Aus v NZ -Chappell Hadlee series III - MCG
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Aus v NZ -Chappell Hadlee series III - MCG:
The embarrassing thing was , before the series , there was some talk in NZ we are getting the Aussies at a good time
Australia had been losing, which made it a bad time to get them. They are still number 1 and they showed it.
-
@hydro11 said in Aus v NZ -Chappell Hadlee series III - MCG:
I still think our best ODI side is quite good. Anderson for de Grandhomme, Neesham for Munro, Taylor for Nicholls, Milne or McClenaghan for Ferguson. You have one of the better ODI sides in the world.
Yeah - unfortunately seems to be a major challenge getting everyone on the park at the same time.
Biggest problems seem to be finding an opening partner for Guppy (I'm doubtful Latham is suited to this role in ODIs when you need to capitalise on the early fielding restrictions) and a wicket-keeper who can play the Ronchi role.
Guppy
An opener (Latham for now)
Williamson
Taylor
Neesham
Anderson
A keeper (back to Ronchi for now, for me)
Santner
Milne
Southee
BoultSodhi, McClenaghan, Henry, Munro remain in the mix due to there not being anyone better.
Neesham was "find" of the tour for me - that he did well batting at 4.
Santner's batting was one of my biggest disappointments.
-
I watched Latham make a decent start and thought he was unlucky to get out; ball not coming on to the bat as he'd expected, I then watched everyone else throw their wicket away. It would have been less a comedy if they just came out and tackled the fucking stumps.
-
@Chris-B agree with everything there, and if we get all those blokes fit and on the field at one time then we can beat anyone.
Santner's batting seems to have regressed but he was very good with the ball, went for under 5s overall which is incredible given the scores Aussie put up.
Also, you just cannot compare the ABs to the Black Caps.
-
The ABs have a wealth of talent to choose from, whereas the Black Caps have about 4 - 5 world class players that we try and build a team around.
-
Rugby and Cricket are completely different sports (obviously). Rugby you can carry a couple of blokes that are not quite up to scratch, but cricket is basically an individual sport played by teams. It wouldn't matter if Nicholls had Don fucking Bradman at the other end, if he can't handle a Starc in-swinging yorker then he won't last. How do you build a game-plan around that?
The series was bloody disappointing overall, but at the end of the day we were relying on a couple of guys playing out of their skin 2 out of the 3 matches if we wanted to win, which while possible was unlikely. We get our top team fit and and on the field at home and we're a completely different proposition.
-
-
Yeah - although I'd argue that only a handful of Aussies really stood up - particularly Warner and Smith with the bat - Starc and Hazlewood with the ball.
None of Finch, Bailey or Marsh had good series with the bat. A few half chances given by Smith and Warner in games 1 and 3 desperately needed to be clung onto - or even more accurately, they were so tough that it was more we needed to somehow find a way to catch them (plus a straightforward one from Head dropped by Henry).
-
@hydro11 said in Aus v NZ -Chappell Hadlee series III - MCG:
@shark said in Aus v NZ -Chappell Hadlee series III - MCG:
The worst ODI series I've witnessed in ages. The worst thing was how much it fucked with my sleep patterns. Actually, our batting, bowling and fielding was worse. I don't want to see Munro, CDH or Watling in the ODI side again, and after this series I have to say Santner is very borderline in ODIs too. Latham has to be given the gloves, surely. If and when this happens and we see the returns of Taylor, Neesham and Anderson to shore up the batting, Sodhi comes in to keep things tight at one end for 10 overs and we have our full compliment of quicks in action on home pitches, this'll be a different side.
Watling is a better keeper than Latham. Therefore, if you want to bring a batsman in for Watling they need to be better than Watling. You are really looking at Munro, Bruce and Nicholls. I don't know if any of them are significantly better than Watling
Nicholls will get there, I have no doubt. He's a bit of a project at the moment but he'll settle into the side eventually and for mine he's the long-term replacement for Taylor.
-
@shark said in Aus v NZ -Chappell Hadlee series III - MCG:
@Chris-B. Henry has to be in any ODI 1st XI. He got tonked a couple of times in this series but has been excellent for a couple of years and didn't get to #5 in the world by accident.
That's fine - it just means you can't pick Southee.
-
@Bovidae said in Aus v NZ -Chappell Hadlee series III - MCG:
The bowling mix gets much more complicated when Mitch and Milne are available again.
If Henry plays he needs to open the bowling and then bowl out during the middle overs. He's never looked comfortable at the death.
Exactly. This puts him behind Boult and Southee for me despite his good record. McClenaghan is a ready made death bowler. On the other hand, Milne could go for plenty at the death unless he has a few variations. So, I wouldn't be picking Boult, Milne and Henry as my three pace bowlers either.
-
@Chris-B. said in Aus v NZ -Chappell Hadlee series III - MCG:
Yeah - although I'd argue that only a handful of Aussies really stood up - particularly Warner and Smith with the bat - Starc and Hazlewood with the ball.
None of Finch, Bailey or Marsh had good series with the bat. A few half chances given by Smith and Warner in games 1 and 3 desperately needed to be clung onto - or even more accurately, they were so tough that it was more we needed to somehow find a way to catch them (plus a straightforward one from Head dropped by Henry).
