• 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* New Zealand in Sri Lanka 2012

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
no way. the cut is for short off side filth and the sweep for full legside filth. you need to cash in on those or it becomes far too easy. a seamer can just settle on back of a length outside off, completely negating the front foot drives and in your plan causing a reliance in pulls and hooks from outside off to the onside, or the back foot drive.
If their bowlers want to waste the first session of the test bowling short and wide, let 'em. Also, Sri Lanka's seam bowling attack Kulasekara aside, is young and inexperienced, I'd wager they'd go search for something after too long.
 

Flem274*

123/5
If their bowlers want to waste the first session of the test bowling short and wide, let 'em. Also, Sri Lanka's seam bowling attack Kulasekara aside, is young and inexperienced, I'd wager they'd go search for something after too long.
driving is far more dangerous than cutting. on the cut you can only be beaten by bounce, not movement. sure you might edge it behind but you should get bat on it if you get the length right. for a back foot square drive you need the line and the length judged correctly. no one should ever shelve the cut unless they really can't play it, like Ponting has for whatever reason.

if sri lanka bowl short and wide, they need to be smashed because attack when its in the channel or on off is inhererently more risky, so width and legside filth needs to go the distance because Kula and Herath aren't going to give us much of that.

taylors main problem is he can go walking too much. thats when youre more likely to **** up the line of the ball because the further from your castle you are the harder it is to remember where they are to the exactness you can if you stay nice and still. its ironic because i suspect he goes walking in order to cover his stumps, but then he doesn't leave the danger balls.
 
Last edited:

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
driving is far more dangerous than cutting. on the cut you can only be beaten by bounce, not movement. sure you might edge it behind but you should get bat on it if you get the length right. for a back foot square drive you need the line and the length judged correctly. no one should ever shelve the cut unless they really can't play it, like Ponting has for whatever reason.

if sri lanka bowl short and wide, they need to be smashed because attack when its in the channel or on off is inhererently more risky, so width and legside filth needs to go the distance because Kula and Herath aren't going to give us much of that.

taylors main problem is he can go walking too much. thats when youre more likely to **** up the line of the ball because the further from your castle you are the harder it is to remember where they are to the exactness you can if you stay nice and still. its ironic because i suspect he goes walking in order to cover his stumps, but then he doesn't leave the danger balls.
Not the way Taylor is playing it at the moment. His driving is confident and technically correct, and he's picking the line and length well. There's no movement off the surface on this pitch, and while there is some bounce, it's true and consistent.

His cutting looks awkward. He's crouching low and swinging his arms wildly, and is often cutting when the ball is way to close to him. He might start to play it better after some time spent at the crease, but for the moment, he should be playing within himself and sticking to his strengths.

Anyway, Kulasekara isn't really offering up much of the short and wide variety, so it's a bit of a moot point for now.

Lovely couple of shots played there by Williamson. .
 
Last edited:

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
I know in theory Williamson is good with his feet vs spinners but to actually see him do it twice :shock:.

It makes me nervous. Things can't be this good :happy:

No idea why SL are still bowling seamers.
 

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
Good stuff only two down at lunch. For another team they might be dissapointed to have lost more than 1 wicket but for us it is good.
 

Flem274*

123/5
that went well. i mean the openers being crap was always going to happen but these two have played very well. KW looks the best ive seen him since his debut.

so to be our usual 150/5 it looks like flynn will have to resign himself to a low score. room for these two to get to 50 though.
 

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
Well, that was a surprisingly good session. Well done Taylor and Williamson - both had some luck early but after surviving that they have a chance to go on.
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
Not much turn on offer. No reason why these two shouldn't go on and make hundreds today. We'll need it with van Wyk at 6.
 

Mike5181

International Captain
Yeah, not too bad from us. We just need to survive the first 30 minutes after lunch without losing a wicket, and then go from there.
 

Flem274*

123/5
as terrible as it makes our batting, seeing five genuine bowlers on the team sheet makes me a happy phlegm.

attack
 

Mike5181

International Captain
as terrible as it makes our batting, seeing five genuine bowlers on the team sheet makes me a happy phlegm.

attack
It's a risky move, especially with our batting line up. Having a fifth bowler that isn't a Franklin/Ryder type of player could be useful though.
 

Flem274*

123/5
considering our talent at collapsing in a session and giving the bowlers no rest, five bowlers is almost a neccessity.
 

Top