Australia v NZ - CH Series I
-
@No-Quarter said in Australia v NZ - CH Series I:
Hahaha reviews the plumbest LBW of all time.
I think they just decided to use it rather than leave it behind. Munro has decided to go for gold rather than lose with a whimper
-
-
-
@canefan said in Australia v NZ - CH Series I:
The Neesham dismissal was the telling moment. We were in control and he could have gone on with Guppie to lead us home. Great hitting now from Munro, too little too late
I think the really telling moment was when the Aussies scored 325. It can be got, but not against the Aussies often - and very disappointing given we had them 90-odd for 4. Dropping Head on 1 was crucial. Would have been great if BJ could have taken that catch to get rid of Smith, but I don't blame him - he did well to get a hand to it. Somewhat ironic that Smith pretty much did take the same catch to get rid of BJ!
I was kind of expecting Guppy to be lbw to to Starc in the first over and then a procession to see us all out for 103 and an evening of listening to the commentators telling me how great the Aussies are and how shit we are, so I'm not at all despondent - we put up a decent fight - well Guppy did.
On the Smith lbw review - as a matter of policy I'm not unhappy that we didn't review it. From what I saw when we were playing the Aussies in tests, Brendon frequently rolled the dice and Smith didn't and the Aussies were much better off for it - they had reviews available when they really needed them - i.e. to fix howlers.
The only thing that stops me saying that I definitely wouldn't have reviewed it is that apparently the rules have changed - for ODIs at least - and if I understand the commentators correctly then the ball now only has to be clipping the stumps. Correct? If that's the case then the DRS target zone is substantially larger, so the odds have swung significantly in favour of the bowling team.
-
@mariner4life said in Australia v NZ - CH Series I:
@No-Quarter It's so sad that a guy can play that well in colours, score big, quick, and often, using clean cricket shots, not slogs, puts on whites and is completely lost.
In ODI cricket if you hit straight with hard hands you will score fast and look elegant.
But if you take that approach into Test or even First Class cricket - Guptill and Mitch Marsh both do - you will get cleaned up in the slip cordon every time you bat.
-
@Chris-B. said in Australia v NZ - CH Series I:
@canefan said in Australia v NZ - CH Series I:
The Neesham dismissal was the telling moment. We were in control and he could have gone on with Guppie to lead us home. Great hitting now from Munro, too little too late
I think the really telling moment was when the Aussies scored 325. It can be got, but not against the Aussies often - and very disappointing given we had them 90-odd for 4. Dropping Head on 1 was crucial. Would have been great if BJ could have taken that catch to get rid of Smith, but I don't blame him - he did well to get a hand to it. Somewhat ironic that Smith pretty much did take the same catch to get rid of BJ!
I was kind of expecting Guppy to be lbw to to Starc in the first over and then a procession to see us all out for 103 and an evening of listening to the commentators telling me how great the Aussies are and how shit we are, so I'm not at all despondent - we put up a decent fight - well Guppy did.
On the Smith lbw review - as a matter of policy I'm not unhappy that we didn't review it. From what I saw when we were playing the Aussies in tests, Brendon frequently rolled the dice and Smith didn't and the Aussies were much better off for it - they had reviews available when they really needed them - i.e. to fix howlers.
The only thing that stops me saying that I definitely wouldn't have reviewed it is that apparently the rules have changed - for ODIs at least - and if I understand the commentators correctly then the ball now only has to be clipping the stumps. Correct? If that's the case then the DRS target zone is substantially larger, so the odds have swung significantly in favour of the bowling team.
Yeah, I mentioned that earlier in the thread and wondered if Kane was across the rule change (assume he was). With that in mind then rolling the dice on Smith, who is head and shoulders above the rest of the Aussie lineup, is a pretty good gamble.
As you say we put up a good fight, and it was really just a couple of moments that cost us as opposed to being outplayed across the board. It was great to see Guppy get stuck into Starc who has been a menace against us in recent times. Plenty of positives to take, we just need to be a lot more polished in the field - catches win matches and we dropped a few.
