Results 51 to 75 of 1754

  1. Post
    #51
    Paddles wrote:
    What do you want - slips in the 30th over when the ball isn't swinging?
    Kane usually chucks Ross in a wide slip for Boult which has worked a good deal later on. If Kane isn't stacking the ring with catchers in the 2nd half of an innings, he's 'sitting back'.

  2. Post
    #52
    <N> wrote:
    Kane usually chucks Ross in a wide slip for Boult which has worked a good deal later on. If Kane isn't stacking the ring with catchers in the 2nd half of an innings, he's 'sitting back'.
    That stops Ross dropping the ball at short mid wicket at least. :P

    With only 4 allowed out until the 41st over - I'd love to know where's sitting these guys back...

  3. Post
    #53
    Omg that horrendous bitch kanoa is going to call out Scott K and NZC tonight... some people just need to STFU.

  4. Post
    #54
    turning_point wrote:
    Omg that horrendous bitch kanoa is going to call out Scott K and NZC tonight... some people just need to STFU.
    Don't typically follow NZ tv news - what channel - what time?

  5. Post
    #55
    It becomes more and more apparent to me that journalists in NZ and Australia, especially those who feel the need to talk about sportsmen off the pitch, have little or no understanding of the law.

    I am talking both civil and restraint of trade laws, as well as the criminal justice system.

    The problem is - news content is determined by populist consumption, so people are paid to provide opinions that sell. Those opinions are not based in logical judicial principle, but on "knee jerk" and moral panic. It is far too easy to skew an opinion in any direction, and the news media need to take more responsibility for this than they do.

    It is too easy for the media to say "innocent before guilty and all that" and "I know person x was found not guilty". But the journalists should really explore and inform the public what's going on behind these terms to give a viewpoint, bias if any aside, that is not based almost entirely in ignorance!

    It would be very easy for the media on easy issue to obtain an interview with a lawyer, or a legal academic - who could explain the nuances of every and any situation - without even knowing the parties' involved. Just give some facts or factual scenario's - watch or read them guide you through that journey. Heck for a bit of publicity - they wouldn't even have to pay for the legal pointers.

    It's not just Scott K for mine, I cringe so much when watching the Back Page Live as a lawyer, hearing "viewpoints" on legal issues that involved innocent before proven guilty and subsequent lack of guilt. Chris Gayle's defamation case is one I am reminded of swiftly. Well that ended up in a very embarrassing defamation claim for the media there that got caught up in its own snowball of irresponsible journalism.

    If there's still any residual moral outrage at the law - take it up with Parliament. It's what they're there for. Scott doesn't make the law - he doesn't need to offer any comment on what the law should or should not be.

    For instance, Scott Kuggeliejn is playing for NZ before he was found not guilty of any crime. He did not need to be suspended, he opted to not be able for selection since between the charges being laid (whether this was truly voluntary or he decided not to bring a restraint of trade action - I do not know, either way he didn't play for NZ until was cleared of any criminal wrong doing), and the second trial returning in a not guilty result. His legal bill would have been massive. Where was this information in the stories? It does not need to come from Scott of NZC - its already in previous news articles. Are journalists not even reading their own reports now?

    The fact is - Scott is more famous now that he has become an international cricketer - than he was then. So now he is a news story, again. Based solely on being promoted and having a starring game. For how long is a person found not guilty, going to be a news story? When is a person - who has gone through the stresses and costs of two rape trials, to then be found not guilty, and career suffered already accordingly in the process, allowed to live life to the full again?

    Or are journalists just going to convict people simply when charges are laid - regardless of the result? Heck - simple allegations seems to be enough at times these days.

    And comparing NZC and Scott K to the Vatican? Really? Is this responsible journalism?
    Last edited by Paddles; 22nd January 2019 at 6:39 pm.

  6. Post
    #56
    Indigo1 wrote:
    I feel like most women living in the real world roll their eyes at articles like that

    - - - Updated - - -

    Thought this was well put about Southee...shows how much he has dined out on that CWC performance

    Attachment 224735

    edit - sorry, don't know how to rotate it back to how it uploaded...
    lmao that column

    sad thing is it could have literally been printed anytime in the past like 5 years and it would still be accurate

  7. Post
    #57
    "A national tragedy" dear god....I just saw the shorts for it...I saw a comment on Facebook that she likened him to Harvey Weinstein? surely not...

  8. Post
    #58
    Indigo1 wrote:
    "A national tragedy" dear god....I just saw the shorts for it...I saw a comment on Facebook that she likened him to Harvey Weinstein? surely not...
    The Vatican. She compared it to the Vatican. Seriously. Scott was found not guilty.

    The saddest part was her saying at the start "why is this is guy playing?" Does she not think a not found not guilty accused should be entitled to selection?

    And this is whole "Scott and NZC come on the show - open invite thing" - its like the media asking for a trial by media after the trial. I mean it would be a ratings bonanza to watch them go at it.... who would it do any good for beyond the media sales?

