Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

This is the forum for discussion of all cricketing issues and news. Here you will find frank analysis and opinion on subjects ranging from selection policies, favourite cricketers and match post-mortems right through to dressing room and cricket board fiascos.
User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11353
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Boycs » Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:49 pm

PADDLES!!!?

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:48 pm

boycaught30!!!!!!?
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11353
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Boycs » Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:57 pm

You're back!!!

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:19 am

Jeet Raval finally debuts.

So far so good.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Sun Nov 20, 2016 1:34 am

Jeet Raval looks a dour pugnacious batsman with no flair and little talent but great concentration and graft who limits his scoring shots to high percentage options. Which means all in all - he could be better than Geoff Boycott :dance:
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27905
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby raja » Sun Nov 20, 2016 6:46 am

Good to see you back here, Paddles.

And congrats on the win! :-)

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 25685
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Going South » Sun Nov 20, 2016 12:50 pm

Welcome back paddles.
Congratulations on the win.
Hope your 31 year old wait would end with W Not D.
All the best for next test match.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/pakistan- ... headtohead

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11353
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Boycs » Sun Nov 20, 2016 6:00 pm

Paddles wrote:Jeet Raval looks a dour pugnacious batsman with no flair and little talent but great concentration and graft who limits his scoring shots to high percentage options. Which means all in all - he could be better than Geoff Boycott :dance:


I too would welcome you back if you weren't so blasphemous

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Mon Nov 21, 2016 4:47 am

Going South wrote:Welcome back paddles.
Congratulations on the win.
Hope your 31 year old wait would end with W Not D.
All the best for next test match.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/pakistan- ... headtohead


Thanks Going South - I was not aware it was so long to have beaten Pak in a test series. This may be a record as Zim were not a test nation at the time and SL has had good teams post mid 90s.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Mon Nov 21, 2016 4:54 am

Misty wrote:
Paddles wrote:Jeet Raval looks a dour pugnacious batsman with no flair and little talent but great concentration and graft who limits his scoring shots to high percentage options. Which means all in all - he could be better than Geoff Boycott :dance:


I followed Jeet's career since his childhood cricket playing days with parthiv Patel in Gujarat under 16 Coach Bihar trophy. Jeet has long way to go, Right now there are as many as 6 good openers in NZ domestic teams Knocking the test door. Jeet did bat well for his 91 while others struggled. :up:

Hope SGGH does not read your comments. ;)


NZ cricket is not so blessed as to have 6 good batsmen competiting for test spots against the incumbents, let alone openers. Given this, Jeet's prior non-selection was irksome for me as he has consistently outscored those selected ahead of him, but I am glad he has been given the chance now. I do hope he continues to bore the opposition fans greatly and take the shine off the new ball for many seasons to follow.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11353
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Boycs » Sun Nov 27, 2016 9:51 pm

I'm still touting boult and southee as an under appreciated new ball pair of significant ability in world cricket. Not quite as good as a fit Jimmy and Stuart in home conditions, but they're established and settled, and successful, compared to many other team's opening pairs out there today

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:07 am

1-0

Kane Williamson regains composure to seal a tense victory that hopefully gains further fan interest. Latham as a keeper experiment gets a seemingly unanimous nod of approval after 1 match. ICC ODI #7 bowler Matt Henry must be chomping at the bit for a selection.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Wed Feb 15, 2017 12:36 am

So Ross Taylor is on the media saying he wants feedback how to get back in the national T20 side. Ross is putting media pressure on selection on the back of some fine test and odi form. There is one thing that is most noticable. Ross is starting both his test and ODI innings with far more intent and a higher tempo than years previous. Put simply, he is scoring runs far more freely and faster at the start of his innings.

Why was Ross Taylor dropped from the T20 side? Well, I'm not Mike Hesson, but I can recall in this thread saying that Taylor was not an automatic selection in the NZT20 squads last year cos of his slow SR when starting an innings. Ross Taylor is a gorgeous classical batsman on the off side and straight. His on side play is hoics, slogs and swinging to cow corner and square leg. Typically when he looks to slog, he looks to the on side. Now Ross can be effective at this, and can also get out a lot slogging this way. Personally - I don't like him doing it, I think he has enough true shots and power, that he can find more scoring zones to hit boundaries and sixes in. I do like him experimenting with paddles and sweeps off seamers tho. If he has the eye and the courage to do it, my hat is off to him.

So where are we now? Well, if Ross can continue to start his innings scoring more quickly on the off side and straight, continue his improvised paddles and sweeps off medium pacers, and not resort just to onside slogging (that often gets him dismissed) after having played himself in and using up scarce deliveries to do so, then there is a good chance he will return to the T20 side. But right now he has to displace Bruce or Anderson or Munro who have earned their spots for now. What Hesson does not want is a batsman in the t20 side who looks to play himself in. Hesson wants a free scoring batsman at number 4. KW is the rock of the t20 side. He doesn't want two anchors. And even if KW is out, he still wants runs scored fast from the incomming #4. In fact - I'm pretty sure that Ross Taylor was slipped down the order to 5 in the NZt20 to enable a faster scorer number 4 bat in his place with Muno and Anderson batting ahead of him at 3 and 4.

Ross - it isn't a great mystery what you need to do to get back in the NZ T20 side - and clearly you're rectifying it as we speak. But the likes of Tom Bruce are prepared to sacrifice their wicket very early on in the pursuit of Net Run Rate, and not play themselves in. This is clearly the tempo Hesson wants for the team to remain the #1 t20 side in the world. t20 is strike rate, strike rate, strike rate. KW is there to anchor, Guptil, Munro, Anderson, Ronchi, Bruce, Broom, De Grandhomme, and whoever else are there are to smash the leather off the cork with the willow - all the way down to Boult at 11. The easiest way for Taylor to return it would appear to be if Munro or Bruce fail, but in that scenario, I think Hesson may look to promoting another player from domestic. Taylor right now is a leading test and odi batsman, much like Michael Clarke. Michael Clarke wasn't much chop at t20 cricket, tho. If he could have his time again, Taylor may have looked to reinvent himself as a opener in t20 cricket. But that ship has sailed with KW and Guptil having locked down those positions post McCullum.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:42 am

One of the most significant trials within New Zealand cricket circles is underway again. The retrial of current Northern Districts player Scott Kuggeleijn, son of former NZ international Chris.

Amongst the allegations of rape, Scott has gone from a useful opening bowler in first class in Trent Boult and Tim Southee's absence, to the leading all rounder in NZ domestic cricket. With all the Neesham, Anderson, de Grandhomme, Santner debate, Kuggelijn offers what the first 3 are not, a genuine all day bowling option of max pace of over 140km/h. He is a fast bowler for NZ cricket, but more so - in the last 2 years, his batting as really elevated to new heights.

He has not been publicly considered for selection in the Black Caps in the background of this trial. Did Scott Kuggeleijn commit rape? I have no idea. But I can say he is the best prospect to open the bowling and bat 6 that NZ has had since Chris Cairns.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/newzealand/ ... 39548.html

While averaging 33 with the ball and 32 with he bat doesn't look special at first blush, lets put that into context. Andrew Flintoff in FC averaged 33.8 (31.7 in test) with the bat and 31.59 (32.78 in test) with the ball - but more importantly are the stats for the past 2 seasons, this year included, which have him well under 30 with the ball and well over 40 with the bat. This season again, Scott is averaging over 40 with the bat more than test specialist batsmen, Jeet Ravaal and Henry Nicholls, and 25 with the ball in hand.

In his last 3 list A games, he hit his first 2 50's - his batting stats have to be taken with a grain of salt for many seasons spent as a tail ender. Last season he averaged 49.55 in FC Plunket with the bat, and 25.81 with the ball in taking 38 wickets. He is no part time bowler, but a genuine attack spear head in FC. in 2014 he took 22 wickets as the leading wicket taker in the Ford Trophy displaying promise that in the last 2 seasons, Scott has taken to the next level.