-
@SammyC said in Australia v NZ - CH Series I:
@mariner4life said in Australia v NZ - CH Series I:
@No-Quarter It's so sad that a guy can play that well in colours, score big, quick, and often, using clean cricket shots, not slogs, puts on whites and is completely lost.
In ODI cricket if you hit straight with hard hands you will score fast and look elegant.
But if you take that approach into Test or even First Class cricket - Guptill and Mitch Marsh both do - you will get cleaned up in the slip cordon every time you bat.
I agree, but there have been plenty of players that have done well in tests playing with hard hands. Astle comes to mind. Ponting used to throw his hands at the ball. I think if you open the batting playing that way you will always struggle with a seaming red ball and a packed slip cordon. I've been saying it for years now but I'd like to see him given a go at 5, especially with Baz gone and nobody putting their hand up. Jeet and Latham have the opening spots covered now.
-
When I saw Neesham listed at four I assumed it was a mistake and that Munro would be there
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11760500
-
It's easy to see what they were thinking though. Munro and de Grandhomme are big hitters. Munro has a strike rate of 108 in List A cricket - that isn't very suited to batting 4. Then they wanted Watling at 5 because he needs a bit of time to get in and probably just tick the strike over.
-
I don't agree with anything Adams says in that article. Neesh isn't an international 4 but Munro is? Give me a break. Without Rosco we were always going to struggle to find a suitable replacement. Neesh at 4 worked really well, and his partnership with Guppy had Aussie under some pressure for a while there. I wouldn't change the order for the 2nd ODI.
-
@hydro11 @No-Quarter Completely agree.
Neesham looked good at 4 - he might not be a proper 4 but he looked better suited to 4 than Munro. I agree that Watling being elevated was a game-situation decision - they wanted to save the big hitters for the end and have Watling turn the strike over. It didn't work but could see the logic.
-
@No-Quarter said in Australia v NZ - CH Series I:
I don't agree with anything Adams says in that article. Neesh isn't an international 4 but Munro is? Give me a break. Without Rosco we were always going to struggle to find a suitable replacement. Neesh at 4 worked really well, and his partnership with Guppy had Aussie under some pressure for a while there. I wouldn't change the order for the 2nd ODI.
Last time I checked Neesham had a test match 100 to his name, the guy can bat up the order just fine and was doing so until he left that shot down the ground 2m short
-
I thought the batting lineup calls on the night were spot on. Neesham at 4 was playing well (despite a shit shot to get out on) and he is probably the best bet of all of them to succeed. Bringing BJ up at that point was also the right call, give him time, act as the foil for Guppy. He struggled, and then got out to a screamer of a catch, but that's hindsight.
Munro was pretty ordinary i thought. The board shows a good score at a decent clip. But he batted us in to a hole by not being able to get off strike. The overs leading up to Guptill getting out were very lean for us, and a lot of them were big swings for naught by Munro. He then got runs when the game was done, and the result made to look less bad by some agricultural stuff by Henry.
For all that, to get that score when 2 of our 3 best players got fuck all, given our lineup, was not a bad result. What killed us was catching, and the inexperience of our attack. When we lost our way through the middle overs, Williamson didn't have a senior guy to throw the ball to, except his premier bowler. That's not an ideal position for a captain to be in. 255 should have been nearly enough, because 4-100 should not have turned in to 325.
-
Yep. Poor bowling at the end, and poor batting at the end, too. When I flagged, they were 250/7 with plenty of overs, and I thought hmmm. Unlikely, but a chance. Was disgusted to read the next morning they were all out for 256.
Quite a shock to the system for our lower order to be so spineless. I miss the days of Vettori et al, where no matter what fuckups the top and middle performed, the bowlers could be relied upon to come out and irritate the fuck out of the opposition with a dogged 10-20 each, starring those butt ugly but highly effective jerk slog fours. I'm especially disappointed in Santner. For a long time, it seemed he could be relied upon for a good 30 runs each innings. Lately he's been adding jack shit. Which sucks. Because you know, like Southee, he is capable.
