we were unlucky if that catch hadnt been taken we would have won but who cares indias here now and i can smell us winning 5-0 and 2-0 in the odis and 20/20
edit that prediction maybe a bit high :P but i still think we should win the series easily
clark007e2009-02-17 15:38:21
edit that prediction maybe a bit high :P but i still think we should win the series easily
clark007e2009-02-17 15:38:21
Permalink
Permalink
I think you mean realistic EL G. (Unless you meant the bit he said about India) McCullem would of won it but we should of won it anyway when we lost him. 20/20 definatly isn't Elliott's game although I am a fan but he missed the ball far too often last night.wellyphoenixfan2009-02-16 16:32:36
Permalink
Permalink
Its a little sad that we deserved to win the Chap-Had series and bowled very well last night yet still come away with nothing.
Still bring on India. Even if the bastards in Cricket land have replaced my beloved 2 innings cricket for hit and giggle in CHCH.
Permalink
Permalink
we were unlucky if that catch hadnt been taken we would have won but who cares indias here now and i can smell us winning 5-0 and 2-0 in the odis and 20/20
Well its a bit concerning that the umpires dont know the rules, Voges 'catch' wasnt out and nothing seems to be being said about it strangely.
Permalink
Permalink
Know that he's done well in the ODIs, but he looked like a club cricketer last night.
How can you be so hard on club cricketers. Amazing how Elliot looked to be so in control of situations in the ODI's and so inept in the 20/20. Really looks like he has found a niche in ODI's and does not have the game for 20/20. I'm sure the thought of hitting his own wicket crossed his mind but he wasn't confident he'd hit any of them.whitby fever2009-02-17 18:21:16
Permalink
Permalink
we were unlucky if that catch hadnt been taken we would have won but who cares indias here now and i can smell us winning 5-0 and 2-0 in the odis and 20/20
Well its a bit concerning that the umpires dont know the rules, Voges 'catch' wasnt out and nothing seems to be being said about it strangely.
explain ? i personally thought it was out but if i can have a bit** over a rule im keen
Permalink
Permalink
See the dom today regarding the catch- as of October 2000 the catch should be given, before this time it was not out. Elliott just annoys me for no real reason, has played well in ODI's of late, but does not fill the Oram void for T20s. On a side note, Jake's back and fit again, what will this do to our lineup in tests/ODIs? Elliott keeping his place for the Indian series? In over Oram? Both in?
Permalink
Permalink
oh yay, Jakes fit again. If he plays, i just jope that he doesn't do what he did in the Wellington one dayer and break down after 2 overs......
in the one day game Ellits offers us just as much as Oram does - but less likely to Break, 20/20 is not really elliots game although he peforms well enough in the state level.
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
See the dom today regarding the catch- as of October 2000 the catch should be given, before this time it was not out. Elliott just annoys me for no real reason, has played well in ODI's of late, but does not fill the Oram void for T20s. On a side note, Jake's back and fit again, what will this do to our lineup�in tests/ODIs? Elliott keeping his place for the Indian series? In over Oram? Both in?
�
�
�
�
Oram in. Elliott's a decent cricketer who plays well within his limitations, but Oram's a whole class above him.
Permalink
Permalink
See the dom today regarding the catch- as of October 2000 the catch should be given, before this time it was not out. Elliott just annoys me for no real reason, has played well in ODI's of late, but does not fill the Oram void for T20s. On a side note, Jake's back and fit again, what will this do to our lineup in tests/ODIs? Elliott keeping his place for the Indian series? In over Oram? Both in?
Oram in. Elliott's a decent cricketer who plays well within his limitations, but Oram's a whole class above him.
It f**ks me off when people say things like that. It's a nothing term. An international sports player is never playing "Well winthin his limitations". He's clearly using ALL his ability so he can get the best result for himself and the team.
Permalink
Permalink
See the dom today regarding the catch- as of October 2000 the catch should be given, before this time it was not out. Elliott just annoys me for no real reason, has played well in ODI's of late, but does not fill the Oram void for T20s. On a side note, Jake's back and fit again, what will this do to our lineup�in tests/ODIs? Elliott keeping his place for the Indian series? In over Oram? Both in?
Oram in. Elliott's a decent cricketer who plays well within his limitations, but Oram's a whole class above him.
�
�
�
�
�
It f**ks me off when people say things like that. It's a nothing term. An international sports player is never playing "Well winthin his limitations". He's clearly using ALL his ability so he can get the best result for himself and the team.
You misunderstand what the term means then. It refers to players (or people in general) who generally don't have the set of skills to succeed in their chosen field, yet manage to find some success by sticking to the few strengths that they do have.
When the term is used, no-one means that the said person is not playing to the best of their ability, it means that their ability is limited. Hope this clears things up for you.el grapadura2009-02-17 23:39:54
Permalink
Permalink
See the dom today regarding the catch- as of October 2000 the catch should be given, before this time it was not out. Elliott just annoys me for no real reason, has played well in ODI's of late, but does not fill the Oram void for T20s. On a side note, Jake's back and fit again, what will this do to our lineup in tests/ODIs? Elliott keeping his place for the Indian series? In over Oram? Both in?