If he is acquitted, his name will still be tarnished, but that has not harmed Scott's performances in the FC scene, but international level sledging may be of a different nature altogether. If found guilty, at 25 with years to spend in jail, his cricket career becomes a non-issue for the time being. Does NZ cricket want him? If found not guilty - a player batting at 6 averaging 40 with the bat and under 30 with the ball, I think the answer is on form, he'd improve the current NZ international team, and many more around the world. Corey Anderson is not a genuine test bowler, Neesham is struggling, de Grandhomme is a slugger with the bat and only threatening with the ball when conditions suit to give him promounced swing and nibble. Kugs is a hands down leading bowler, which those 3 all are not. He is also putting on more runs than them with the bat in hand. Kuggs could make a claim to bat at 8 or 9 and bowl in the team, let alone his runs. This means he could bat at 8, meaning a specialist spin bowler could replace Santner, with Wagner and Boult in the tail if NZ wanted to drop Southee and Santner for example. Put simply, if available for selection and in form, he is very versatile as a opening bowler quick who scores a lot of runs with the bat. These are a very rare breed of cricketers much celebrated for their all round value - think Rice, Botham, Khan, Miller, Cairns. An OPENING bowler who bats as an allrounder. Plenty of fourth if not third seamers bat well enough in a Mitch Marsh or Shane Watson vein, but few are outright all day seam bowlers that are capable of regularly leading the attack.

If found guilty, the world will quickly forget nor for many never learn of Scott Kuggeleijn the cricketer. Did he commit rape? NZ cricket fans wait for the jury's verdict with interest. Ironically, if found not guilty, I anticipate a bigger media and public attention for the lad than if found guilty as his NZ selection claims will then pressed.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11353
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Boycs » Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:39 pm

It's an interesting question, as I believe in a lot of public perception you're pretty much guilty as soon as you're accused when it comes to offences like rape. Something similar happened in this country with an actor called Craig Charles.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:22 pm

http://www.espncricinfo.com/newzealand/ ... 84065.html

Not guilty.

Now the interesting is how long before he is national selection thinking. Could be sooner rather than later with SA tests just around the corner. While Boult, Southee, and Wagner are fairly safe to be selected - allrounders De Grandhomme and Santner are not.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:23 pm

http://www.espncricinfo.com/newzealand/ ... 84065.html

Not guilty.

Now the interesting is how long before he is national selection thinking. Could be sooner rather than later with SA tests just around the corner. While Boult, Southee, and Wagner are fairly safe to be selected - allrounders De Grandhomme and Santner are not. And 2 poor performances by Southee may jeopardise him for game 3.

Or is it too soon after a rape trial? Of course NZC could never say he wasn't previously in selection possibility given presumption of innocence, but with the trial over, if Kuggeleijn maintains form, he has to be at tge top of a short list.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:45 am

Cricket commentators are calling this a crisis situation for NZ.

The issue is finding a wicket keeper with some batting form.

The irony now is that specialist batsman Neil Broom, is likely to be dropped so as to provide a position for the completely out of form wicket keeper batsman Luke Ronchi. This further weaken the batting and means Neesham is likely to be batting 5.

The likely side for the next game is

Guptill
Brownlie*
Williamson
Taylor
Neesham*
Santner*
CDG
Ronchi*
Sodhi/Patel
Southee
Boult


This leaves 4 batsmen in the top 8 batting higher than their record suggests they're proven to be good for or established. This just after a complete failure against a Safricam seam line up.

Hamilton will be a turning pitch, this makes Neesham and Brownlie further weak choices as they have a very poor record in spinning conditions.

Put simply, Glen Phillips is currently making his FC cricket debut, and Hesson has determined he is not ready. Not fancying Tom Blundell neither, NZ must face this champions trophy without a in form wicket keeper batsman. Have no doubt, Corey Anderson not bowling has made the need for a top order wicket keeping batsman as Neesham bowls pies at intl level for team balance. To go with a middle order keeper batsman, NZ has signed off to only having 4 batsman proper in the top order. This is weak - Neesham at 5 - hit a good innings vs Aus in a loss, and some good runs with Taylor vs Safrica, but he is no 2015 Grant Elliot yet. Not even close.

While Santner and Boult are in fine form with the ball, and Sodhi looks good when he plays, CDG is putting together a string of useful performances, the batting is all out of kilter without Corey Anderson the allrounder batting 6 nor Tom Latham the all rounder opening the innings providing team balance. Heck - if both were available and in form, the team would have dynamic value in each game in choosing a player to strengthen bowling on turning tracks or batting on seaming tracks. But neither are available or in form, and so the team is basically a player short on batting with Neesham batting 5, and a terrible out of form Ronchi in the middle order.

What I would have done? I would have gone with Glen Phillips for Latham and kept a specialist #5 - possibly Broom but more likely Tom Bruce.

Basically the team is 2 allrounders short with Anderson out and Ronchi/Latham both out of form with the bat. To compensate for this and keep bowlers bowling to a wicket keeper, the batting depth is being diminished. Neesham is not an allrounder as wanted as his bowling is terrible at present. And it takes a lot to convince me that he is really in the top 5 odi batsmen in the country. I just don't think he is. He doesn't have a single List A ton. This fact alone really questions his selection ahead of batsmen like Tom Bruce as a long term option.

Winning the Chappel Hadlee was important for NZC, but a complete overhaul is now required with Corey Anderson and the wicket keeping spot as to what direction this team is going to take in the future. Of course Santner, Boult, Guptill, Williamson and Taylor will figure prominently as will seamers like Southee & co. But the wicket keeping and all rounder positions need settling. CDG is doing a good job, but he is not a death bowling option like Corey.

The problem with ODI cricket is that a big 100 from a top 4 player can conceal the batting problems, much like England pre World Cup. But in a tournament, or against a top opposition like Safrica, the cracks in a team are revealed and shatter under pressure. There will be games where Guptill, Williamson or Taylor do not ton up, and the middle order must all contribute to put together a big score. The NZ middle order looks very weak in this Safrica series, and getting weaker further still. CDG looks good and relaxed doing a 5th bowler job and lower order slogging, but he maybe forced to bat higher under more pressure - and then look out of his depth where rotation of strike is more important than clearing the pickets in a 6 or out manner.

Does NZ have talent around? Yes. I said at the start of the series that I would have liked Tom Bruce given a chance. There is a kid Mark Chapman that is turning heads. George Worker is putting together an impressive run of scores and has hopefully mastered more stroke play than just square each side of the wicket.

I am a big fan of Mike Hesson, but the team needs an overhaul and I back him to implement it after the Champions Trophy. There is a tonne of young talent emerging in NZ like Tom Bruce and Scott Kuggeleijn that have performed at such a good level consistently, and taken all their opportunities that they now deserve a shot.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/newzealand/ ... 51807.html

The superstars, Guptil, Taylor, Williamson, Boult and Santner remain safe. But its time for some of the new breed to be given their chances. And if we are resigned to Corey Anderson no longer bowling, then the team should be constructed accordingly, and not with stop gap fillers for when he is fit.

Is Jimmy Neesham in the top 5 list A batsmen in NZ? No. Then why is he still being picked? Because his bowling record in list A domestic cricket is poor as well, he is not upto premier nor first or second choice all rounder standard with the ball in 50 over cricket, and not upto specialist batting standard as one of the top 5 best batsmen, it is myopic to continue to pick him with better alternatives. Do people really think he will outperform Neil Broom with the bat? I don't. Tom Bruce? Nopes. George Worker? Nopes. Will Young? Nopes. Even Henry Niccolls? Probably not. So Neesham is a poor selection at 5. It is a stop gap selection at best.

This year has seen Sean Solia burst on the scene.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/ ... 07109.html

And Henry Niccolls, himself a bit of a wicket keeper, has got some runs in this years Ford Trophy.

