Posted by 
When New Zealand played Australia, the bowlers won and cricket was all the better for it. Runs are not a sensible unit of measurement when gauging the value of the ‘product’.
AB de Villiers is a genius and deserves every plaudit that comes his way, but Kane Williamson’s 45 off 42 balls pisses all over his 162 off 66 balls earlier in the week.
Okay, maybe that’s unfair because de Villiers’ knock was also match-deciding in its own way and could only have been delivered by a truly freakish talent. We’re just pointing out that in many ways Williamson’s innings belongs in the same category.
What’s the value of a six? It’s not six runs. That doesn’t explain it because runs don’t have a set value. A run takes its value from the context in which it is scored.
When Brendon Taylor hit a six against the West Indies earlier in the week, those runs represented around 1.6 per cent of Zimbabwe’s target total. Not very exciting. When Kane Williamson hit a six today, those runs represented about 4 per cent of New Zealand’s target total.
So twice as valuable? No, because we didn’t properly assess the context there. Taylor’s came in a run-chase that was always destined for failure and so, measured by what really matters, it was all-but-pointless. In contrast, Williamson’s came with New Zealand needing six runs to win, against Australia, with only one wicket in hand.
A mishit and New Zealand’s bitter rivals would have won. A four and Australia still could have won. That’s when a six is a ‘maximum’ – when it delivers maximum impact.
He really Kaned that final ball!
(exits to rapturous booing)
I’m just wondering if that match could have been improved on in any way, and i’m thinking not. Just list the high points:
1. Australia got beaten
.
.
.
.
2. Oh, I know, it got a bit exciting towards the end.
Anyway, according to the skipper, the reason they lost was because of their aggressive mindset. In other words, when you win it’s because of your aggressive mindset, when you lose it’s due to your aggressive mindset. Novice cricket watchers might be confused into thinking that an aggressive mindset just makes the result random.
It could have been improved by not finishing before I was awake. Although I suppose you might not find that entirely objective.
Who in their right mind would take a 350+ score over that game?
Also, I’m probably in the minority on this one, but give me low-scoring games on grounds with small boundaries. Make every single an achievement.
The advertisers?That game barely lasted 50 overs. Terrible for the bottom line.
Do you follow women’s cricket, Dan? Many of the games are like that.
With Martin Crowe taking his bow in the break Kane Williamson really HAD to hit that six. “Literally” is a terribly abused word, but here goes… Martin Crowe is literally living for this tournament. One moment for me… as he walked off Eden Park there it was, that studied swagger. The balance, the rhythm, the poise. No shuffling away to leg for the great man. Martin Crowe made his test debut when I was 9. Heroes don’t get much bigger than 9 year old boys’ heroes.
Martin Crowe
England plumbing new depths. Impressed that they are still able to find them.
If I was Tredwell I’d have gone home by now.
High quality plumbing unquestionably required. But will we flush properly once have finished this shit?
I thought 309 was a decent enough score, but Daisy thought it was well short. Now I have woken up to a Sunday morning earful of “told you so”. That attitude does not bode well for this morning’s tennis fixture.
I’m not happy.
Yes, they won vs a good Aus team, but if anything, it showed up an NZ weakness – they haven’t shown how they can construct a run-chase. Going all guns blazing vs Eng was OK, weak bowling, only 112 to chase. But against better sides, going for shots early to chase only 151 was foolish.
They don’t take a low risk, almost boring, approach. I’ve seen Indian chase chase 150s and 200s and 300s; they manage the game to the score. Over 300 means they are more aggressive in the beginning; less than 300, they are more cautious. No point taking needless risks when you can take 5-6 singles an over. Doesn’t matter the score, keep the score ticking at required rate, wickets in hand and finish the job in 45-48 overs. Even if the score is 150 or 200, they will take 40-45 overs; why risk wickets.
NZ should have seen off the new balls and singled Aus to death. Instead, went for 6s and 4s, lost wickets, exposed the tail and almost lost. The other NZ batsmen should have been less McCullum and more Willamson.