New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11132
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

Postby Boycs » Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:32 am

That's Rod Marsh thinking there, Paddles.

Personally I dislike "all-rounders" being selected by selectors looking to pick an actual all-rounder. I'm always an advocate of picking four bowlers and one "all-rounder" if you don't have an actual all-rounder available. Woakes, Rashid, Moeen are "all-rounders" i.e. a bowler who can bat a bit, a player who can bat a little and bowl a little but does neither to an advanced degree, and a batsman who bowls a tiny bit. I'd rather play them as bowlers or batsmen.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Moeen and of Woakes (Rashid I'm indifferent) but I'd argue for not building a team around them as if they are all-rounders. Stop formatting a line-up with the thought "and then the all-rounders come in the middle to give us maximum adaptability" because that's not what they are. Moeen should stop bowling and get into the team on his batting merits if he can, allowing us to pick a front line spinner like Leach or someone.

This isn't quite the same in ODI cricket, where part-timers can be more effective. But in Test cricket, lets call a spade a spade and admit that they are not all rounders. In my mind, unless they are Flintoff/Greig-quality or better (Botham was just a freak) then they shouldn't be treated as all-rounders when organising your line-up. They should be treated as what they are, bowlers who can bat a bit or vice versa.

Misty
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4153
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:13 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
Zimbabwe

Re: New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

Postby Misty » Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:00 am

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/cont ... 88969.html

Australia's greatest chance to win 500000 US dollar if NZ pips out southafrica on day 5, but if Protease draw the test southafrica will be number 2 test team (with 500000 dollar winner) as April 1st's cut off date.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3654
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

Postby Paddles » Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:25 am

BoyCaught30 wrote:That's Rod Marsh thinking there, Paddles.

Personally I dislike "all-rounders" being selected by selectors looking to pick an actual all-rounder. I'm always an advocate of picking four bowlers and one "all-rounder" if you don't have an actual all-rounder available. Woakes, Rashid, Moeen are "all-rounders" i.e. a bowler who can bat a bit, a player who can bat a little and bowl a little but does neither to an advanced degree, and a batsman who bowls a tiny bit. I'd rather play them as bowlers or batsmen.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Moeen and of Woakes (Rashid I'm indifferent) but I'd argue for not building a team around them as if they are all-rounders. Stop formatting a line-up with the thought "and then the all-rounders come in the middle to give us maximum adaptability" because that's not what they are. Moeen should stop bowling and get into the team on his batting merits if he can, allowing us to pick a front line spinner like Leach or someone.

This isn't quite the same in ODI cricket, where part-timers can be more effective. But in Test cricket, lets call a spade a spade and admit that they are not all rounders. In my mind, unless they are Flintoff/Greig-quality or better (Botham was just a freak) then they shouldn't be treated as all-rounders when organising your line-up. They should be treated as what they are, bowlers who can bat a bit or vice versa.


I'm dealing with individual NZ players not as a general team selection guideline. Santer and Astle are the weakest links here batting at 6 but they are commonly held as the best spinners in NZ for a while now anyway. Astle averages over 37 with the bat this summer. He's had another very good year with the ball averaging 22.8 with 30 wickets. To put that in perspective, Sodhi averages 29 for 29 wickets on a (50% of the time) spin friendly home ground. But its not Rod Marsh thinking at all, I wouldn't have 1 nor 3 Mitch Marsh's in my team. Nor do I want Corey Anderson or Jimmy Neesham batting or bowling in any test team I'd pick.

These guys Santner/Astle, Kuggs and CDG are also bowling allrounders, Marsh didn't actively pursue allrounders at 8 let alone 9. Johnson batted a bit, and Rhino helped them no end when fit. But Aus reg had bowlers at 8. And Mitch didn't get asked to bowl all that much. This is the idea of bowling allrounders at 6, 8, 9.

But lets deal with it in principle for a moment using a set variable. Flintoff was the weak link in England batting for a while, and the team did better with 6 batsmen after his retirement (not calling Collingwood an allrounder). I know he scored valuable runs in 2005 Ashes, but as Boycott said, that lad Freddie is a bowler, he not a batsman. Would you prefer 1 Freddie at 6, 2 Freddies at 6 and 8 or 3 Freddies at 6 8 and 9 in your test team? You're losing Harmison and Jones type bowlers from selection. Then change the opportunity loss to Finn, Plunkett, Sidebottom etc.

