Why did Smith bowl himself when NZ required 20 of 18 balls? Pollock,
Ntini and Langeveldt had not bowled their full quota...
> > 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
> the future of cricket, leave me out.
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.
13. 20-20 cup