• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

5th Match - Australia v New Zealand (18th March)

Who will win this match?


  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I think there is a place for wickets which produce such dull cricket, but if they do it frequently, it's not okay. It is certainly not exciting like in a low scoring ODI. I am not sure why they have given games to Dharamshala though. Just as it helps to make India look amazing with the mountains in the backdrop? There are certainly better cricket wickets than here.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
This was a huge chance to justifiably bat Nevill at eleven. The fact that he came out at ten is by far the biggest disappointment to come from this game.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Not having a go at you as I know this is a common view, but I really don't understand how people can categorise individual shots as slogs in this manner. If you hit a 6 it's always going to be a slog by some definition, you're hitting it really far in the air and running the risk of being caught. At the same time, Marsh, Agar and Nevill hit the only sixes in the Australian innings and all of them except maybe the Nevill one were clean hits straight down the ground off spinners, hit to an area with minimal field protection and comfortably clearing the fence. What's an example of a shot that goes for six which is not a "slog" if those are? I don't really get it.

Anyway, my view is that for test cricket, I like variation in pitches but I do think wickets with decent carry (so dismissals behind the stumps from seamers are in play) tend to make for better games. Not really a fan of anything where the ball is dying on the way to the keeper on the first day. But in limited overs cricket, anything which makes scoring quickly challenging tends to make for more even and unpredictable contests, since the pressure to score quickly is already there, so you don't end up with attritional cricket. You end up with a situation where players need to score quickly but doing so it challenging.

I will acknowledge that it brings different skillsets to the fore though, and can result in a situation where Michael Hussey is as good a bowler as Dale Steyn. But t20 was never really about skillful wicket taking bowling anyway, it's about economy and variation, so I don't think that's a huge downside in this particular format.
So good.
 

Gob

International Coach
Should play a batsman (arun) ahead of Agar in the next game. Batting looks short
 

Rippin n Tearin

Cricket Spectator
Nice. Won a significant amount of money with that BCs victory. Thought at the innings break that it had "NZ vs. India 2.0" written all over it, and it did.

Didn't feel comfortable until the last ball though. One reason Aussie is so good is that they always have, in the one team of 11 players, about 10 guys that can bat to international level and about 8 that can bowl to international level.

The Aussie vs. India match might be a virtual death match. Could be awesome.
Yeah me too. They were the last leg of a multi I had with the Hurricanes, Highlanders, Eels, & Melbourne City @ $26 - I thought it was dead and buried for a while but came through! Stoked.

Really impressive from the BCs. KW is captaining the team really well I think and we are doing just enough to win. Beating India at home and the the Ozzies! I'm pretty chuffed for them.

Hard luck OZ, knock out from here on in one would think for you guys. That India OZ game gonna be HUGE!
 

Rippin n Tearin

Cricket Spectator
Should play a batsman (arun) ahead of Agar in the next game. Batting looks short
Loved that over by Agar. Lots of things can change a match, but he gifted Guptil 12 runs and a total of 18 in that over. Perhaps the difference between the two teams in the end. Not sure about OZ lacking batting depth though. Didn't Neville come in at 10? I don't mind their batting line up. Perhaps Agar aint the right bowling option though...
 

Crazy Sam

International 12th Man
Agar didn't lose it with his bowling, the batsmen did with some poor options. They only needed about 6.3 per over after the powerplay so I don't understand why they were risking run outs (Khawaja) or prancing down the wicket (Smith) on a pitch that had already proven to be harder to stay in on as the innings went on.
 

Moss

International Vice-Captain
Strong reservations about our batting order. The whole lineup lacks firepower.
Anderson's the one with the firepower but doesn' t rotate the strike well and allows far too many dot balls. Similar case with Munro though he at least tried to adapt today.

Corey top-scored in the India game but really shouldn't be batting at 4 unless it's an absolute belter. On wickets where the ball isn't coming on to the bat, I'd move Taylor and Elliott up the order. Elliott in particular seemed to get going a with more ease than anyone else in this game (bar Khawaja). Santner's game could also be useful up the order but probably better to have him as insurance lower down.
 

Gnske

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Really? They still needed 12rpo

Maxwell's was the bad one. They had got the run rate fine and he didn't need to slog.
Maxwell's dismissal ended up the best shot he played his entire innings.

Marsh never gave him or his side a chance to at least chip that equation down, he'd done well up to that point, capitalizing on the bad deliveries. Instead of setting up an equation of say 12 off the last over from smart cricket in the 18th, he wanted it over immediately. It was brainless and without any steel, the epitome of total lack of confidence to do the job. Demonstrated the impatience of a Swiss banker who can't figure how to tie a noose.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Yeah I dunno. They needed 22 off 12 when he played that shot. To get to needing 12 off the last over they needed to score at least 10 off the 19th over and the only way they had gotten back in the game was clearing the boundary (they weren't getting too many 4s or nudging 1s and 2s). Trying to hit a 6 with Faulkner in the sheds seemed okay.

If anything they should have gone after Sodhi's 18th over. Giving him only 5 runs (I know he bowled bloody well) really put them under the kosh.
 
Last edited:

Rippin n Tearin

Cricket Spectator
Strong reservations about our batting order. The whole lineup lacks firepower.
The order? the personnel? or both?

In terms of the personnel I think we have got it right. Who would you have in there instead? And in terms of fire power I think we are golden. 3 guys in there who can win a game single handedly I reckon (in Guptil, Munro, and Anderson).

The one thing I would say is that I think they could tinker with the lineup a little more. For example (like someone else mentioned) I don't think Munro and Anderson should be coming in at 3 and 4 unless the wicket is playing well. On a slow track like last night Elliot and Taylor should be further up the order.

That being said they are getting it done so no complaints really.
 

Top