Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka
-
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@rotated said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
When Bryan Young got his double did they declare?
At tea on the second day 7 down with Dipak also not out on 40 odd. Looking at the scorecard it looks to have rained most of the next day which was probably the consideration.
Young, Sutcliffe, Kane and Fleming all had good chances at 300 but gave them up in the interests of the team. Sutcliffe was declared on only 2 down!!
Does really show that unless you are batting second on a road after giving up ~600 there is almost has to be a degree of putting the individual first to get there.
For all the shit Fleming got over his conversion rate he still cracked three double hundies.
Yeah when he got past 100 he generally went big. For the last few years of his career (at least) he clearly had a mental block about triple figures and would often try and blast his way through the 90s and get caught.
-
@kiwipie said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@rotated said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
When Bryan Young got his double did they declare?
At tea on the second day 7 down with Dipak also not out on 40 odd. Looking at the scorecard it looks to have rained most of the next day which was probably the consideration.
Young, Sutcliffe, Kane and Fleming all had good chances at 300 but gave them up in the interests of the team. Sutcliffe was declared on only 2 down!!
Does really show that unless you are batting second on a road after giving up ~600 there is almost has to be a degree of putting the individual first to get there.
If Kane had faced as many balls as Latham and kept up his scoring rate he would have passed 400 ...
Ah yes but he didn't...
... if de Grandhomme ...
-
@cyclops said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@rotated said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
When Bryan Young got his double did they declare?
At tea on the second day 7 down with Dipak also not out on 40 odd. Looking at the scorecard it looks to have rained most of the next day which was probably the consideration.
Young, Sutcliffe, Kane and Fleming all had good chances at 300 but gave them up in the interests of the team. Sutcliffe was declared on only 2 down!!
Does really show that unless you are batting second on a road after giving up ~600 there is almost has to be a degree of putting the individual first to get there.
For all the shit Fleming got over his conversion rate he still cracked three double hundies.
Yeah when he got past 100 he generally went big. For the last few years of his career (at least) he clearly had a mental block about triple figures and would often try and blast his way through the 90s and get caught.
Good record ( although he underachieved all things considered ) and outstanding captain. That to me is why he'll always get mentioned in an all time XI
-
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@cyclops said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@rotated said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
When Bryan Young got his double did they declare?
At tea on the second day 7 down with Dipak also not out on 40 odd. Looking at the scorecard it looks to have rained most of the next day which was probably the consideration.
Young, Sutcliffe, Kane and Fleming all had good chances at 300 but gave them up in the interests of the team. Sutcliffe was declared on only 2 down!!
Does really show that unless you are batting second on a road after giving up ~600 there is almost has to be a degree of putting the individual first to get there.
For all the shit Fleming got over his conversion rate he still cracked three double hundies.
Yeah when he got past 100 he generally went big. For the last few years of his career (at least) he clearly had a mental block about triple figures and would often try and blast his way through the 90s and get caught.
Good record ( although he underachieved all things considered ) and outstanding captain. That to me is why he'll always get mentioned in an all time XI
Yeah from memory when you look at 50+ scores he ranks pretty well which is good indicator of his raw ability.
I think one of the things that stands out for me about Baz is his ability to go big. The triple, three doubles, and another few big 150s. Especially later in his career once he got triple figures he was hard to get arid of.
-
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
Good record ( although he underachieved all things considered ) and outstanding captain. That to me is why he'll always get mentioned in an all time XI
The issue with Flem was he played for NZ. He debuted the same summer as Matthew Hayden and a year after Justin Langer. All three posted initial promising returns but were quickly found out at international level. The two Australians had the luxury of being dropped and coming back once their game had matured. Flem couldn't dropped due to lack to our lack of depth and his growth was further stunted by the captaincy.
If he played for another country and was able to be put back in the domestic oven for a couple more seasons his career is remembered just for the '01 period onwards and is at worst carrying the drinks for an all time XI.
-
@rotated said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
Good record ( although he underachieved all things considered ) and outstanding captain. That to me is why he'll always get mentioned in an all time XI
The issue with Flem was he played for NZ. He debuted the same summer as Matthew Hayden and a year after Justin Langer. All three posted initial promising returns but were quickly found out at international level. The two Australians had the luxury of being dropped and coming back once their game had matured. Flem couldn't dropped due to lack to our lack of depth and his growth was further stunted by the captaincy.