So for me, I'd take both Bruce or Solia over Neesham as a specialist #5. A team structure I would take to the Champions Trophy assuming no Anderson bowling;

1 Guptill
2 Phillips +
3 Williamson (6)
4 Taylor
5 Solia
6 Bruce (7)
7 Kuggelijn (3)
8 CDG (5)
9 Santner (4)
10 Southee (2)
11 Boult (1)

12 Sodhi/Patel - reserve spinner
13 Neesham - reserve allrounder
14 Milne/McClenahan/Henry - reserve seamer
15 Latham/ Niccolls - reserve batsman keeper

This is a very traditional team structure. top 6 are specialist batsmen incl a wicket keeper, then the bowling allrounders from 7 down. This has far more batting than Neesham at 5. Bowling strength, it is as strong as yesterday's bowling attack. Batting depth longer, bowling the same - no brainer.

NZC must now face the prospect of life without Corey bowling in the 50 over team at least, if not the t20 team. To do so, an openinjg batsman keeper is the obvious solution to restore the team balance as demonstrated by Latham's initial success. Someone in the top 6, needs to either be a frontline bowler or a wicket keeper. Bowling allrounders are easier to find than top 6 wicket keeper batsman or batting allrounders who can be expected to bowl 10 overs every game well.

Now it is unlikely that Solia, Phillips and Bruce make their ODI debut in the champions trophy - so the chances of this team playing are long since gone. But this time next summer, iof Corey is not bowling - I expect to see something similar to it in structure, individual players notwithstanding. KW may well want a lesser batsman at #6 who bowls a bit to give himself more options, but I back CDG and KW to get through 10 overs between them each game and prefer the extra batting depth.
Last edited by Paddles on Sun May 28, 2017 2:47 pm, edited 12 times in total.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

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: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Misty » Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:16 am

Great presentation paddles but I think NZ test team will be announce between 4th and 5th ODI so I expect both Henry/Wagner and last but the list Ferguson who took 18 wickets in 4 games in domestic.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:37 am

Misty wrote:Great presentation paddles but I think NZ test team will be announce between 4th and 5th ODI so I expect both Henry/Wagner and last but the list Ferguson who took 18 wickets in 4 games in domestic.


No.

Wagner, Boult, Southee, Santner(or Patel or Sodhi) will be the attack supported by CDG for tests. No Ferguson nor Henry. Henry will only play if Wagner's finger is still injured. The test xi is fairly settled given Watling and Latham being in good form and well settled selections. CDG, Santner and Niccolls are the only 3 spots up for grabs.

Raval (Brownlie is not making a claim through odi form as yet)
Latham
KW
Taylor
Niccolls *
CDG *
Watling
Santner *
Wagner
Southee
Boult

Watling ought to bat ahead of CDG imo.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:46 am

Back to my odi team suggestions - the nz ipl players get a break from nz tour of ireland tri series with Bangladesh - meaning I expect, if still in:form, Kuggeleijn and Bruce to be well in the selectors eyes with a fustful of pace bowlers and 2 batsmen in the ipl. Munro may get a reprieve or a chance for Worker/Solia may emerge as well.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11353
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Boycs » Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:30 am

Does Taylor play in the IPL?

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:20 am

Not this year, at this stage. Taylor did not get any bids at his ipl reserve price.

NZ ipl players: Guptil and KW - Manu (Munro) lost his gig.

BMac retired from intl.

Anderson (not in odi team at present).

Bowlers: Southee, Boult, Milne, McClenahan, Ferguson and Henry.

So that opens up a few tour spots to say the least.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11353
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Boycs » Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:42 pm

Reflects well on the NZ attack though, they don't pick overseas players who are useful.

The double edged sword that is serious international talent: you get it then you lose it to the IPL.

I had similar when I used to manage county teams.....

..... in international cricket captain 2016....

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Wed Mar 01, 2017 4:59 am

Why Jeetan Patel over Sodhi is dumb today and for Champions Trophy.

The thought is that Patel bowls well in England county cricket and the Champions trophy is there. So What? Moeen Ali is the best English spinner. Patel doing well in county cricket is a long way due to no better alternatives playing there. These are weak times for quality spin in county cricket. Jeetan Patel has not become superman in the past few years. We've confirmed this already.

Furthermore, the time for English spin is at the end of English season, the ICC Champions Trophy is before then I believe. Even if I'm wrong, Patel is nearly 37 and made no promise to be ready for the World Cup in England in 2 years time. To me, giving Sodhi experience in England now makes more sense than giving it to a likely to be retired or full time again county pro in Patel.

But more importantly, Patel is an ordinary off spinner. He is not Sunil Narine or Ravi Ashwin, There are no carrom balls. There are no knuckle balls. There are no doosras. There is nothing bar arm balls and typical spin. This means batsman can far more safely premeditate boundary shots than they can are willing to do against a leg spinner or carrom ball bowler. Put simply, I think Sodhi has better chance of being successful in games where the pitches suggest that 2 bowlers would be effective.

if Patel is selected in the test team - as the best choice playing - I'm fine with that, but it remains questionable given Sodhi has a slightly better stats and dispayed more improvement than Patel in recent seasons. But I question why Sodhi is not playing the must win odi today when he has stood up in Hamilton against Australia and SAfrica before, especially at Hamilton. And I will very much question Patel being selected ahead of Sodhi for the Champions trophy. It seems very myopic as a selection to me.
Last edited by Paddles on Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Wed Mar 01, 2017 5:07 am

Neesham, Ronchi, CDG, Santner gives possibly the WEAKEST 5 to 8 batting combination in the World for top teams currently playing. There is only 1 ODI century there, and it is from the very very out of form Luke Ronchi. Neesham does not even have a List A century. Whoever bats 5 and 6, is weaker than most nations as 7 and 8 are possibly not too bad - include Bangladesh who would have Al Hasan bat around here.

Neesham, CDG and KW combined to bowl 10 overs. Again, I fail to see the advantage of picking Neesham as a 5th batsman who bowls a few overs, when those overs are not essential, and there are much better batsmen in the country, be it Neil Broom who I do not prefer, or the likes of Tom Bruce - which I do prefer.

Commentators are still comparing Neesham to Anderson - but there is no comparison in limited overs cricket. Anderson is a far superior batsman and superior bowler (when fit) than Neesham in pyjama cricket. Its that simple. And even if it were subjectively close for many, Anderson was batting at 6, not at 5.

So - a blinder from Guptill or KW or Taylor with some support from Neesham or CDG may yet steal this game from the jaws of likely defeat, but in a way it would almost be good for NZC if it doesn't so that the real problems post Corey Anderson and Grant Elliot are not continued to be glossed over and a remedy sought in selecting a proper team.

This NZ time is disintegrating to a team of bits and pieces all rounders, without the class of a SHakib Al Hasan at 5. I remain a great fan of Mike Hesson, but I am worried what direction he and Larsen are taking NZC in until they figure out that we're going backwards at a rapid rate.

1 Guptill
2 Phillips +
3 Williamson (6)
4 Taylor
5 Solia
6 Bruce (7)
7 Kuggelijn (3)
8 CDG (5)
9 Santner (4)
10 Southee (2)
11 Boult (1)

Want a second spinner? Drop Southee for Sodhi.

What we've been given

1 Guptill
2 Brownlie
3 Williamson
4 Taylor
5 Neesham
6 Ronchi
7 Santner
8 CDG
9 Patel
10 Boult
11 Southee

The weakest 5 to 8 in world cricket currently playing that I can think of and the worst 5 and 6 combo.

I remain fans of Larsen and Hesson, but I think they're getting this very very wrong. I hope they sort it out before the Champions Trophy and not next summer.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Sat Mar 04, 2017 8:30 am

So the Safrican odi series is over, and thanks to centuries by Ross Taylor giving the bowlers a total to defend, and a brilliant Guptill solo, the series is a 3-2 loss to NZ. This conceals the true margin between the sides that has evolved since 2015. The South African problem in 2015 was that they were a bowler short. They have remedied this with fit all rounders - and a surplus of them - in Morris, Pretorius, Parnell and Phehlukwayo. They play 3 per game and 2 star strike bowlers.

