Off Topic

Its Summer! - the Fever Cricket Thread. (Part 2)

3491 replies · 167,812 views Locked
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

Hopefully Ronchi will play and then we can be bombarded by the term " Australian born New Zealand wicketkeeper Luke Ronchi " as an alternative to "New Zealand/Christchurch born England all-rounder Ben Stokes "...

"Self-defence is an art I cultivate"

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

Don't understand why you don't bring Elliott in for Anderson personally. He's in England anyway playing for Leicestershire so would be used to conditions. I understand they would be looking towards the future and all that but seems a no brainer as a stop gap for this one test to me.

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History
ajc28 wrote:

Don't understand why you don't bring Elliott in for Anderson personally. He's in England anyway playing for Leicestershire so would be used to conditions. I understand they would be looking for towards the future and all that but seems a no brainer as a stop gap for this one test to me.

I actually mentioned that to someone today who knows Grant through playing with him. He struggles in the longer form of the game including the 4 day stuff and prefers to stick to the limited overs stuff. The reason is that he has a plan for limited overs as he is a busy player but struggles to find his batting rhythm and therefore form, in the longer versions.  

"...sure beats doin' stuff."

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History
Ray Hicks wrote:

Hopefully Ronchi will play and then we can be bombarded by the term " Australian born New Zealand wicketkeeper Luke Ronchi " as an alternative to "New Zealand/Christchurch born England all-rounder Ben Stokes "...

For how long has Dannevirke been part of Australia?

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

Ok how about " South African born New Zealand batsman BJ Watling " or " Australian international wicketkeeper now playing for New Zealand Luke Ronchi as if anyone gives a sh*t "...better?

"Self-defence is an art I cultivate"

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History
Ray Hicks wrote:

Ok how about " South African born New Zealand batsman BJ Watling " or " Australian international wicketkeeper now playing for New Zealand Luke Ronchi as if anyone gives a sh*t "...better?

More accurate, but i'm not sure what your point is.

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

Just that i'm tired of the media referring to Stokes as " New Zealand/Christchurch born " every time his name crops up. Why  don't they refer to the backgrounds of Watling, Wagner, Elliott when they're mentioned? They did the same thing with Caddick when he played for England.Is it some pathetic attempt at snaffling some of the glory? Seems an incredibly " small town " kind of thing. 

Irritating...

"Self-defence is an art I cultivate"

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History
LeighboNZ wrote:
ajc28 wrote:

Don't understand why you don't bring Elliott in for Anderson personally. He's in England anyway playing for Leicestershire so would be used to conditions. I understand they would be looking for towards the future and all that but seems a no brainer as a stop gap for this one test to me.



I actually mentioned that to someone today who knows Grant through playing with him. He struggles in the longer form of the game including the 4 day stuff and prefers to stick to the limited o vers stuff. The reason is that he has a plan for limited overs as he is a busy player but struggles to find his batting rhythm and therefore form, in the longer versions.  

Not sure if this is correct. He is a grafter and he knows it. His skills were always based on longer form cricket until him and Jamie Siddons worked on making him a dynamic short form cricketer. He would back himself to play test cricket 100%

Fuck this stupid game

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History
Ray Hicks wrote:

Just that i'm tired of the media referring to Stokes as " New Zealand/Christchurch born " every time his name crops up. Why  don't they refer to the backgrounds of Watling, Wagner, Elliott when they're mentioned? They did the same thing with Caddick when he played for England.Is it some pathetic attempt at snaffling some of the glory? Seems an incredibly " small town " kind of thing. 

Irritating...

I don't like it either but when you're a small fish in a big pond that's what happens so get used to it. Unless you're you're a big fish in our small pond then I can't help you

Fuck this stupid game

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History
TopLeft07 wrote:
Ray Hicks wrote:

Just that i'm tired of the media referring to Stokes as " New Zealand/Christchurch born " every time his name crops up. Why  don't they refer to the backgrounds of Watling, Wagner, Elliott when they're mentioned? They did the same thing with Caddick when he played for England.Is it some pathetic attempt at snaffling some of the glory? Seems an incredibly " small town " kind of thing. 

Irritating...

I don't like it either but when you're a small fish in a big pond that's what happens so get used to it. Unless you're you're a big fish in our small pond then I can't help you

I don't think it's just here though.  I do often hear 'South Aftrican born Wagner/Elliott" (not so much Watling).  You also hear "SA born Pietersen" and others in British commentary/media and even in other countries' press.  There is a lot of column inches to write, and not always a lot to say, so they include human interest stuff like this consistently as filler - did you know Jacob Oram was a soccer goalkeeper?

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

That's a good BJ...

People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

For sure, even the worst BJ is better than, say, sniffing the best rose ... watching the greatest sunset. Hearing children laugh.

 - Victor Mancini from Chuck Palahniuk's "Choke".

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

Weather permitting, we should win it from here. 

Three for me, and two for them.

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

They have 2 days to get near 350. I actually back them. They don't have to play any shots or chase anything wide. It'll be about 2 runs an over....

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History
Jeff Vader wrote:

They have 2 days to get near 350. I actually back them. They don't have to play any shots or chase anything wide. It'll be about 2 runs an over....

