Black Caps v India
-
We're 40 runs short of a par score and in all honesty about 80+ runs short of a winning score. We are getting smoked this series
-
@No-Quarter 280 might have been a decent test for India.
I'm not sure what they've got if you get a couple of early wickets and can put the lesser lights under the grill.
244 should be a walk in the park - but maybe we can get a couple early and make a game of it.
Pretty much always two wickets worse off in that innings than you'd want to be (except the latter part of Taylor-Latham) - which is a major handbrake.
-
Full credit to Taylor and Latham for getting us to at least a semi-respectable score, but Munro and Guptill just aren't working as an opening pair. Kane is in a tiny slump, but we all know he can get out of them, so not worried about him. Santner should not be considered an all-rounder, so we have a long and weak batting tail when we play him, Sodhi, Boult, Ferguson. If Bracewell is in early, we are pretty much fucked, because those guys don't have the skill to stay long with him.
-
the way we've been going, Latham and Guptill to open.
the way we've been going, Latham either gets 45 overs between when he gets out and has to keep, or his work is done for the day 5 overs into the BC's batting 2nd.
the way we've been going, if Latham actually bats deep into the NZ innings, then we'd forgive him if he fluffed things once or twice while keeping.
the way we've been going, Munro is part of the problem.
so
Guptill
Latham
Kane
Rossco
Nicholls
6. a batter - who? -
@westcoastie said in Black Caps v India:
the way we've been going, Latham and Guptill to open.
the way we've been going, Latham either gets 45 overs between when he gets out and has to keep, or his work is done for the day 5 overs into the BC's batting 2nd.
the way we've been going, if Latham actually bats deep into the NZ innings, then we'd forgive him if he fluffed things once or twice while keeping.
the way we've been going, Munro is part of the problem.
so
Guptill
Latham
Kane
Rossco
Nicholls
6. a batter - who?Neesham
-
@westcoastie Possibly Neesham, which might allow de Grandhomme at 7 (those two are your fifth bowler).
Then Boult at 11 and any three of Santner, Sodhi, Ferguson, Southee, Bracewell, Henry, Milne or Astle.
-
@Chris-B said in Black Caps v India:
@westcoastie Possibly Neesham, which might allow de Grandhomme at 7 (those two are your fifth bowler).
Then Boult at 11 and any three of Santner, Sodhi, Ferguson, Southee, Bracewell, Henry, Milne or Astle.
@westcoastie said in Black Caps v India:
the way we've been going, Latham and Guptill to open.
the way we've been going, Latham either gets 45 overs between when he gets out and has to keep, or his work is done for the day 5 overs into the BC's batting 2nd.
the way we've been going, if Latham actually bats deep into the NZ innings, then we'd forgive him if he fluffed things once or twice while keeping.
the way we've been going, Munro is part of the problem.
so
Guptill
Latham
Kane
Rossco
Nicholls
6. a batter - who?why Neesham at 6? surely we find a genuine batter at 6? along with 5 genuine bowlers?
-
We need a genuine batter who can send down 5-6 overs between the 10th and 30th over to give Kane bowling options later in the innings. Funnily enough this would be Munro? but maybe Anderson? Could we give Devcich a lash?
-
@westcoastie You tell me who it is then!
Neesham's definitely in my team - just a question of whether he bats 6 or 7.
-
@westcoastie said in Black Caps v India:
We need a genuine batter who can send down 5-6 overs between the 10th and 30th over to give Kane bowling options later in the innings. Funnily enough this would be Munro? but maybe Anderson? Could we give Devcich a lash?
Does anyone, ANYONE, consider Munro a genuine batsman now??
-
@Chris-B said in Black Caps v India:
@westcoastie You tell me who it is then!
Neesham's definitely in my team - just a question of whether he bats 6 or 7.
Agree. Ok how about this: Latham goes up, Nicholls to 5, Anderson and Neesham at 6 and 7 then four bowlers. If we can't get a decent total among that top 7 with some dregs from 8-11 then why bother playing the game.
-
I think there are only three teams that have a realistic chance of winning the World Cup and they are India, England and Australia. I give India the edge though simply because they have the most varied and best bowling attack in world cricket. Their two leggies give them such a massive advantage over the other teams.
-
@shark said in Black Caps v India:
@Chris-B said in Black Caps v India:
@westcoastie You tell me who it is then!
Neesham's definitely in my team - just a question of whether he bats 6 or 7.
Agree. Ok how about this: Latham goes up, Nicholls to 5, Anderson and Neesham at 6 and 7 then four bowlers. If we can't get a decent total among that top 7 with some dregs from 8-11 then why bother playing the game.
Anderson and Neesham at 6 and 7 is a bad idea. Do you not remember the champions trophy?
-
@shark said in Black Caps v India:
@Chris-B said in Black Caps v India:
@westcoastie You tell me who it is then!
Neesham's definitely in my team - just a question of whether he bats 6 or 7.
Agree. Ok how about this: Latham goes up, Nicholls to 5, Anderson and Neesham at 6 and 7 then four bowlers. If we can't get a decent total among that top 7 with some dregs from 8-11 then why bother playing the game.
I wouldn't mind that. It' not too dissimilar to my idea of Neesham and de Grandhomme.
Reality is that we're not going to win the CWC, but we might be able to burgle it. Probably relies on Guppy, Little Kane and Rossco playing out of their skins on a given day and ending up 320/5 - with a few lesser lights chipping in a few handy runs.
It's why I'm not really averse to having a slogger in the team. If Munro, for example, opened and scored 30 off 15, he'd have done his job (and better than Baz).
