General Blackcaps Chat

Forums › Sports › General Blackcaps Chat

1 | ... | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | ... | 255

6325 posts

Uber Geek

#1986266 31-Mar-2018 09:41

Im not angry hahaha.

Im not saying their effort was terrible, Im saying the result from 170/7-300/8 IS terrible.

I have no doubt it was Bairstow and woods not our effort. but whatever way you look at it the end result, no team in the world would be thinking 130/1 from the tail is good, not even bad, terrible result because it hasnt even ended yet.

Im refering to the inability to roll the tail as a terrible result, not their effort, im darn sure they tried.

NZ are a 400runs team on a good day. they are already equalling us from a position of being well behind. i can see NZ now being skittled for 250 odd and drawing the test series.

So thats how important it was to get 3 tail enders, the end result is terrible because now the test will likely be 4 days which means a result which means we very well may lose and not win a test series which is VERY rare.

So yes its terrible result, news, event, after what looked like NZ bowling them out for 150 at 90/5.

Our hope is the team rolls them for 20 this morning and does a rare one and scores 400+ and then bowls them out for 200, leaving 120 to chase, which could be challenging for NZ.

See its not just that we didnt bowl them out, its the time. Either you get a team out in 2 sessions and win the match based on day 1 effort, or its definitely a 4 day test match if you let them off the hook day 1, perhaps 4 days and a session of 4 lowish scores, in which case, I dont fancy our chances with the bat. That ultimately is why having a team 170/7 and letting them off the hook is usually looked upon as a terrible result.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1986274 31-Mar-2018 10:01

They didnt roll the official tail, except Bairstow is hardly a tail ender, and Wood showed he can bat which is known. So not the traditional tail.

Should we clean them up for 20 -30 runs, then its even. They withstood our bowling, now we have to withstand our own batting. Wicket taking time is first session or so, then its easier batting, so its ALL on our openers.

Just dont expect them to go out batting at 5 RR to get an easy 400. If they do try that to get back the edge, will be bowled out today. So, we might bat all day and get the same score, so still even, then we go back to our bowlers vs their batsmen, thats all that can define this game, as their bowling isnt that awesome, and same with our batting. On that opinion, ENG won the first day, as us bowling is the only way to create a win

TeaLeaf

6325 posts

Uber Geek

#1986305 31-Mar-2018 11:32

Im not saying that. Im saying WOODS is the start of the tail, they dropped too recognised all rounders (Ali and Woakes) to have him and another bowler, so he is a tail ender. Im saying their tactics were off. Bowling bouncers from Wagner and nothing balls from C DGH is not going to get Woods out. They barely even tried Sodhi either.

Yes Eng fought well, but any team who cant get the final 3 wickets for under 150 runs isnt worth their salt, period.

The bowled one of the greats of the game Cook, and one of the modern era greats Root 5/90. No bowling team would think ending up at 310-320 odd all out from there is anything but terrible, sorry but it is a terrible outcome from 5/90.

Im not angry, Im just saying the reality. Its not really debatable because i bet if you asked Southee at 5/90 would 300 all out be a terrible finish to the tail he would say yes.

I said yesterday its not over as Bairstow can go on and just uses the tail to feed him, so I predicted it happening. Thats not the issue. The issue is the batsman around him arent worth 130 runs. If our final 3 score 130 runs you think England will be thinking oh thats not a terrible finish to the tail, they just played well, oh well.

Thats not the intent bowlers need or should have.

Anyway lets not argue again haha and enjoy the rest of the days play. Hopefully NZ can put on another 400 and its a moot point.

Im not expecting anything run rate other than normal, avg, 3rpo. In this situation though, as long as they stay in, this time the slower the better.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1986312 31-Mar-2018 11:47

TeaLeaf:

Im not saying that. Im saying WOODS is the start of the tail, they dropped too recognised all rounders (Ali and Woakes) to have him and another bowler, so he is a tail ender. Im saying their tactics were off. Bowling bouncers from Wagner and nothing balls from C DGH is not going to get Woods out. They barely even tried Sodhi either.

Yes Eng fought well, but any team who cant get the final 3 wickets for under 150 runs isnt worth their salt, period.

The bowled one of the greats of the game Cook, and one of the modern era greats Root 5/90. No bowling team would think ending up at 310-320 odd all out from there is anything but terrible, sorry but it is a terrible outcome from 5/90.

Im not angry, Im just saying the reality. Its not really debatable because i bet if you asked Southee at 5/90 would 300 all out be a terrible finish to the tail he would say yes.

I said yesterday its not over as Bairstow can go on and just uses the tail to feed him, so I predicted it happening. Thats not the issue. The issue is the batsman around him arent worth 130 runs. If our final 3 score 130 runs you think England will be thinking oh thats not a terrible finish to the tail, they just played well, oh well.

