• 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 India in New Zealand***

Bahnz

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
Great batting from Elliot and McGlashan, 95 runs off 10.1 overs, especially considering that they had to keep going on and off for the rain.
 
Bahnz

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
biased indian said:
dont think so.....will not be much ...
Click to expand...
For me I try to think, with 3 overs to go, how much would NZ have got? I think 300, given that they had so many wickets still in hand and that Elliot and McGlashan were batting so beautifully was well within reach. 6 times 47 is 284. Not saying that's what they will be set, just what I think they should be.

EDIT: It's 281, which I think is slightly stingy, but not too bad.
 
Last edited:
inbox24

inbox24

International Debutant
Well you do have 2 set batsmen at the crease going at 11 runs an over, with all the Indian specialists with overs still remaining being carted for 6 or 7 an over. I think 285-290 is a fair estimate, although it'll probably be lower than that.
 
Tim

Tim

Cricketer Of The Year
281 is the target. Good effort from NZ considering where they were placed 3/4 of the way through the innings.
 
thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
Bahnz said:
For me I try to think, with 3 overs to go, how much would NZ have got? I think 300, given that they had so many wickets still in hand and that Elliot and McGlashan were batting so beautifully was well within reach. 6 times 47 is 284. Not saying that's what they will be set, just what I think they should be.

EDIT: It's 281, which I think is slightly stingy, but not too bad.
Click to expand...
That's not the right way to look at it though. You can't go adding, say, 30 runs, because NZ wouldn't normally get 30 off 3 overs. They didn't lose 3 "death overs" they got their 3 death overs (they had 4.2 overs or whatever to go nuts).

It's a 47 over match now for BOTH SIDES, so the D/L should take into consideration how differently NZ would have batted for the first 42.4 overs if they knew it was a 47 over match. Really, what difference is there in approach for the first 42.4 overs of a 47 over innings and the first 42.4 overs of a 50 over innings? Very little. The 11 runs is pretty generous.
 
Zinzan

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Can't understand why Taylor & Guptill have suddenly been swapped around at no.s 3 & 4 respectively, clearly hasn't worked for either in the last 2 games
 
thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
LOL at Thompson, 4 consecutive slower balls with the new ball on debut. Bold stuff.

And then bowls at full pace and gets hit for 4...
 
Bahnz

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
thierry henry said:
That's not the right way to look at it though. You can't go adding, say, 30 runs, because NZ wouldn't normally get 30 off 3 overs. They didn't lose 3 "death overs" they got their 3 death overs (they had 4.2 overs or whatever to go nuts).

It's a 47 over match now for BOTH SIDES, so the D/L should take into consideration how differently NZ would have batted for the first 42.4 overs if they knew it was a 47 over match. Really, what difference is there in approach for the first 42.4 overs of a 47 over innings and the first 42.4 overs of a 50 over innings? Very little. The 11 runs is pretty generous.
Click to expand...
One would make the fairly obvious point that, given the usual tactic is to launch in the last 8/9/10 overs, then Elliot and McGlashan would've started their full charge several overs earlier. But like I say, I don't care that much, it's only a couple runs short of what I'd expect.

Missed chance.
 
Tim

Tim

Cricketer Of The Year
Guptill was doing well at 3, Taylor had found some consistency at 4...to swap them now just confuses me. I'm also disappointed they abandoned playing Mills above Vettori because as we saw the other night, he isn't half bad when he gets going.
 
Bahnz

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
Tim said:
Guptill was doing well at 3, Taylor had found some consistency at 4...to swap them now just confuses me. I'm also disappointed they abandoned playing Mills above Vettori because as we saw the other night, he isn't half bad when he gets going.
Click to expand...
It was a weird decision. I think the logic behind it was that Taylor would be able to pick the tempo up more easily, but it obviously backfired.

**** I'm getting sick and tired of Mills drifting into the pads and getting picked off for 1's. We shouldn't be giving away so many singles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top