Page 1 of 31 123411 ... Last
Results 1 to 25 of 764

  1. Post
    #1

    Blackcaps World Cup Semi Final thread - We are in!!

    July 9 9:30 PM Qualifier 1 vs Qualifier 4 Old Trafford, Manchester Semi-finals

    We are Qualifier 4. Qualifier 1 is likely Australia but could change if India beats Sri Lanka and Australia loses to South Africa.

    Will create the other semi final thread when the teams are confirmed.

    We are playing at Old Trafford. Here is a link to a page describing the pitch. It is where we played the Windies.
    https://www.cricket365.com/pitch-rep...rd-manchester/

    Most of the ODI venues in England have become batting-friendly in recent times. Old Trafford in the industrial city of Manchester is an exception. Only thrice has 300 been crossed at this venue, and the average score batting first since 2010 is 256. Pace bowlers
    have fared better, but spinners can have success too, because the boundaries are big. Both the teams will want wicket-taking bowlers and good batting technique.
    Its recent track record has favoured sides batting second.
    https://www.livemint.com/sports/cric...584776287.html

    New Zealand has lost its last three matches comfortably but can they bounce back. Lockie Ferguson has a niggle. Will he be ok? What line up should NZ use.

    Will we win? Or more appropriately can we cause an upset?

    The long range weather forecast for Manchester is cloud cover but not raining at this stage.
    https://www.accuweather.com/en/gb/ma...t/329260?day=1


    Create hype.

    This is what you have been waiting for. We have some superstars in our team. Can they carry the rest?


  2. Post
    #2
    Well listening to Stead on the radio this morning, apparently they have had a couple of days of "to unwind"...you wat!? The biggest game for these guys in years, the batsman in pretty average form, and you are not doing everything you can to make yourself better for that game?

  3. Post
    #3
    Okay - well if its Australia, they'll play Lyon and not Zampa - so I'd give CdG a go.

    I don't think Blundell has in anyway put Neesham under pressure to bat 6 - who like CdG offers some bowling. Cos I'd play both, I'd leave Munro out.

    That leaves Nicholls v Munro. I'd go with Henry - because, if nothing else, he is the future of NZC.

    I see two likely team options:

    1 Munro 2 Gup 3 KW 4 Taylor 5 Latham+ 6 Neesh 7 CdG 8 Santner 9 Ferg 10 Henry 11 Boult or
    1 Nicholls 2 Gup 3 KW 4 Taylor 5 Latham 6 Neesh 7 CdG 8 Santner 9 Ferg 10 Henry 11 Boult

    I prefer the second.

    But NZ could funky up the batting order:

    1 Neesh/CdG 2 Gup 3 KW 4 Taylor 5 Latham 6 Nicholls 7 Neesh/CdG 8 Santner 9 Ferg 10 Henry 11 Boult.

    Now KW and Stead are probably too conservative to do this in a big game. It would be easily the biggest game Neesh or CdG have ever played in. But I would like to see Neesh blasting from opener against Starc or Bumrah. Just to give the opposition something to think about and totally stuff their set plans.

  4. Post
    #4
    Indigo1 wrote:
    Well listening to Stead on the radio this morning, apparently they have had a couple of days of "to unwind"...you wat!? The biggest game for these guys in years, the batsman in pretty average form, and you are not doing everything you can to make yourself better for that game?
    Good move by Stead. We need to forget our thumpings.

    If Munro comes back in I will cry.

  5. Post
    #5
    Boys - we are in this. C'mon support your blackcaps. Not all of us thought they would make the semis and they have through professionally demolishing the weak teams.

    We have two once in a generation batsman with Ross and Kane. This is on like Donkey Kong. Do not write us off,

    We will bring the noise on Tuesday.

    Kia Kaha Blackcaps

  6. Post
    #6
    wrighty wrote:
    Good move by Stead. We need to forget our thumpings.
    I don't agree. IT's been evident throughout the whole tournament they haven't been focussed enough and commentators have pointed that out too.

  7. Post
    #7
    Indigo1 wrote:
    I don't agree. IT's been evident throughout the whole tournament they haven't been focussed enough and commentators have pointed that out too.
    What would you have done with the two days had you been coach?

