***Official*** New Zealand in England series 2013

[thierry henry]

Smith says Guptill would have to be in the test team now as if it's the most logical thing in the world. FFS.

 

[Flem274*]

Okay so who "liked" this thread on facebook?

 

[Jarquis]

James.

 

[thierry henry]

yesssss Dougeh

 

[Spark]

hahahahahaha bell

 

[Pothas]

Oh dear, it is just so predictable these days.

 

[Jarquis]

That is sooooooooooooooooooooooo Ian Bell

 

[Flem274*]

Suck it Bell.

Hey Hamish Rutherford is currently 103* (83) in the 40 over stuff, and in doing so brings his one day average over 20.

 

[thierry henry]

I fully understand why, but it's still kinda funny how it's assumed that England have to maintain a RR of around 7 and be on the attack all the time here.

NZ only scored 36 off the first 10 and hardly hit any boundaries in the first 35 overs.

 

[Spark]

I fully understand why, but it's still kinda funny how it's assumed that England have to maintain a RR of around 7 and be on the attack all the time here.

NZ only scored 36 off the first 10 and hardly hit any boundaries in the first 35 overs.

You don't count on scoring 100 off the last ten, though, let alone 132. And yes, they didn't score that many boundaries but there was heaps of singles/twos which England aren't collecting.

 

[thierry henry]

You don't count on scoring 100 off the last ten, though, let alone 132. And yes, they didn't score that many boundaries but there was heaps of singles/twos which England aren't collecting.

And yet people are saying NZ's innings was perfectly constructed. Why aren't they saying "well, they were actually a bit slow but they pulled it back with an amazing finish".

I agree 132 is extreme, but if you're making 360 off 50 overs I think 100-110 is pretty reasonable off the last 10.

 

[Days of Grace]

Trott strike-rate watch: 0.00

 

[Spikey]

leaving Jos too much to do here

 

[Spikey]

ahhahahah trott takes the single off the last ball. too good.

 

[thierry henry]

I'd prefer my side to stay with the rate too, I just think it's interesting how perceptions of what's possible/reasonable change when chasing

 

[Spark]

And yet people are saying NZ's innings was perfectly constructed. Why aren't they saying "well, they were actually a bit slow but they pulled it back with an amazing finish".

I agree 132 is extreme, but if you're making 360 off 50 overs I think 100-110 is pretty reasonable off the last 10.

It was (losing Ronchi early on didn't help either).

Doesn't mean they didn't score 30 runs more than they really should have under even bad circumstances, and good bowling could've restricted them to 300 (which is still massive). Sure, you have to time it so you're chasing 110-odd in the last ten to chase down 360. That's why people don't chase down 360.

 

[Langeveldt]

Good to see the soulless one getting his average up

 

[Days of Grace]

And yet people are saying NZ's innings was perfectly constructed. Why aren't they saying "well, they were actually a bit slow but they pulled it back with an amazing finish".

I agree 132 is extreme, but if you're making 360 off 50 overs I think 100-110 is pretty reasonable off the last 10.

Wickets in hand, 90 runs is par. So, England would need to be 270 after 40 overs.

You just don't score 130 runs in the final ten that often.

 

[thierry henry]

I seriously don't get the Trott thing. His strike rates in tests and ODI aren't even that bad.

 

[thierry henry]

Wickets in hand, 90 runs is par. So, England would need to be 270 after 40 overs.

You just don't score 130 runs in the final ten that often.

I think 90 would've been distinctly underwhelming in those circumstances