In 2015 - the NZ team was:

Bmac - massive SR opening the innings - compare now to Brownlie - less runs at worse strike rate
Guptil
KW
Taylor
Elliot - a player who finally found his mojo and performed best when under pressure - now we have Ronchi at 5 who has not scored runs since 2015
Anderson - a genuine 5th bowler who like Elliot performs well under pressure but has belligerent boundary hitting ability and is a massive 6 hitter; now we have Neesham - who was not good enough for the 2015 WC team and his bowling looks worse than then with no noticable development to his batting since them
Ronchi + vs Santner; Mitch is a fine bowler but with no hitting record compared to that of Luke Ronchi who struck an amazing century against Sri Lanka just before the 2015 WC. Santner compares to Vettori and may reach his levels as a player in time - who batted at 8 in 2015.
Vettori vs CDG - Vettori's reliability as a bowler was immense as was his useful batting; CDG is a non comparison, and is really doing a Corey Anderson role with less reliability in his bowling and his batting.
Milne - a useful striker as against Patel - a less useful strike
Southee
Boult

Ronchi 2017 is not Ronchi 2015. The Ronchi selected for the WC was a threat that opposition reghtfully feared for his power hitting and form. He's not had this since just before the 2015 WC started. Neesham is not a 5th bowler, he is a 6th or 7th bowler, and as a batsman, he does not even have a list a century - let alone an odi century.

We now have 2 poor man's version of Corey Anderson in Neesham and CDG. But neither are trusted for 10 overs the way Anderson was. And Neither are Anderson with the bat. But Anderson, a player I like, has divided many opinions for not being good enough with the bat to bat at 6, so I must ask - why do we now have 2 of him in the side?

What I would do to remedy this:

1 Phillips (or another opening bat keeper) - do a Kaluwithrana at worst, or a Gilchrist at best - get us off to a flyer in a BMAC type strategy but less runs than BMac matters less as there is deeper batting
2 Guptill
3 KW
4 Taylor
5 Solia or Bruce (or Worker) - a form domestic batsman who has earned their right for a chance
6 Bruce (or Worker) - as above. A specialist keeping opening permits the batting to be deeper. See David Miller batting 6 for Safrica
7 Kuggeliejn - the 3rd bowler must be the fastest in the country experiment must end. Milne was a favourite of mine for his economy rate. Ferguson just leaks too many runs. When Milne is fit and firing, then reassess, but the goal is to get the best possible team selected - not a patch rebuild of the 2015 formula of success. Kuggeleijn is more than fast enough at present for intl cricket and is an opening bowler option if needed to.
8 CDG - trust him to bowl 10 overs or drop him. His batting is more than good enough to bat 8 and he will finish games favourably from here with the bat. We have no doubt of that. If there is noone else to trust to bowl these overs - play Santner at 8 and play Matt Henry/Mitch McClenahan/Milne as well.
9 Santner - his bowling is too good to lose and stuff up by putting too much pressure on him to bat like Bradman just now. Batting like Crowe may be beyond the guy, but bowling like Vettori is well within grasp, so lets let him develop his batting the way Vettorri did - with less pressure and expectation. He has to perform with the ball tho.
10 Southee/Sodhi
11 Boult

I'm not a big fan of George Worker but his domestic runs are knocking the door down to be given a chance, much like Colin Munro's were. Like Munro - he may have failings at international level, but I'm okay with him given a chance and find out. Like Elliot as proven, players will often get better with age. Bruce is my number 1 choice for those 2 spots. Solia and Worker then follow behind. Worker has some possibly useful spin to develop.

I'm not surprised NZ lost this series and I think the scoreline flattered NZ at 3-2. Guptill was a freak knock that we all know he is capable of unleashing at any time, but only one of those innings a year is to be expected from him realistically as he now has 3 of them. South Africa won the series without a single century from their batsmen, and NZ won 2 games where centuries were scored by its batsmen. South Africa has more batsmen more capable and more likely to score centuries than NZ - but centuries are not the be all and end all of winning high scoring matches. Remember the 2015 WC semi final NZ fans? Batting deep will win more games, more often, and more than complements the easiest way to winning - a top 4 player to get a century. Tho ask Ross Taylor, many a century has been scored in a losing effort.

Ronchi and Neesham are the worst top 5 keeper batsman and 6 in odi cricket that I can think of currently playing. This includes Bangladesh, and possibly Afghanistan who have Shezhad and some very useful spin bowling allrounders.
Last edited by Paddles on Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27905
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby raja » Sat Mar 04, 2017 2:11 pm

Thanks, Paddles.

Very good insight into NZ cricket.

I haven't heard of a few names here - but then I don't follow ODI cricket closely.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Sun Mar 05, 2017 1:08 am

Mike Hesson was just on the radio saying he was happy with Jimmy Neesham's development as an allrounder in this series.

Jimmy Neesham bowled 10 overs in 5 games.

Colin De Grandhomme bowled 24 overs and bowled his full quota once.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11353
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Boycs » Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:32 pm

I hadn't quite appreciated the healthy bowling average that Wagner has. I thought it would be more like 32 than 28. There's a good article about him and Elgar and some old school-age jousts between the two.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:44 am

BoyCaught30 wrote:I hadn't quite appreciated the healthy bowling average that Wagner has. I thought it would be more like 32 than 28. There's a good article about him and Elgar and some old school-age jousts between the two.


Doesn't get the new ball either so his numbers are even more valuable as a 3rd seamer. We in NZ waited for his residency as he dominated domestic and broke records and then he started by fizzling out. But he got back in the side and bowled tirelessly, and since his bouncerathon strategy - he's averaging low 20s against classy opposition.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:26 am

Neil Broom will replace Taylor with Nicchols still in the team. Media attention is on Tom Bruce and Colin Munro. Hesson has said Munro batting is not wanted for a 4 or 5 spot, and obv prefers Neesham at 6 to Munro.

His silence on reasons not to pick Bruce is deafening and may mean that he is a close contender as against Munro. I suspect Larsen (fellow selector to Hesson) is a Tom Bruce fan and that he is a close contender but Broom's experience in odi this year gave him the edge. I wish Broom well, I would have given both Bruce and Broom a go if I were Hesson and not wanting to try Munro on a green Basin reserve vs Morkel, Philander, and Rabada. I hear Hesson's concerns with Munro - and this is not the match to bring him in at 4. I agree. But sooner and not later he deserves a shot at 6. Bruce I would have thrown in as soon as possible as he looks so promising as an organised batsmen whereas Nicholls looks like a fish out of water without even runs at domestic level.

The odi tour of Ireland in a few months may have more impact on NZ cricket incl tests in the next few years than any small tour before it as the likes of Bruce and Kuggeleijn press their aspirations.

There is talk of CDG replacing Santner for the next test, which is ridiculous in my opinion. He either replaces Neesham or does not play as 3 of Southee, Boult, Wagner and Henry will - I favour the first 3 and Patel looks set to replace Santner. I'm not a fan of dropping Santner for Patel, but it looks likely to occur for this match.

(Edit) CDG played ahead of Henry due to an injury to Boult, but Patel played replaced Santner as the sole spinner
Last edited by Paddles on Sun May 28, 2017 3:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

Mick180461
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1219
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 1:28 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Australia

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Mick180461 » Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:23 am

Paddles wrote:
BoyCaught30 wrote:I hadn't quite appreciated the healthy bowling average that Wagner has. I thought it would be more like 32 than 28. There's a good article about him and Elgar and some old school-age jousts between the two.


Doesn't get the new ball either so his numbers are even more valuable as a 3rd seamer. We in NZ waited for his residency as he dominated domestic and broke records and then he started by fizzling out. But he got back in the side and bowled tirelessly, and since his bouncerathon strategy - he's averaging low 20s against classy opposition.