  8. Post
    #8
    Don't rule out the choke, both England and India choked hard at the 2017 CT despite being overwhelming favourites. Pressure is a funny thing.

    Indigo1 wrote:
    I don't agree. IT's been evident throughout the whole tournament they haven't been focussed enough and commentators have pointed that out too.
    Through the whole tournament? Disagree. We put away sides really well early on (Pakistan would have made the semi's if they could!) We were excellent for half of the Aussie match, could have so nearly rolled them for less than 150 if Carey didn't take it away from us (or we caught Khawaja x2). We actually did well to restrict England to 305 as well after that start (missing our best bowler of the tournament too). Our batting form has been the issue, we cannot rely on Kane and Ross all the time. The way they got out last game (and the rest of our top 5) is almost laughably unlucky, but that's what happens when you're struggling for runs. We can't afford any such dismissals in the semi.

    So yes, a few key batsmen haven't been scoring runs. Not sure how that is a lack of focus. Can't fault our bowling and fielding efforts I think, 305 is the biggest score we've conceded and we've been well in every match at the break. There is no pressure on us now, it's all on the rest. Massive underdogs.

    I'm sure some other sides would kill to be as consistent as us in making WC semi's... this is the 8th time. We're due a win.
    Last edited by <N>; 6th July 2019 at 2:14 pm.

  9. Post
    #9
    Like any sport it's about a tough mental attitude & doing the basics really well.

    Have to stop feeding the opposition batsmen with short wide crap both sides of the wicket... focus bowling in good areas on or just outside off so we can actually bowl to our field putting pressure on, also bowl bouncers in line with their batsmen cramping them giving us a decent chance of getting a nick behind or they might sky the ball straight up in the air.

    Hopefully our batsmen bat with focus/urgency & show good shot selections, also don't want any of those silly run-outs in a knock out match.

    Williamson does do some good stuff in the field, it's annoying though when the opposition get on top & he just lets them keep milking us, ffs ! he has to make more field adjustments on those occasions to try & create more opportunities to take wickets.

  10. Post
    #10
    <N> wrote:
    I'm sure some other sides would kill to be as consistent as us in making WC semi's... this is the 8th time. We're due a win.
    Yeah - but the India, WI, Pak and SL have won 7 cups. I'd like to see a Cup Win for NZ in my lifetime. Even at the price of consistency.

    NZ's knack of making the semi's rivals Australia's - but they win the finals so often!

  11. Post
    #11
    So I am going to propose 4 possible teams - take your pick

    1) The team i think they will go with
    Guptill, Nicholls etc the rest

    2) The team I hope they don't go with
    Guptill, Munro

    3) The most creative team they could realistically do

    Guptill, Latham, Kane, Ross, Nicholls, Neesham, CDG

    4) The team that would be really out of the box so won't happen but might actually work for a two game playoff series

    Guptill, Kane, Nicholls. Ross, Latham, Neesham, CDG

  12. Post
    #12
    With our batting in such a shambles reckon we need to makes a few changes there, can't see it happening as we know how ****in' conservative Stead & Williamson are, the only thing they'll do is maybe change the odd bowler depending on conditions, hope Ferguson is fit to play ?

  13. Post
    #13
    signman wrote:
    With our batting in such a shambles reckon we need to makes a few changes there,
    Let's hear your changes

  14. Post
    #14
    Another option is one I proposed earlier where we just take an extra bowler and drop the opener. However neither tim or sodhi look up for the fight.

  15. Post
    #15
    wrighty wrote:
    Let's hear your changes
    Unfortunately with the squad we have we're pretty limited, but it's clear something has to be done, wouldn't have Latham as opener as he really isn't attacking enough, I'd go with Guppy/Blundell to open, then as you say Williamson, Taylor, Nicholls, Neesham, CDG... clearly need to keep our two best batsmen at 3 & 4, so important that we can at least have 60 or 70 runs on the board before we lose our first wicket, wrighty what's our average in opening partnerships in the tournament, must be very poor.

