NZ v England 3rd test

[blain]

nice comeback ED.

 

[El Diablo]

it doesn't require a comeback

anyone who thinks that being able to retire with an average of 40 instead of 39.94 is something to wank over needs their head read

it's a pretty ordinary average for a top order batsmen

whats worse is his conversion rate. 46 fifties and 9 centuries

 

[JJ]

I really hope Elliott and Sinclair never get near a NZ team again

Elliott is a club cricket star

 

[shiznit]

it doesn't require a comeback

anyone who thinks that being able to retire with an average of 40 instead of 39.94 is something to wank over needs their head read

it's a pretty ordinary average for a top order batsmen

whats worse is his conversion rate. 46 fifties and 9 centuries

anyone would think you actually know what your talking about... how many tests did you play by the way??

mate... if you can average more than 40 in test cricket playing for our mob you can say you had a good career.

as martin crowe put it hes probably our best ever captain. next to Hadlee our most influential player.

 

[El Diablo]

anyone would think you actually know what your talking about... how many tests did you play by the way??

763

mate... if you can average more than 40 in test cricket playing for our mob you can say you had a good career.

i had an average of 211.46

as martin crowe put it hes probably our best ever captain. next to Hadlee our most influential player.

a match thrower was your best captain

quite sad

 

[salivor]

then the rules need to be changed imo... this isnt one day cricket.

Have you forgotten a little series called bodyline?

 

[shiznit]

Have you forgotten a little series called bodyline?

what does that have to do with bodyline??

the rule change limiting the amount of bouncers allowed were only recently added. it has nothing to do with bodyline...

you ask anyone that toured the west indies if there was a limit on bouncers...

 

[salivor]

what does that have to do with bodyline??

the rule change limiting the amount of bouncers allowed were only recently added. it has nothing to do with bodyline...

you ask anyone that toured the west indies if there was a limit on bouncers...

Bodyline rightly so set in motion a set of gradual changes to the laws of the game regarding bouncers one of which has been limiting the amount of bouncers in an over. I don't see the need for more than 2 bouncers in an over, anymore and your just rewarding lazy bowling and poor tactics.

 

[JJ]

Bodyline had nothing to do with this change, it was driven by incessant whinging about the WIndies dominance.

Bodyline resulted in the number of fielders behind square on the leg side being limited...

 

[Twizzle]

The Windies would bowl at least 4 an over which meant you had no chance whatsoever in chasing a big second innings score. You only had one or two scoring opportunities per over.

Thats why this rule was brought in.

 

[shiznit]

Bodyline rightly so set in motion a set of gradual changes to the laws of the game regarding bouncers one of which has been limiting the amount of bouncers in an over. I don't see the need for more than 2 bouncers in an over, anymore and your just rewarding lazy bowling and poor tactics.

how is bowling bouncers lazy?? you have to put more effort into bowling a bouncer than bowling a length ball....

 

[shiznit]

The Windies would bowl at least 4 an over which meant you had no chance whatsoever in chasing a big second innings score. You only had one or two scoring opportunities per over.

Thats why this rule was brought in.

so instead of learning to play the hook or pull shot correctly they decide to limit the bowlers options... sounds like a wonderull idea....

seeing as certain batsman like to sweep murali 4 out of 6 deliveries in an over should we limit the amount of sweep shots allowed in an over??

 

[Twizzle]

settle down shiz

they would bowl so short you couldn't hook it and they never called short balls wides back then

you had to be there,

the rule is fair enough I reckon

 

[JJ]

so instead of learning to play the hook or pull shot correctly they decide to limit the bowlers options... sounds like a wonderull idea....

seeing as certain batsman like to sweep murali 4 out of 6 deliveries in an over should we limit the amount of sweep shots allowed in an over??

It was a wonderful idea, but it wasn't 4+ bouncer an over, more like 2+ bouncers and the remaining deliveries at an awkward chest height. But to suggest that Marshall, Garner etc were just mindless bouncer merchants is pretty poor form imo, they dominated cricket completely, and the whinging was led by those who couldn't play them well... also, batsmen weren't as well protected in those days, and quite frankly the WIndies were a lot better than Lillee and Thomson who really went over the top in the early 70s - but Aussies were happier with that...

 

[JJ]

Taylor out, c Collingwood b Panesar 74

Won't be long now, woeful effort by NZ, amazing how arrogant some get when we have 1 decent performance... time for youth now

I'm with TH too, Vettori's test bowling is a myth...

 

[JJ]

double up...

 

[JJ]

McCullum b Panesar 45

1. Won't be long now
2. Panesar has 5 for the innings, and shows despite all the sychophantic sh*t surrounding Vetorri, it's actually possible for a left arm spinner to get people out, not just tie them down with subtle variations....

 

[JJ]

Monty has got Patel too, maybe Tom Tom can save us?

 

[JJ]

TOm at the wicket :shock:

 

[JJ]

Southee 18*, three scoring shots

Martin solid on 1*