Got one of the best Bouncers I've ever seen, rarely goes over the batsmans head or wide of the stumps and having a low skidding action the ball reaches the batsman as quickly as a bowl bowled at 10ks faster than a ball bowled by a much taller bowler with a high arm action.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27905
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby raja » Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:01 am

I like Wagner too. Is often in the shadow of Boult but is a dangerous bowler in his own right.

NZ right now have a very good side - they should be winning much more than they are.

I'd say they should be in the top-3 in the world in Test cricket right now, based on player potential.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:28 am

raja wrote:I like Wagner too. Is often in the shadow of Boult but is a dangerous bowler in his own right.

NZ right now have a very good side - they should be winning much more than they are.

I'd say they should be in the top-3 in the world in Test cricket right now, based on player potential.


Boult finally has his swing back but KW, and arguably Taylor & Watling are the only top flight run scorers for their positions. Raval looks promising and Latham has looked promising for years, but the team often needs more runs.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:01 am

Found this brilliantly written article of frankness by the normally more conservative Dylan Cleaver.

It asks two questions, both of which I have endorsed for over a year on this website.

Why is Colin Munro not given a chance in the test team, and what is Henry Nicchols doing in the test team? While I agree with Hesson that Munro is not a direct swap in this series for Ross Taylor due to injury, where Broom has filled in for Taylor type batting earlier in the summer in 50 over cricket, I made the point that Colin deserves a chance in the lower middle order, where the mediocrity of Nicchols and #6 batting failures have me flabbergasted. The issue for Cleaver and me is the same, Colin now has too many runs in white clothes, slogging a red ball, to not have this experiment replicated in test cricket. We both concede it could be an epic failure, but both aagree that a failure is still consistently being picked in the team anyway. Cleaver has obviously finally had enough of Nicholls being selected. I was very early on when I saw his major issues in his batting technique.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11818562
Midweek Fixture: Colin Munro shot JFK from grassy knoll


Welcome to the Colin-gate.

The theory, as was explained to me on Monday morning, was that Auckland middle-order batsman Colin Munro was about to be stood down from the Plunket Shield game against Northern Districts, in part, to stop him further embarrassing national selectors Gavin Larsen and Mike Hesson.

The desire to rush Munro (ice cream lovers will see what I've done there) off stage left, taking his gaudy first-class average of 52 with him, was explained to me as a shameless attempt to protect newbie 33-year-old Neil Broom and Henry Nicholls from an unwelcome microscope.

As far as conspiracy theories go, it gained traction, when it was announced shortly thereafter Munro was duly suspended. Where it falls down is that process was followed - his spray at Andrew Ellis was apparently bang out of order and followed a pattern of outbursts that mar his on-field exploits.


(Munro did not appeal the verdict and did not comment to the Herald's Andrew Alderson when contacted, so it is difficult to judge his feelings on the matter.)

While the idea that the suspension was a ruse holds no water, Munro the jilted cricketer is fast becoming a fascinating topic worthy of forensic analysis.

Those talked to for the purposes of this column described him as a straight-up bloke, who was prone to bursts of white-line fever, which doesn't exactly put him in a club of one. One said the South African "hardness" in him sometimes jarred with New Zealand's more village-green first-class scene.

Another put it more bluntly, saying he is too easily wound up and gets frustrated taking lip from players he was twice as good as.


A third simply said he was a nice guy, who has obviously "pissed off the wrong people".

That last part is clearly true. His continued omission from the New Zealand test team and, to these ears, the inverted logic behind it have given rise to the suspicion that this team is not picked just on what you do, but who you are.

Hesson and Larsen did not engineer this suspension, said one well-connected source, but they might well have celebrated it.

How the national selectors could take such a trenchant position against a player with the unconventional talent of Munro is intriguing, particularly when you're talking about a country with rice-paper thin batting depth.

To borrow a word straight from the US political sphere, the "optics" of the Munro's treatment are awful.

When it was announced Broom had taken the injured Ross Taylor's place ahead of Munro - in fact, Dean Brownlie was probably the next cab off the rank had it not been for injury, and possibly Tom Bruce after that - Larsen and Hesson would have been better not to offer an explanation, but instead hoisted themselves by their own petard.

Munro was described as being destructive on his day, but they were after a player who could control an innings through the middle.

Just happens Munro has quite a few of those days. He's scored a half-century or better 24 times in 68 first-class innings, so he doffs his cap towards the pavilion at a rate better than once every three bats.

As for the "controlling an innings through the middle", that's meaningless coachspeak used to try to cover up a hopeless position.

"With 18 first-class centuries, Neil has shown ability in red-ball cricket over a long period of time," said Larsen.

You're on dangerous ground here, Gav. Should have steered clear of numbers.

He's right, at least. Broom has scored 18 first-class centuries, but let's do some long division.

Broom scores a century every 12.6 first-class innings. Munro scores a first-class century every 5.6 innings.

Let's throw Nicholls into the equation as well, given he appears to have been gift-wrapped the No 5 slot. His first-class innings-to-century ratio is a whopping 22.25.

So, Mike and Gav, you're not really looking for a guy who is going to "control the innings through the middle", are you?

It is impossible to make an argument against Munro based on numbers. His first-class average of 51.85 dwarfs Broom's 39.28 and Nicholls' 36.81.

So you turn to broader concepts, like experience.

"We've got quite an inexperienced batting line-up ... we were keen to have someone who had plenty of playing experience, somebody who played pace well and obviously Neil's had the advantage of seeing a little bit of South Africa earlier in the month," the selectors said.

A little bit is right - Broom scored 2, 2 and 0. Broom is also debuting, so in fact, he has no test-match experience.

Unless they're referencing is first-class experience, of which he has plenty.

Which raises the awkward question: If first-class numbers mean so little, why does first-class experience mean so much?

So, in the absence of a logical, defensible public argument, the sneaky back-channel chatter emerges, the most popular rumour being that Munro's numbers are inflated by his bullying of weak opponents on Eden Park's friendly Outer Oval.

This is called making an argument to suit a prejudice. Unfortunately, it also fails - he's scored three first-class centuries this season, none of them have been at the outer oval.

Incidentally, Nicholls has not scored a first-class century since October 2015 and made the national side on the back of two centuries against a weak-as-water Sri Lanka A team in two low-key fixtures on the airstrip also known as Bert Sutcliffe Oval.

This is also a prejudiced argument that could be circumvented by those with a different set of biases, but you see how easy they are to make.

I was once told by somebody high up in the New Zealand system that Nicholls' first-class numbers couldn't be viewed in isolation, because he barely scored a run in his first two-years, which is a weird argument because a) every player who gets that far has a first two years of first-class cricket and b) imagine how good every player would be if they could wipe from their record the years they don't like (Bradman would have averaged 120!).

Now is about the right time to concede that I have no idea whether Munro's home-spun technique would stand up to test-match scrutiny. It didn't on the one occasion it was tried, but then again, New Zealand scored 652 runs in four innings across that ill-fated tour to South Africa in 2013, so few covered themselves in glory.

Perhaps Nicholls' "ceiling" is higher than Munro's. Bob Carter has clearly seen something there and his 76 against South Africa in a losing cause at Centurion last year demonstrated a willingness to fight.

Perhaps Broom's is too, though being three years older and statistically less accomplished than Munro, it is difficult to see how.

The good news: there's a test starting at the Basin tomorrow and that would be a great time to quell the noise from a growing legion of people who think Munro has been royally shafted for reasons other than his ability.

It'd be nice to think Broom and Nicholls could help damp down this conspiracy, before an unloved Munro leaves to make his money on the T20 circuit.


The problem for those that back Colin's talent is that he really is a Glen Maxwell type headache in that he will go aerial with a reverse flick if he thinks the shot is on despite only having played a few balls. This is why Cleaver is not right to suggest that Colin replace Taylor at 4, but I suspect Cleaver appreciates this and turns his attention to Nicchols at #5. I say Colin's bowling 3rd seamers do make Colin a genuine #6 option where he has not been in the mix, and the consistent failures of Henry Nicholls at #5 mean the batting is already handicapped.

