- Location
- Dorset, England
'It's the hope that kills you'. A mere 10 wickets, not a lot to ask for. Make that 9!But they didn't get their last bowling point, giving Hampshire back their chance - only it looks as though they will lose to Lancashire
'It's the hope that kills you'. A mere 10 wickets, not a lot to ask for. Make that 9!But they didn't get their last bowling point, giving Hampshire back their chance - only it looks as though they will lose to Lancashire
I was thinking the same myself. It would be rare to get 10 in an innings and not be man of the match, but you would have to give it to the Indian opener who has thrived when all others have struggled.Ajaz Patel! All ten wickets - against India, in India, in the first innings of the match. Extraordinary.
And they still look like losing by an innings. He might not even get MOTM!
I have always been a Henry fan. The English should know him well. He has never been given a decent run in tests and has often had to play in tough conditions such as Aussie from memory. He only gets in when someone else is indisposed for some reason.Guess it will forever be known as the Matt Henry test .
You’ll obviously be equally amazed this morning then Keith. A pathetic batting line up that knocked up 350 twice in a row. More than England managed all summer.South Africa have a pathetic batting line up, and certainly not good enough on a green track at Christchurch . Amazed they managed to beat India recently .
Yep, that was news to me too. To be fair, they've only been good for the past ten years or so and prior to that SA were out of test cricket for a very long time.Yes an amazing result considering this Test was played only a few yards from the wicket last week . Great innings from the new wicketkeeper who does have a good first class record, but the quality of this innings was completely unexpected ——-at least by me It’s really surprising that New Zealand have never beaten South Africa in a Test Series , either home or away !!
Or so.Am I reading that correctly?! NZ have only been good for the past 10 years.
So that would be any NZ team with Sir Richard Hadlee in the side.Or so.
I’m not talking “solid, half-decent or pretty good” but actually “a match for anybody”.
Yep, for about a three year spell in the mid eighties they were excellent. Hadlee played from 73-90 and apart from a little golden spell of three years they didn’t win a test series home or away. Unless you're going to count the infamous 1-0 Frank Goodhall series and 1-0 home series victories against then minnows Sri Lank and India.So that would be any NZ team with Sir Richard Hadlee in the side.
That’s not great Kevin. Why would they do that? I can see that in India or Australia it makes sense as the audience is large enough and sufficiently enamoured with the game to follow. Even in England I’m not sure that the move has been by any means entirely successful. Plenty of money into the game for sure, but the game is withering at the grassroots level as (I would venture) a direct result.It was a very poor performance from NZ, but obviously SA played very well. I didn't see any of it as I was away and cricket in NZ has been sold off to an obscure pay to view channel and hardly anyone gets to watch it anymore, which is not a good look for the sport. It is quite badly run in NZ.
Unfortunately it was the age old problems for NZ: one good win and they think they don't have to try next game, they believe all the hype written about them; a lack of openers - the openers combined scores over four goes was the lowest in the history of cricket; lack of a spinner; poor leadership etc. The best indication of their arrogance and poor leadership was their persistence at batting Southee at 9 ahead of batters who actually value their wicket and play proper shots.
They obviously miss Williamson, but it looks like they will have to get used to that, and SA were missing some key players as well.
Yes, a very strange decision Mark. Obviously based on very short term financial gain. The traditional pay to view sports channel here is sky, which most sporty people have. Spark are the new comers. They have cricket played in NZ, but Shy have the cricket played overseas, including NZ games overseas. So you can imagine that didn't please people. They even got the rugby world cup as a one off which further annoyed people. However they didn't do it well and several games ended up free to air because of the public outcry.That’s not great Kevin. Why would they do that? I can see that in India or Australia it makes sense as the audience is large enough and sufficiently enamoured with the game to follow. Even in England I’m not sure that the move has been by any means entirely successful. Plenty of money into the game for sure, but the game is withering at the grassroots level as (I would venture) a direct result.
We are 5 million but we certainly don't need that many.Wow, how many broadcasters do you need for a population of 4 million people? Seems crazy.