Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka
-
@mariner4life said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mariner4life said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mariner4life said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mariner4life said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 @Hooroo Different jobs - different eras.
Kane will probably play more than twice the number of test Sir Paddles did - but, a lot less first class cricket.
Received wisdom seems that Kane has already gone past Marty Crowe - but, Marty scored 71 first class centuries - where Kane has just 29 - and that has to be factored into the career equation where the old guys played a lot of non-international first class cricket compared to the guys today.
Sir Paddles has more than 100 first class five-wicket bags.
And Glen Turner did the batting equivalent with centuries......but I think that's only part of the equation when you consider ordinary test batsmen like Graeme Hick, Mark Ramprakash and Mike Gatting did exactly the same.
Other side of the equation is that someone like Len Hutton made 19 test centuries and these days pretty much anyone with a decent amount of talent who plays for more than a decade is going to be disappointed if they don't get there.
Tom Latham will be disappointed if he doesn't get there.
Andrew Strauss, Ian Bell, Graeme Smith - all got more than twenty test centuries - but, not guys I think are all-time Greats of the game.
Is there a bit of a hint it's starting to come back the other way though? I had a feeling that averages and hundreds scored were starting to come back.
A quick blat on statguru shows me that over the past 2 years, for guys that played at least 10 tests over the time, 7 averaged over 50, while 14 averaged 40-49. 3 guys averaged 60+. The guys averaging 50+ scored 35 hundreds
The 2 years prior to that, the numbers were 15 at 50+, and 9 in the 40-49 bracket. 6 guys averaged 60+, and the guys averaging 50+ scored 74 hundreds.
Looks like about the same number of guys score 40+, but the numbers getting significantly higher averages has dropped right back. Now this isn't taking a lot of variables in to play, so it's a very simplistic metric to use, but perhaps we are starting to see a bit of equalisation creep back in to the game?
By the way, in the "last 2 years" figures above, the guys above 60 are Smith, Kohli and Kane. Who comes in next? Fucking Henry Nicholls.
I think it's ebbing towards the bowlers again. Smith aside the ridiculous averages are dipping a bit.
there are a lot of very good attacks around at the moment.
Hence anyone averaging 40+ in the 80s being a fucken good player.
why?
Cos of the ridiculous number of amazing fast bowlers going round.
It's debatable the attacks then are any better than now. Yes there was the windies, but behind that? Individuals and all rounders. Go have a look at the top wicket takers of the 80s. Look how many are backed up by someone else really good.
Geoff Lawson is the highest Australian wicket taker of the 80s.
But... but... but... the great Merv Hughes! Craig McDermott!
I think the early 80s were probably tougher than the late 80s, although the late 80s did have Wasim, Waqar and Imran playing for Pakistan.
-
@Gunner said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Gunner said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
The fuck is going on?
Go have a beer and sit on the mower for an hour and all hell breaks loose....
Wicket please lads, and be quick about it.
Oh yea Jimmy boy.
Can I claim that one?Would like to think I had a hand in the first 5 wickets:
1&2 - up to Dan Murphy's for supplies
3, 4 & 5 - outside drinking said supplies, and walking inside to check score as replay of wicket was showing
-
@mariner4life said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
Geoff Lawson is the highest Australian wicket taker of the 80s.
That's probably a function of career timing.
Early '80s I can remember watching Lillee, Thomson and Alderman at Lancaster Park.
Lillee, Marsh and Chappell all retired together and the Aussies struggled for a while - but, they still had bowlers like Lawson, McDermott, Bruce Reid and Merv.
Real resurgence didn't come until Warne and McGrath.
-
I can't believe the last post on this thread is about 80's bowlers!
We won the game! Yay! Looked dicey for a few moments but then controlled.
The thing that annoyed me about the review was that Ish was demonstrating it was going down leg and then he points upwards to Kane to go for review. So so bad by Ish. (and Kane too)
-
looking at that chase, Neesham's big over was probably the difference.
-
@mariner4life said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
looking at that chase, Neesham's big over was probably the difference.
Yep it was looking like we would struggle to post 340.
Its amazing what 5 x 6's can do for a total.. -
T20 squad
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12185623
Tim Southee (c)
Lockie Ferguson
Martin Guptill
Scott Kuggeleijn
Colin Munro
Jimmy Neesham
Henry Nicholls
Glenn Phillips
Seth Rance
Mitchell Santner
Tim Seifert
Ish Sodhi
Ross TaylorGood to see Santner back. Selectors obviously rate him.
-
@booboo said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
Good to see Santner back. Selectors obviously rate him.
I know old mate Santner generates some fierce debate on here, and I'm going to throw my two cents in...
I think he's an automatic selection in the short formats. Economical bowler, who strengthens the lower middle batting order significantly.