If he played for another country and was able to be put back in the domestic oven for a couple more seasons his career is remembered just for the '01 period onwards and is at worst carrying the drinks for an all time XI.
Yeah I think he probably misses out on he top team but for me captains the 2nd XI. ( which is a vastly inferior team, particularly the bowling )
-
Yeah I think he probably misses out on he top team but for me captains the 2nd XI. ( which is a vastly inferior team, particularly the bowling )
Bowling attack for the second XI for me would be:
Richard Collinge/Cowie
Chats (if you look at the footage from his playing days, he moved the ball off the pitch appreciably at times - a lot more than we think nowadays)/Bartlett
Nash/Vettori
Cairns/ BracewellI'm postulating that we are playing on pre-drop in pitches.
-
@booboo said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@kiwipie said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@rotated said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
When Bryan Young got his double did they declare?
At tea on the second day 7 down with Dipak also not out on 40 odd. Looking at the scorecard it looks to have rained most of the next day which was probably the consideration.
Young, Sutcliffe, Kane and Fleming all had good chances at 300 but gave them up in the interests of the team. Sutcliffe was declared on only 2 down!!
Does really show that unless you are batting second on a road after giving up ~600 there is almost has to be a degree of putting the individual first to get there.
If Kane had faced as many balls as Latham and kept up his scoring rate he would have passed 400 ...
Ah yes but he didn't...
... if de Grandhomme ...
My point was that Kane did not look like getting out (until he did) and was taking no risks to score at a run a ball. Extrapolate that for 2 days of batting and voila, Lara's 400 can be beaten.
-
@kiwipie said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@booboo said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@kiwipie said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@rotated said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
When Bryan Young got his double did they declare?
At tea on the second day 7 down with Dipak also not out on 40 odd. Looking at the scorecard it looks to have rained most of the next day which was probably the consideration.
Young, Sutcliffe, Kane and Fleming all had good chances at 300 but gave them up in the interests of the team. Sutcliffe was declared on only 2 down!!
Does really show that unless you are batting second on a road after giving up ~600 there is almost has to be a degree of putting the individual first to get there.
If Kane had faced as many balls as Latham and kept up his scoring rate he would have passed 400 ...
Ah yes but he didn't...
... if de Grandhomme ...
My point was that Kane did not look like getting out (until he did) and was taking no risks to score at a run a ball. Extrapolate that for 2 days of batting and voila, Lara's 400 can be beaten.
I think it's fair to say that Kane, if he allows himself a moment of self reflection, should be very disappointed at missing out on a golden opportunity to post a record score on a perfect batting pitch
-
-
@synicbast said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
Yeah I think he probably misses out on he top team but for me captains the 2nd XI. ( which is a vastly inferior team, particularly the bowling )
Bowling attack for the second XI for me would be:
Richard Collinge/Cowie
Chats (if you look at the footage from his playing days, he moved the ball off the pitch appreciably at times - a lot more than we think nowadays)/Bartlett
Nash/Vettori
Cairns/ BracewellI'm postulating that we are playing on pre-drop in pitches.
Aside from Vettori who should walk into the top team that attack is pretty B grade
-
-
@bovidae said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
It would be nice to be talking about wickets...
Are you implying that the arguments for Southee to be man of the match instead of Latham for taking 12 wickets, and declarations that certain spin bowlers should be nowhere near this side... were TSF jumping the gun slightly?
-
@donsteppa I'm not fussy on who takes a wicket! Timmy getting 1 would be a good start to that discussion.
-
@bovidae said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@donsteppa I'm not fussy on who takes a wicket! Timmy getting 1 would be a good start to that discussion.
Someone on Cricinfo suggested throwing the ball to Latham for the golden touch...!
-
Kane underbowls himself something chronric. Is he worried about chucking?
Not that he's necessarily going to be an all-rounder or even a regular bowler but these long partnerships are exactly when he should be rolling over his arm for a couple of overs.
-
Incredible partnership between these two, really gutsy stuff. Well done.
