-
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.
***Official*** Australia in New Zealand 2016
- Thread starter Spark
- Start date
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If you're a neutral on this forum then this is the best reason to back New Zealand.
If you don't like it, I'm sorry.
So much hate ...
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Urgh, this is such a garbage post.
For a start, I don't think even the most hardcore Aussie fan would classify this as an "epic bum shellacking" (or EBS for short). While they got home pretty comfortably in the end, there was a long stretch of the 2nd innings where the game was in the balance, and for a short while after Warner's dismissal NZ were probably favourites. If you want an actual EBS try going back to the first ODI. Aus really showed "how to play the game" then. Although I guess that doesn't fit as comfortably into your "NZ is horribly overrated on talkback, can't you see how average they are?!?!?" narrative
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I can only assume that hoping your team does bad so you can incessantly post about it is some kind of weird fetish.
Two thoughts from the closing hour of the game:
(1) we missed Mitch Mc for wicket taking ability.
(2) think Baz made some wrong choices to Hastings. When Hastings was 11* (21) he brought in Anderson to replace Santner (who had finished his 10 overs). Hastings had looked solid against the quicks, but had mistimed Santner a couple of times. Williamson may have been the better choice. Then from the other end the quicks didn't switch to short ball tactics until Hastings was into 30s and the runs needed was < 20. Think that if Mitch was there he would have pursuaded Baz to switch tactics / fields earlier.
(1) we missed Mitch Mc for wicket taking ability.
(2) think Baz made some wrong choices to Hastings. When Hastings was 11* (21) he brought in Anderson to replace Santner (who had finished his 10 overs). Hastings had looked solid against the quicks, but had mistimed Santner a couple of times. Williamson may have been the better choice. Then from the other end the quicks didn't switch to short ball tactics until Hastings was into 30s and the runs needed was < 20. Think that if Mitch was there he would have pursuaded Baz to switch tactics / fields earlier.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Some of us have to work on Monday buddy. Not all of us are retired taking pension money like you #obviousjoke
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Screw that. Got to drop the kids at school in the 'burbs tomorrow morning then have court in town afterwards. And I'm baching for the week as the better half is in Chicago for work. Means I'll have to cook* until Saturday. FML
*Get a kebab from across the road or go to the pub
*Get a kebab from across the road or go to the pub
TNT
Banned
Who would made way for Mitch to play?.
McClenaghan's normal role in ODIs / T20s is 3rd seamer (so rotates with Milne, or Milne takes the new ball when Southee / Boult rested or injured) or 4th seamer (and we play one less batsman, and depend on more runs from the top 3).
Either way I'd prefer Henry (new ball) and Mitch (3rd / 4th seamer) to be automatic picks in LO sides, and rotate the other quicks around them.
It's cos Monday is a holiday in NZ so they get two days where people can attend for the whole day