Oram in. Elliott's a decent cricketer who plays well within his limitations, but Oram's a whole class above him.
It f**ks me off when people say things like that. It's a nothing term. An international sports player is never playing "Well winthin his limitations". He's clearly using ALL his ability so he can get the best result for himself and the team.
You misunderstand what the term means then. It refers to players (or people in general) who generally don't have the set of skills to succeed in their chosen field, yet manage to find some success by sticking to the few strengths that they do have.
When the term is used, no-one means that the said person is not playing to the best of their ability, it means that their ability is limited. Hope this clears things up for you.
can't remember a whole lot of Oram tons batting 4 or 5 to win us games or anchor chases...Oram has ability, but is a different type player. haven't been able to watch a whole lot of Elliot. will be interesting to see what becomes of him.
Permalink
Permalink
That was a good game - but why can't they just leave things as are and accept ties, rather than going through that super-over farce?
Who knows?
At this stage I'm not caring either (In saying that I probably would be if we had lost)
Permalink
Permalink
See the dom today regarding the catch- as of October 2000 the catch should be given, before this time it was not out. Elliott just annoys me for no real reason, has played well in ODI's of late, but does not fill the Oram void for T20s. On a side note, Jake's back and fit again, what will this do to our lineup�in tests/ODIs? Elliott keeping his place for the Indian series? In over Oram? Both in?
Oram in. Elliott's a decent cricketer who plays well within his limitations, but Oram's a whole class above him.
�
�
�
�
�
It f**ks me off when people say things like that. It's a nothing term. An international sports player is never playing "Well winthin his limitations". He's clearly using ALL his ability so he can get the best result for himself and the team.
You misunderstand what the term means then. It refers to players (or people in general) who generally don't have the set of skills to succeed in their chosen field, yet manage to find some success by sticking to the few strengths that they do have.
When the term is used, no-one means that the said person is not playing to the best of their ability, it means that their ability is limited. Hope this clears things up for you.
Oram doesn't in general bat at 4 or 5 for us in ODIs - but he's certainly won us plenty of games with the bat. Elliott's not really a top 5 player in international cricket, his recent record notwithstanding. Think selectors will probably stick with him as you can't relly drop him after the last series, but I personally don't think he has the ability to succeed at international level long-term.
Permalink
Permalink
He's yet to actually call stumps but the voice of modern cricket, Richie Benaud, has confirmed he is well into the last session of play, announcing that next summer will be his last behind the microphone.
THANK GOD!!!
If only the rest of them followed...
Three for me, and two for them.
Permalink
Permalink
He's yet to actually call stumps but the voice of modern cricket, Richie Benaud, has confirmed he is well into the last session of play, announcing that next summer will be his last behind the microphone.
THANK GOD!!!
If only the rest of them followed...
There's gotta be a fantastic 12th man in this...
Permalink
Permalink
That was a good game - but why can't they just leave things as are and accept ties, rather than going through that super-over farce?
Who knows?
At this stage I'm not caring either (In saying that I probably would be if we had lost)
I think the whole super-over thing is a crock. The T20 match is exciting, and all over in three hours. It took a good half hour the other night to bowl the two extra overs, and that really wasn't exciting. The bowl-off was good in that players didn't need to go and kit up etc, and was over much quicker. No saying that should have happened, but just that there has to be a better option than the bowl off.
Would have been interesting to see what would have happened in the Wellington game had it gone to a draw. By the time the last over was bowled it was pretty bloody dark, no way they could have stuffed around and actually been able to see the ball in the superover had it gone that long.
Permalink
Permalink
Should point out this is the emerging players team for the two warm up matches and not NZ A.
�
Tim McIntosh, Captain (Auckland) Josh Brodie (Wellington) Brad Patton (Central Districts) Brad Wilson (Northern Districts) Andrew De Border (Auckland) Jeet Raval (Auckland) Simon Allan (Wellington) Nick Beard (Otago) Te Ahu Davis (Northern Districts) Matt Harvie (Otago) Lance Shaw (Auckland)�
Couple of recognisable names in there. McIntosh, De Border and Beard. Not looking good for us (Canterbury) in the future though. Admittedly we have many young players who are playing first class cricket already. Gangsta!2009-02-20 21:14:23
Permalink
Permalink
That Otago team that played today, if guys like Redmond, Cumming, Rutherford and Wagner stayed in good form would have to fancy itself for any attack on the Champions League. Any batting line up that has both McCullums, Mascharenas and Butler will score runs and score runs quickly
www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com
Permalink
Permalink
That Otago team that played today, if guys like Redmond, Cumming, Rutherford and Wagner stayed in good form would have to fancy itself for any attack on the Champions League. Any batting line up that has both McCullums, Mascharenas and Butler will score runs and score runs quickly
Although I hope they do, I can't see Canterbury or Auckland getting up over Otago in a weeks time.
So, unless our lads do it next week, C'mon Otago in the Champions league!
Gangsta!2009-02-22 18:10:57
Permalink
Permalink
This topic is locked.