NZ Cricket
-
@frugby said in NZ Cricket:
@Chris said in NZ Cricket:
@frugby said in NZ Cricket:
@Cyclops said in NZ Cricket:
I see youngster Rhys Mariu made 240 opening for Canterbury. That pushes his average in the 60s in his 9th match with 3 centuries (including this one) and 4 50s. Pretty handy start - haven't heard anything about him before but see he's been in the youth setup. Anyone else know much about him?
I'm not sure the Plunket Shield is always a great barometer... I suppose Toole, Tickner and Patel is a better attack then some teams have, but it is quite a step down from anything you'll ever face at the international conditions (particularly in these conditions.
What barometer do you wish to use to identify NZ talent it is the domestic comp.
Rhys has succeeded at every level he has tried at.
Was the leading NZ bat in the under u/19 World Cup in SA still only 18 then
9 First class matches for Canterbury 3 100'sand 4 50's a good strike rate.Wasn’t meant as a slight on Mariu, more of a general statement. The two best batters in the Plunket Shield in the last 10 or so years statistically are probably Munro, Hay and Bruce, all of whom never played test cricket.
Yeah Rhys is talented had a bit to do with him here in Brisbane he has come over and trained in the off season.
-
@frugby said in NZ Cricket:
@Chris said in NZ Cricket:
@frugby said in NZ Cricket:
@Cyclops said in NZ Cricket:
I see youngster Rhys Mariu made 240 opening for Canterbury. That pushes his average in the 60s in his 9th match with 3 centuries (including this one) and 4 50s. Pretty handy start - haven't heard anything about him before but see he's been in the youth setup. Anyone else know much about him?
I'm not sure the Plunket Shield is always a great barometer... I suppose Toole, Tickner and Patel is a better attack then some teams have, but it is quite a step down from anything you'll ever face at the international conditions (particularly in these conditions.
What barometer do you wish to use to identify NZ talent it is the domestic comp.
Rhys has succeeded at every level he has tried at.
Was the leading NZ bat in the under u/19 World Cup in SA still only 18 then
9 First class matches for Canterbury 3 100'sand 4 50's a good strike rate.Wasn’t meant as a slight on Mariu, more of a general statement. The two best batters in the Plunket Shield in the last 10 or so years statistically are probably Munro, Hay and Bruce, all of whom never played test cricket.
Probably due to the BC bats not getting much game time.
-
@frugby said in NZ Cricket:
@Chris said in NZ Cricket:
@frugby said in NZ Cricket:
@Cyclops said in NZ Cricket:
I see youngster Rhys Mariu made 240 opening for Canterbury. That pushes his average in the 60s in his 9th match with 3 centuries (including this one) and 4 50s. Pretty handy start - haven't heard anything about him before but see he's been in the youth setup. Anyone else know much about him?
I'm not sure the Plunket Shield is always a great barometer... I suppose Toole, Tickner and Patel is a better attack then some teams have, but it is quite a step down from anything you'll ever face at the international conditions (particularly in these conditions.
What barometer do you wish to use to identify NZ talent it is the domestic comp.
Rhys has succeeded at every level he has tried at.
Was the leading NZ bat in the under u/19 World Cup in SA still only 18 then
9 First class matches for Canterbury 3 100'sand 4 50's a good strike rate.Wasn’t meant as a slight on Mariu, more of a general statement. The two best batters in the Plunket Shield in the last 10 or so years statistically are probably Munro, Hay and Bruce, all of whom never played test cricket.
I reckon we actually have to go back quite a long time now find a failed Plunket Shield elevation to test cricket.
I'm not talking short term elevations. E.g. an experienced domestic like Broom or Redmond coming in for a single series because of an injury to a regular. I'm not even talking Will Young or Matt Henry who had sporadic injury replacement opportunities for the first 5 or so years and struggled in their opportunities.
I'm talking when they've picked someone they hope to be a test regular. And then given them a few series.
I think you'd have to go back 10 or 11 years. To the early 2010s and with the 'usual suspect' problem positions for NZ; openers and spinner.
To 2013/14 when Latham came in for the Rutherford/Fulton position. And the procession of spinners to replace Vettori; J Patel > B Martin > I Sodhi. Before they settled on Mark Craig again during the 2013/14 season.
Now it depends what you consider a 'successful elevation' of course.
I consider Mark Craig's short peak then quite rapid decline a 'qualified success' for our weakest position. I consider Santner's role with our 4 seamer's a 'qualified success'.
Not saying everything is constant. In those weaker positions we went:
- Guptill > Raval . Blundell > Conway in the second opener.
- Anderson > Neesham > de Grandhomme > Mitchell in the batting allrounder (and Santner and M Bracewell depneding on balance).
- Santner > Ajaz > Santner (again) > Astle > M Bracewell > Phillips / Santner (again) in the spinner role.
A few of the careers would end (or be interrupted) after a thumping in Australia (Craig, Neesham, Guptill, Raval, were ended and then Santner's was interrupted for about 2 years. Which is usually a very bad metric to judge/end careers on (an away series in Aus). But is fine if you have a good candidate to replace them with or give an opportunity to. Which in those cases we did.
-
OF course. There's an element of causation and correlation.
There have been very stable selection policies since McCullum / Hesson, then Stead. Which correlates to when I propose PS has elevated solid players to test level.
