Cricket: NZ vs Aus
-
i think our choice of spinner is impacted by the fact that none of our seamers can bat for shit
-
-
-
It will be Astle because he's in the squad - and he can hold a bat.
Only question is whether conditions might warrant us rolling the dice and playing a second spinner.
Santner currently getting plenty of stick from the commentary box - reminiscent of Mark Craig last time we were in Oz.
-
Australia ruthless now, well done by them
I have given Colin too much shit, he's an excellent 4th seamer. He's bowled 30 overs at not much over 2 an over, and taken 2 top order wickets. Wags the same as the 3rd option, 32 overs at basically 2 with 2 wickets. Southee and Boult are the ones that needed to knock over the top order, and they haven't
The spinner only being trusted with 13 overs halfway through the 5th session is a disgrace.
-
@Siam said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
3 overs for Blundell to play the batsmen in after lunch has left me perplexed and questioning what the fuck they're playing at....after inserting the opposition!
I think the first test knocked the stuffing out of us. If we'd put up a decent fight there I reckon we'd have batted first and backed ourselves to put 350+ on the board to give us a fighting chance of a win.
It's probably the biggest thing I miss about Baz. He'd always back us to play aggressive cricket and go for the win, which is what you have to do in Aus.
-
@mariner4life said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@hydro11 said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Godder said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
I think if Aussie had won the toss and batted anyway, we'd be happy with ~250/4 at stumps.
I was going to contradict you but looking at the last few boxing day tests, the team batting first basically always made over 350. Australia did the worst with just 327 versus England. Still the odds on us winning were a lot longer at the end of day one than they were at the start.
yep, if you are going to send the opposition in, you want more in return than what we have.
When you consider we took a wicket in the first over, to only have 5 at the end of 4 sessions is not good enough.
I still think the decision to bowl was the right one. And i actually think we've bowled well for the most part, the fact the Aussies have had to earn their runs is proof of that. It's just been really tough test cricket.
It will now come down to the batsmen matching the Aussies.
We’ve bowled to a pretty good plan, but the conditions and the good Aussie batsmen in their own backyard has come to the fore. We’ve kept Oz under 3 rpo, but our bowlers are getting very little assistance.
I personally wasn’t expecting much more from us when I saw the weather forecast. Hopeful but that was about it.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@mariner4life said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@hydro11 said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Godder said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
I think if Aussie had won the toss and batted anyway, we'd be happy with ~250/4 at stumps.
I was going to contradict you but looking at the last few boxing day tests, the team batting first basically always made over 350. Australia did the worst with just 327 versus England. Still the odds on us winning were a lot longer at the end of day one than they were at the start.
yep, if you are going to send the opposition in, you want more in return than what we have.
When you consider we took a wicket in the first over, to only have 5 at the end of 4 sessions is not good enough.
I still think the decision to bowl was the right one. And i actually think we've bowled well for the most part, the fact the Aussies have had to earn their runs is proof of that. It's just been really tough test cricket.
It will now come down to the batsmen matching the Aussies.
We’ve bowled to a pretty good plan, but the conditions and the good Aussie batsmen in their own backyard has come to the fore. We’ve kept Oz under 3 rpo, but our bowlers are getting very little assistance.
I personally wasn’t expecting much more from us when I saw the weather forecast. Hopeful but that was about it.
yep, and their best players did the heavy lifting when conditions actually helped for us. And best of all, they were able to stop us taking wickets in groups, every partnership went past 50 runs. very patient and systematic.
-
The commentators actually haven't annoyed me too much given that we are getting done over.
Kerry O'Keeffe seems quite knowledgeable but is irritating because he thinks he's funny and laughs at his own jokes.
Is A Goer (I might have spelled that wrong) is pretty good, but most women with a name like that I would probably like.
-
@Snowy said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
The commentators actually haven't annoyed me too much given that we are getting done over.
Kerry O'Keeffe seems quite knowledgeable but is irritating because he thinks he's funny and laughs at his own jokes.
Is A Goer (I might have spelled that wrong) is pretty good, but most women with a name like that I would probably like.
Kerry O'Keefe is hilarious!
-
@hydro11 said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Snowy said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
The commentators actually haven't annoyed me too much given that we are getting done over.
Kerry O'Keeffe seems quite knowledgeable but is irritating because he thinks he's funny and laughs at his own jokes.
Is A Goer (I might have spelled that wrong) is pretty good, but most women with a name like that I would probably like.
Kerry O'Keefe is hilarious!
Well he thinks so.
-
fucking Wags. He's got a heart the size of ayers rock
-
@mariner4life said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
fucking Wags. He's got a heart the size of ayers rock
Hard not to like the guy ay. He's rapidly becoming my favourite cricketer ever.
That was also out every day of the week. Reviews are for "howlers" and that was one. Comms trying to defend Erasmus, but it really did look out.
-
@Snowy said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
The commentators actually haven't annoyed me too much given that we are getting done over.
Kerry O'Keeffe seems quite knowledgeable but is irritating because he thinks he's funny and laughs at his own jokes.
Is A Goer (I might have spelled that wrong) is pretty good, but most women with a name like that I would probably like.
Kerry is good value because he doesn’t take himself so seriously and yet knows the game.
Warne still grates but it’s hard to argue with his more analytical comments given his record and the way he attacked in test cricket.
-
@Snowy I find O'Keefe the most annoying, because he's the most Aussie flag-waving - closest to a throw-back to the old Channel 9. I guess he played with Chappelli so a bit of the arse gene was bound to rub off.
What the Aussies have done well is get Michael Vaughan and Isa into the team - which along with having Smithy there, makes things a lot less abrasive. Also Gilchrist seems very even handed, so even though we're getting our arses handed to us we're not getting 6 hours of relentless criticism and jingoism.
-
@Chris-B Isa is a gem, and i am happy for her to do as many test series as there are.
The only really annoying one is Mike Hussey. He's sort of the new Slats, with his boundless cricket-nerd enthusiasm. But for all he loves the game, he doesn't have a heap of insight. And his "lab" thing is fucking stupid for the vast majority of the time.
Also Mark Waugh is just a relentlessly negative asshole who can basically go fuck himself.
-
Erasmus does us over again. Getting an LB in Aus for a Kiwi is about as likely as me finding Painite in my back yard, which is appropriate given the Aussie captain and the name of the discoverer.
I had to go out but they were talking earlier about trying to get a ball tracker on the Morrison to McDermott LBW. Did that happen? Didn't actually think it was possible but would love to see it.
As for Kerry, just don't laugh at your own jokes, as I said, or sound like you are amusing yourself so much. It's a bit weird.
