Cricket: NZ vs Aus
-
@KiwiMurph said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Damo well it was Erasmus...
I think the commentator was just about suggesting that it should have been given out.
FFS. If the stumps had one less coat of varnish the prediction would have been that it would have missed.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Damo well it was Erasmus...
I am shocked he actually turned down an Australian appeal.
-
@taniwharugby said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Damo fuck scoring, bat for time...something usually alien to BCs batsmen though.
Need to do both, batting time and not scoring runs does nothing useful this early.
-
Pitch is dodgy as fuck already. If this goes 5 days it might actually get called off.
-
Not really dangerous though. Hard to see it being called off unless the balls are rearing up dangerously. There was one ball that bounced more than the batsman expected - though in itself it wasn't hostile bounce.
Of course if Aussie are battling to save the test on day 5 then the calculus changes.
-
@Damo said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Not really dangerous though. Hard to see it being called off unless the balls are rearing up dangerously. There was one ball that bounced more than the batsman expected - though in itself it wasn't hostile bounce.
Of course if Aussie are battling to save the test on day 5 then the calculus changes.
Did you see Cummins' second ball to Blundell?
-
@booboo said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
@Damo said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Not really dangerous though. Hard to see it being called off unless the balls are rearing up dangerously. There was one ball that bounced more than the batsman expected - though in itself it wasn't hostile bounce.
Of course if Aussie are battling to save the test on day 5 then the calculus changes.
Did you see Cummins' second ball to Blundell?
Yes I did. That is the one I refered to in my post.
That is the only ball that could be described as dangerous. The previous ball kept low. That one didn't. It was not a ball that reared up dangerously, it just bounced more than the previous ball did.
-
@taniwharugby agree that the first order is to not get out, especially not to dumb shots, but unless it is day 5 and very unlikely to win, we still need runs to make a contest of it. Otherwise we are just losing slower.
-
-
I feel for the good of the country 3 days of rain over all of aussie would be great.
-
@Godder said in Cricket: NZ vs Aus:
Guessing that Timmy's dropping was planned in advance based on not being good enough and wanting to give him a wake-up call, only for them to have to scramble to continue to justify it after everyone broke down.
As pointed out in the paper, Southee has been in pretty good form in tests in recent years. So based on test form and the options available, Stead’s decision deserves some scrutiny. Also the selectors named him vice captain - so it seems the Coach and the selectors have different opinions.
-
@booboo Yeah - I'd say the first session today was evens and we won the second and third.
However, Oz won all three yesterday, so we need to win the first tomorrow to get things back on an even keel. 80/1 in the morning session would do that - we'd trail by 311 with nine wickets in hand.
Unfortunately, the openers aren't protecting Little Kane - it's a 'flu-ridden Jeet.
Out of interest, I think only won 1 session in the first test (3rd session on Day 3), but we did win three sessions in the 2nd test - though some of these wins were when Oz was trying to accelerate the run-rate.
At the moment I'm scoring it Oz 20; NZ 6; Even 4.