As NQ says: a team sport played by individuals. Sometimes it comes down to moments more than anything. If you want people to stand up over the whole series, nobody did in every game.
Marsh smacked 70-odd in Canberra to take the game away, was cut down by some flukey bullshit in Sydney, and was his usual self in Melbourne i.e. shit. So he stood up once, but that was enough at the time.
One guy who demonstrated consistency of effort was Travis Head - couple of 50s, and a 37, bowled tidily and took some wickets at the MCG when we really needed them.
Looking at the averages kind of bears this out: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling_by_team.html?id=11129;type=series
Top 5 batting Australia:
Warner - 299 @ 99.66 (HS 156)
Smith - 236 @ 78.66 (HS 164)
Head - 146 @ 48.66 (HS 57)
Marsh - 77 @ 38.5 (HS 76*)
Wade - 63 @ 21 (HS 50)** Top 5 batting NZ **
Guptill - 193 @ 64.33 (HS 114)
Neesham - 108 @ 54.00 (HS 74)
Williamson - 103 @ 34.33 (HS 81)
Munro - 80 @ 26.66 (HS 49)
Henry - 34 @ 17.00 (HS 27)Looking at the bowling averages is carnage: Starc 20.50, Hazlewood 18.83, Cummins 16.12 being the big notes.
Best Kiwi was Boult 30.00 followed by Neesham 35.00
-
On the bowling front - I think Smith and Warner batted so well that it creates a bit more disparity between the attacks than really exists. The Aussie bowlers shared 30 wickets between them, while our guys only captured 20 - so we missed 10 mainly tail enders.
I thought Starc, especially, and Hazelwood were significantly better than Cummins - though the averages don't tell that story.
On that note, I think someone said that Henry was the number five ranked ODI bowler? I'm thinking perhaps that's been inflated because he's bowled less at the death than many?
-
@Chris-B. said in Aus v NZ -Chappell Hadlee series III - MCG:
On the bowling front - I think Smith and Warner batted so well that it creates a bit more disparity between the attacks than really exists. The Aussie bowlers shared 30 wickets between them, while our guys only captured 20 - so we missed 10 mainly tail enders.
I thought Starc, especially, and Hazelwood were significantly better than Cummins - though the averages don't tell that story.
On that note, I think someone said that Henry was the number five ranked ODI bowler? I'm thinking perhaps that's been inflated because he's bowled less at the death than many?
Henry also has a great average though. Bowling first up with the new ball means you are up against the other team's best batsmen and you don't get the cheap wickets at the death. Starkest thing about Henry is how good he is at home and how poor he is away from home.
I reckon in ODI cricket we need player stats broken down by when a player bowls. Economy rate for instance is quite meaningless. Corey Anderson has an economy rate of above 6 but that isn't so bad for the situations he bowls in.
-
@hydro11 said in Aus v NZ -Chappell Hadlee series III - MCG:
@Chris-B. said in Aus v NZ -Chappell Hadlee series III - MCG:
On the bowling front - I think Smith and Warner batted so well that it creates a bit more disparity between the attacks than really exists. The Aussie bowlers shared 30 wickets between them, while our guys only captured 20 - so we missed 10 mainly tail enders.
I thought Starc, especially, and Hazelwood were significantly better than Cummins - though the averages don't tell that story.
On that note, I think someone said that Henry was the number five ranked ODI bowler? I'm thinking perhaps that's been inflated because he's bowled less at the death than many?
Henry also has a great average though. Bowling first up with the new ball means you are up against the other team's best batsmen and you don't get the cheap wickets at the death. Starkest thing about Henry is how good he is at home and how poor he is away from home.
I reckon in ODI cricket we need player stats broken down by when a player bowls. Economy rate for instance is quite meaningless. Corey Anderson has an economy rate of above 6 but that isn't so bad for the situations he bowls in.
Agree - a lot of the stats are simply not comparable player vs player.
Is my memory right that Kyle Mills also got to be ranked No.1 in ODIs, but that usually he bowled a long opening spell and rarely bowled at the death?
We also lost a lot of games bowling Harry and Vettori in tandem through the middle overs. They'd be relatively economical, but wouldn't take wickets - statistically they looked like a good combo, but in practice I think it was ineffective in terms of actually winning games.
-
@Chris-B. said in Aus v NZ -Chappell Hadlee series III - MCG:
Is my memory right that Kyle Mills also got to be ranked No.1 in ODIs, but that usually he bowled a long opening spell and rarely bowled at the death?
There was a reason he didn't bowl at the death. Think it was called Klusener ...
-
You'd need to tie yourself if knots on that tho'. Pre mid 90's opening the bowling was great for RR but bad for wickets as teams looked to accumulate & most teams opened with test quality openers, mid 90's to 00's opening was terrible for RR but great for wickets as everyone decided to toss a pinch hitter up there & opened by slogging etc.
By the last WC we were the only team opening with a smasher, but most sides had specialist ODI openers, I think they'd brought in the 2 new balls law a few years earlier? So bowling in the middle overs offered more chance to get seam but a less soft ball meant sides could attack - ie the Harris-Vetorri unit was operating with a ball twice as soft as our middle over guys are now using etc...
ODI cricket is such a tinkered with tweaked thing the stats across eras are meaningless
