim Southee would try for them every ball instead of once a day when the ball is 40 overs old.

Any competent batsman should keep out a yorker.

Scoring off a yorker is a different matter.

I'm not sure if this post is actually serious. If any competent batsman could keep out a yorker, then bowlers like Brett Lee, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Joel Garner and Lasith Malinga would've taken about 5 wickets in their respective careers.

 

[Bahnz]

need to keep rolling them. the english weather might save them

i read in the thread we still drop to 4th below england even if we win which is weird because we're improving our result but whatever

The dumbest thing about the ICC world rankings is they take absolutely no account of whether a side is playing at home or away. In the last 18 months NZ have been probably the second best touring side in the world after SA, but the ICC rankings treats a victory over Pakistan in Dubai as the same as a victory over Pakistan at the Basin. It's nonsense.

 

[Hurricane]

I'm not sure if this post is actually serious. If any competent batsman could keep out a yorker, then bowlers like Brett Lee, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Joel Garner and Lasith Malinga would've taken about 5 wickets in their respective careers.

Then why aren't they bowled as the stock ball in tests.

You are probably going to come back with because they need the element of surprise. You could probably still keep the element of surprise by bowling one every two overs. But instead they are quite a rare element.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Then why aren't they bowled as the stock ball in tests.

You are probably going to come back with because they need the element of surprise. You could probably still keep the element of surprise by bowling one every two overs. But instead they are quite a rare element.

they're not bowled often because it's too likely to end up a gentle full toss or half volley to be worth it. If you've got pace and a scary bouncer, it's a different story altogether.

 

[Bahnz]

Then why aren't they bowled as the stock ball in tests.

You are probably going to come back with because they need the element of surprise. You could probably still keep the element of surprise by bowling one every two overs. But instead they are quite a rare element.

This is just utter nonsense. Go talk to Shane Bond about how useless yorkers are as a wicket taking delivery.

 

[Hurricane]

they're not bowled often because it's too likely to end up a gentle full toss or half volley to be worth it. If you've got pace and a scary bouncer, it's a different story altogether.

That's a good post and I have given you a like.

However. Even if a yorker only came off say on 20% of attempts, if it were that devastating a delivery you would be happy to concede several boundaries for the eventual pay off. I would like to think, and know from watching him attempt them, that Tim can pull them off at least 20% of the time if not more.

 

[Hurricane]

This is just utter nonsense. Go talk to Shane Bond about how useless yorkers are as a wicket taking delivery.

unlike.

 

[Bahnz]

That's a good post and I have given you a like.

However. Even if a yorker only came off say on 20% of attempts, if it were that devastating a delivery you would be happy to concede several boundaries for the eventual pay off. I would like to think, and know from watching him attempt them, that Tim can pull them off at least 20% of the time if not more.

Tim is a 135 k bowler. He doesn't have the pace to beat batsmen through the air like a Johnson or a Starc does. Even then he still slips the occasional one through batsmen's defences when it's swinging (see his deliveries to Moeen and Taylor at the cake tin earlier this year). You only need to take a casual glance at the jablillion wickets that Starc has picked up in the 6 months to see that a ton of them have come from full swinging deliveries. Your posting in the last hour has been like Southee's bowling this series. Utter tripe from a guy who normally produces stuff of a very high standard.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

That's a good post and I have given you a like.

However. Even if a yorker only came off say on 20% of attempts, if it were that devastating a delivery you would be happy to concede several boundaries for the eventual pay off. I would like to think, and know from watching him attempt them, that Tim can pull them off at least 20% of the time if not more.

have a spell, I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make. Just because it's not guaranteed to get a wicket doesn't make it invalid as a wicket taking option.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That's a good post and I have given you a like.

However. Even if a yorker only came off say on 20% of attempts, if it were that devastating a delivery you would be happy to concede several boundaries for the eventual pay off. I would like to think, and know from watching him attempt them, that Tim can pull them off at least 20% of the time if not more.

I don't know what your point is here Hurricane. Stock balls aren't necessarily the ones which are most likely to get a wicket, but the ones which balance threat with easy repeatability. On average, I'd say, yorkers get more wickets relative to how many times they're bowled, compared to say an outswinger. But that doesn't mean yorkers should be bowled more frequently. Because the real threat of yorkers can be :

a) It comes out of nowhere when you're not expecting it as you said or b) It's bowled at ridiculous pace (Bond, Lee) with crazy swing (Waqar), or a weird trajectory (Malinga) so it gets the batsman even though he's expecting it. Southee doesn't have b), so he has to rely on it being a big surprise instead of bowling it frequently like a Malinga, Waqar, etc.

Vettori obviously can't be blamed much for not keeping out a quick inswinging yorker from one of the fastest bowlers in the world with a slingy action.