SA Footy

Gozu wrote:

bennymacca wrote:2003 it was, wow.

We went to Bangladesh in 2005/2006.

So that makes 4 tests in 14 years of tests.

Australia have played 3 tests in 22 years against Zimbabwe too.

I remember when Matty Hayden smashed 380 against Zimbabwe at the WACA and the last time we played Bangladesh in a Test match star Australian batsman Jason Gillespie made a double ton and proved he was also handy with ball taking 8 wickets @ 11 across the two Tests.

Even Warney refused to play in that Test series in Bangladesh which resulted in Dan Cullen playing a Test match. I don't think we should waste time playing Tests against clearly sub-standard opposition.

which warney refused to play? shane warne played in that series, and if Ponting hadnt been dropped at fine leg in the run chase Bangladseh wouldve been a very good chance of actuall winning the first test

stampy wrote:i love test match cricket, i also believe in not giving the opposition any chance of winning, what i am saying is the declaration of mccullum is a joke, if mj clarke did that at centruion, adelaide oval or the gabba, sacrificing victory by batting on waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long, we all would have gone ape shit,

maybe it was a case of personal glory before team glory going by the scorecard

mccullum wouldnt have done this if new zealand werent already leading in the series, the series win was more important than the personal glory (which he was entitled to a fair piece of given the position his team were in when he came to the crease).

the fact that he batted on long past his dismissal also suggests it was more about banking the series win

FFS, New Zealand were never going to bowl India out in a day on that wicket, I think McCollum summed it up perfectly, after all he batted for about a day and half more on it than any of you having a go at him for batting on.
Pretty sure the New Zealand crowd were entertained and got their money's worth.

MAY-Z wrote:

Gozu wrote:

bennymacca wrote:2003 it was, wow.

We went to Bangladesh in 2005/2006.

So that makes 4 tests in 14 years of tests.

Australia have played 3 tests in 22 years against Zimbabwe too.

I remember when Matty Hayden smashed 380 against Zimbabwe at the WACA and the last time we played Bangladesh in a Test match star Australian batsman Jason Gillespie made a double ton and proved he was also handy with ball taking 8 wickets @ 11 across the two Tests.

Even Warney refused to play in that Test series in Bangladesh which resulted in Dan Cullen playing a Test match. I don't think we should waste time playing Tests against clearly sub-standard opposition.

which warney refused to play? shane warne played in that series, and if Ponting hadnt been dropped at fine leg in the run chase Bangladseh wouldve been a very good chance of actuall winning the first test

You're right, can't believe I don't remember that I just remembered him saying in the lead up he wouldn't play against them but play he did.

bennymacca wrote:

Gozu wrote:I don't think we should waste time playing Tests against clearly sub-standard opposition.

The problem with this argument is there is never scope for improvement of those lower teams, as they wallow around playing themselves and never get tested out against real opposition.

And I have no problem with Aussies resting a bunch if people if that is what is required to get a game going

I support the two-tier system. Neither Bangladesh or Zimbabwe are fit to be playing Test cricket against us, South Africa, India, England and maybe NZ. They can muck around with Sri Lanka, Pakistan & the Windies.

daysofourlives wrote:FFS, New Zealand were never going to bowl India out in a day on that wicket, I think McCollum summed it up perfectly, after all he batted for about a day and half more on it than any of you having a go at him for batting on.
Pretty sure the New Zealand crowd were entertained and got their money's worth.

another expert comment after the event, ever heard the saying "cricket is a funny game"? any idea what that means? i am obviously banging my head against a brick wall on this one

for those that dont get what i am about:

I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT NZ SHOULD HAVE GIVEN INDIA THE CHANCE TO WIN THE GAME, THEY COULD HAVE DECLARED A BIT EARLIER TO PUT THE INDIANS UNDER MORE PRESSURE, 400 IN FRONT WITH 75ISH OVERS LEFT COULD HAVE GOT THEM A 2-0 RESULT, CAPICHE??!!!

are you serious????

the Indians might have had a crack at that run chase and who knows what would have happened if a couple of them got going

The kiwis did the right thing by making sure that the only possible result was a draw

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:are you serious????

the Indians might have had a crack at that run chase and who knows what would have happened if a couple of them got going

The kiwis did the right thing by making sure that the only possible result was a draw

Yep. If you look at their position early on, would have taken a draw every day of the week.
Protect the series lead. Different if they were 1-0 down or 0-0.

am i serious? declaring with a lead of 435 with 67 overs left is ultra cautious in my book but not anyone elses on here, whatever!

