Hadlee - Chappell 2009

Still... Despite all his swingin and missin last night, I have to eat some humble pie and admit that Elliot isn't such a waste of space after all...

One wonders if there's any room left for Styris to come back into the team...

http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/ausvnz2008/content/current/story/390882.html

"Nathan Bracken proved Australia's most effective bowler, despite going wicketless, and credited part of his success to modern technology. Bracken was wired up to Channel Nine as part of the network's coverage, and listened closely to the commentators' assessment of the final over.

"Having the commentators in my ear telling me exactly how many they needed and trying to work out what I was bowling was a real help," he said. "I was alright until I was half-way in and I could hear the commentators saying I'd better not bowl a no-ball or a wide. It probably wasn't where I wanted the last ball, but I knew we had enough."



I wondered about this last night. Surely the commentators aren't allowed to help the players in this sort of way??? In ODI's the players are forbidden to listen to the commentary but I noticed several moments last night where the commentators appeared to assist the Australian players by giving them advice.

1. Cameron White while batting gets advice from Healy about how to deal to the bowler (can't remember who it was) bowling full deliveries by spearing it into his feet by opening up his stance and hitting through midwicket. Next ball White gets a low full toss into his feet and he opens up his stance and cracks it over midwicket for six.

2. Gilchrist gets into Bracken's ear during his second spell to inform him that the rain is coming and he should keep an eye on the par score. Something the players would not have been aware of on the field, especially the batsmen who would have been incredibly advantaged by being aware of any incoming rain. As it turned out it didn't rain but my point stands.

3. Bracken bowling the last over gets all sorts of tips from the Healy on where to bowl to the NZ batsmen. Admittedly, some of this was in jest and wasn't that helpful but the intention of the commentators was clear. Give the Australian players an advantage.


Now I'm a fan of having the players miced up for some great insights into their thinking and the way they view the game but surely this is crossing the line? In previous years, the commentators were more than happy just to get insights into how the players were thinking and it tied into the more light hearted nature of T20. These days the game is being taken a lot more seriously so surely some regulations have to come into effect?

Yeah we were pretty bemused watching the game too man. I thought it was horrible! Aussies taking it to a new level once again.



gc.

omg

I didn't watch the game but that fucks me off something terrible.

Telling the Aussies about the incoming rain was pretty off I thought. I don't think the commentators should be giving any advice. They should restrict to talking to on field players about what has just happened or what they plan to do, not make suggestions on what they should be doing.

Note that it was all coming from Healy. Tosser.

Well there was a moment when they were talking to Bracken where they asked what he was going to do next, he said 'Any advice?' and they gave him some.

Thought that was a bit off.

I've emailed the Herald, we'll see if the local media picks up on it and it anything happens from that.

Yeah that commentary shit was shocking!

Series overall was a bit of a let-down imo, so dissappointing how despite all the controversy, the fact we were at one stage 2-0 up, it was the weakest Aussie side in years and even with all the opportunities we had in front of us we still completely failed to put them away. Simply not good enough imo.

The only thing that stopped us putting it away was the rain on Friday. I def think we can take alot out of this series, a far cry from not good enough, which is pretty harsh Grinder. We have spotted a couple of good players, and the future of NZ cricket looks alot brighter than it did 6 months ago. I would say the series was a success, we were never going to take it 5-0, we are'nt that talented, but we showed the classic kiwi team unit, fielded well, and had a simple game plan that worked well when we executed it. Out with Fulton and in with Ryder, Oram as a batsmen, and see you later Styris imo. And meh the 20/20 last night, still means nothing to me, the Britney Spears of cricket can fuck off, though it is clearly influencing ODI cricket.

Oh yeah, and that commentary shit, WTF! As soon as he asked Healy where to hit Vettori it should have been stopped. Fuckin Aussies, may the Africans greenwash them.

Exactly! The immediate future of NZ cricket looked especially bleak 6 months ago, but there is definitely a lot to look forward to now.




Also, Ian Healy can fuck off and die.

Yeah, the only negative thing I'd say is there were some very "New Zealand" performances in there... despite all the new talent, we still make games a lot closer than they should be, and lose games we should win. I guess that'll never change tho.

On Twenty20: I really like it. I get to watch the whole game (even without timezone problems, I rarely get time to watch a whole day's cricket anymore... altho I'd rather make room for Test cricket than ODIs).. and the games are usually a lot closer these days.

If you were watching as a neutral, only the first game of the ODIs would be that exciting. Game 2 - 4 were basically over after about 10 overs of the second innings (altho game 2 we again made it seem a bit tighter at the end, but would've really struggled to lose from there). Game 5 might've been close if not for the rain. And this is pretty typical for ODI series these days. The batting powerplay has made things a bit more interesting, but I think the format is just a bit worn out.

And anyway, you're completely blind if you can't see that Twenty20 is the future. If you want "real" cricket, with all it's tactics, and twists and turns, watch Tests. If you want big hits and close finishes, watch Twenty20. ODIs just don't fit anywhere - it's the worst of both worlds in a lot of ways.