    If there's issues with the law that the journalists wish to discuss in the wake - they don't need NZC nor Scott on the show, any lawyer is qualified to assist them.
    Last edited by Paddles; 21st January 2019 at 9:02 pm.

  9. Post
    #59
    Paddles wrote:
    The Vatican. She compared it to the Vatican. Seriously. Scott was found not guilty.

    The saddest part was her saying at the start "why is this is guy playing?" Does she not think a not found not guilty accused should be entitled to selection?
    Pathetic...she has had all holiday to dream up something for the first show and she delivers that.

  10. Post
    #60
    Indigo1 wrote:
    Pathetic...she has had all holiday to dream up something for the first show and she delivers that.
    She read the stuff opinion piece from last week I bet :P

  11. Post
    #61
    Paddles wrote:
    What do you want - slips in the 30th over when the ball isn't swinging?
    That's a ridiculous comment... pointless putting in too many slips when the ball isn't swinging or the track is like a road, clearly it would be more about having a fielder or fielders close to the bat, cutting off the singles forcing them to hit over the top etc... & of course the other experienced players in the leadership group need to be contributing ideas in ongoing game situations as well.

  12. Post
    #62
    signman wrote:
    That's a ridiculous comment... pointless putting in too many slips when the ball isn't swinging or the track is like a road, clearly it would be more about having a fielder or fielders close to the bat, cutting off the singles forcing them to hit over the top etc... & of course the other experienced players in the leadership group need to be contributing ideas in ongoing game situations as well.
    You seriously answered and commented on a rhetorical question that was deliberately designed to be ridiculous...

    As for your comments on field placements - there has to be 5 in the circle for the first 40 overs min anyway and a minimum of 4 throughout the match. Further - have you got any research or numbers to support your theory that not having boundary fielders results in more wickets - because I see the boundary fielders take a lot of catches - and I see them stop a lot of runs. Because with the small grounds, big bats and modern game - batsmen arent just hitting over the in field - they're hitting over the out field as well.

    Now I watched KW defend score after score as captain in the field, so I really don't get what your gripe is. I have watched Santner just suffocate teams under KW, and I have watched Boult have attacking field sets, and I have watched medium pacers leak runs boundaries everywhere even with boundary riders back...

  13. Post
    #63
    Paddles wrote:
    You seriously answered and commented on a rhetorical question that was deliberately designed to be ridiculous...

    As for your comments on field placements - there has to be 5 in the circle for the first 40 overs min anyway and a minimum of 4 throughout the match. Further - have you got any research or numbers to support your theory that not having boundary fielders results in more wickets - because I see the boundary fielders take a lot of catches - and I see them stop a lot of runs. Because with the small grounds, big bats and modern game - batsmen arent just hitting over the in field - they're hitting over the out field as well.

    Now I watched KW defend score after score as captain in the field, so I really don't get what your gripe is. I have watched Santner just suffocate teams under KW, and I have watched Boult have attacking field sets, and I have watched medium pacers leak runs boundaries everywhere even with boundary riders back...
    Was talking in general, of course you have to make adjustments in the short forms because of field restrictions etc... it's in tests that Williamson is a really frustrating watch as a captain.

    Any team is going to leak runs poorly if a bowler serves up rubbish no matter what field placing you have, for any bowling plan to work properly the bowler has to bowl accurately in good areas.

    Concerning this first ODI against India reckon we can't afford to bowl any bowler for too many overs in a row, bowl them in short bursts giving them less chance of getting on top of one of our bowlers.

  14. Post
    #64
    Indigo1 wrote:
    I feel like most women living in the real world roll their eyes at articles like that

    - - - Updated - - -

    Thought this was well put about Southee...shows how much he has dined out on that CWC performance

    Attachment 224735

    edit - sorry, don't know how to rotate it back to how it uploaded...
    That deserves a yikes

  15. Post
    #65
    signman wrote:
    Was talking in general, of course you have to make adjustments in the short forms because of field restrictions etc... it's in tests that Williamson is a really frustrating watch as a captain.

    Any team is going to leak runs poorly if a bowler serves up rubbish no matter what field placing you have, for any bowling plan to work properly the bowler has to bowl accurately in good areas.

    Concerning this first ODI against India reckon we can't afford to bowl any bowler for too many overs in a row, bowl them in short bursts giving them less chance of getting on top of one of our bowlers.
    I thought KW was magnificent in the tests in the UAE recently. Especially with his in and out fields... that's exactly what I would have done too. He had to protect the runs and attack for wickets. I thought he did it very nicely.

    Bar one day of rain - causing NZ to lose the series at home vs Safrica - KW's record as a NZ captain is impeccable for NZ standards. Yes - NZ is in a purple patch, but he gives what the bowlers need to get wickets and not let the runs get out of control. The plans are working. CdG is used well. I really don't share the criticism you have - nor do I think that McCullum was better in any way. In fact I think McCullum lost the plot in England 2015, and had no plot vs Australia in 2015/16.