Put simply, people want to see Colin given a chance in tests. I think there is room for both Bruce and Munro to be given a chance. The more time that passes and they're not,leaves many exacerbated with the failures of Nichols and co.

Cleaver also hints at a possible "buddy selection" policy. I suspected the influence of this when Wagner was being omitted for Doug Bracewell. Cleaver and myself obviously hope this isn't the case. Time will tell, I was long exasperated that Raval was not given his due, and he is now. Bruce, another favourite of mine, is now a lock in the t20 side, and edging closer to the 50 over team. Kuggeleijn, one of my favourite causes, I expect to be given a 50 over chance in the upcoming tour of Ireland. Munro found his way into the T20 side, then the 50 over side, and lost his spot in the 50 over team fairly. But he still has earned a shot at a red ball trial, but given there are no winter tours for NZC this year, and once this Safrica series finishes, no test cricket until late November when the West Indies tour NZ, Colin could find himself looking to T20 leagues for a pay day as being too low on the contract list as not a test player.
Last edited by Paddles on Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:10 am, edited 6 times in total.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:02 am

Boult confirmed out injured, and Patel is likely to play in Wellington further weakening the batting.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11353
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Boycs » Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:09 am

Paddles wrote:
raja wrote:I like Wagner too. Is often in the shadow of Boult but is a dangerous bowler in his own right.

NZ right now have a very good side - they should be winning much more than they are.

I'd say they should be in the top-3 in the world in Test cricket right now, based on player potential.


Boult finally has his swing back but KW, and arguably Taylor & Watling are the only top flight run scorers for their positions. Raval looks promising and Latham has looked promising for years, but the team often needs more runs.


I like Latham. I'm a fan of players with less than awesome ability but making the maximum of it. I liked that about Nasser Hussain too. Drive and ambition making a career out of less than top flight natural ability and lots of grit.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:28 am

BoyCaught30 wrote:
Paddles wrote:
Boult finally has his swing back but KW, and arguably Taylor & Watling are the only top flight run scorers for their positions. Raval looks promising and Latham has looked promising for years, but the team often needs more runs.


I like Latham. I'm a fan of players with less than awesome ability but making the maximum of it. I liked that about Nasser Hussain too. Drive and ambition making a career out of less than top flight natural ability and lots of grit.


Unfortunately Latham, by NZ batting standards, has a tonne of talent. He's the most naturally talented orthodox test batsman technician in the country after KW. Make no mistake, Latham is no Mark Richardson relying on sheer grit where there is a void of talent. This kid is a natural wicket keeper and has all the hand eye sporting ability needed and then some. On top of that talent, is a complete techinically correct style of play with no obvious faults or Wisden orthodox criticisms. Why Latham is unable to convert more often is concerning for NZ cricket fans. He has the shots, the apparent desire, and most importantly the technique, but far less runs than the hand eye made batsmen in Ross Taylor (an off side technician but an on side sweeper and often farmer - I'm not saying anything is wrong with that, I love Viv Richards planting his left foot outside offstump and walloping the ball over the leg side too).

I'm not calling for Latham's exclusion from the test team. I'm happy for him to be given an extended run. Put simply, he is still better than the alternatives in the form of Brownlie who is lost to quality spin. But all NZC fans want to see the talent and determination of Latham come to fruition in a vein of rich run scoring like KW achieved after his teething years. We want Alistair Cook or Mark Richardson levels of output from Latham, cos he is more than good enough to do so. Like Cook, I'm not sure he is so suited to the limited overs game, but KW has demonstrated than a technician can play limited overs and succeed if they hustle and look to score off every ball from the start of their innings.

But so far Latham has cashed in big against the weaker attacks of the West Indies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe which boosts his numbers against England, India, South Africa and Australia. His good scores against Pakistan show that he can be more than a minnow scorer, but that requires more good scores against good opposition more often.

The answer may be one that NZC cricket and its fans do not want to suffer; that Tom may be best suited to batting at 4 or 5 and not facing the new ball all the time. This may suit Tom personally, but leaves the team structure in a further predicament.

Tom's dismissals are ball nipping back into pads, ball nipping to outside edge, leg side strangling, sometimes chasing a slightly wide one to drive. All orthodox dismissals where a head can still be held high in the dressing room, but a dismissal is a dismissal nevertheless. He's not getting out trying to hit over the top of mid on or mid off, he's not cutting the ball aerially to third man, he's not a happy hooker getting out to the obvious 3 card trick. He's not getting caught in the covers or at mid wicket. His dismissals are not those that lack discipline, or in the case of Henry Nicholls are a result of overt and obvious technical deficiency. He just gets out.

That leaves one alternative that Tom needs to try and remain an opener, he actually needs to find a way to put bowlers off their line and length more often and rotate the strike more. KW has his glide to 3rd man with a vertical bat that he plays regularly instead of block the ball. Maybe Tom ought to implement that shot to his regular arsenal, find an area to push more singles in and put away his cover drive until he's progressed into the 30's.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:26 am

Watling on 30 odd off over 100 balls when the tail is in.

Its time he is promoted up the order already.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:34 am

The NZ team has gone backwards this year in terms of test and limited overs cricket. Only a one eyed idealist and eternal optimistic fan would say otherwise. We have seen the development of CDG as an international option, the success of Tom Bruce in T20, Jeet Raval keeping his head above water in tests, but we have also seen the disintegration of Tom Latham and continued issues at #6 in the test team. We have no limited overs keeper scoring runs. We have seen a Jeetan Patel experiment, that has put Todd Astle and Ish Sodhi opportunities further back in all formats.

Worse yet, there appears to be no direction to improve the lot of the team as yet. NZ first class scene is as strong as ever, with a depth of talent emerging, so the situation is not dire, but the direction and key selections need to be made with an eye to a game plan. KW did not bowl Jeetan in the Safrican 4th innings today, and they may have been a signal to the selectors. Unfortunately he did bowl Neesham who was smashed for more than 10 runs an over.

The CDG at 6 providing nibble seam and Santner at 8 providing eco spin with Boult, Southee, and Wagner has been changed to:

Neesham at 6 - offering nothing good with the ball, CDG at 8 but with less batting from Patel providing "promise" not delivered with Wagner and Boult/Southee.

I'm not going to criticise CDG bowling because, quite frankly, he has stood up. But neither Neesham nor Patel have in the test team and are passengers.

Worse still, after just 1 century, Nicholls gift wrapped presentation of the #5 spot is set to be continued. I saw most the innings. He looked terrific against spin, but he was jammy against the seam bowlers.

Commentators now have Tom Latham under the scope to be replaced which is a shame, but it is difficult to argue against until replacement opener options are announced. Whoever, if anyone, is picked to replace Latham does not change the fact that I still have no faith and confidence in the middle order of Broom, Nicholls and Neesham as a middle order. There are FC players scoring runs. There are options.

Hamilton is likely to be a turning wicket, it is Sodhi and Santner's home ground. Todd Astle, is having another consistent first class year, with A Patel, Nethula, and Sodhi also taking wickets this year.

If Patel is picked for Hamilton again, ahead of Astle, Sodhi or Santner, I'll be disappointed. If attempts are not made to bolster the batting strength, I will be disappointed. This is much tougher for the selectors to remedy, but that is why they get paid the big bucks. Munro and Bruce, and many more, are scoring a ton of runs. There are options. But for the selectors who took so long to appreciate that Raval was due an opportunity, I as one fan am starting to lose confidence in the selectors. Put simply, Patel's selection across formats this year ahead of more worthy candidates has disappointed me in every game. I said during the limited overs series that if he was selected for the tests ahead of alternatives that I would be okay with it as against me fuming with his limited overs selection. But when it ultimately happened ahead of Santner, it still made little sense in that format, too.

