• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

1st Semi Final - New Zealand v South Africa (24th March)

Who will win this match?


  • Total voters
    57
  • Poll closed .

HeathDavisSpeed

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Right then, I guess I should post my thoughts on the game.

Firstly the venue. I've been to Eden Park a number of times for the rugby; both before and after the latest redevelopment, but haven't seen cricket there at all (that I can remember). We were supposedly in the cheap seats and I was prepared for a poor view, but reality was much to the contrary. The view was fantastic. Top tier, side on with a perfect view down the crease line - so good, in fact, that I'm pretty sure that I saw a Morkel no-ball that the umpire didn't pick up. My only confusion is as to which way we were facing. This confusion was solved towards the end of the day when the setting sun was in our faces - clearly we were on the East side of the ground. So, fantastic seats. The let down, unfortunately, was in poor crowd management in the rain break. I have some sympathy as modern stadia are designed to allow easy entry and exit, but not for a whole 40,000 to mill around going nowhere. This inevitably led to a crush during which time my wife & baby were separated from the rest of the group and nearly crushed if it wasn't for her receiving some assistance from a random stranger (Cheers to that guy!). The other annoyance was how early the alcohol sales were restricted. Yeah, there were pissed people around but not everyone. I managed to get 1 beer in all day (mainly as I was baby wrangling for the first innings) and then sales were restricted from the start of the 2nd and ceased entirely after about 10 overs.

The crowd was good - and pretty well behaved. There were some amusing drunk guys in front of us who exclaimed "I'm Okay with That!" every time a single was run by the New Zealanders. There was a big group of people of Indian ethnicity to our right, all supporting New Zealand. Quiet as church mice until the last 10 overs when they started to get pretty excited too. In response to someone in the thread who kind of implied that NZ cricket crowds don't attract poor quality fans in the same way the rugby does... Well, there was a guy in a hipster straw hat a couple of rows in front of us (I thought he was in his 20s from behind given his clothes, but he actually turned out to be much older - old enough to go better) basically spent the whole of the Anderson-Elliott partnership complaining that they weren't hitting it hard enough. **** like "They keep hitting it to the fielders. They should go over the top!" or "We need more than singles now!" and more besides. A particular highlight being "If Elliott doesn't start to hit some more boundaries then this loss on his head AND HIS HEAD ALONE DAMMIT". The friend he was with was very quiet throughout and perhaps a little embarrassed to be associated with him. There were some reasonably vocal South African fans nearby who got involved in a friendly way in some crowd banter (but disappeared sharpish as soon as the final runs were scored). So, overall, the atmosphere was great. Even the annoying chap in front turned into an entertaining topic of conversation for the rest of us, so great.

Now to the game. I'd love to see how my blood pressure was. I'm not a great watcher of important matches. The nerves start jangling, the heart starts racing. I don't bite my nails at all, but I just find it hard to watch. This game, I watched the whole thing unfold. Mainly leaning forward, elbows on knees, nervously stroking my chin. Ack. At times, I tried to calm myself down by analysing the field settings - seeing what were the high value shots on offer and then trying to work out what plan the skipper was working on. In particular, I remember in the final 5 or so overs where AB de Villiers routinely left the cover boundary open, looking to invite the drive and perhaps encourage the edge. Towards the end though (I think in Morkel's final over), Elliott was able to exploit this gap and crack a four. One thing I really liked from de Villiers was bringing on Tahir early. I thought Guptill would struggle with him, and he did. Of course, McCullum wouldn't enjoy facing enjoy facing Tahir anywhere near as much as the quicks either. Perhaps he should have kept Tahir on for another over, even though McCullum was dismissed given how much Guptill struggled with Tahir in his first over. The Guptill run out - what was the consensus here? Surely that was Guptill's call to make, so when the papers have been laying the blame at Taylor's door, isn't that a little bit harsh?

Wow. McCullum though. That run chase wouldn't have been possible without that early assault. Without that innings, then Guptill, Taylor, Elliott and Anderson would have had to take many, many more risks in those middle overs. I was very keen for the MOTM award to go to McCullum for setting up the run chase and immediately cancelling out the advantage that Miller's innings had given South Africa. Steyn, Morkel and Philander are all excellent bowlers - regardless of whether you think they bowled to their best in this match. McCullum hit them all. Immediately disrupted the line and length they wanted to bowl. Some people thought that McCullum might dial things down a bit against the South African bowling attack, but oh no.

