To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Cookies may be used for personalisation of ads. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Posted by 
Dan Vettori thoroughly justifying my comment that he’d have an enormous effect.
What a match, though. What a match. Featuring plenty of shoddyness under pressure, married with brilliant skills. Absolute blinder.
for matches where rain interrupts the first innings, I would prefer that 1st batting team get atleast 10 overs after the last interruption. For ex, SA could have batted on for 50 overs and NZ could have been asked to chase the D/L target in 36 overs.
That reduces the statistical prediction errors, i.e. how bad is Corey Anderson and how good is AB De Villiers etc…
(excuse the double post. made a typo in my mail-id)
There is no doubt in my mind that the rain that interrupted South Africa’s innings was a massive help to New Zealand and played a key role in the outcome
would have preferred SA to bat on for 50 overs and NZ chase it in 37 overs
that way it reduces the statistical prediction errors, could ABDeV had cashed in on Corey Anderson etc?
Yes, I agree with this. The adjusted D/L target seemed to be just a guess. There was no way anybody could have known how many South Africa would have scored in their remaining overs if it hadn’t rained.
On another note, what I like about New Zealand is you get the impression if they win the tournament they won’t get too carried away. Particularly McCullum, he seems like a very balanced and down-to-earth sort.
What’s the official policy/editorial stance/consensus here about this, presumably it’s for not Australia to win?
NewZealand will win and Baz will carry Vettori on his broad shoulders around MCG
Bowler-centric approach, joyously irresponsible but hugely influential batting from the captain and likeable blokes from one to eleven. Clearly – CLEARLY – we’re behind New Zealand.
That said, India have won us over quite a bit during this tournament. Again, it’s the emphasis on the bowling, but also the blunt refusal to be even slightly disheartened or distracted by the fact that they’d spent the previous three months losing cricket matches in Australia.
Totally with you, KC, I have been rooting for the Kiwis ever since the last of the home nations got eliminated.
Tomorrow I shall be rooting for India to get to the final.
Before anyone points this out, btw, I note that colloquialism “rooting” has a completely different meaning in Australian, but I am manifestly not rooting for them in either sense of the term:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rooting
India and Australia have both been in World Cup finals before – they are used to the big stage. That counts for quite a bit.
It does.
People keep saying this and I’m not really sure how it’s supposed to work. Do Australia benefit from having watched the 1999 final on TV? Do India feel more confident because Viv Richards mistimed a hook in 1983?
Watson, Clarke, Kohli, Dhoni and Raina have played in World Cup finals before. The other 19 or 20 players on the field Sunday will be playing in their first. I doubt experience on the big stage will have a ton to do with it.
Maybe not Australia so much, but India also played last year’s World T20 final and won the Champions Trophy the year before that.
“McCullum, he seems like a very balanced and down-to-earth sort.”
yeah Mad-Mac is suddenly drawing comparisons to Ranatunga of SL-96 vintage and I wonder if History-of-sorts will repeat itself…
I hope so, I really do. NZ are my last hopes of a not-Australia winner of the CWC.
The bum-out, flatfooted reach and jab accounts for about half of Dan Vettori’s international runs. The other half being bum out, arched back, one footed spasms to leg. I love Dan Vettori and am rooting for him. Anyway you like, Ged. We root in NZ too. Much man love happening down this way just at the moment.
after playing 82 fantastic overs of near perfect knockout stage cricket it is sad that the saffers choked in the last 4 overs. I didn’t want to think it let alone say it out loud, but re-watch those last 3 overs and 5 balls, and it’s there for all to see; they bottled it in time honoured fashion
the difference between Proteas & Kiwis was that McCullum was totally committed to his agressive approach knowing fully well that there is a huge risk of defeat. Whereas SA are like the batsman who commits too late to the shot and ends-up mis-hitting the shot.
that is because NZ have only 1 option and they have to embrace that patch completely, risks & all, whereas SA having multiple options tried to choose the safer where there is a lesser risk of losing… and ended up losing.
In Poker terms McCullum went all-in and turned out he had the bigger hand in this instance