Dunno... I still prefer ODI's for the shorter format. In T20, it's too easy for a team to fall out of contention early and the game is over. In ODI's there i still plenty of time for the game to change many times. It offers a more intriguing contest. T20's reward the woggers. Sorry. That ain't cricket.

Exactly what people said when ODIs first came out... as I said, if you want real cricket, watch Tests.

And I don't buy that teams can't get back into the game in Twenty20... the game has twists and turns still, it's just they unfold a lot quicker... the game at the weekend as a good example, Aus's innings had a good start, then NZ came back into it, and Aus finished off quite well (but not amazingly well)... Then NZ started off poorly, rebuilt well, got to a winning position, and lost it due to a brilliant catch and some good bowling.

I think a lot of ODI games give the impression that once side can come back or is coming back, but in reality it's jsut getting dragged out for a few more hours till we reach the foregone conclusion.

Anyway, all this is irrelevant. It's all about what TV audiences want (and what TV companies believe they can market). And Twenty20 is the ideal package for them, as far as cricket is concerned. It's more about the length of the game than anything. We have to work hard to make sure Test cricket is protected, but at some point we have to accept we don't have the resources to protect ODIs, so if they're not making money, we have to de-prioritise them.

So you might as well learn to like Twenty20, because it'll be around a long time.

I think there's room for all three.

YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST.



gc.

I'm more than happy with all 3... I'm just saying, the reality is, Twenty20 is the most important for crowds/TV. Test cricket is most important to keep cricket unique. ODIs might run out of steam.

Just how old are you dude?

Yeah there were definitely some positives - we blooded some of the most promising new players NZ has seen for some time, but ultimately ->


This.

On game formats, 50 overs/limited is still by far and away my preferred of the three. Twenty20 is cool but it still seems like a bit of a pisstake, especially with this interviewing-the-players-on-field bullshit.

werd.

Though, i guess, there would have been just as many people who deplored the introduction of overarm bowling back in the day.
The essence of cricket for me though is the epic psycological battled, with oneself and the opposition. There is still an element of that in ODI, but not in 20/20 imo.
Want big hits? Watch baseball, have a hot dog and 2 litre coke while your at it. I'll be on the bank with a pimms and a ploughmans thanks, watching the field settings and feeling the pressure mount from 13 consecutive dot balls.

Big hits = baesball? lol. Have you been to a baseball game before? FWIW Baseball is actually a massively pschological battle between bat and ball. and in 18 innings baseball games the big hits are few and far between

Im not sure T20 strictly rewards "woggers" as such...more like innovators/thinking players-esp bowlers. The T-20 game is actually very VERY similair to ODI imo, only adjustment I would make is making every side bowled out after 7/8 wickets fell. Thus creating specialist bowlers that dont bat.....but I know that *everyone* HATES that idea so Im not holding my breath

btw....Jacque Kallis doesnt average 55-odd in test cricket by feeling pressure after 13 dot balls I assume that comment was reserved for ODI's...which JK sux@. imo. most of the time. etc

Yeah he really sux at it with his 45 avg, over 10K runs and more than 250 wickets!

I agree, they're pretty similar... Limited overs cricket is about entertainment, about bringing the game to the masses. So we should go with the format that provides the most entertainment while still being a reasonable contest (i.e. not too much luck involved). Twenty20's already proven that it fits that criteria.

I usually find people who don't like Twenty20 prefer ODIs over Test cricket. To these people, ODIs are cricket... they might take an interest in Test cricket, but don't really follow it that closely. I think this is a bad thing: Test cricket is the only "real" cricket. ODIs were invented for the same reason Twenty20 was - to provide entertainment. They are and always have been a cut down version of cricket created for a wider audience.

Things have changed a lot in the years since ODIs... TV money has become *massive*.. and the usual maximum spot for any sporting match is 3.5 hours. Martin Crowe did the same calculations as they did in England and figure out that 20 overs a side would fit into that slot.

But now people who've grown up not really appreciating Test cricket find they have a lesser version of the game. People who do appreciate Test cricket are used to that, because we always felt ODIs were a lesser form of the game, and we've always had them (at least in my lifetime), and I still enjoy them. So Twenty20s are no big deal to us. But those who are mainly into ODIs tend to look down their nose at Twenty20s.

I'm kind of hoping that those people will move to Test cricket as ODIs begin to die (as they surely will, and possibly sooner than we think). There's always the risk that they leave cricket altogether, but in the long run, I think it'll be better to have a clearer separation between "real" cricket and "entertainment" cricket.

If you look at the history of cricket, it's seen massive change. And it's been succesful because it's changed with the times. I think that will happen now, so you may as well accept it.

lol @ me posting extremely drunk and adding a blindingly obvious wind up in there I still managed to make *some* sense though, .....and hey wasnt JK once dumped from the SA ODI side via dissatifaction in his ability to score quickly enough/bat for the team? idk. Records arent everything, Chris Cairns has a very respectable ODI and test record and he spent most of his career dissapointing me

No he was dropped from the 20/20 side! and because of how they did that he quit as vice-captain of the ODI team. plonker.

O REALLY

I do apologize *bow*