And coming into that last 10 overs - it was all going too well, so something had to go wrong. Even if it disproved the guy in the straw hat's belief in hitting over the top being the way to winning, Anderson's dismissal still didn't stop him going on about it being the way that Elliott had to bat. And from then on, it was brown trousers time. Until that 6. The side on view sometimes made it difficult to tell immediately whether a ball had been hit straight up in the air or was sailing over the square boundaries, but that winning six - well, we had a perfect view of it and the stand erupted in euphoria.

What a game! Now, I'm not a fan of Auckland, but this time it was absolutely well worth the trip.
 

viriya

International Captain
Philander averages **** all against NZ, and is a superb Test bowler and Guptill sucks against Test bowling.

He actually bowled better than Steyn and had a superb spell in the middle.

I wouldve selected Abbott before the match but I doubt it would've effected the result.
That Philander first over vs McCullum was a huge momentum swing - it showed that he needed an over or two to settle down. Abbott would've been on the money right from the start, and I disagree that a bowler who's been going at 14 @ 4 in the tournament would not have made a difference.

Doesn't matter now though.

SA would've won if they were more chill at the end.. In trying to not underperform, they "overperformed" - in that players were trying too hard. AB rushed the runout, De Kock rushed the Rossouw throw, Duminy/Behardien forgot about calling for the catch and went for glory - all cases of players trying too hard.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
I suspect Duminy couldn't hear Berhardien's call, tbf. I expect that Eden Park by that point was incredibly loud, to an extent that TV doesn't accurately capture and transmit.

Duminy should have been aware of where Berhardien was, and not knowing that was a brain fade on his part, but I certainly don't think it was Duminy intentionally going for glory or anything.
 

Gilly Fan

U19 12th Man
I suspect Duminy couldn't hear Berhardien's call, tbf. I expect that Eden Park by that point was incredibly loud, to an extent that TV doesn't accurately capture and transmit.

Duminy should have been aware of where Berhardien was, and not knowing that was a brain fade on his part, but I certainly don't think it was Duminy intentionally going for glory or anything.
If you want to get an understanding of how loud the crowd was, watch the final ball again. The crowd noise is so loud that it actually breaks the microphones and it becomes all crackly. Only a couple of times have I ever heard that in my life watching sport. Once was when YNWA was sung at the MCG when Liverpool visited Australia (which could be heard apparently from a couple kilometres away) and another is at the Australia Open when Kyrgios beat Seppi (and the stadium was literally shaking so much that advertising was falling off the walls). Fortunately I attended both events live, hopefully the game is similar on Sunday so we can get a comparable atmosphere.
 
Last edited:

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah at Eden Park the spectators are very, very close to the pitch, and the seats go up vertically much more than other stadiums, so the crowd feels really packed into the stadium and it gets incredibly loud.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Miss watching WC matches live. Really is an unbelievable experience. Being there at Wankhede in 2011 is not something I can even attempted to describe. You guys should savour every moment.
 

Niall

International Coach
Philander averages **** all against NZ, and is a superb Test bowler and Guptill sucks against Test bowling.

He actually bowled better than Steyn and had a superb spell in the middle.

I wouldve selected Abbott before the match but I doubt it would've effected the result.


Abbot had taken 9 wickets in the world cup at an average of 14, Philander was nowhere near fit and has always been a so-so ODI bowler, he did improve but it was clear he was rushed back to early.

The first over of Philander was a massive momentum swing, he had to be hidden away until Mc Cullum was gone.

Abbot is a gun opening bowler and crucially unlike Vern can actually bowl at the death.

It definitely had a bearing on the result.

Not New Zealand's fault, Vern was playing, but they definitely benefited due to it.

Would have been amazing to see how Mc Cullum would have handled Abbot opening, lets not forget he stuck the West Indies hitters and Lanka hitters in his pocket the last few weeks,
 
Last edited:

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Abbot had taken 9 wickets in the world cup at an average of 14, Philander was nowhere near fit and has always been a so-so ODI bowler, he did improve but it was clear he was rushed back to early.