Tests, I'm not sure he's good enough to bat at 6 or 7 as the allrounder and I don't think he's a good enough wicket taker to be the specialist spinner. In saying that they seem to be happy to have him in the side to provide a few runs at 8 and bowl some tight overs while giving the quicks a rest. I'd prefer another attacking bowling option though, whether that be a different spinner or an extra quick...
-
@Gunner yeah Santners a fine white ball player. Many times he's been the most economical bowler of our innings. He was a factor in our semi finals of t20 world cups. He's a good contributor in limited over games.
Tests are a different matter. Perhaps his rise in NZ cricket was so sudden and efficient, we thought he might be an instant Vettori-lite. Turns out his game is a bit limited for test cricket.
Pulls his weight in the pyjamas teams though
-
Yeah but are any spinners actually useful when playing tests in New Zealand?
Patel, who we would consider an attacking spinner, didn't take any wickets at all against Sri Lanka.
I tend to think we should actually stop playing spinners at all for tests in NZ, playing an extra seamer would be a better option. If we are going to play a spinner then we may as well play someone like Santner but he should be competing for CdG's spot. The only other reason I can think it may be worthwhile to play a spinner is so that they at least have some experience when visiting countries where they will actually play. Although perhaps the UAE tour suggests experience doesn't matter so much.
Alternatively, we could ask our groundsmen to alter the pitches so spinners actually have more of a chance,
-
@Gunner said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@booboo said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
Good to see Santner back. Selectors obviously rate him.
I know old mate Santner generates some fierce debate on here, and I'm going to throw my two cents in...
I think he's an automatic selection in the short formats. Economical bowler, who strengthens the lower middle batting order significantly.
Tests, I'm not sure he's good enough to bat at 6 or 7 as the allrounder and I don't think he's a good enough wicket taker to be the specialist spinner. In saying that they seem to be happy to have him in the side to provide a few runs at 8 and bowl some tight overs while giving the quicks a rest. I'd prefer another attacking bowling option though, whether that be a different spinner or an extra quick...
Nailed it.
Santner is an excellent white ball player, but it remains to be seen whether he is a test player.
We should not write him off ever being a great test player.
There is probably a place in NZ conditions for a spinner that can bowl a lot of overs cheaply to take the pressure off the quick bowlers without necessarily taking many wickets. Such a spinner should be able to comfortably bat at 6 or 7 in the order.
-
@Damo said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Gunner said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@booboo said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
Good to see Santner back. Selectors obviously rate him.
I know old mate Santner generates some fierce debate on here, and I'm going to throw my two cents in...
I think he's an automatic selection in the short formats. Economical bowler, who strengthens the lower middle batting order significantly.
Tests, I'm not sure he's good enough to bat at 6 or 7 as the allrounder and I don't think he's a good enough wicket taker to be the specialist spinner. In saying that they seem to be happy to have him in the side to provide a few runs at 8 and bowl some tight overs while giving the quicks a rest. I'd prefer another attacking bowling option though, whether that be a different spinner or an extra quick...
Nailed it.
Santner is an excellent white ball player, but it remains to be seen whether he is a test player.
We should not write him off ever being a great test player.
There is probably a place in NZ conditions for a spinner that can bowl a lot of overs cheaply to take the pressure off the quick bowlers without necessarily taking many wickets. Such a spinner should be able to comfortably bat at 6 or 7 in the order.
Agree, this is why Vettori was so valuable - he could actually bat. In our current team, they could just get Kane to roll the arm over a bit more, but that doesn't solve the donkey-work issue.
-
@Gunner said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@booboo said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
Good to see Santner back. Selectors obviously rate him.
I know old mate Santner generates some fierce debate on here, and I'm going to throw my two cents in...
I think he's an automatic selection in the short formats. Economical bowler, who strengthens the lower middle batting order significantly.
Tests, I'm not sure he's good enough to bat at 6 or 7 as the allrounder and I don't think he's a good enough wicket taker to be the specialist spinner. In saying that they seem to be happy to have him in the side to provide a few runs at 8 and bowl some tight overs while giving the quicks a rest. I'd prefer another attacking bowling option though, whether that be a different spinner or an extra quick...
At test level he appears to be the typical bits and pieces type all rounder and probably not good enough in either discipline. Mind you given some of the spinners who have played he's hardly the worst.
I suppose given KW is the best batsman and captain asking him to do more bowling is probably not an option but then again Jaques Kallis was a brilliant batsman and a good bowler as well....
-
I wish they would permanently rest De Grandhomme from the test squad at least . I can't for the life of me see what value he adds to that team . Zero penetration as a bowler combined with him showing bugger all inclination to bat for time or to build an innings when the team is in trouble . I am getting a bit tired of hearing the commentators say "well that is how he plays " as he walks off the ground having tried , and failed , to smash one of the first balls he faces over the ropes . He may be ok for limited overs but he is bollocks as a test player .