  16. Post
    #16
    signman wrote:
    Unfortunately with the squad we have we're pretty limited, but it's clear something has to be done, wouldn't have Latham as opener as he really isn't attacking enough, I'd go with Guppy/Blundell to open, then as you say Williamson, Taylor, Nicholls, Neesham, CDG... clearly need to keep our two best batsmen at 3 & 4, so important that we can at least have 60 or 70 runs on the board before we lose our first wicket, wrighty what's our average in opening partnerships in the tournament, must be very poor.
    What number did Blundell bat in the warm ups?

  17. Post
    #17
    I think he batted at five.

  18. Post
    #18
    I think we'll wait to see the pitch before confirming a team. If it looks a belter (guess it will be), Munro simply has to play and be told to just go for it (someone drug him and tell him it's a T20).... butttt, that also plays into the dropping of CdG and putting Nicholls down at 6. If CdG plays ahead of Munro, he has to open. CdG only bowled 4 overs at this ground v Windies. I want to see Neesham with a license too, not having to rebuild at 6.

    Guptill, Munro, Williamson, Taylor, Latham, Nicholls, Neesham, Santner, Ferguson, Henry, Boult

    Kane will likely have to bowl a few, but other than that we'll be relying on the five bowlers bowling all their quotas.

  19. Post
    #19
    There's only been 2, yes 2, upset WC wins in cricket.

    83 India (Kapil Dev catch off Viv Rciahrds) and 87 Aus (Mike Valetta was their star! Mike Vellleta - and don't tell G Marsh was any good - he was ordinary - yes they had Boon, D Jones, Border, O'Donell and S Waugh - but still). Even the 1992 Pak team was very good on paper despite qualifying 4th and no Waqar. It was a star team. England were the favourites least everyone forget, despite it being in Aussie's backyard. And I put my money on SL in 1996 before the tournament started, Jaya, Kalu, Murali, Rana, Vaas, de Silva - easy for me in Asia to bet on...)

    The current top 3, Ind, Eng and Aus, were miles ahead of us and everyone else before the tournament, and all the tournament has done is prove this to be so.

    NZ with S Kugg, W Young and D Mitchell has things to try in the future, and the future is not bleak. But we just need to beat the odds, which are against us, radical changes are not the likely way forward with a squad with NO specialist batsman cover at all if Munro is rightly treated as a batting all-rounder. I don't buy into Blundell talk at all. At all.

    My expectations are 0. If NZ win this semi - I will elated, ecstatic, and celebrate. But regardless of who we play on paper on any given day from now on forward, we're not better than them. Not even closely.

    This WC is a much needed reality check (except we still made the semi's) that the team needs some fundamental changes. Relying on Boult, Taylor and KW to star is getting stale. Yes those 3 are walk up starters, but the entire XI needs a re-jig and to stop playing 2015 BMac ball with players on reputation being selected.

    The likes of Young, Mitchell and Kuggs will fill some of the current holes in time.

    On the plus side, Lockie Ferguson has impressed the hell out of me, and much more famous cricketing opinions than my own. He's been a star. Making the semis and Lockie standing up, I'll take that. Seriously. Tournament a bigger success than I hoped. Well done lads.

    I hoped for more from Latham and Neesham with the bat. I did. Guppie doesn't surprise me in the least. As some of you well know. He's one dimensional and teams have worked out his straight down the ground scoring zones. He has to start pulling again. He has no choice. They will not give him half vollies on the regular anymore.
    Last edited by Paddles; 6th July 2019 at 8:02 pm.

  20. Post
    #20
    <N> wrote:
    I think we'll wait to see the pitch before confirming a team. If it looks a belter (guess it will be), Munro simply has to play and be told to just go for it (someone drug him and tell him it's a T20).... butttt, that also plays into the dropping of CdG and putting Nicholls down at 6. If CdG plays ahead of Munro, he has to open. CdG only bowled 4 overs at this ground v Windies. I want to see Neesham with a license too, not having to rebuild at 6.

    Guptill, Munro, Williamson, Taylor, Latham, Nicholls, Neesham, Santner, Ferguson, Henry, Boult

    Kane will likely have to bowl a few, but other than that we'll be relying on the five bowlers bowling all their quotas.
    That team made me gag.

    If we reselect Munro then yeah...I don't know what I will do but it will be extreme.

