Shoaib Akhtar = awesome

[Richard Rash]

And India resting players against Bangledesh would be considered arrogant also Richard, as you know its something that all teams do but for some reason you think that Australia are arrogant for it.

Yes you are right. I am not anti australian. I love their attitude towards their cricket and wish us NZers had a similar attitude

 

[Scallywag]

Yes you are right. I am not anti australian. I love their attitude towards their cricket and wish us NZers had a similar attitude

I have allways thought that NZ did have a similar attitude to Australia and thats why they allways produce excellent results for a country with a small population.

 

[Richard Rash]

I have allways thought that NZ did have a similar attitude to Australia and thats why they allways produce excellent results for a country with a small population.

To a degree i agree with you but we lack killer instinct and the ability to win the big games like at the last world cup when we were probably the second best side there other than aussie yet didn't make the semis

 

[Richard]

Why do you talk crap all the time? Honestly i would like to know.. New Zealand had a chance of winning all three test matches against England. They got into winnable positions in all three games but lacked the bowling depth to knock England over. Fair enough. England proved they were the better team. But NZ definetly had their chances. As for Australia yes we had no chance and i already admited in an earlier post that we don't really have much of a chance against them.. And i already won the argument buddy regarding Fleming and NZ being lucky to manage a drawn series when they were on top all summer

No, they were not - they managed to edge their noses in front in one Test and South Africa immidiately put them back in their place.
That New Zealand got into such positions at all says something about how poorly England generally started. If England had bowled better with the new-ball all 3 victories would have been by massive margins. Fortunately, they mostly dragged it back, winning the first 2 comfortably and The Third by the skin of the teeth.

 

[Richard Rash]

No, they were not - they managed to edge their noses in front in one Test and South Africa immidiately put them back in their place.
That New Zealand got into such positions at all says something about how poorly England generally started. If England had bowled better with the new-ball all 3 victories would have been by massive margins. Fortunately, they mostly dragged it back, winning the first 2 comfortably and The Third by the skin of the teeth.

Lol a nine wicket smashing= edging their noses in front? South Africa imeediately put them back in their place? After losing the ODI seires 5-1 and the having a 1-0 series lead in the tests i think it is safe to say they were on top for the majourity of the tour.. I know i am right and you are such a sad person that you will never admit that you are wrong.

And regarding the England series sure you can say if england bowled better with the new ball they would have been massive victories but they didn't. If NZ had have bowled better in the second innings they would have won 3-0 but they didn't. The simple fact is that NZ could have won every match and gave themselves a chance but England were the better team.. 3-0 wasn't a fair reflection as to how NZ played though

 

[Richard]

Lol a nine wicket smashing= edging their noses in front? South Africa imeediately put them back in their place? After losing the ODI seires 5-1 and the having a 1-0 series lead in the tests i think it is safe to say they were on top for the majourity of the tour.. I know i am right and you are such a sad person that you will never admit that you are wrong.

Yes, you know you are right - tell yourself that as many times as you want, might actually help someday.
The ODIs have nothing to do with anything (I might point-out, incidentally, that almost all of them could have gone either way).
South Africa did appallingly poorly to lose by 9 wickets - they then rectified the situation.
Look at the teams on paper, South Africa's is almost twice as good.
New Zealand were incredibly lucky to draw the series - more lucky than they were against Pakistan earlier.

And regarding the England series sure you can say if england bowled better with the new ball they would have been massive victories but they didn't. If NZ had have bowled better in the second innings they would have won 3-0 but they didn't. The simple fact is that NZ could have won every match and gave themselves a chance but England were the better team.. 3-0 wasn't a fair reflection as to how NZ played though

My point was that you said "if New Zealand... blah blah..." so I pointed-out that "if England... blah blah..."
The fact is, England were far superior because their players were better (a better reflection would actually be New Zealand's were worse) and New Zealand were hammered, as they should have been by South Africa.

 

[Richard Rash]

New Zealand were incredibly lucky to draw the series

I watched the whole series(unlike you probably)and they were incredibly unlucky not to win the series

Look at the teams on paper, South Africa's is almost twice as good.

Hmm can't agree with you there Richo. It was an even series with two very evenly matched sides IMO with NZ probably the stronger at home if Bondy was playing

 

[Richard]

I watched the whole series(unlike you probably)and they were incredibly unlucky not to win the series

Hmm can't agree with you there Richo. It was an even series with two very evenly matched sides IMO with NZ probably the stronger at home if Bondy was playing

Not to mention how much stronger SA would have been had all the players who underperformed performed better.
I didn't watch a single ball live and didn't need to - South Africa were by a large distance the better side and should hence have won the thing. Because they didn't, they underperformed.
I mean, for crying out loud, they let Scott Styris average 60 or something. That's about the ultimate summary of how poorly they did.

 

[tooextracool]

well on topic, its good to see akhtar finally bowl consistently well, even if its only been for this series. i for one have been a sharp critic of akhtar but hes finally started to mature as a bowler and bowl like what he can. lets just hope that he doesnt break down again in the next few months.

 

[Richard Rash]

Not to mention how much stronger SA would have been had all the players who underperformed performed better.
I didn't watch a single ball live and didn't need to - South Africa were by a large distance the better side and should hence have won the thing. Because they didn't, they underperformed.
I mean, for crying out loud, they let Scott Styris average 60 or something. That's about the ultimate summary of how poorly they did.

I can not believe this..you are telling me you have said all this bulls**t and you didn't watch a single ball of the series. You dropkick. NZ were lucky to draw the series..did you determine that from reading score cards? Scott Styris scored a brilliant 170 on a flat track thats why he averaged so highly. At least your view makes sense now as it is based on ignorance

 

[Richard]

Scott Styris scored runs for the same reason he always does - the bowling wasn't good enough to stop him scoring.
If Scott Styris scores runs in Test-cricket, the bowling has been poor - and South Africa had the arsenal, even on a flat wicket, to stop Styris from scoring.
It's not ignorance to suggest that Styris is a very poor player and lots of people have done so recently.

 

[Richard Rash]

It's not ignorance to suggest that Styris is a very poor player and lots of people have done so recently

No but it is to suggest NZ were lucky to manage a drawn series when u didn't watch a ball of it..

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Styris is a very poor player and lots of people have done so recently.

I wouldn't say he's "very poor" but he's not as good as his Test batting stats would suggest IMO.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Scott Styris scored runs for the same reason he always does - the bowling wasn't good enough to stop him scoring.

Isn't that how every batsman in the history of cricket has made their runs?

 

[sledger]

styris is not poor he is just disticntivly average and a very bland player, his bowling inst that bad now you mention it though, actually neither is his batting really.

hes just average

 

[Richard]

No but it is to suggest NZ were lucky to manage a drawn series when u didn't watch a ball of it..

New Zealand were the inferior side - so they should have lost the series.
Simple as.

 

[Richard]

Isn't that how every batsman in the history of cricket has made their runs?

Yep - and for Styris the bowling has to be of a quite appallingly poor standard.

 

[Richard]

styris is not poor he is just disticntivly average and a very bland player, his bowling inst that bad now you mention it though, actually neither is his batting really.

hes just average

He's poor. No two ways about that.
How on Earth such a terrible player has got the Test-batting-average he has is totally beyond me.

 

[sledger]

please explain to me how he is so poor,

and if he really is poor then why is he still included in the side?

 

[marc71178]

Well we know one who didn't, eh?
Even if his only evidence was "they're not a bad bet for the CT".

(Yes, I remember your bit about justifying said bet - but couldn't find the thing)

Yes, but for once I didn't follow my own advice

Still getting 6-4 on England yesterday will hopefully compensate.