They had 4 runs to get at that point. With 3 wickets in hand."This is a big win for Australia, don't worry that it's against New Zealand" - B. Julian, 2024.
Australia hadn't even won yet.
He didn't need to be Nostradamus.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They had 4 runs to get at that point. With 3 wickets in hand."This is a big win for Australia, don't worry that it's against New Zealand" - B. Julian, 2024.
Australia hadn't even won yet.
It’s hard to believe people are doubling down on this toss thing, that they complained about for 5 days, despite the result now being known….yet hear we are.No you wouldn’t have.
It's the "don't worry that it's against New Zealand" part that's funny, but anyway.They had 4 runs to get at that point. With 3 wickets in hand.
He didn't need to be Nostradamus.
It's tunnel vision, mate, and the unwavering desire to be right.It’s hard to believe people are doubling down on this toss thing, that they complained about for 5 days, despite the result now being known….yet hear we are.
It's clutching at straws, trying to get something to console themselves after a loss.These teams Rolling out the outcome doesn't matter but the brand cricket we play is the most important thing to us.
If it is, it's born of envy.Is that some kind of dig at Australia and our brand of cricket?
It's clutching at straws, trying to get something to console themselves after a loss.
The Poms and now the Kiwis are happy-as when they do win, but claim that they don't care about winning or losing, uhhhhh, when they lose .
It's hilarious.
If it is, it's born of envy.
Aussie cricket walked onto its winning path after 1989 under Border and later Taylor.
But the most successful win-plans were established by Steve Waugh:
--- bat first, make runs quickly, give your bowlers time to bowl out the opposition twice <== sound familiar? Yeah, now they call that Bazball .
--- when you've got your foot on the opposition's throat, push harder to achieve their total Mental Disintegration (by hell, I loved that).
--- NO "dead rubbers". NO relaxation of intent or pressure. Leading 3-1, with one to play? Go ALL OUT for 4-1.
At the time, nobody was dumb/braggard enough to call it Waughball, or claim it was Test-Cricket reinvented.
It was just aggressive, winning cricket, but what I love most of all is that under the cult of Bazball the Poms have not WON a Test series since December 2022 and sit 8th (out of 9) on the ICC WTC ladder with 3 wins out of their latest 10 Tests.
These teams Rolling out the outcome doesn't matter but the brand cricket we play is the most important thing to us. Is that some kind of dig at Australia and our brand of cricket?
Just so happens we have a once in a generation bowling line up that's coming in clutch most matches these days.
If anyone thinks the kiwi commentators are parochial just listen to the crap we get here on 7 and fox.
Richie, Tony Bill and chappelli were fantastic in they knew every player from every team and loved cricket more than barracking.
The Aussies need to give bailey the arse as chief selector, he just goes with the players. I could never imagine any other selectors saying but ab wants to open so we will, or tugga or punter. All these guys went down the order near the end, not open against the new ball.
Smith has to bat at 5, head 4 and green 3 with marnus out and Bancroft open.
smaller boundaries surely would be a factor between Waugh sides and today?‘Sound familiar?’ Not really.
We keep hearing this:
‘The approach is not new, it was invented by Australia under Steve Waugh.’
It wasn’t.
Australia under Steve Waugh had a run rate - and bear in mind, they had a MUCH, MUCH stronger side with both bat and ball than England - of 3.6.
In their 9 series to date or whatever it is, England’s lowest run rate in a series has been in India where it was 3.85.
The rest have been 4.5+
Steve Waugh himself was a relentlessly boring batsman: he had a strike rate of 48.
These ‘destructive’ openers like Langer and Hayden: langer as good as he was, had a strike rate in the 50s as an opener.
Hayden‘s was exactly 60.
Ben Duckett’s is 86 and Zak Crawley’s is 66 - and that includes a lot of matches pre-McCullum/Stokes taking over. This means that if Langer and Hayden faced 100 balls each and so did the England pair? The poms are on 152 after 33 overs while Australia are on 117 at the same stage.
But yeah they’re just doing exactly what Australia did.
Disclaimer:
They are not better or anywhere near it. No one is saying that. They aren’t going to be, either.
But people keep confusing Steve Waugh having two great bowlers at his disposal and a team full of sledgers, and the most destructive wicket keeper batsman of all time, with having an all-out attacking mantra in every facet of the game. They didn’t, any more than the West Indies had one in the 80s purely because they had 4 great fast bowlers and a #3 who could bash any attack into submission.
Not to mention the bats.smaller boundaries surely would be a factor between Waugh sides and today?
smaller boundaries surely would be a factor between Waugh sides and today?
Saw a calculation that said for England to make the WTC final, they needed to win 12 of their next 12 Tests. That did make me smile.
It seems it doesn't matter, as long as 'cricket is the winner'12 moral victories, or real ones?
Moral victories are the only real victories, we all know that now.12 moral victories, or real ones?