The first over of Philander was a massive momentum swing, he had to be hidden away until Mc Cullum was gone.

Abbot is a gun opening bowler and crucially unlike Vern can actually bowl at the death.

It definitely had a bearing on the result.

Not New Zealand's fault, Vern was playing, but they definitely benefited due to it.

Would have been amazing to see how Mc Cullum would have handled Abbot opening, lets not forget he stuck the West Indies hitters and Lanka hitters in his pocket the last few weeks,
Lot's of could'ves and would'ves tbh, I mean I would've selected Abbott ahead of Philander as well, but let's not pretend it would've been surprising seeing McCullum smashing Abbott around. He's given better bowlers than him tap.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
Abbott would almost certainly have bowled better than Philander based in current form and made a 10-15 run difference and claimed a wicket or two. I knew SL were ****ed when they picked him for the quarters, the non-selection for the semis after that made no ****ing sense whatsoever.
SL weren't ****ed because SA picked Abbott. SL were ****ed because they keep trying to be too cute making unnecessary changes to their own lineup in crunch matches. Matthews needs to be his own man because those changes had the Sanga/Mahela stamp all over them. They did it in 2011 and they did it again.
 
Last edited:

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
SL weren't ****ed because SA picked Abbott. SL were ****ed because they keep trying to be too cute making unnecessary changes to their own lineup in crunch matches. Matthews needs to be his own man because those changes had the Sanga/Mahela stamp all over them. They did it in 2011 and they did it again.
Haha yep. We all called it in the match thread just after the toss too.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
This Abbott argument seems to be exactly the ****ing same as the rain argument. The people arguing for his selection seem to be implying that he'd have been guaranteed to take 4/40.
 

Niall

International Coach
He wouldn't have bowled a worst first over than Philander, that was something even the trundlers from Ireland would have laughed at. Abbot at least would have been fit as well, which Vern wasn't, who wasn't able to bowl his full quota and had to go of the field for treatment.

Its not downplaying the NZ performance whatsoever, but it was a selection that made no sense at all.

Heck even an arrogant so and so like Vern probably was wondering why he was picked when he was trundling Yesterday.:laugh:
 

Niall

International Coach
SL weren't ****ed because SA picked Abbott. SL were ****ed because they keep trying to be too cute making unnecessary changes to their own lineup in crunch matches. Matthews needs to be his own man because those changes had the Sanga/Mahela stamp all over them. They did it in 2011 and they did it again.
From what I read, its the Jaya who loves Kushual, and I'd put good money on him deciding to bring him in and get him opening. I'd be surprised if Mahela/Kumar would have been the brains behind that one.
 

viriya

International Captain
SL weren't ****ed because SA picked Abbott. SL were ****ed because they keep trying to be too cute making unnecessary changes to their own lineup in crunch matches. Matthews needs to be his own man because those changes had the Sanga/Mahela stamp all over them. They did it in 2011 and they did it again.
You think Sanga + Mahela are doing this? You don't know how SL cricket works.
 

viriya

International Captain
This Abbott argument seems to be exactly the ****ing same as the rain argument. The people arguing for his selection seem to be implying that he'd have been guaranteed to take 4/40.
He wouldn't have gone for 0/52 off 8 overs though.
 

viriya

International Captain
Yeah it's Sanath if I'm not wrong. Sees himself in Kusal. Unfortunately he can't see how rubbish the guy actually is.
The idea is that Kusal is useless in the middle order, so if you're playing him you might as well make him opener. They forgot that he was useless in general though.

SL were weak either way - Sanga + Dilshan papered over the cracks in the group stages, but it was likely to be shown up in the knockouts.
 

cnerd123

likes this
He wouldn't have gone for 0/52 off 8 overs though.
You claiming with confidence that he wouldn't have gone for less than 0/52 is the same as me claiming with confidence that he would have gone for 0/95.

Both assertions are based off literally nothing. Pure speculation. Completely irrelevant to any analysis.
 

cnerd123

likes this
And Jaya may have influenced the Kaushal selection, but why the **** were they playing Kaushal of Senananana?

Seems a lot like the Mahela/Sanga love of the raw, unseen, mystery spinner.
 

Top