Tour of NZ.

[chef]

Huge total by NZ in the 2ND T20. 6 for 214 with McCullum making 116 NO off 56 balls, it was a great innings.

[GVGjr]

Re: Tour of NZ.

Huge total by NZ in the 2ND T20. 6 for 214 with McCullum making 116 NO off 56 balls, it was a great innings.

Massive innings. We will have our work cut out for us to reel that score in.

[chef]

Re: Tour of NZ.

It's a tie, What a game. Some great big hitting from White(64 from 26) and a fine innings from Clarke(67 from 45) almost got Australia home.

[Bornadog]

Re: Tour of NZ.

Pathetic Superover from Tait, that was really woeful.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Tour of NZ.

Pathetic Superover from Tait, that was really woeful.

Not to mention Warner using 1/3 of our balls without scoring a run.

[mighty_west]

Re: Tour of NZ.

Pathetic Superover from Tait, that was really woeful.

Yeah he didn't really handle the situation well at all, that wide was a shocker...that said, 7 to win from 6 balls should be a walk in the park everyday of the week, Southey won them that game.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Tour of NZ.

Pathetic Superover from Tait, that was really woeful.

It was. Surely Harris was the man to use in that situation.

Terrific match though, and glad to see a side really stick it to the Aussie's.

[mighty_west]

Re: Tour of NZ.

It was. Surely Harris was the man to use in that situation.

Terrific match though, and glad to see a side really stick it to the Aussie's.

I would have gone for Harris as well, but it's easy said in hindsight...i would have also kept Michael Clarke & Cam White at the crease for that one over with Warner as the next bat, those two already had their eyes in, and it was as though Clarke was just nudging the ball around either.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Tour of NZ.

i would have also kept Michael Clarke & Cam White at the crease for that one over with Warner as the next bat, those two already had their eyes in, and it was as though Clarke was just nudging the ball around either.

A mate who I watched the game with made this exact comment. I think that certainly had its merits.

Hindsight or not, Tait is hardly reliable (especially under pressure - see the Big Bash final), and as they were chasing such a small total, we really needed an accurate bowler.

Although, did we need to nominate our bowler prior to both super overs, or could we have changed/chosen based on our total? If we did need to nominate prior, I'll excuse Clarke as Tait is obviously our strike weapon and could have won it with 2 deadly straight missiles.

[Mantis]

Re: Tour of NZ.

It was. Surely Harris was the man to use in that situation.

Terrific match though, and glad to see a side really stick it to the Aussie's.

A player?

Without McCallum playing out of his skin (although it wasn't a once off) the game would have been lop-sided again.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Tour of NZ.

A player?

Without McCallum playing out of his skin (although it wasn't a once off) the game would have been lop-sided again.

I guess you are right, but they still had to contain us and did bat well to support him.

[Happy Days]

Re: Tour of NZ.

I guess you are right, but they still had to contain us and did bat well to support him.

Contain us?

We still made nearly 220 off 21 overs, and that's only that limited due to Southee's spell at the end, his first two overs having gone for 30.

If Clarke had put a fielder at a very fine leg after McCullum's 2nd ramp shot we would have smashed them.

On a slight side note, how has Peter Ingram even got close to getting an international guernsey?

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Tour of NZ.

Contain us?

We still made nearly 220 off 21 overs, and that's only that limited due to Southee's spell at the end, his first two overs having gone for 30.

Yes, and they won.

Southee bowled about 18 near-perfect deliveries, not many of our guys game close to that. With their bowling attack (which I don't rate very highly) we should have done better. Yes, it was a huge score, but it was certainly gettable imo.

The fine fielder is a different debate, but I'm not convinced it's the sort of shot you set a field for. He executed it exceptionally well, but moving someone there exposes another gap, and would have meant no deep fielder somewhere else. A few of those shots cleared the rope by about 20m too.

[Happy Days]

Re: Tour of NZ.

Yes, and they won.

Southee bowled about 18 near-perfect deliveries, not many of our guys game close to that. With their bowling attack (which I don't rate very highly) we should have done better. Yes, it was a huge score, but it was certainly gettable imo.

Exactly my point; this one's on our bowlers.

Making 214 and then not being able to defend it is not my idea of containing, but they shouldn't have had that many runs to defend in the first place. Our bowlers are that much better than theirs, but yesterday they weren't good enough to be completely honest.

Most perturbing about the whole situation was that they (the bowlers) didn't seem that upset about going for 13 an over, as if they weren't taking it seriously.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Tour of NZ.

Contain us?

We still made nearly 220 off 21 overs, and that's only that limited due to Southee's spell at the end, his first two overs having gone for 30.

If Clarke had put a fielder at a very fine leg after McCullum's 2nd ramp shot we would have smashed them.

On a slight side note, how has Peter Ingram even got close to getting an international guernsey?

You can't just discount Southee's 2 last overs (and I suppose his super over) like that, those 3 overs were just as much an indication of NZ's performance as the other 18 overs. Yes, without those overs, NZ lost, but if N. McCullum and Hopkins hadn't missed those easy wickets, NZ would have won a lot earlier. For a 22/23 year old fairly new to the game, Southee handled the situation considerably better than Tait.

It was just an incredible game, I've been raised by a Kiwi mum and trained to hate the Aussies...except of course the Victorians, but that was just a really entertaining game, I'll never love the cricket like I love AFL, but my heart was racing at the 16 over mark.