Re: England v New Zealand, 5xODI + 1xT20, 9-23 Jun, 2015

by Brass Monkey Sat 13 Jun 2015, 22:48

Plunkett out of the series as well. You'd think they'll start with Willey and Wood. I'll be interested to see how they go. Both can be pretty hittable but doubt that they can be much worse

by Big Dog Sun 14 Jun 2015, 08:29

Surely they would have to go with Wood. He looked quite sharp in the Tests.

by Guest Sun 14 Jun 2015, 10:56

Forgot this was on, turned over to Sky Sports and as I turned on Wheeler was just releasing the ball for the wicket.

And as I've been typing this we've just lost another.

Great.

by Basil Sun 14 Jun 2015, 10:58

I see Roy has perfected the Bell shake of the head as he drags his arse off the ground.

Jason - it's not a good look, particularly when you've played all round a straight one.

by Brass Monkey Sun 14 Jun 2015, 11:30

Like the look of Wheeler - lively off the pitch

by Guest Sun 14 Jun 2015, 11:32

Will probably woof us now but this is a great way to respond to losing two wickets, not being silly with the aggression but still scoring at a run a ball for the innings. Old England would be rebuilding for 20 overs at 3-4 runs a ball. Still some rebuilding here but at pace where we are still set to post a decent target.

Would have been nice to have played like this a few months ago but if this is a sign of the next few years to come then I'll just be grateful for that.

by Brass Monkey Sun 14 Jun 2015, 11:57

Anyone else think that WASP is the biggest load of noncommittal phooey going? I wonder at how many points it is accurate... Very few IMO. A gimmick. Something for pure mathematics to rub themselves off about, but worthless as far as I can see to predicting a score

by taipan Sun 14 Jun 2015, 12:06

Brass Monkey wrote:Anyone else think that WASP is the biggest load of noncommittal phooey going? I wonder at how many points it is accurate... Very few IMO. A gimmick. Something for pure mathematics to rub themselves off about, but worthless as far as I can see to predicting a score

No clue what it is supposed to tell us. I am guessing that the model is similar to D/L

by Brass Monkey Sun 14 Jun 2015, 12:18

It's a whole new system. They explained it when they brought it in. Didn't really get it. Trying for an alternative to D/L, most likely. Regardless, it makes no sense, although once I saw it get within 10 of the actual final score, but that was after 44 overs. Phooey

by lardbucket Sun 14 Jun 2015, 12:24

vilkrang wrote:Will probably woof us now but this is a great way to respond to losing two wickets, not being silly with the aggression but still scoring at a run a ball for the innings. Old England would be rebuilding for 20 overs at 3-4 runs a ball. Still some rebuilding here but at pace where we are still set to post a decent target.

Would have been nice to have played like this a few months ago but if this is a sign of the next few years to come then I'll just be grateful for that.

by Red Sun 14 Jun 2015, 13:07

lardbucket wrote:
vilkrang wrote:Will probably woof us now but this is a great way to respond to losing two wickets, not being silly with the aggression but still scoring at a run a ball for the innings. Old England would be rebuilding for 20 overs at 3-4 runs a ball. Still some rebuilding here but at pace where we are still set to post a decent target.

Would have been nice to have played like this a few months ago but if this is a sign of the next few years to come then I'll just be grateful for that.

Noticed that too, Old England must have been pretty entertaining. Smile

by taipan Sun 14 Jun 2015, 13:08

Brass Monkey wrote:It's a whole new system. They explained it when they brought it in. Didn't really get it. Trying for an alternative to D/L, most likely. Regardless, it makes no sense, although once I saw it get within 10 of the actual final score, but that was after 44 overs. Phooey

Fom wiki WASP will not show the real picture as it doesn't take into consideration the quality of either batting or bowling.

In other words as useful as tits on a bull.

by taipan Sun 14 Jun 2015, 13:38

Basil wrote:Hmmmm Billings. Looks a bit of a lightweight at this level to me

Trev doffs his cap.

by taipan Sun 14 Jun 2015, 14:20

So watching the highlights WASP said 301 after 8 overs. What do we know?

by eowyn Sun 14 Jun 2015, 15:38

Red wrote:
lardbucket wrote:
vilkrang wrote:Will probably woof us now but this is a great way to respond to losing two wickets, not being silly with the aggression but still scoring at a run a ball for the innings. Old England would be rebuilding for 20 overs at 3-4 runs a ball. Still some rebuilding here but at pace where we are still set to post a decent target.

Would have been nice to have played like this a few months ago but if this is a sign of the next few years to come then I'll just be grateful for that.

Noticed that too, Old England must have been pretty entertaining.

Ooo, hark the Aussie pedants, heaven only knows what they will be like once The Ashes start.

by LeFromage Sun 14 Jun 2015, 16:00

Looking a bit ominous, this. Flat.

Still, when was the last time England scored 300+ in three successive games? Work in progress.

by Basil Sun 14 Jun 2015, 16:02

Aye, there will be times when England will fall flat on its collective arse playing this way, but that's infinitely preferable to the sack of misery we served up in the world cup and for about 20 years before that.

by eowyn Sun 14 Jun 2015, 16:21

We're trying to play in the 21st centenary, can't fault that one bit. Even if we lose this series.

by Brass Monkey Sun 14 Jun 2015, 17:19

taipan wrote:
Basil wrote:Hmmmm Billings. Looks a bit of a lightweight at this level to me

Trev doffs his cap.

Batted well. Very impressive, I thought

by Brass Monkey Sun 14 Jun 2015, 17:21

taipan wrote:
Brass Monkey wrote:It's a whole new system. They explained it when they brought it in. Didn't really get it. Trying for an alternative to D/L, most likely. Regardless, it makes no sense, although once I saw it get within 10 of the actual final score, but that was after 44 overs. Phooey

Fom wiki WASP will not show the real picture as it doesn't take into consideration the quality of either batting or bowling.

In other words as useful as tits on a bull.

It said 320 after 14, 340 after 38. It's as much use as a condom sieve

by Basil Sun 14 Jun 2015, 17:25

Brass Monkey wrote:
taipan wrote:
Basil wrote:Hmmmm Billings. Looks a bit of a lightweight at this level to me

Trev doffs his cap.

Batted well. Very impressive, I thought

Today he did, but he looked out of place during the game at The Oval when I wrote that comment. However, I wouldn't mind seeing him keep during the remaining games just to compare his ability behind the stumps with Buttler.

by Brass Monkey Sun 14 Jun 2015, 17:27

Willey has bowled pretty well, shame chances aren't being held off his bowling though

by Basil Sun 14 Jun 2015, 17:32

If he could get his pace back to somewhere near where it was pre-fitness and conditioning, he would be a handful.

by PeterCS Sun 14 Jun 2015, 17:52

NZ nicely positioned to hit out and overhaul England's 340 off their 50.

Oh ...

by taipan Sun 14 Jun 2015, 17:55

So we can safely say 270 wouldn't have been a winning score.

by Sponsored content