Cricket: NZ vs Aus
-
I think the most disappointing thing is that we've been undone by ourselves. A lack of patience and too many loose shots at key moments. The difference between us has been that the Aussie batsmen happily left anything not threatening alone and took what they could get. Our top 4 all went to soft shots at balls easily left. I think the combination of the occasion, the scoreboard pressure and a high quality bowling attack did that.
Also, although our bowlers performed okay (excellently in the case of Wags) I feel like we never bowled in partnerships so although we had individual bowlers looking threatening from time to time, we never managed to exert consistent pressure at both ends.
-
@booboo said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Broken hand for Boult.
Heading home after the test. Still bowling this arvo though.
What are you doing "liking" that post @KiwiMurph ?
-
@Cyclops said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
I think the most disappointing thing is that we've been undone by ourselves. A lack of patience and too many loose shots at key moments. The difference between us has been that the Aussie batsmen happily left anything not threatening alone and took what they could get. Our top 4 all went to soft shots at balls easily left. I think the combination of the occasion, the scoreboard pressure and a high quality bowling attack did that.
Also, although our bowlers performed okay (excellently in the case of Wags) I feel like we never bowled in partnerships so although we had individual bowlers looking threatening from time to time, we never managed to exert consistent pressure at both ends.
I actually think the bowlers did everything they could, ish. Southee and Boult bowled a lot of great deliveries. Wagner has been amazing. The Park Cricketer bowled above his station.
The entire batting card and Santners bowling can get fucked.
-
@mariner4life said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Cyclops said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
I think the most disappointing thing is that we've been undone by ourselves. A lack of patience and too many loose shots at key moments. The difference between us has been that the Aussie batsmen happily left anything not threatening alone and took what they could get. Our top 4 all went to soft shots at balls easily left. I think the combination of the occasion, the scoreboard pressure and a high quality bowling attack did that.
Also, although our bowlers performed okay (excellently in the case of Wags) I feel like we never bowled in partnerships so although we had individual bowlers looking threatening from time to time, we never managed to exert consistent pressure at both ends.
I actually think the bowlers did everything they could, ish. Southee and Boult bowled a lot of great deliveries. Wagner has been amazing. The Park Cricketer bowled above his station.
The entire batting card and Santners bowling can get fucked.
All individual though. I just don't feel like we had an entire bowling unit working in unison, we had four individuals bowling well, doing there own thing. I think partly that was because we were rotating bowlers quite a lot, presumably to save legs so they couldn't really get partnerships going because it felt like we never had the same pair going together for more than six or seven overs.
-
@Cyclops I sort of see what you are saying, but respectfully I disagree. On day 1 I watched a four person unit bowl what I think looked like a plan, and stick to it regimentaly.
It was countered by a batting unit who played incredibly disciplined and patient cricket, just enough pressure relieving deliveries, and a lack of firepower.
This pitch is not all out for 150 either.
-
@mikey07 said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@canefan According to cricinfo he hasnāt
@mikey07 said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@canefan According to cricinfo he hasnāt
I want to know why the fark not. The guy is accurate and has variations now. Plus heās tough as an super aggressive. Why not?
-
Itās difficult to remember a more disappointing series. Neil Wagner and then nothing.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/cricket/news/article.cfm?c_id=29&objectid=12297041
-
Well it's been disappointing and we could have done a bit better with the bat, but to be honest we're just miles outgunned in the bowling department.
So while the batsmen are being given the stick, in my view it's more in the bowling that the difference lies - when they bat and when we bat it just looks like two different games. You have people like Head and Paine looking comfortable and finding it easy, while people like Rossco and Kane are being worked over.
We're bringing CdG in as first change and they're bringing Starc.
It's unfortunately something we've seen in Oz on numerous occasions including last time we were here.
-
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Well it's been disappointing and we could have done a bit better with the bat, but to be honest we're just miles outgunned in the bowling department.
So while the batsmen are being given the stick, in my view it's more in the bowling that the difference lies - when they bat and when we bat it just looks like two different games. You have people like Head and Paine looking comfortable and finding it easy, while people like Rossco and Kane are being worked over.
Yep. And actually i'ts a combination isn't it - our 1 and 2 bowlers haven't got wickets, despite bowling really well at times. It's sliding door stuff - pick up a couple of quick wickets and the game is quite different. Then going in to bat after 10 hours in the field is just really really hard.
I'm disappointed in the decision to bowl after winning the toss. Really frustrating, I can kind of understand why we did it, but then bowling Blundell and Santner instead of Wags was unfathomable.
Ah well, hindsight eh. Winning at home is what a lot of teams to. It's winning away that's hard. Play these aussies a year ago and it's a different story, different side and we're more competitive.
Still really frustrated and disappointed though, feels like we didn't get our best selves out there.
-
Could have opened the bowling with Santner and bowled Latham first change - bowling lineup is almost irrelevant when the batsmen can't get an innings total above 170.
Though I've always been 50/50 about CdG being the official first change ahead of Wagner.... the extra swing being traded off for a bigger drop in pace I guess...
-
@nzzp Yeah - it all compounds.
We really, really needed Kane to do the same as Latham and bat for a few hours - take the shine off the ball, a bit of sting out of the bowlers - and then it gets easier for the batsmen to follow.
I think that one thing we've seen is how much e.g. Henry Nicholls has been the beneficiary of batting behind Latham, Williamson and Taylor (and decent Jeet) over the past few seasons.
Anyway, that's the prescription for the second innings - we've simply got to have our best batsmen survive the first 30-40 overs.
-
-
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Anyway, that's the prescription for the second innings - we've simply got to have our best batsmen survive the first 30-40 overs.
It's hard to argue with that for any innings - lose your top 6 in the first 40 overs and the innings will probably be a failure.
Agree that the failure of our bowlers to take wickets has been painful in this match. The biggest symptom of that was Blundell bowling - he's a wicketkeeper, and if we're having to resort to that, someone else needs to be replaced.
-
-
@Chris-B when you have a look our options then we are always going to be outgunned in bowling by what must be the best bowling attack in World Cricket. However they work their plans and can keep us in the game. But the batsmen who were all talked up (Except Jeet) prior have collectively failed in 3 innings in a row. If the batsmen were that good one or more of them would have stood up but they havenāt. Some were picking a bunch of NZ batsmen in their combined teams. So bowlers have performed to expectations bar spinning whereas batsmen todate have been disappointing. Though not all is lost and they have another chance today š.
-
