They had 4 runs to get at that point. With 3 wickets in hand.
He didn't need to be Nostradamus.
2nd Test New Zealand v Australia March 8-12 0830hrs @ Hagley Oval
- Thread starter Gough
- Start date
- Tagged users None
He didn't need to be Nostradamus.
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.
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.
Just so happens we have a once in a generation bowling line up that's coming in clutch most matches these days.
grumbleguts
User name to post ratio checks out
It's the "don't worry that it's against New Zealand" part that's funny, but anyway.
- May 14, 2017
- 11,447
- 12,844
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- West Adelaide
It's tunnel vision, mate, and the unwavering desire to be right.
I didn't see anyone posting about how bad the decision was when NZ were 8/107, then all out 162. With Australia's brittle batting, who's to say they'd have done any better? Likewise, if they batted third?
They also ignored Smith's grand no-shot LBW, Green's hopelessly indecisive play-on, Marsh's duck and Carey's inept paddle to midwicket (but I can certainly forgive Carey after that fantastic 98*), but a lead of 94 was not bad.
Not enough maybe, but not bad.
The killer was NZ's second dig. Starc, wayward 1/94 off 22 overs, then silly short bowling @ Kuggeleijn and Henry who said thanks-very-much.
What the bat-firsters don't get is
1) on Hagley Oval, sides who bat first lose more often than not (references to The Oval are irrelevant, where sides who win the toss and bowl LOSE, more often than not)
AND most importantly
2) LOOK IN THE BOOK --- the Aussies won the toss, bowled, chased down the 278 and won the Test.
FknBEAUTY, I say!
Sliding-doors, Time-Travelling-shoulda-speculation about winning the toss and batting is a waste of time.
Last edited:
- May 14, 2017
- 11,447
- 12,844
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- West Adelaide
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.
Attachments
Last edited:
- Sep 15, 2011
- 31,636
- 48,187
- AFL Club
- West Coast
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'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.
‘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.
New Zealand and England seem to duking it out for the ''It doesn't matter if we win, it matters how we play'' trophy. England have a good lead at the moment but New Zealand have set out to catch up.
Why can't Marnus open, Head at 3 and Smith 5. It enables the one young player in the batting line-up to stay put, by playing Green it gives him stability.
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
smaller boundaries surely would be a factor between Waugh sides and today?
Not to mention the bats.
That team’s approach brought them about 0.5 of a run per over more than the average at the time.
It has brought England about 1.3 of a run per over more than the average run rate at the time.
Now just to be clear I have not bothered doing this as a specific calculation: for Australia’s, I did this by looking at their run rate under Waugh (3.6), checking each other team in the same period, and what they all scored at, and the team in the middle of the table (I’ve already forgotten who that was) and their run rate was 3.1.
Applying the same very basic formula, England under Stokes and McCullum are scoring at 4.6, the next best are Bangladesh who have scored at 3.6 in 7 tests in the same period, the next best are Australia at 3.5.
The middle ranked team of the regular test nations is NZ scoring at 3.3 runs an over.
Smaller boundaries or bigger bats or whatever way you want to look at it:
Australia weren’t doing this.
They were better. Much, much better.
They were good enough to be duking it out with the Windies as the greatest team of all time.
But there’s no grounds for dismissing the approach, at least, of England, as ‘just what Australia was doing 20 years ago.’
12 moral victories, or real ones?
Rabish Binney
Left out overnight
It seems it doesn't matter, as long as 'cricket is the winner'
- Sep 15, 2011
- 31,636
- 48,187
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Moral victories are the only real victories, we all know that now.
Similar threads
- Poll