The situation for NZ is compounded by the fact that CDG is outbowling bowlers who don't bat as well as him. Santner/Astle are as good as any spinners around and Santner batted 6 this match. And Kugs is the best allrounder in the country - but he's a bowler first and foremost who has evolved into a domestic star with bat and ball in last few seasons. Thats 3 bowling allrounders giving batting to 9. I prefer it to 4 batting bunnies and Neesham/Anderson/Santner at 6. It is a lot more runs with the bat and Southee is not exactly Dale Steyn being squeezed out.

This is 3 of the leading NZ bowlers. Santner/Astle, CDG and Kugs. They all bat better than typical bowlers. All were in the squad for this test for NZ. Its literally swap Patel for Kugs and when fit Henry for Boult. Mike Hesson is no Rod Marsh. I'm just saying - while I don't like any of them at 6 now, with them at 6, 8 and 9 - its a different prospect altogether. Of course, this makes a Munro trial at #6, far more difficult.
Last edited by Paddles on Tue Mar 28, 2017 12:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11132
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

Postby Boycs » Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:53 am

I'd agree that Flintoff was a better bowler than a batsman, but would argue that he was a batsman of sufficient class to edge into the actual all-rounder category. And certainly during is 04/05 Golden Period he would be a genuine all-rounder.

I would personally prefer four best bowlers for your attack over three decent bowlers (or worse) who can bat a bit. Batting ability of bowlers should be classed as a bonus, and shouldn't be a primary factor in selection. You pick six batsmen for a reason, after all.

I understand the logic in not wanting to have a tail so poor that 250/6 become 265 all out, however I think in this modern age there aren't many genuine tail enders left, and you can afford to pick your best bowlers and bank on 30/40 runs out of the last few wickets, rather than being conservative to the point that your bowlers are being called on to score 70/80 runs in the last few wickets but conceeding just as many with lesser bowling.

I don't think we're talking Walsh, McGrath and Chris Martin here. For England, Jimmy, Broad, Woakes and Finn are of the quality England should be aiming for and they can all bat to some degree enough to squeeze runs out of the tail. The issue for England is that we don't have a spinner of similar quality to our pace attack. We miss Swann terribly, whose batting was also a bonus. And in his place we have a lesser bowler and slightly better batsman in Rashid, and a much better batsman but moderate part-timer in Moeen, who won't take wickets in unhelpful conditions.

I can't speak with authority about New Zealand (well, about anything I suppose) as I don't follow the current selection debates as closely and rely mostly on your posts :)

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11132
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

Postby Boycs » Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:57 am

Do NZ have any decent spinners with dual passports we could borrow?

I think we have Jack Leach but there's a lot of squeaking about his action at the moment.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3654
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

Postby Paddles » Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:58 am

BoyCaught30 wrote:Do NZ have any decent spinners with dual passports we could borrow?

I think we have Jack Leach but there's a lot of squeaking about his action at the moment.


Jeetan Patel - take him back.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11132
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

Postby Boycs » Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:01 am

Haha no thanks his figures are the same as Moeen.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3654
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

Postby Paddles » Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:09 am

BoyCaught30 wrote:I'd agree that Flintoff was a better bowler than a batsman, but would argue that he was a batsman of sufficient class to edge into the actual all-rounder category. And certainly during is 04/05 Golden Period he would be a genuine all-rounder.

I would personally prefer four best bowlers for your attack over three decent bowlers (or worse) who can bat a bit. Batting ability of bowlers should be classed as a bonus, and shouldn't be a primary factor in selection. You pick six batsmen for a reason, after all.

I understand the logic in not wanting to have a tail so poor that 250/6 become 265 all out, however I think in this modern age there aren't many genuine tail enders left, and you can afford to pick your best bowlers and bank on 30/40 runs out of the last few wickets, rather than being conservative to the point that your bowlers are being called on to score 70/80 runs in the last few wickets but conceeding just as many with lesser bowling.

I don't think we're talking Walsh, McGrath and Chris Martin here. For England, Jimmy, Broad, Woakes and Finn are of the quality England should be aiming for and they can all bat to some degree enough to squeeze runs out of the tail. The issue for England is that we don't have a spinner of similar quality to our pace attack. We miss Swann terribly, whose batting was also a bonus. And in his place we have a lesser bowler and slightly better batsman in Rashid, and a much better batsman but moderate part-timer in Moeen, who won't take wickets in unhelpful conditions.