We've got a 338 run lead and 4 wickets in hand. I'd expect our lead to end up in the region of 400, and that's a massive psychological barrier. Only 4 teams have scored more than 400 to win a test, and the highest is 418. In fact, only 8 teams have successfully chased more than 350 in the final innings in test history. I'm not saying it can't be done, but we've surely got to be favourites from here. The time factor works both ways too - they might not need to score quickly but if we get them 2 or 3 down by tea tomorrow the end of the final day will start to look very far away to their middle and lower order.

People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

400 up already, keep piling them on chaps!

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

Broad's first over of the day..... 0,4,6,4,4,2. Hilarious. 

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

450 target. Eng 30-0 at lunch. We shouldn't lose from here. Doesn't mean we won't, but we shouldn't.

Mark Craig has had one over before lunch and it looks very promising.

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History
bopman wrote:

450 target. Eng 30-0 at lunch. We shouldn't lose from here. Doesn't mean we won't, but we shouldn't.

Mark Craig has had one over before lunch and it looks very promising.

But drawing becomes a possibility when the rain that had been forecast to be one or two intermittent showers turns into most of a day of persistent rain.

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

Ah, bollocks. Hopefully it doesn't rain for the final day

People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

The forecast sounds good.

E + R + O

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History
Jeff Vader wrote:

They have 2 days to get near 350. I actually back them. They don't have to play any shots or chase anything wide. It'll be about 2 runs an over....

We've got a 338 run lead and 4 wickets in hand. I'd expect our lead to end up in the region of 400, and that's a massive psychological barrier. Only 4 teams have scored more than 400 to win a test, and the highest is 418. In fact, only 8 teams have successfully chased more than 350 in the final innings in test history. I'm not saying it can't be done, but we've surely got to be favourites from here. The time factor works both ways too - they might not need to score quickly but if we get them 2 or 3 down by tea tomorrow the end of the final day will start to look very far away to their middle and lower order.

Having lost 60 overs, I now agree with you. They can't (shouldn't) get that total in 90 overs.

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History
Jeff Vader wrote:
Jeff Vader wrote:

They have 2 days to get near 350. I actually back them. They don't have to play any shots or chase anything wide. It'll be about 2 runs an over....

We've got a 338 run lead and 4 wickets in hand. I'd expect our lead to end up in the region of 400, and that's a massive psychological barrier. Only 4 teams have scored more than 400 to win a test, and the highest is 418. In fact, only 8 teams have successfully chased more than 350 in the final innings in test history. I'm not saying it can't be done, but we've surely got to be favourites from here. The time factor works both ways too - they might not need to score quickly but if we get them 2 or 3 down by tea tomorrow the end of the final day will start to look very far away to their middle and lower order.

Having lost 60 overs, I now agree with you. They can't (shouldn't) get that total in 90 overs.

That and also maybe because it would be easily the biggest run chase in test cricket history?

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

I'll be honest in that I don't subscribe to that theory. Lots of teams get 500 plus in their 1st innings. Why can they not do it in the 2nd innings...

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History
Jeff Vader wrote:

I'll be honest in that I don't subscribe to that theory. Lots of teams get 500 plus in their 1st innings. Why can they not do it in the 2nd innings...

Lol, what? You don't subscribe to decades worth of statistics and facts?

a.haak

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

because the pitch has had 4 days of cricket played on it? 


Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

because Macca is the captain? 


Auckland will rise once more

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History
Jeff Vader wrote:

I'll be honest in that I don't subscribe to that theory. Lots of teams get 500 plus in their 1st innings. Why can they not do it in the 2nd innings...

just no

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

Well in this case I don't think it will happen but what has NZ's run rate been this test across both innings. Up near 5? I bet you in the past (and I'll say as recent as 3 years), people would have said that's impossible. Gayle and Guptill just smashed 200s in a ODI tournament and I bet no one thought that would have happened. 

I think current trends show that history is not as relevant as it used to be. That's why I take the position that I do. Do I think it will happen? No, however just cause not many other teams have chased 400 does not mean it can not happen especially when teams are knocking 500 with a little frequency.

Conversely, if NZ needed 450 off 100 overs, and McCullum decided to go for it and got to 100 in decent time, would you back him?

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

Gem from Boult! 8 to go........

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History
Jeff Vader wrote:

I'll be honest in that I don't subscribe to that theory. Lots of teams get 500 plus in their 1st innings. Why can they not do it in the 2nd innings...

Are you new to test cricket or something?

Three for me, and two for them.

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

What a hour!!!!!

Three for me, and two for them.

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

5 before lunch, great stuff! Poor Stokes haha that looking pretty fudgeing painful!

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

Decided to stay up for the next session. That first one was just so good!

Fuck this stupid game

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History
TopLeft07 wrote:

Decided to stay up for the next session. That first one was just so good!

also! 

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

Into the tail now. Closing in...

Three for me, and two for them.

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

Williamson's bowling stats are pretty tidy vs England!

Fuck this stupid game

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

Brilliant win. Superb bowling and fielding effort on the final day. Deserve to draw the series, a shame there is no decider really.

Three for me, and two for them.

Permalink Permalink
almost 11 years ago · edited about 5 years ago · History

Yeah that was epic. I love that our aggression paid off in the second Test.

Permalink Permalink

This topic is locked.