Pakistani Tour of New Zealand, Dec-Feb 2010/11

[Slowcoach]

Yorkers are not wicket taking balls in the slog overs, they are dug out for singles.
Length balls are wicket taking balls, it's why they bowl them in 20/20s.
So a half volley has more chance of taking a wicket than a yorker, unless the batsman is a total idiot and prepared to just give away his wicket.

----------

I wouldn't call Southee "useless", he's taken two fives this tour, and was very unlucky in the tests.

It's all relative.
I am talking about "nothing players" who rarely if ever win games for their team.

 

[ferg512]

Yeah but with length balls you are pretty likely to go for 10-15 and take a wicket, the only balls you should really use are slower bouncer, bouncer, yorker and wide yorker.

 

[CG123]

I take back what I said about Styris...

 

[-D-S-B-]

Don't bring on Styris! He's a medium pace trundler, not suited to death bowling! WTF

----------

Why bring on Styris? Honestly, why? Do we want to lose?

 

[ferg512]

I take back what I said about Styris...

Me too but at least he still could get a wicket.

 

[Slowcoach]

So you know more about cricket than international cricketers?
Sure, they get some things wrong, but why do you think they stick to "conventional wisdom" more often than not?
"Conventional wisdom" is what it is because it is based on a history of observation, and as most things have already been tested in the history of cricket, it is risky or stupid to turn your back on this history and take a 100 to 1 gamble instead of a 3 to 1 gamble.

Whoopdy do, Styris nails a big scalp, the almighty Wahab Riaz, tailender extraordinaire (after conceding 10 off his first two balls).

 

[ferg512]

Haha knew it!!

----------

Pretty poor stuff from Southee

 

[Slowcoach]

So, Styris claims a wicket, while handing Pakistan the runs they need to just take it easy and get across the line with 2 balls to spare.
And the wicket proves to mean absolutely nothing in the final analysis.

 

[CG123]

Whoopdy do, Styris nails a big scalp, the almighty Wahab Riaz, tailender extraordinaire (after conceding 10 off his first two balls).

Well now Southee has gone for 8 off his first two balls, against an almighty tailender.

So not much difference really.

 

[Slowcoach]

Well now Southee has gone for 8 off his first two balls, against an almighty tailender.

So not much difference really.

Except that Sohail Tanvir has more first class centuries than half the players in NZs top 6.
Ok, I may have been stretching the truth a bit, but you get the message.

 

[ferg512]

So you know more about cricket than international cricketers?
Sure, they get some things wrong, but why do you think they stick to "conventional wisdom" more often than not?
"Conventional wisdom" is what it is because it is based on a history of observation, and as most things have already been tested in the history of cricket, it is risky or stupid to turn your back on this history and take a 100 to 1 gamble instead of a 3 to 1 gamble.
.

I can't quite see what you're getting at. Southee is bowling length atm and look whats happening. Lasith Malinga and Umar Gul are not the best death bowlers because they bowl length balls.

 

[CG123]

So, Styris claims a wicket, while handing Pakistan the runs they need to just take it easy and get across the line with 2 balls to spare.
And the wicket proves to mean absolutely nothing in the final analysis.

Not really, they still needed 13 off 12, with a tailender facing.

It's the start of Southee's over which has lost the game.

 

[ferg512]

Tanvir is actually a pretty decent batsman, he has played some pretty good knocks in the past iirc.

 

[Slowcoach]

When you only need 13 off 12 balls it only takes 2 shots to "win" the game.

 

[CG123]

Except that Sohail Tanvir has more first class centuries than half the players in NZs top 6.
Ok, I may have been stretching the truth a bit, but you get the message.

Well Wahib was ahead of him, so yeah.