  16. Post
    #66
    Paddles wrote:
    Don't typically follow NZ tv news - what channel - what time?
    sorry was the project - channel 3 at 7 - might be able to find it on rewind. im going to have a searchy too

    edit: nvm.. i see that you've found it.

    so gutterd that im in a all day meeting tomorrow and then dinner

  17. Post
    #67
    Paddles wrote:
    I thought KW was magnificent in the tests in the UAE recently. Especially with his in and out fields... that's exactly what I would have done too. He had to protect the runs and attack for wickets. I thought he did it very nicely.

    Bar one day of rain - causing NZ to lose the series at home vs Safrica - KW's record as a NZ captain is impeccable for NZ standards. Yes - NZ is in a purple patch, but he gives what the bowlers need to get wickets and not let the runs get out of control. The plans are working. CdG is used well. I really don't share the criticism you have - nor do I think that McCullum was better in any way. In fact I think McCullum lost the plot in England 2015, and had no plot vs Australia in 2015/16.
    There's been many occasions in tests where Williamson has let things drift by allowing batsmen to milk us for easy runs, which really peeves me off... in any sport it's vital to consistently vary your tactics to keep the other side guessing, in this case applying good pressure on the batsmen.

    Was good that McCullum was a proactive captain... unfortunately he didn't have the brains to realise when to stop attacking & go back to orthodox field settings, so we leaked way too many runs.
    Last edited by signman; 23rd January 2019 at 9:56 am.

  18. Post
    #68
    Bracewell or CDG tomorrow?

    I'd go Doug, with Santner batting 7 and Doug taking a bit of the hitter role. Doug's fielding and bowling add that bit extra. CdG just hasn't had any game time so it's really hard to judge. CdG doesn't deserve the faith we've shown him in ODI's... feel like Doug has a bit more brains when batting too.

  19. Post
    #69
    <N> wrote:
    Bracewell or CDG tomorrow?

    I'd go Doug, with Santner batting 7 and Doug taking a bit of the hitter role. Doug's fielding and bowling add that bit extra. CdG just hasn't had any game time so it's really hard to judge. CdG doesn't deserve the faith we've shown him in ODI's... feel like Doug has a bit more brains when batting too.
    Doug, Astle, Milne, Anderson

    Should all be discounted as their durability isn't up to it from an injury perspective.

  20. Post
    #70
    <N> wrote:
    Bracewell or CDG tomorrow?

    I'd go Doug, with Santner batting 7 and Doug taking a bit of the hitter role. Doug's fielding and bowling add that bit extra. CdG just hasn't had any game time so it's really hard to judge. CdG doesn't deserve the faith we've shown him in ODI's... feel like Doug has a bit more brains when batting too.
    I'd like to see Doug, he looks like he's matured a bit as a cricketer, his bowling is great and his batting is just as good if not better than CdG....he'll be familiar with Mclean park too; not sure CdG would be a great bowler on that pitcher either.

    On Munro opening, if the forum is happy with a quickfire 50 every 7-10 innings, why don't we go back to the 90's when they used to put a bowler in at the top to open? I remember Vettori doing it at a CWC and think Doull used to do it for ND...Southee is probably just as likely to come off as Munro

  21. Post
    #71
    wrighty wrote:
    Doug, Astle, Milne, Anderson

    Should all be discounted as their durability isn't up to it from an injury perspective.
    When was Doug last injured for any period of time? His last major injury was unlucky on a horrible outfield at Yarrow stadium.

    He seems to have been a constant since. The others I tend to agree with, but I have a feeling they'll pick Anderson if he's bowling. What a shame he didn't kick on after the Indian tour last time, he played some good knocks. Blast from last time at Napier.


  22. Post
    #72
    ^ shit he looks fat there!

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricke...isJ93ovSQld3oA The feminists need to get a job - thankfully most the Facebook comments are calling it out for what it is.

  23. Post
    #73
    Shit I laughed at this - looks like Harry riding shotgun? https://www.facebook.com/CrowdGoesWi...53971293103764

  24. Post
    #74
    Indigo1 wrote:
    ^ shit he looks fat there!
    lolwot, barely. He was something like 15-20kg heavier than that in his teens.

  25. Post
    #75
    Name:  images (9).jpg
Views: 79
Size:  10.7 KB
    Ist ODI {Napier}
    Wed-23rd Jan - 3pm


    NZ (likely) : Martin Guptill, Colin Munro, Kane Williamson (captain), Ross Taylor, Tom Latham, Colin de Grandhomme, Mitchell Santner, Doug Bracewell, Tim Southee/Matt Henry, Lockie Ferguson, Trent Boult.

    INDIA (likely) : Rohit Sharma, Shikhar Dhawan, Virat Kohli (captain), Kedar Jadhav, MS Dhoni, Dinesh Karthik, Vijay Shankar, Ravindra Jadeja, Bhuvneshwar Kumar, Mohammed Shami, Yuzvendra Chahal.

    Odds : NZ $2.31 - India $1.62
    https://www.tab.co.nz/sports/event/2...ealand-v-india