Jump to content

Are NZ the most massively overrated team in WC history?| Humility is not a one time lesson


MCGGG

Recommended Posts

Posted
At home ? We beat you 4-0 quite easily .
Confidence is good... Being delusional isn't. Smith, Clarke and Warner can smash our bowlers on any ground. Hopefully we'll run a strong pace attack by then including Aaron.
Posted
Confidence is good... Being delusional isn't. Smith' date=' Clarke and Warner can smash our bowlers on any ground. Hopefully we'll run a strong pace attack by then including Aaron.[/quote'] wtf? Same batting line up got white washed while touring india and got destroyed even against Pakistan. Even in England with hint of turn they collapsed they suck outside of their comfort job the great Michael Clarke was ***** of jadeja for whole series .
Posted
wtf? Same batting line up got white washed while touring india and got destroyed even against Pakistan. Even in England with hint of turn they collapsed they suck outside of their comfort job the great Michael Clarke was ***** of jadeja for whole series .
It was obvious that Australia was in the building stages in those series. Things were messed up, players were out of form etc. Their loss had little to do with home advantage.
Posted
It was obvious that Australia was in the building stages in those series. Things were messed up' date=' players were out of form etc. Their loss had little to do with home advantage.[/quote'] Or simpler explanation is you cannot play well outside of home ? Today was another example . Freaking india did better than Aussies in England tests in England :hysterical:
Posted
Or simpler explanation is you cannot play well outside of home ? Today was another example . Freaking india did better than Aussies in England tests in England :hysterical:
No, I think they lost against us because they were in bad form, not because of subcontinent conditions. Come on man, you're more knowledgeable about cricket than this. There is no way you can credit this loss to home advantage for New Zealand. Australia lost due to downright terrible batting and ridiculous shot selection. For the third time, remember last Ashes?
Posted
No, I think they lost against us because they were in bad form, not because of subcontinent conditions. Come on man, you're more knowledgeable about cricket than this. There is no way you can credit this loss to home advantage for New Zealand. Australia lost due to downright terrible batting and ridiculous shot selection. For the third time, remember last Ashes?
Yeah you win because you are best and lose always because out of form which co incidentally only happen when you seem to be away from that island .
Posted
Yeah you win because you are best and lose always because out of form which co incidentally only happen when you seem to be away from that island .
Isn't being out of form the main explanation for almost every loss? Australia lost at that time because many of their players were in terrible form. If they were playing in Australia at that time, that team would have still lost against India.
Posted
Yeah you win because you are best and lose always because out of form which co incidentally only happen when you seem to be away from that island .
i dont get this logic NZ batsmans failed because of great aussies bowling Aus batsmans failed because of poor shots, umpiring etc, NZ bowling was nothing special :rofl:
Posted
i dont get this logic NZ batsmans failed because of great aussies bowling Aus batsmans failed because of poor shots, umpiring etc, NZ bowling was nothing special :rofl:
You can't look at statistics and go "Wow, that is some amazing bowling!". Boult was gifted his wickets from stupid shots by the idiotic Australian batsman. He was bowling good, but nothing really special. Apart from McCullum, no one on the New Zealand team really were playing any really bad shots (even McCullum was playing very sensibly). Despite that, Starc and Cummins induced a collapse because they bowled really well. Forget umpiring. The only controversial decision was the Warner one and even if he was given not out, it probably wouldn't have changed much.
Posted
It's becoming too obvious now ..stop spoiling reputation of Aussies :hysterical:
Said this a long time ago, not his first time. But definitely made a better effort with this account.
Posted
You can't look at statistics and go "Wow, that is some amazing bowling!". Boult was gifted his wickets from stupid shots by the idiotic Australian batsman. He was bowling good, but nothing really special. Apart from McCullum, no one on the New Zealand team really were playing any really bad shots (even McCullum was playing very sensibly). Despite that, Starc and Cummins induced a collapse because they bowled really well. Forget umpiring. The only controversial decision was the Warner one and even if he was given not out, it probably wouldn't have changed much.
Mccullum, Guptill, taylor, anderson, Vettori none of them were great delieveries period.
Posted
Yeah you win because you are best and lose always because out of form which co incidentally only happen when you seem to be away from that island .
:laugh:
Posted
His real team or glory hunter team ? Both don't have chance :p
:phehehe:
We just got beaten 2-0... I'm scared of what will happen when they come to India with this team.
We were beaten 0-4 last time, guess what happened when we hosted them.
Posted
Clarke wasn't even playing much in the ODI format and Bailey had been leading them for a while. So why did he come back? To get a free ride on the shoulders of a strong team and grab world cup glory?
No idea, and it was especially moronic to bring him back against NZ. Said it before the game.:((

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...