  21. Post
    #21
    Paddles wrote:
    There's only been 2, yes 2, upset WC wins in cricket.

    83 India (Kapil Dev catch off Viv Rciahrds) and 87 Aus (Mike Valetta was their star! Mike Vellleta - and don't tell G Marsh was any good - he was ordinary - yes they had Boon, D Jones, Border, O'Donell and S Waugh - but still). Even the 1992 Pak team was very good on paper despite qualifying 4th and no Waqar. It was a star team. England were the favourites least everyone forget, despite it being in Aussie's backyard. And I put my money on SL in 1996 before the tournament started, Jaya, Kalu, Murali, Rana, Vaas, de Silva - easy for me in Asia to bet on...)

    The current top 3, Ind, Eng and Aus, were miles ahead of us and everyone else before the tournament, and all the tournament has done is prove this to be so.

    NZ with S Kugg, W Young and D Mitchell has things to try in the future, and the future is not bleak. But we just need to beat the odds, which are against us, radical changes are not the likely way forward with a squad with NO specialist batsman cover at all if Munro is rightly treated as a batting all-rounder. I don't buy into Blundell talk at all. At all.

    My expectations are 0. If NZ win this semi - I will elated, ecstatic, and celebrate. But regardless of who we play on paper on any given day from now on forward, we're not better than them. Not even closely.

    This WC is a much needed reality check (except we still made the semi's) that the team needs some fundamental changes. Relying on Boult, Taylor and KW to star is getting stale. Yes those 3 are walk up starters, but the entire XI needs a re-jig and to stop playing 2015 BMac ball with players on reputation being selected.

    The likes of Young, Mitchell and Kuggs will fill some of the current holes in time.

    On the plus side, Lockie Ferguson has impressed the hell out of me, and much more famous cricketing opinions than my own. He's been a star. Making the semis and Lockie standing up, I'll take that. Seriously. Tournament a bigger success than I hoped. Well done lads.

    I hoped for more from Latham and Neesham with the bat. I did. Guppie doesn't surprise me in the least. As some of you well know. He's one dimensional and teams have worked out his straight down the ground scoring zones. He has to start pulling again. He has no choice. They will not give him half vollies on the regular anymore.
    I Agree that selecting Blundell makes no sense.

    As I have posted a number of times New Zealand are a real threat to win this. We are better than the Windies and I think we are more consistent than a Pakistan team that blows hot and cold. We deserve to be 4th. If the Windies or Pakistan were playing Australia on tuesday then you would give them a 20% chance of winning. Well we are better than either of those teams. Not by a large margin but we are better. We have a 30% chance of winning. That is enough .
    The key's to the game are our star players playing like star players not hoping that Munro scores a century at a SR of 150 inside the first twenty overs. That is smoking Ganja talk. Cricket and all sports is about talking calculated risks. A calculated risk is one that has a 60% chance of coming off.
    Low probability tactics are what I call gambles.
    In MBA class we learned that there is a down side to every decision if it doesn't come off. No decision is harmless if it doesn't work. I want that to be read twice so I will bold it.
    The decision to bowl Mitchell Santner against England was a gamble as opposed to a calculated risk. When it didn't work it meant that the new ball was wasted and Tim had a limited chance of taking a wicket.
    In the first two games of the world cup we had no choice but to open with Munro. The decision to continue with him for 4 more games was a gamble and not a calculated risk.

    Where am I going with this. Our chances of winning are not based on how the fringe players go. Our selection criteria for the fringe players needs to be what fringe players will give Kane and Ross the most peace of mind going into the game. As opposed to who is the best fringe player or which fringe player is playing well. This opinion of mine is appropriate when you consider that all of the fringe player options have the same chance of success.
    Both Nicholls and Munro are as likely to fail as Blundell is.
    Let's pick the fringe player(s) who gives the team the most peace of mind. I would argue this is Nicholls since in theory he will last longer than the others and this should make the other top order players sleep better the night before. And that is what we are down to now - what team should we select to allow Ross, Trent, and Kane to sleep well the night before. And in my days playing getting a good nights sleep is a big part of how you play the next day.

    I can already feel the adrenaline rushing through my veins. And I am not playing. The blackcaps are New Zealanders. That means we are fighters. We will fight on Tuesday. And we may see something very special from one of our star players.