I can't speak with authority about New Zealand (well, about anything I suppose) as I don't follow the current selection debates as closely and rely mostly on your posts :)


I also would pick 6 batsmen and 4 bowlers as well. I'm long spoken critic of the weak bowler batting at 6, out of their depth in the middle order. But here's the thing, the 4 bowlers would be chosen from a pool of Boult, Wagner, Southee, CDG, Santner/Astle, Kuggelijn (I look forward to this Patel experiment ending for good). And right now, CDG is ahead of Southee, and a spinner is typically required. Now a bowling line up of Boult, Southee/CDG, Wagner and Santner/Astle is deemed to not be ideal by the powers that be.
The captain, bowlers and the coaches want a 5th bowler.

So, 4 bowlers and 6 batsmen is not an option for now. So, if NZC is "forced" to have a lesser batsman bat at 6, I'm saying if that is Santner/Astle at 6 and there is Kuggelijn and CDG at 8 and 9 - I'm quite keen on this compromise. This is because, the bowling ability of likely specialist squeezed out, Southee - is not that superior to CDG or Kugs. Suddenly, there is a number 9 with the potential to have batting average of 30 at 6, 8 and 9, and the captain has 5 quality bowlers at his disposal and not some Neesham/Anderson type (average over 40 with the ball and more 30 with the bat). This also keeps pressure on Boult, Southee, and Wagner to keep 2 of the spots between themselves, and the Australian and South African fast bowling stables suggest competition is good to motivate bowlers.

You'll remember I wrote a post about how important the Scott Kuggelijn rape trial may be for NZC. NZC fans are really excited (if not divided) by this kid. He is dominating with bat and ball. CDG is just going from strength to strength. Also exciting and dividing. And Santner/Astle have been around for a few seasons now. Astle has put up great numbers with bat and ball this year in FC cricket. These are the headaches and options that now arise. Does a guy who bowls wickets at 30 and bats at 13 beat out a guy who bowls wickets at 31 and bats at 30 with a much slower SR to support a set batsmen. The difference in bowling is minimal, the difference in batting is stark.

Until Kugs debuts and proves he is at test level it all theoretical, but right now, the selectors are happy for Santner to be at 6 and CDG at 8. I think that leaves the batting a little light, but provides the best bowling attack potential as no Neesham or Anderson. But adding Kugs into that batting line up, and suddenly no centuries at 6 is replaced by many 50s at 6, 8 and 9.

England certainly misses Swan. But Woakes' batting at 8 or 9 is a strength that you'll enjoy should he keep his bowling form up. Broad lost his way with the bat since he was sconned - he's not quite been the same. The irony is - when England peaked with 6 batsmen, Broad and Swann as 2 of the bowlers were more than useful batsmen to boot! They played match turning innings with the bat. Tail end runs change the dynamic of a game, and often take a 120 or 150 run lead thats a loss and turn it into a 220 or 250 score to defend in a win.

Teams bat twice in a loss and bowl twice in a win. If 5 bowlers is to keep strike bowlers fresh for them to win matches and ot get injured, the extra batting will see less dramatic collapses resulting in losses. If the bowling talent is minimally harmed, and the batting significantly strengthened - I'm not as against it as I am the weaker batting option. NZ's problem is typically a lack of runs, our seam bowling stable has been reasonably strong for a while highlighted by Wagner and Boult and this summer, CDG and Southee. If our bowlers are not taking wickets, then the pitch is lifeless and our batsman ought not be getting out for so few runs as against the opposition.
Last edited by Paddles on Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:19 pm, edited 5 times in total.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3654
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

Postby Paddles » Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:22 am

BoyCaught30 wrote:Do NZ have any decent spinners with dual passports we could borrow?

I think we have Jack Leach but there's a lot of squeaking about his action at the moment.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/eng ... 80255.html

Look at the 4th innings, he got 2 wickets stumped, where SL was chasing 90 and losing wickets regularly. Sri Lankan coaches must be peeved with their depth cricketer's attitudes to red ball cricket. I don't sense rain putting time pressure on the finish based on the stumps scores each day and overs per innings.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3654
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

Postby Paddles » Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:35 pm

Looks like test will be rained out and a series loss for NZ.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
baggygreenmania
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 2361
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 12:22 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Australia

Re: New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

Postby baggygreenmania » Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:49 pm

Your Black Caps have bounced back well this test Paddles. Williamson another ton. I rate him among the world's top five bats. Possibly second behind Smith. Then Root, someone else then reluctanly Kohli.

Misty
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4153
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:13 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
Zimbabwe

Re: New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

Postby Misty » Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:52 am

Paddles wrote:Looks like test will be rained out and a series loss for NZ.