I hope to see Todd Astle and Mitch Santner ahead of Patel if 2 spinners play in Hamilton. Heck - I'd rather see Sodhi ahead of Patel at Hamilton.
Last edited by Paddles on Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27905
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby raja » Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:41 am

I quite liked what I saw of Santner during the recent NZ tour of India.
Would anyday pick him before Jeetan Patel.
Know nothing about Todd Astle, so can't comment on him.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:00 am

Astle (is a former opening batsman with a competent technique for a now lower order bat who) bowls slow non ripping leggies. As such, he's less dangerous than Sodhi but bowls far less boundary balls as he controls his length much better.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Sun Mar 19, 2017 4:57 am

And finally the curtain has been lifted on what I have been concerned about for quite a while now. While Tom Latham is under fire not scoring any runs of note in any format for a while, people have finally realised that the NZ middle order is a massive point of weakness. The run output from numbers 5 and 6 assuming Taylor is fit, is just totally insufficient.

Unfortunately fans with rose tinted glasses think Corey Anderson could replace Jimmy Neesham and all is well. Unfortunately, he's just the lesser clunker at test level. Neither are quality test 5th bowlers. Neither are test quality number 6 batsman as they lack temperament and the ability to work the ball around the ground for strike rotation, and end up looking for the big hit that isn't on. Neesham has issues with good spin, Anderson has issues with good bowling angling stumps to off being from spin or seam.

Henry Nicholls seems to be a getting a hall pass on the back of one century. This may keep him in the side when the West Indies arrive next year, but he is low odds to repeat his ton in the next match in my opinion. There are ridiculous calls to get KW to stop playing T20 - not only does KW want to play that format, that saves his workload by 3 hours. Its of no real consequence. There are criticisms of CDG for his batting, which completely overlooks he was picked to play as a bowler in the last match, and was the best bowler in the side. Even in the Safrica 2nd innings he was regularly finding the edge for catches that did not carry or were shelled.

The one thing that is unaminous is the unfortunate predicament of the Jesse Ryder situation. Since going to county cricket and discovering that he could bowl well with nibble from a great seam presentation, since replicated in NZ conditions many times over, people appreciate that he would make a fantastic #6 batsman and 5th bowling option. Unfortunately, at nearly 33 years of age, I do not believe that Jesse Ryder is all that interested in playing for NZC anymore. He went back and asked to be part of the team under BMac. That did not happen. This time NZC needs to ask him.

Well, at least now NZC appreciates there is a major issue with the batting in tests at least. And besides the obvious lack of form for Latham, the issue is the middle order. The rose tinted glass may be on for Henry Nicholls, but Jimmy Neesham is certainly under the microscope now. NZ media is excited by Nicholls finally scoring a ton batting at 5, while at the same time Glen Maxwell (vs India) and Shakib Al Hasan (vs SL) were scoring centuries at 6.

Unfortunately cricket is not a game that permits people to pick the 11 best cricketers in the country. Bowlers, batters, wicket keeper must all be balanced for variable playing conditions. And sometimes, a like for like replacement to keep the same team structure makes no sense when the replacement is not of the same qualities. The best way to pick a team with maximum chance of winning, is to examine the available pool of players, and choose a team structure that maximises its chances of winning. It is a fallacy to let the form (team composition structure eg, how many spinners, 6 batsman or 5 plus an allrounder) dictate the substance (which players are piked), the substance ought to dictate the form, that is, what is the best playing eleven that can be moulded from available players. The best ideas are often the most bold. Once Lance Gibbs had retired, Lloyd looked at his spinning options of lesser quality, and decided 4 fast bowlers was the better way to go - of which they had many. Its one thing to replace an injured or retired SK Warne with S MacGill, its another to keep trying to replace Lance Gibbs with Raphick Jumadeen, David Holford , Albert Padmore , or Inshan Ali ( http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/ ... 52209.html , http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/ ... 52064.html , http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/ ... 52667.html , http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/ ... 51103.html ).

There are NO orthodox test quality #6 batsman allrounders in the NZ first class scene bar Jesse Ryder. So NZC need to stop trying to find a Sobers quality in Neesham (or Anderson). Lockie Ferguson is no Adam Milne in ODI, so he needs to stop being selected just because he is nearly as fast as Adam Milne. This is common sense. The idea of letting the form dictate the substance is illogical. Every player is different. A like for like replacement ought to be a factor to be considered, but not a prerequisite, as well as necessary and sufficient.

The best allrounder in NZ is Scott Kugelijn. He is a bowler first and foremost. But he could well be the best #8 in test cricket since Dan Vettori. He's not proven to be a #6 - he's an opening bowler. If picked, that means Southee gets dropped because Boult is superior and Wagner has been ever so consistent. So Kuggeleijn is really a contender to replace CDG at number 8. He might stiffen up the tail, but he does not fix the batting line up issues ahead of him. Kuggelijn does not fit into the #6 spot as yet so he won't likely be picked. Todd Astle, likewise, could be a useful number 8. Again, he does not fix the lack of runs at the top of the order. If runs are the issue for NZ, then more batsmen are required. The next test is a must win, a 5th bowling option is the least likely bowler to win a test - unless its CDG on a seamer as the best seam bowler in the team. The answer is obvious. Stack the batting 1 to 6 with the best available. Then pick the 4 bowlers most likely to snag 20 wickets. Southee is not ideal batting at 8, so it is likely that one of Astle, CDG or Santner ought to bat at 8. If this costs Patel his shot because of inferior batting, so be it. If picking 2 spinners, and the toss is lost and NZ are forced to bowl first at spin friendly Hamilton, and the match is effectively over before it starts, then at least they gave a chance at victory their best effort.

And while the hunt is on for a #6 who can bat and bowl a few overs, highly unorthodox Colin Munro has a FC average of over 50 and a bowling average under 30. He is averaging close to 100 this year with the bat, and just took 3/40 (top order) wickets in his last match. In his ony test against Safrica 4 years ago, he took 2/40 off 18 overs incl the wicket of Faf Du Plesisand showed up Boult, Wagner and Patel. Now really - how hard is it to pick him at 6 if a seam bowler is needed to accomodate playing 2 spinners in Hamilton.
Last edited by Paddles on Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:34 pm

I'm also chomping at the bit to see Tom Bruce play longer forms of cricket for NZ. If Patel is dropped I wouldn't be surprised - and a long shot like Todd Astle playing with Santner is on the cards despite Faf suggesting it will be Sodhi. Sodhi is more dangerous but Astle is less of a risk and bats a bit.

So assuming I'm a selector who has total faith in continuing with Latham and Nicholls (I don't mind Latham but Nicholls is another matter) - and if Ross Taylor is still injured, I'd go with something along the lines of:

1 Latham
2 Raval
3 KW
4 Nicholls
5 Bruce
6 Munro
7 Watling
8 Astle
9 Santner
10 Wagner
11 Boult (if fit - if not then Southee)

Effectively CDG is in a battle with Southee, for one of the two spots taken up by spinners, given the deciding match is expected to be on a dust bowl in Hamilton. My preference of Southee is as an attack and swing bowler leader without Boult, with Boult in the side, CDG odds of playing ahead of Southee increase greatly. It must be noted that Bruce bowls some handy off spin, and if Taylor is fit to play, this in conjunction with KW may mean Bruce could get the nod ahead of Munro, and only one of Santner and Astle play.

Santner and Sodhi have shown destructive abilities on dustbowls - albeit in t20 - so there are options and plenty of headaches for the selectors. The above is nothing like the selectors will pick, with Broom almost a certainty to play in Taylor's place if unavailable, and Neesham quite likely given another gift wrapped opportunity.
Last edited by Paddles on Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:34 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:57 pm

And the selectors have announced, no changes.

Yes - no changes to the squad at all.

This means a reprieve for Latham, which I'm fine with.

It also means more Jeetan Patel.

Seriously.

After 23 tests, Jeetan Patel averages 48 with the ball, striking at a tick over 90. Most these games have been played on spin conducive wickets as the second spinner in the side to Vettorri. While Sodhi's average is not much better at nearly 47, his strike rate is less than 75 and he has played more games as the sole spinner in the side on non turning tracks.

