ohtani's jacket
Well-known member
Good man. In Flem you trust.
-
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.
New Zealand Black Caps Thread
- Thread starter sirjeremy11
- Start date
I exist in neither space nor time. Etc.
Good performance. I wouldn't get too chuffed up, however. For one, it will be interesting to see if Franklin can keep things tight in non-favourable conditions. To me he seems like a guy who wants to run away the moment a batsman gets stuck into him. ATM I like Gillespie more, even though he can get expensive at times. Anyway, good for Ben that he made use of the conditions.
Secondly, NZ could have been in a lot of trouble had SA held on to their catches. The batting seems quite iffy to me. Oram continues to screw up with his shot selection. McMillan...well, my hatred of him has dimmed a bit now, but I'm sure he'll fire it up again.
Taylor is the guy I'm really waiting for to come good.
I still expect Oz to lay the smack down, so to speak.
KiWiNiNjA
Well-known member
Really? What if Australia lose the last two?
Sri Lanka 12pts
New Zealand 12pts
Australia 10pts
South Africa 8pts
Then semis would be
Sri Lanka vs South Africa
New Zealand vs Australia
Right?
Perm
Well-known member
I heard it in the news report, I'm not really drilled in the whole points system and NRR scheme but it was reported on the news that after our win against South Africa, we don't have to face Australia in the semis.
KiWiNiNjA
Well-known member
That would be assuming that Australia go through top. They can afford to lose to one of Sri Lanka and New Zealand (who have both lost 1 so far) and still go through because of there NRR. However if they lose to both Sri Lanka and New Zealand then they will have 2 loses and 10pts, New Zealand would have 12pts after only losing once to Sri Lanka, and Sri Lanka (assuming they beat Ireland) would most likely finish on top given a superior NRR than NZ. Meaning we do have to play Australia.
Some people, and obviously the media, may think that is an unlikely scenario, but Sri Lanka and New Zealand will be the two biggest challenges Australia will face so.....
Perm
Well-known member
Gah, all of this confuses me so much.
Raghav
Well-known member
Its really silly that avoiding AUS in semi-final is very bad. We are on a mission to win WC...and that means at any stage we should meet the best team and beat them. Its really bad to look on the positions. Whatever may be, if you are on a mission to win...you need to beat the best at some point of a time.
For that Instance, IMO, beating AUS is easier than to beat SRL in semi-final. Since many yaers, we struggled against good varied bowling attack like Pakistan and SRL...We can beat AUS only because they got a very orthodox bowling attack. Always NZ succeeded if their top order clicked and thats possible only if the opposition bowling is not so lethal. But against likes VAAS, Malinga, Fernando, Murali, jaya......NZ top order is subject to crash. On the other hand, AUS attack is not that terrible as SRL.. IMO, SRL is always dangerous for us than AUS...
Will Scarlet
Well-known member
Semi in Jamaica
I was reading Larsen's column this morning and he thinks the pitch in Jamaica for our semi against SL will be hard and bouncy. I hope he is right because those conditions will favour NZ, especially if we win the toss.
It seems pretty arrogant of SL to throw the game against AUS so they could play us in the semi. Let's hope it bites them in the arse.
And if the pitch is as Larsen suggests, we should be playing Gillespie in the next match to prepare him for probable selection for the semi.
I was reading Larsen's column this morning and he thinks the pitch in Jamaica for our semi against SL will be hard and bouncy. I hope he is right because those conditions will favour NZ, especially if we win the toss.
It seems pretty arrogant of SL to throw the game against AUS so they could play us in the semi. Let's hope it bites them in the arse.
And if the pitch is as Larsen suggests, we should be playing Gillespie in the next match to prepare him for probable selection for the semi.
Last edited:
JBH001
Well-known member
Yes, it was pretty arrogant, and I speak as a SL supporter.
However, I do not think that 226 would have been enough, even if Murali and Vaas had been playing in the team - but if the purpose of resting them was indeed 'shielding them' (whatever that means) then it would be very ironic if they never get to meet Australia anyway. Which, tbh, I think will happen because I think NZ will, in all probability, win the rematch against SL. However, the bouncy pitch, if such it is, will also favour Malinga and Fernando (though not Vaas so much) but also, and perhaps most crucially, Murali.
Returning to the rationale for the omission of Murali and Vaas, I am inclined to accept the explanation of Mahela that Murali was not fully fit, and that Vaas needed a rest, To my mind, resting them out of negativity, and maybe fear, is at odds with the general pattern of SL cricket seen in this tournament, and seen overall in the recent past under Mahela and Moody.
However, I do not think that 226 would have been enough, even if Murali and Vaas had been playing in the team - but if the purpose of resting them was indeed 'shielding them' (whatever that means) then it would be very ironic if they never get to meet Australia anyway. Which, tbh, I think will happen because I think NZ will, in all probability, win the rematch against SL. However, the bouncy pitch, if such it is, will also favour Malinga and Fernando (though not Vaas so much) but also, and perhaps most crucially, Murali.
Returning to the rationale for the omission of Murali and Vaas, I am inclined to accept the explanation of Mahela that Murali was not fully fit, and that Vaas needed a rest, To my mind, resting them out of negativity, and maybe fear, is at odds with the general pattern of SL cricket seen in this tournament, and seen overall in the recent past under Mahela and Moody.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
The name's Benedict, BTW.
Smudge
Well-known member
Maybe you should wait for Bahnz to tell him that?The name's Benedict, BTW.
Tim
Well-known member
It's funny to see people ripping into Sri Lanka because if Sri Lanka win the tournament, we could well end up calling it a master stroke.
Though its fairly obvious that they were trying to shield Murali, Vaas and Malinga from Australia...spinning that they needed a rest when their last and now irrelevant game is Ireland, just doesn't really wash.
Though its fairly obvious that they were trying to shield Murali, Vaas and Malinga from Australia...spinning that they needed a rest when their last and now irrelevant game is Ireland, just doesn't really wash.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Don't know that he would, that's the thing.