why declare at all?, i know i should let this go but i cant lol

stampy wrote:why declare at all?, i know i should let this go but i cant lol

Well they were 8 down weren't they? They effectively batted it out

the kiwis should've batted it out

protect the series lead

The Kiwis are ranked 7th in the world and they won a home series v the #2

I think they are entitled to make the most of it

bennymacca wrote:

stampy wrote:why declare at all?, i know i should let this go but i cant lol

Well they were 8 down weren't they? They effectively batted it out

i aways thought that 10 wickets was all out not fu cking 8, btw the 9th wicket partnership was an unbroken 41 with neesham still going strong with 137

hardly all out champ

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:the kiwis should've batted it out

protect the series lead

ray illingworth eat ya heart out ffs....

Chill pill mate

stampy wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:FFS, New Zealand were never going to bowl India out in a day on that wicket, I think McCollum summed it up perfectly, after all he batted for about a day and half more on it than any of you having a go at him for batting on.
Pretty sure the New Zealand crowd were entertained and got their money's worth.

another expert comment after the event, ever heard the saying "cricket is a funny game"? any idea what that means? i am obviously banging my head against a brick wall on this one

for those that dont get what i am about:

I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT NZ SHOULD HAVE GIVEN INDIA THE CHANCE TO WIN THE GAME, THEY COULD HAVE DECLARED A BIT EARLIER TO PUT THE INDIANS UNDER MORE PRESSURE, 400 IN FRONT WITH 75ISH OVERS LEFT COULD HAVE GOT THEM A 2-0 RESULT, CAPICHE??!!!

Stampy
I can definately see your point
I'm pretty sure the Michael Clarke/Darren Lehmann coach and skipper would have prob declared 400 up with 75 overs left
Good teams with attacking mindsets and a winning culture would prob go for it
Clarke almost gave England a suicide target in England in 2013[That was when Australia was England's bunnys]
Sometimes you have to prepared to lose to win

NZ have more of a a losing culture
The 1-0 win is good enough for them
The way Test cricket is set up with series contests , it can be to the detriment of cricket in my opinion

The real loser might be Test cricket
Its happened in SA when SA were over negative in a recent run chase v India
Its happened in this game as well

I know some of youse hate 20/20 cricket
But in 20/20 and 50 over cricket its result based

A draw is a result in cricket, but then again it isin't

I think you should all respect Stampys views on an earlier declaration
If the Stampy's of the world give up on Test cricket , the future is clouded

Nothing wrong with stating your opinion, more that he got grumpy when disagreed with. I know we all do that, but still...

bennymacca wrote:Nothing wrong with stating your opinion, more that he got grumpy when disagreed with. I know we all do that, but still...

Hes OK
He just needed a stampy of approval

mal wrote:

stampy wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:FFS, New Zealand were never going to bowl India out in a day on that wicket, I think McCollum summed it up perfectly, after all he batted for about a day and half more on it than any of you having a go at him for batting on.
Pretty sure the New Zealand crowd were entertained and got their money's worth.

another expert comment after the event, ever heard the saying "cricket is a funny game"? any idea what that means? i am obviously banging my head against a brick wall on this one

for those that dont get what i am about:

I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT NZ SHOULD HAVE GIVEN INDIA THE CHANCE TO WIN THE GAME, THEY COULD HAVE DECLARED A BIT EARLIER TO PUT THE INDIANS UNDER MORE PRESSURE, 400 IN FRONT WITH 75ISH OVERS LEFT COULD HAVE GOT THEM A 2-0 RESULT, CAPICHE??!!!

Stampy
I can definately see your point
I'm pretty sure the Michael Clarke/Darren Lehmann coach and skipper would have prob declared 400 up with 75 overs left
Good teams with attacking mindsets and a winning culture would prob go for it
Clarke almost gave England a suicide target in England in 2013[That was when Australia was England's bunnys]
Sometimes you have to prepared to lose to win

NZ have more of a a losing culture
The 1-0 win is good enough for them
The way Test cricket is set up with series contests , it can be to the detriment of cricket in my opinion

The real loser might be Test cricket
Its happened in SA when SA were over negative in a recent run chase v India
Its happened in this game as well

I know some of youse hate 20/20 cricket
But in 20/20 and 50 over cricket its result based

A draw is a result in cricket, but then again it isin't

I think you should all respect Stampys views on an earlier declaration
If the Stampy's of the world give up on Test cricket , the future is clouded

I can see Stampy's POV but at the same time, NZ was more than safe and still had the luxury of pressing for an unlikely but entirely possible win.
If the opposition can't win, it's as good as a mental victory in a lot of ways.