The person who is performing best in FC cricket is Todd Astle. Picked for a test in November, he was not required to bowl much on a green NZ wicket which CDG exploited for a bag of wickets. I like to support any NZ player selected, but watching Patel perform at a mediocre level and being repeatedly selected ahead of Astle and Sodhi does not rank high on my enjoyable cricket watching.

Which brings me to Jimmy Neesham, who averages 29.7 batting at 6. Better than Mitch Marsh you say. But Jimmy Neesham has "lively medium pace" at 48 runs per wicket.

Well I criticized Nicholls leading into the last match, and he finally put an innings on the board. Not a big hundred, but a small hundred where a big hundred was needed and a second innings failure. For NZ to win this game - I wish Neesham and Patel all the best in scoring runs and taking bags of wickets and making me and all their critics looks like fools. But with their bowling pedigrees of averaging over 48 and scoring a few runs, I'm not sure Safrica are too concerned about them as players heading into the next test.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:13 am

I posted this a while ago on this forum.

"All rounder 6 wk 7 is a useful guide to selectors but ought not to be a hard n fast rule. Trying to get Barlow, Prochter and Rice all at 6 is nonsense when a side can benefit from all 3. Personally I think Watling ought to at at 6 ahead of NZ's CDG, Neesh or Anderson who ought to bat 7. One key reason is Watling does not slog/up tempo well with the tail despite his 2 record partnerships for the 6th wicket (with KW dbl ton and BMac tripple). Another reason is he is a better orthodox batsman to bat time than them and occupies the crease longer. In terms of wicket keeping tiring duties, the extra recovery time from 6 to 7 with those batsmen at #6 has typically been minimal. I think he deserves the chance to score more runs by batting higher in the order and that the team would benefit more from this. If #6 was Ryder or a specialist batsman then Watling may be better suited to #7 - but when he outscores #5 Nicchols and #6 allrounder so often - I'd bat him wherever he prefers."

Interestingly, a journalist noticed Watling's batting for time and interviewed him about it:

BJ Watling's determination born from a love of batting and a hate of getting out

BJ Watling averages a tick over 40 for the past 12 months.

As the Black Caps batsmen look to atone for their poor performances in the second test, they could do worse than imitate their wicketkeeper, BJ Watling.

He faced 215 balls across both innings at the Basin Reserve for his 63 runs, and was the last man out in the second innings and the eighth in the first, when he suffered the misfortune of edging a sweep down on to the the knee-flap of his back pad, rather than into the ground, so offered up an easy catch.

Jeet Raval may have faced more balls (257), and he and Henry Nicholls may have scored more runs (116 and 125 respectively), but while they both showed plenty to like, neither quite had Watling's dogged determination not to give his wicket away.

The 31-year-old from Hamilton has been established in the test side since the ill-fated tour of South Africa at the start of 2013, and after missing one test in England later that year, he has now played 37 matches in a row, more than any of his teammates.

Since the start of 2013, only Kane Williamson (110) has faced more balls per completed innings on average than Watling's 91 among New Zealand batsmen, a figure that puts him ahead of Jeet Raval (86), Ross Taylor (84), and Tom Latham (83).

The numbers back up the clear picture you get from watching him bat - that he is someone who isn't afraid to grind it out, and who is focused on surviving first and scoring runs second.

Watling is the man behind two of the 40 longest innings in New Zealand history in terms of minutes, a list that is topped by Brendon McCullum's near 13-hour epic at the Basin against India. He is also one of just 11 New Zealanders to have batted for 470 minutes or more at least twice. BJ Watling faced 215 balls during the second test in Wellington, more than nine of his teammates.

Speaking ahead of the third test, which starts on Saturday at Seddon Park in Hamilton, Watling said his approach to batting was crafted when he was at school.

"You want to bat for as long as you can, and I do love batting, and I hate getting out.

"You respect each delivery as well and I think the South Africans bowl a lot of good balls that deserve respect, and you've got to wait a bit longer to get the balls to put away. That's my mindset.​"

The Black Caps have struggled for runs from No 6 this summer, with none of their all-rounder options producing to the extent the selectors would have hoped for.

Meanwhile, Watling has been a consistent performer at No 7, averaging 41.85 since the tour of Zimbabwe last July and August, with a century and an unbeaten 83 on that trip; a pair of 49s, one of them not out, against Pakistan and Bangladesh; and a 50 in the first test against South Africa.

Moving Watling up a spot does have some appeal then, but he said it hadn't been discussed, and that he was happy where he was, for the most part.

"You do want more time in the middle, but I guess my role's always been to bat seven for the majority of my keeping days.

"Keeping can be quite tough and it is a mental drain sometimes, focusing on every ball in the field. Batting at seven you get a little mental break before you're back out there in the middle.

"For me, it's whatever balance the team needs."


http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/90694691/bj-watlings-determination-born-from-a-love-of-batting-and-a-hate-of-getting-out

Move him up to 6 already.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:23 am

The "word on the street" is that both CDG and Neesham may be axed ahead of the third test. http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/90610342/ross-taylor-ruled-out-of-third-test-trent-boult-likely-to-return-as-black-caps-name-unchanged-squad-for-hamiltonThis will mean an XI of:

1 Latham
2Raval
3 KW
4 Broom
5 Nicholls
6 Santner
7 Watling
8 Southee
9 Patel
10 Wagner
11 Boult

Is NZC seriously thinking that the best way to increase the chances of a win from a team that is bowling well and batting poorly, to strengthen the bowling little more (arguable given CDG was the best bowler last match and he would find himself omitted) at the batting's expense? This is ridiculous logic. There are no extra batsmen in the squad so there is NO SPECIALIST BATTING OPTION for #6. I'm sorry, but this appears nothing short of stupid to me. I hope that the 5 batsmen score enough runs to win the game, but to contemplate making weaker the weak link, to strengthen the area of strength, to me is nothing short of gambling.

As for BMac suggesting NZ need 20 wickets to win so to pick 5 bowlers, he might like to think that NZ had another 2 days at their disposal to get South Africa out for the second time, they just didn't have the runs on the board to do it with.

It is clear that Larson and Hesson are void of answers to the batting problems of the NZ team. They want to be conservative and stick to what has worked in past seasons, but it didn't work in Safrica, it disappointed in England, it didn't work in Australia, it didn't work against Australia touring here, it didn't work in India, and its not working against South Africa here. The selectors need to take their rose tinted glasses off and appreciate that the issue of the middle order has been around since before BMac left, and that he simply passed the issue onto KW when he left. While beating the weaker teams conceals the real problems, any team with a good seam bowling attack (or India at home with its spinning wickets) - the quality of NZ batsmanship is quite exposed unless KW, Taylor Watling tons up. And even then KW has tonned up in losses.

Does NZC cricket really want to join the top flight test teams, or just beat Asian teams at home?
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

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: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Misty » Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:55 am

I wonder why Tarun sai Nethula never consider for test cricket, he was playing in ODI for NZ vs Zimbabwe and Westindies.

He is Leg spinner

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4103
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Land of the Long White Cloud - NZ Cricket thread

Postby Paddles » Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:25 am

Misty wrote:I wonder why Tarun sai Nethula never consider for test cricket, he was playing in ODI for NZ vs Zimbabwe and Westindies.

He is Leg spinner


Just bad timing in a surplus of mediocre spinners, early career coincided with Vettorri and J Patel. More recently he clashes with Santner, Sodhi, Astle, and Mark Craig. Santner was picked young on the promise of batting output like DV and has done well in odi. Mark Craig was good in the 4th innings with his cutting technique, but his batting was more valuable than innings 1 to 3.

Sodhi has been picked on the fact he can rip it big and his googly bites and turns and is now unlucky in odi to J Patel. More unlucky than Nethula is Astle who bats a bit and bowls with fair control without ripping it. Fair to say Nethula is not banging the door down with fantastic season results and while he got 9 wickets in his last match, Ajaz Patel has good games too and is nowhere near selection.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.