Thats not the intent bowlers need or should have.

Anyway lets not argue again haha and enjoy the rest of the days play. Hopefully NZ can put on another 400 and its a moot point.

Im not expecting anything run rate other than normal, avg, 3rpo. In this situation though, as long as they stay in, this time the slower the better.

What defines a tail ender? Number x player? I class the tail as players, typically bowlers that cannot bat. Blairstow can bat, Woods can bat. Broad can but thats long long long ago. So, a tail might be 5 players, it might be 1, or even none.

So as we let Bairstow and Woods etc get 150/3 we are nt worth our salt? ok. We didnt actually let them get the the runs we tried hard they we're better.

Isn't Wagner the No. test bowler? So, he is in. DeG, yes we run out of bowlers, after our top 3. Play more bowlers??

I thought ENG tactics were superb, you rarely see it. 10 overs from new ball, we hold back Boult and Southee, so they take about 7.8 RR in that period, awesome. Nothing to lose. Why get 3 RR for 10 overs then get skittles? Good plan, it paid off

You always predict whats happening! :-) I recall 200-250 , I said 250 minimum :-)

End of the day the game is slightly ahead of schedule. ENG succeeded by absorbing our Boult/Southee bowling and made a slightly sub par total. With ENG (bat better) NZ (bowl better), I give them an advantage as we are yet to absorb them with our batting. Points already on the board type of thing.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1986319 31-Mar-2018 12:05

Ouch 14/2. These two need to dig in, as our batting is two stars, the rest are minor contributors usually.

Off to mow the regulatory lawns now, 25 here in ChCh

Dingbatt

6756 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1986347 31-Mar-2018 12:48

When I said come on Black Caps all out for 26 yesterday, I meant get England out for that. Not implode to be all out for 26 yourselves!
Whew, more than 26. Now try and get more than 58.....

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

TeaLeaf

6325 posts

Uber Geek

#1986355 31-Mar-2018 13:17

tdgeek:

What defines a tail ender? Number x player? I class the tail as players, typically bowlers that cannot bat. Blairstow can bat, Woods can bat. Broad can but thats long long long ago. So, a tail might be 5 players, it might be 1, or even none.

A team member designated as a BOWLER on the scorecard averaging 15 is a tail ender rofl, yes Mark Wood did very well.

But we did worse.

Bumble is right about Wagner and these bouncers, its just a stupid tactic, doing the same thing over and over with no result. Yes it worked against some lower level teams for 2 seasons and he got 97 wickets, the second fastest behind Sir RH.

But all Wood and Bairstow did was leave 90% of deliveries either bouncers from Wagner or a foot outside off stump by CDGH. THATS what Im annoyed about.

I agree they batted out of their skin and it was great to watch, but we did bowl poorly.

Make the damn batsman play at the ball, top of off stump, both Wagner and CDGH can do that, they and the captain just chose not too and thats what Im talking about being terrible, tactics, intent.

You look at Eng this morning, made us play at the ball, taylor hitting at a ball 4 inches outside off but jagged back into off and got the edge.

Ive been saying ever since the second Eng innings last test, its been Eng getting themselves out, barring a few jaffas like that one from boult to cook yesterday. They are an incredibly talented batting team. But the reason they were 90/5 is we made them play at the ball, whether they were bad strokes or not.

Do you see what I mean about tactics and agree the majority of our bowling for Bairstow/Woods innings was very much not making them play? I mean Bairstow is so good at leaning back and watching the ball 6 inches from his face, at Wagners pace he probably found it quite fun.

Yes we are a bowler short, thats ferguson imo, but we also a batsman short on top of if we replace CDGH.

Eng have sensational batsman to 7, we have 2 good ones to 6. Its the nature of their supremacy which is the reason Im annoyed we didnt make them play at the ball when we had them on the ropes.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

TeaLeaf

6325 posts

Uber Geek

#1986359 31-Mar-2018 13:20

Dingbatt: When I said come on Black Caps all out for 26 yesterday, I meant get England out for that. Not implode to be all out for 26 yourselves!
Whew, more than 26. Now try and get more than 58.....

thats how it was looking right...

even 90/5 we still looked like we would bail them for 150, i did pick bairstow to hang in there with the tail but hoped we would at least make the tail play at the ball and not just wait for pies.

I know who was bowling for NZ yesterday Arvo, Big Ben rofl

Dingbatt

6756 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1986374 31-Mar-2018 14:13

Okay. Now they've reached 58. Next target is 108 to avoid the follow-on. I hope our tail wags the same way the English did.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

TeaLeaf

6325 posts

Uber Geek

#1986376 31-Mar-2018 14:13

Not a TERRIBLE start by NZ batting. One would expect us to score 300 from here 50/5, which wouldnt be a terrible result for England either.