Also. Performance in Plunket Shield gets you elevated to NZ'A" cricket if NZC can be arsed to organise some, Or the meaningless blackcaps white ball tours. So, 'other' cricket happens to do some filtering before anyone ever magically moves from Plunket Shield to test cricket of course.
-
@Rapido said in NZ Cricket:
@frugby said in NZ Cricket:
@Chris said in NZ Cricket:
@frugby said in NZ Cricket:
@Cyclops said in NZ Cricket:
I see youngster Rhys Mariu made 240 opening for Canterbury. That pushes his average in the 60s in his 9th match with 3 centuries (including this one) and 4 50s. Pretty handy start - haven't heard anything about him before but see he's been in the youth setup. Anyone else know much about him?
I'm not sure the Plunket Shield is always a great barometer... I suppose Toole, Tickner and Patel is a better attack then some teams have, but it is quite a step down from anything you'll ever face at the international conditions (particularly in these conditions.
What barometer do you wish to use to identify NZ talent it is the domestic comp.
Rhys has succeeded at every level he has tried at.
Was the leading NZ bat in the under u/19 World Cup in SA still only 18 then
9 First class matches for Canterbury 3 100'sand 4 50's a good strike rate.Wasn’t meant as a slight on Mariu, more of a general statement. The two best batters in the Plunket Shield in the last 10 or so years statistically are probably Munro, Hay and Bruce, all of whom never played test cricket.
I reckon we actually have to go back quite a long time now find a failed Plunket Shield elevation to test cricket.
I'm not talking short term elevations. E.g. an experienced domestic like Broom or Redmond coming in for a single series because of an injury to a regular. I'm not even talking Will Young or Matt Henry who had sporadic injury replacement opportunities for the first 5 or so years and struggled in their opportunities.
I'm talking when they've picked someone they hope to be a test regular. And then given them a few series.
I think you'd have to go back 10 or 11 years. To the early 2010s and with the 'usual suspect' problem positions for NZ; openers and spinner.
To 2013/14 when Latham came in for the Rutherford/Fulton position. And the procession of spinners to replace Vettori; J Patel > B Martin > I Sodhi. Before they settled on Mark Craig again during the 2013/14 season.
Now it depends what you consider a 'successful elevation' of course.
I consider Mark Craig's short peak then quite rapid decline a 'qualified success' for our weakest position. I consider Santner's role with our 4 seamer's a 'qualified success'.
Not saying everything is constant. In those weaker positions we went:
- Guptill > Raval . Blundell > Conway in the second opener.
- Anderson > Neesham > de Grandhomme > Mitchell in the batting allrounder (and Santner and M Bracewell depneding on balance).
- Santner > Ajaz > Santner (again) > Astle > M Bracewell > Phillips / Santner (again) in the spinner role.
A few of the careers would end (or be interrupted) after a thumping in Australia (Craig, Neesham, Guptill, Raval, were ended and then Santner's was interrupted for about 2 years. Which is usually a very bad metric to judge/end careers on (an away series in Aus). But is fine if you have a good candidate to replace them with or give an opportunity to. Which in those cases we did.
I feel you are actually agreeing with me. The selectors have had the back of picking the right guys in recent times, some of which had good domestic numbers, but others who have been picked on instinct
-
Batters having a bit of fun in Auckland at the moment:
Of note: 276 off 325 for Mark Chapman in a total of 567/9d. Canterbury 211/0 in response with yet another Rhys Mariu ton. 1000 FC runs now in 19 innings. From the scorecard they're playing on a road (says Eden Park outer oval, but maybe they're actually playing on Dominion Road), so tough to read too much into that score, but nice to see him cashing in.
-
There is an analysis article about Kane Williamson today regarding joining the 9000 test runs club. Worth mentioning is that he was the 33rd fastest to 4000 runs, 31st fastest to 5000, 19th fastest to 6000, 13th fastest to 7000, 10th fastest to 8000 and now 8th fastest to 9000. Getting better in the second half of his career.
The summary from the article:
-
Sangakkara and Kane stand out as two players whose average got better and better over time. Sangakkara notably after giving up the gloves, and Kane who was thrown into the NZ team very early on as we were desperate for anyone that could average above 35!
-
Since 2017 hes been averaging 61 overall and 77 at home.
Before that, 2010 - 2017 he averaged 49 overall and 'only' 54 at home
Where Smith and Kohli are struggling and their averages going down the last few years. Kanes is going up.
-
@Bovidae said in NZ Cricket:
There is an analysis article about Kane Williamson today regarding joining the 9000 test runs club. Worth mentioning is that he was the 33rd fastest to 4000 runs, 31st fastest to 5000, 19th fastest to 6000, 13th fastest to 7000, 10th fastest to 8000 and now 8th fastest to 9000. Getting better in the second half of his career.
The summary from the article:
Not at all a stick to beat him with, but part of the reason for getting quicker, is because fewer players reach the milestone.
-
@No-Quarter said in NZ Cricket:
Sangakkara and Kane stand out as two players whose average got better and better over time. Sangakkara notably after giving up the gloves, and Kane who was thrown into the NZ team very early on as we were desperate for anyone that could average above 35!
Yeah the ones who suffered most in later years that I can think of were Ponting, Dravid and Tendulkar. I hope he pulls the pin at the right time.
KWs record is absolutely incredible and there seem to be two schools of fans, those who agree and those who point out the ‘home track bully’ argument.
EVERY great player has a team ( s ) against whom their record might not be quite so brilliant.
