Quote: (02-27-2015 11:20 PM)big poppa Wrote:  

Embarrassing loss for the Aussies.. I don't see them bouncing back from here. They will make the finals and probably the Semis, but that will be all.

This world cup is NZ's or South Africa's to lose.

I've been watching this game too long to ever write off the Aussies .... or to be eternally optimistic about NZ.

2 quick wickets...this is going to be fun

Aaah, I only wish Australia had made 30-40 runs more. NZ at 145/7. NZ will win for sure, but it would've been so much fun watching if they had to make more than 7 runs to win.

Ohh shit, 146 for 8.

I may be heavily biased, but I still consider cricket the most fun game to watch.

OMFG 146-9!!!!

What a game. NZ miscalculated this completely...

Kane is just stuck watching from the other end...

Holy crap...

NZ'ers must be shitting their pants right now

Quote: (02-28-2015 01:27 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

NZ'ers must be shitting their pants right now

I don't get it.... how the fuck is this happening??!!

Done. Nice one boys.

What a match

I'm a fucking nervous wreck right now.

Not going to lie, after the come back Australia made, I was kinda hoping they'd win.

Quote: (02-28-2015 01:32 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

Not going to lie, after the come back Australia made, I was kinda hoping they'd win.

I still think Aus where overwhelmingly outplayed in this one. Baz miscalculated how lazy some of the middle order guys would be.

Great dismissive statement 6 by Kane at the fend there. Those Starc wickets started to remind me of Malinga's 4 off 4 vs SA though.

Quote: (02-28-2015 01:38 AM)Horus Wrote:  

Quote: (02-28-2015 01:32 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

Not going to lie, after the come back Australia made, I was kinda hoping they'd win.

Hahah, sorry. I'm a sucker for underdogs (which admittedly Australia were after their batting was done). That's the thing I love about cricket. I don't think people appreciate the fact that having a 100 overs (total for ODI) means you have to play well consistently. In comparison, if you look at games like soccer, a flash of brilliance from one player at any given time can win the game. A flash of brilliance in cricket is a boundary or a wicket, but with 10 wickets and usually 200+ runs, you need consistent good playing to win.

After watching this, it is clear that the world cup is Australia's for the taking.

NZ cannot bat deep like Australia can and to be fair, Australia were rusty and had some pretty bad shot selection, this was a sleepy Australia.

NZ need their 4, 5 and 6 batsmen firing if they want to do well in the knockout stages.

NZ should not have struggled in their own turf, sure they won, but it could have been easily lose.

Starc was amazing.

Quote: (02-28-2015 01:46 AM)Lucario Wrote:  

After watching this, it is clear that the world cup is Australia's for the taking.

NZ cannot bat deep like Australia can and to be fair, Australia were rusty and had some pretty bad shot selection.

NZ need their 4, 5 and 6 batsmen firing if they want to do well in the knockout stages.

NZ should not have struggled in their own turf.

Starc was amazing.

After watching this, it is clear that any predictions are worthless. The only prediction I would make is that Australia will win if they make the final in Melbourne.

Real serious question though: how do you guys feel about the incorporation of technology in cricket? Personally, I love the fact that teams can appeal decisions (+ I love the LEDs on the stumps + Snicko).

I know soccer's been super reluctant to incorporate technology for fear of ruining the game.

Quote: (02-28-2015 01:42 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

Quote: (02-28-2015 01:38 AM)Horus Wrote:  

Quote: (02-28-2015 01:32 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

Not going to lie, after the come back Australia made, I was kinda hoping they'd win.

Hahah, sorry. I'm a sucker for underdogs (which admittedly Australia were after their batting was done). That's the thing I love about cricket. I don't think people appreciate the fact that having a 100 overs (total for ODI) means you have to play well consistently. In comparison, if you look at games like soccer, a flash of brilliance from one player at any given time can win the game. A flash of brilliance in cricket is a boundary or a wicket, but with 10 wickets and usually 200+ runs, you need consistent good playing to win.

Don't be sorry. I meant that NZ dodged a bullet. Watching this game, where the tides seemed to turn every 10 overs, and in the end went down to the line .... it is evidence for me that cricket is the world's greatest game.

Edit: And you can have flashes of brilliance that win games in cricket. Sparc was a good example today - he came close to turning the game upside down.

Quote: (02-28-2015 01:55 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

Real serious question though: how do you guys feel about the incorporation of technology in cricket? Personally, I love the fact that teams can appeal decisions (+ I love the LEDs on the stumps + Snicko).

I know soccer's been super reluctant to incorporate technology for fear of ruining the game.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-26/ir...ce/6264986

Highlights here. Fuck you if you if you think baseball is a superior game.

damn, UAE out for 102.

Clinical by India. India has been winning games with disciplined fast bowling laying the pressure and platform out for a spin trap. You wouldn't think a spni trap could be set up in Australia, but they've got what other teams are lacking.

That's one of the reasons I like the NZ side with Vettori. Brings variety.

Would love to see Rohit and Shikhar playing freely and try to knock these runs down. They shouldn't even care if they get out trying to score.