SA-NZ 20-20

SA-NZ 20-20

Post by Ajay Josh » Sun, 23 Oct 2005 04:30:41


Why did Smith bowl himself when NZ required 20 of 18 balls? Pollock,
Ntini and Langeveldt had not bowled their full quota...

-Ajay

 
 
 

SA-NZ 20-20

Post by Mike Holman » Sun, 23 Oct 2005 04:47:11

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:30:41 -0400, Ajay Joshi

Quote:
>Why did Smith bowl himself when NZ required 20 of 18 balls? Pollock,
>Ntini and Langeveldt had not bowled their full quota...

He wanted to get to the beers earlier.

Cheers,

Mike

 
 
 

SA-NZ 20-20

Post by Andrew Dunfor » Sun, 23 Oct 2005 20:07:37


Quote:
> Why did Smith bowl himself when NZ required 20 of 18 balls? Pollock,
> Ntini and Langeveldt had not bowled their full quota...

The more pressing question for me is why anyone takes this version of the
game seriously.  This match consisted mainly of poor batting, and in South
Africa's case, clueless tactics in the field.  Add in execrable television
coverage and the whole package wasn't worth watching.  If 20-over bashes are
the future of cricket, leave me out.

Andrew

 
 
 

SA-NZ 20-20

Post by Craig Sutto » Sun, 23 Oct 2005 20:41:28


Quote:



> > Why did Smith bowl himself when NZ required 20 of 18 balls? Pollock,
> > Ntini and Langeveldt had not bowled their full quota...

> The more pressing question for me is why anyone takes this version of the
> game seriously.  This match consisted mainly of poor batting, and in South
> Africa's case, clueless tactics in the field.  Add in execrable television
> coverage and the whole package wasn't worth watching.  If 20-over bashes
are
> the future of cricket, leave me out.

You left out dancing ***s
 
 
 

SA-NZ 20-20

Post by Bob Duber » Sun, 23 Oct 2005 23:25:43

Quote:

> The more pressing question for me is why anyone takes this version of the
> game seriously.  This match consisted mainly of poor batting, and in South
> Africa's case, clueless tactics in the field.  Add in execrable television
> coverage and the whole package wasn't worth watching.  If 20-over bashes are
> the future of cricket, leave me out.

Better coverage might have revealed the full horror of the Black Cap
hair "styles".
 
 
 

SA-NZ 20-20

Post by Andrew Dunfor » Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:38:02


Quote:
> Why did Smith bowl himself when NZ required 20 of 18 balls? Pollock,
> Ntini and Langeveldt had not bowled their full quota...

My understanding is that Smith brought himself on to bowl because South
Africa was running out of time to complete its 20 overs, and I suspect there
are run penalties applied for time violations.  Being ignorant of the finer
points of these 20-over bashes I could easily be wrong.

The way the match ended (NZ achieving the winning runs when a no-ball was
called for South Africa having too many fieldsman inside the circle) was
fitting, with nobody on the pitch apparently having any idea that the target
had been achieved.

Andrew