    There is a belief on this web site and amongst New Zealanders that Williamson is World Class. He is actually better than that. Kane is at the very peak of his powers and he is capable of anything. Be of heart about our chances of winning.
    Their is a weird thing as a batsman where you find it hard to score the highest score in the team multiple games in a row. it is draining and psychologically you feel like day off and dogging it unless someone else stands up.
    Kane and Ross will not feel like that for two off play off games.
    tl;dr - we can win. Get on board the train all of you.

  22. Post
    #22
    <N> wrote:
    I think we'll wait to see the pitch before confirming a team. If it looks a belter (guess it will be), Munro simply has to play and be told to just go for it (someone drug him and tell him it's a T20).... butttt, that also plays into the dropping of CdG and putting Nicholls down at 6. If CdG plays ahead of Munro, he has to open. CdG only bowled 4 overs at this ground v Windies. I want to see Neesham with a license too, not having to rebuild at 6.

    Guptill, Munro, Williamson, Taylor, Latham, Nicholls, Neesham, Santner, Ferguson, Henry, Boult

    Kane will likely have to bowl a few, but other than that we'll be relying on the five bowlers bowling all their quotas.
    Listening to Stead, he just wants the openers to play it safe so Kane isn't in so early....can't imagine Munro being that option

  23. Post
    #23
    wrighty wrote:
    I Agree that selecting Blundell makes no sense.

    As I have posted a number of times New Zealand are a real threat to win this. We are better than the Windies and I think we are more consistent than a Pakistan team that blows hot and cold. We deserve to be 4th. If the Windies or Pakistan were playing Australia on tuesday then you would give them a 20% chance of winning. Well we are better than either of those teams. Not by a large margin but we are better. We have a 30% chance of winning. That is enough .
    The key's to the game are our star players playing like star players not hoping that Munro scores a century at a SR of 150 inside the first twenty overs. That is smoking Ganja talk. Cricket and all sports is about talking calculated risks. A calculated risk is one that has a 60% chance of coming off.
    Low probability tactics are what I call gambles.
    In MBA class we learned that there is a down side to every decision if it doesn't come off. No decision is harmless if it doesn't work. I want that to be read twice so I will bold it.
    The decision to bowl Mitchell Santner against England was a gamble as opposed to a calculated risk. When it didn't work it meant that the new ball was wasted and Tim had a limited chance of taking a wicket.
    In the first two games of the world cup we had no choice but to open with Munro. The decision to continue with him for 4 more games was a gamble and not a calculated risk.

    Where am I going with this. Our chances of winning are not based on how the fringe players go. Our selection criteria for the fringe players needs to be what fringe players will give Kane and Ross the most peace of mind going into the game. As opposed to who is the best fringe player or which fringe player is playing well. This opinion of mine is appropriate when you consider that all of the fringe player options have the same chance of success.
    Both Nicholls and Munro are as likely to fail as Blundell is.
    Let's pick the fringe player(s) who gives the team the most peace of mind. I would argue this is Nicholls since in theory he will last longer than the others and this should make the other top order players sleep better the night before. And that is what we are down to now - what team should we select to allow Ross, Trent, and Kane to sleep well the night before. And in my days playing getting a good nights sleep is a big part of how you play the next day.

    I can already feel the adrenaline rushing through my veins. And I am not playing. The blackcaps are New Zealanders. That means we are fighters. We will fight on Tuesday. And we may see something very special from one of our star players.

    There is a belief on this web site and amongst New Zealanders that Williamson is World Class. He is actually better than that. Kane is at the very peak of his powers and he is capable of anything. Be of heart about our chances of winning.
    Their is a weird thing as a batsman where you find it hard to score the highest score in the team multiple games in a row. it is draining and psychologically you feel like day off and dogging it unless someone else stands up.
    Kane and Ross will not feel like that for two off play off games.
    tl;dr - we can win. Get on board the train all of you.
    Love seeeing you finally give Kane his due. Hope we celebrate Wednesday wrighty - but if not, I'm proud already.

  24. Post
    #24
    India confirmed

    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

  25. Post
    #25
    SA did us a solid there. Rate our chances against India far greater than Australia.