ROFL ;-p

Dingbatt: Okay. Now they've reached 58. Next target is 108 to avoid the follow-on. I hope our tail wags the same way the English did.

stranger things have happened, like winning lotto :-)

200 would be excellent for NZ from here, 150 would be great, i wouldnt be surprised all out 120. but i think we will avoid follow on.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1986419 31-Mar-2018 16:12

125/5 now the tail , sounds familiar

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1986441 31-Mar-2018 17:06

Stuff commentary

I find it quite funny that when we're on top, Watling doesn't play as fluently and gets out for middling scores, but when we're in trouble, he turns on the class and produces gem knocks. It's almost like he's allergic to playing well when WE are playing well, but thrives when NZ struggles

That is so right

TeaLeaf

6325 posts

Uber Geek

#1986459 31-Mar-2018 17:43

tdgeek: Stuff commentary

I find it quite funny that when we're on top, Watling doesn't play as fluently and gets out for middling scores, but when we're in trouble, he turns on the class and produces gem knocks. It's almost like he's allergic to playing well when WE are playing well, but thrives when NZ struggles

That is so right

so true. Watling must have his name on at least 4 records. And cdgh is the same. Seems to only score when we need him. I think that's what they also wanted from santner. He's finally getting there in white ball. Eng made same mistake we did. Trying too many things that don't make u play a shot. Well can southee do a woods. They are fairly equal in batting. Don't fret cdgh we all proud

TeaLeaf

6325 posts

Uber Geek

#1986469 31-Mar-2018 18:08

Lol Ian Smith "this innings is sooooo BJ Watling"

if we could just get through to mid 2nd session it gives us a realistic chance of either a win or a draw at least.

the light is as good as the shower that was due.

i think southee is very capable of a 50, hes a much better batsman than he plays.

Eng clearly have a deeper batting line up by 1 even with dropping 2 all rounders. NZs bowlers are genuine bowlers. Cant wait to see if Sodhi has improved after all said work, although i guess u cant judge on one innings.

But its a very traditional 80s like team from us, 4 bowlers, 1 all rounder, a keeper batsman and 5 batsman.

IMO we are just too weak in the batting area and in the change of pace bowlers, but its hard to drop CDGH for his batting, so it comes down to Wagner or Sodhi, Sodhi will be very dangerous going on Leach getting turn with finger spin. Wagner was so good for a 1 dimensional bowler for 2 years, but i feel teams just know now, at least Eng do. It will be interesting to see how Wagner goes against another good team. And then if we need another batsmen, we also need Ferguson in the team.

Weak spots, the whole top 5 outside perhaps Williamson. Wagners bowling. CDGH bowling. Sodhi is there to take wickets, plain and simple, like he does in 1st class. I have mixed feelings about spinners.

Williamson could easily be our 5th/change bowler. So thats one batting spot opened. But who would we replace in batting. I know Nicholls made a 100 recently. But I feel he is brittle. Raval has had a bad series but shows promise as a genuine opener. Latham just cant bat at home. Perhaps try dropping Sodhi or Wagner and play Guptill ahead of Watling, giving us some real depth. It depends on the wicket, if its a turner drop Wagner if its green drop Sodhi.

If Raval fails for another 5 tests i think he will have heat on him. Latham imo is the current weakest link. Nicholls close behind. Raval is still an unkown, hes still averaging higher than both nicholls or latham and clearly is someone usually you can rely on to see the shine off the ball. No change in the mean time, I think the change needs to come from dropping one bowler and adding a batsman. And perhaps also playing Ferguson, which could mean dropping Wagner and Sodhi in exhange for Guptil and Ferguson. Its so damn fiddly, Sodhi is an obvious up coming talent, but we havnt had a decent pace bowler for ages. IN saying that fergusons speed has been more late 140s of late than 150. But he has done well in 1st class like Sodhi

Who would want to be Gavin Larsen lol

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1986499 31-Mar-2018 18:50

TeaLeaf:

tdgeek: Stuff commentary

I find it quite funny that when we're on top, Watling doesn't play as fluently and gets out for middling scores, but when we're in trouble, he turns on the class and produces gem knocks. It's almost like he's allergic to playing well when WE are playing well, but thrives when NZ struggles

That is so right

so true. Watling must have his name on at least 4 records. And cdgh is the same. Seems to only score when we need him. I think that's what they also wanted from santner. He's finally getting there in white ball. Eng made same mistake we did. Trying too many things that don't make u play a shot. Well can southee do a woods. They are fairly equal in batting. Don't fret cdgh we all proud

Yeah I agree (clapping) :-)

We do bat deep, we can bat deep, but we dont often. But we can.

1 | ... | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | ... | 255