Yes sorry paddles but freaking rains win on final day.so the match officially declared Draw (same happen at Dambull, after SL scored 311 yesterday)

KW.Williamson Mo..Match but he praise southafrica to play better cricket than NZ.congratulation to Maharaj
Who took (series) 15 wkts @19.93.SoA now number 2 in ICC ranking with Cash 500000 from ICC as well.India will gets 1 million US dollar on April 1st: being number 1 once again.

5th consecutive series away from SOA, Hashim Amla scored only 411 @20.57 average.sorry for poor Shaw by Warner in SL and India,

KW scored 309 (34 fours and 3 sixes) but JEET with 3 Fifties 256(32 Fours) runs @64.00 was outstanding vs SOA's fast bowling attack.

Wagner took 12 wkts in the series.ELGAR scored 256 (36 fours) from Proteas but he was failure after first test.
Last edited by Misty on Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3654
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

Postby Paddles » Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:05 am

baggygreenmania wrote:Your Black Caps have bounced back well this test Paddles. Williamson another ton. I rate him among the world's top five bats. Possibly second behind Smith. Then Root, someone else then reluctanly Kohli.


Haha. KW is certainly an Ace, and well established on the world scene now. But right now, there is too much reliance on him. The NZ test team would benefit from what Guptil brings to the odi/t20 team - a big scoring batsman that permits KW out cheaply not resulting in a collapse if Taylor is not fit or doesn't fire. Nicholls is not upto it - lets hope Latham, Raval or both are.

Smith has certainly impressed in India where Kohli went off the boil. Root will be back home soon, displaying his wares. The current crop of elite batsmen are as fine as any, with ABDV to return soon, Pujara, Amla, Khan, and many more talented players around.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

Misty
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4153
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:13 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
Zimbabwe

Re: New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

Postby Misty » Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:16 am

Paddles wrote:
baggygreenmania wrote:Your Black Caps have bounced back well this test Paddles. Williamson another ton. I rate him among the world's top five bats. Possibly second behind Smith. Then Root, someone else then reluctanly Kohli.


Haha. KW is certainly an Ace, and well established on the world scene now. But right now, there is too much reliance on him. The NZ test team would benefit from what Guptil brings to the odi/t20 team - a big scoring batsman that permits KW out cheaply not resulting in a collapse if Taylor is not fit or doesn't fire. Nicholls is not upto it - lets hope Latham, Raval or both are.

Smith has certainly impressed in India where Kohli went off the boil. Root will be back home soon, displaying his wares. The current crop of elite batsmen are as fine as any, with ABDV to return soon, Pujara, Amla, Khan, and many more talented players around.


Amla good in his own back yard because 5 consecutive away series he scored 411 @20.57, Warner also not far behind him with away going test in SL and India.

Misty
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4153
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:13 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
Zimbabwe

Re: New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

Postby Misty » Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:17 am

India I think coming to nz next summer or so, instead SL.I think NZ need to carefully selects venue because Keshav Maharaja took 15 wickets vs NZ at 19.53 but both nz and India have good option in spin departments.

NZ wants to take revenge with India after bad loose in India.series will be interesting with nz has better fast bowling option.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3654
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

Postby Paddles » Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:51 am

Misty wrote:India I think coming to nz next summer or so, instead SL.I think NZ need to carefully selects venue because Keshav Maharaja took 15 wickets vs NZ at 19.53 but both nz and India have good option in spin departments.

NZ wants to take revenge with India after bad loose in India.series will be interesting with nz has better fast bowling option.


No, NZ has West Indies and England next summer, with a Pakistan pyjama tour and a 3 way T20 tournament in NZ and Aus with England. The latter replaces our beloved Chappel Hadlee series that was flopping with Australian crowds, but this T20 tournament, with NZ as #1, and England the biggest crowd drawer in Australian cricket, should see some big crowds - we hope.

The final will be at Eden Park - for once.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Leo
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 6622
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:19 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 1
Norfolk Island

Re: New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

Postby Leo » Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:00 am

Bad Luck New Zealand
Time is the Best Speaker

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27779
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

Postby raja » Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:20 am

Real tough luck for NZ. The game was in the bag - now they have a series loss against their name.

Australia were supposed to receive a nice sum from ICC if SA had lost today. So it's not just NZ who've been hit by no play today, even Aussies are affected.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3654
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: New Zealand vs South Africa: 3rd Test; March 25-29, 2017 at Hamilton

Postby Paddles » Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:30 am

raja wrote:Real tough luck for NZ. The game was in the bag - now they have a series loss against their name.

Australia were supposed to receive a nice sum from ICC if SA had lost today. So it's not just NZ who've been hit by no play today, even Aussies are affected.


That gives the least solace possible to NZC fans.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.