Black Caps Tour to Zimbabwe
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="602061" data-time="1470016061">
<div>
<p>Is there a good biography that exposes that era?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Whose side of the story do you want? :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Rutherford's A hell of a way to make a living</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Howarth's Stirred but not Shaken</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In some ways you have to read quite a few to build up a picture (there's no shortage of them - Crowe, Greatbatch, Pringle, Cairns, Morrison...), and it's quite a while since I read any of them - but, I seem to recall Rutherford's and Parore's both being pretty frank and interesting.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Edit: I've just had a quick flick through Parore's "The wicked keeper" and it's not a bad place to start.</p> -
<p>Coney and Hadlee had a major and public falling out as well and didn't even speak to eachother which must have made it tough given the chances of them batting together would have been high as they were 6 and 7/8 respectively.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That car thing caused a huge shitfight in the team with some voting for Hadlee to keep it and others wanting it sold and divided up. I can see both sides of the argument pretty well, even Paddles himself conceded it would be a tough prize for Smith as keeper or a bowler like Chatfield to win. I think he argued he'd won a few before, sold them and divided the pool so felt within his right to keep a car for once ( I might be wrong on these particulars )</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I bring that up because the team still did very well in this period obviously but so much was on the back of Hadlee and M Crowe with contributions here and there from others.....</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="602067" data-time="1470017733">
<div>
<p>Coney and Hadlee had a major and public falling out as well and didn't even speak to eachother which must have made it tough given the chances of them batting together would have been high as they were 6 and 7/8 respectively.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That car thing caused a huge shitfight in the team with some voting for Hadlee to keep it and others wanting it sold and divided up. I can see both sides of the argument pretty well, even Paddles himself conceded it would be a tough prize for Smith as keeper or a bowler like Chatfield to win. I think he argued he'd won a few before, sold them and divided the pool so felt within his right to keep a car for once ( I might be wrong on these particulars )</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I bring that up because the team still did very well in this period obviously but so much was on the back of Hadlee and M Crowe with contributions here and there from others.....</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I've got Rhythm and Swing, and that's exactly what happened with the car. Also Hadlee wrote a newspaper column about it, and that didn't go down well...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>To Hadlee's credit, though, he admits in his book that he wasn't in the right in either case. Also, a key difference between the 80s and later is that much of the team was still amateur back then, so there was a bit of tension at times and differences of opinion about standards, both on and off the field.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A lot of the current good stuff can be sheeted back to Hadlee in a different capacity - when he was made Chairman of Selectors, he actually wrote his policies and strategy down, which hadn't been done prior to that, and it still forms the basis of current selection policy, so kudos to him for that.</p> -
<p>Yeah I read Rhythm and Swing too, must have a look for it actually, I'm sure it's in the garage somewhere.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Back to the topic at hand the team is doing well because it has two guys who will very possibly go down as our best and second best batsmen in test history ( well, obviously the arguments for Crowe and Turner can be made but certainly in terms of runs scored barring disaster they will be top ) and a pace duo in Boult and Southee who whilst neither are a patch on Hadlee are both better than any of the great mans support staff ( Chats, Cairns, Morrison, Snedden etc ) Latham is developing nicely, Guptill will hopefully improve in the longer form, Watling is an excellent keeper/batsman etcetc....</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There's also no donkeys in the side, from the 90's onwards with all due respect there has been some terrible selections. Best in NZ some of them may well have been at the time but credible test players against the best ? no......</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Team dynamics are obviously a big part but the fact we have a bunch of seriously good players is more of a factor I believe.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mimic" data-cid="602102" data-time="1470032245">
<div>
<p>Wow! That's all u got to say about Watling?<br>
He's the best test keeper/batsman the black caps have ever had..</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Him or McCullum.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Excellent is a pretty strong word though don't you think ?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mimic" data-cid="602109" data-time="1470033169">
<div>
<p>Yeah, but u wrote about the others comparing them to history.. best test batsmen etc..<br>
McCullums batting average as a keeper pales in comparison to Watling.. (at least I think it does lol)</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I guess keeper are just easy to forget unless they're Gilchrest, that's my reasoning and I'm sticking to it !</p> -
<p>Watling has as many test centuries as a keeper as McCullum.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Anyway, I still think the team has some problems at test level. We only have one good opener (Guptill averages about 25 over 30 tests if you took out Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) and Nicholls doesn't look good enough to bat 5. We don't know who our best spinner is although Santner looks promising. We are very reliant on the Boult/Southee combo as well. We're a good team and the best NZ team in ages but right now I think all the teams ranked ahead of us, deserve to be. Away series to South Africa and India will be telling.</p> -
BJ has an unbelievable record as a Keeper-Batsmen. Easily our best ever. BMac only started scoring more consistently when he gave up the gloves.
-
Our current cricket team have been a revelation and I'm as proud as punch of them<br><br>
However I'm not going to be able to trumpet their test virtues for a while because we got owned by a slightly above average Aussie side last summer. That performance certainly failed the acid test I'm afraid -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="602115" data-time="1470034036">
<div>
<p>BJ has an unbelievable record as a Keeper-Batsmen. Easily our best ever. BMac only started scoring more consistently when he gave up the gloves.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Fair call, probably the heart ruling the head when thinking back on McCullums often spectacular peaks and depressing troughs vs Watlings more steady and consistent results.....</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="602113" data-time="1470033966"><p><br>
Anyway, I still think the team has some problems at test level. We only have one good opener (Guptill averages about 25 over 30 tests if you took out Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) and Nicholls doesn't look good enough to bat 5. We don't know who our best spinner is although Santner looks promising. We are very reliant on the Boult/Southee combo as well. We're a good team and the best NZ team in ages but right now I think all the teams ranked ahead of us, deserve to be. Away series to South Africa and India will be telling.</p></blockquote>
<br>
We've been on the decline for the last year, last 12 months of Baz's reign was actually really disappointing (to me, who has always had a high regard for the talent of this generation). But this is a decline/dip was from such an unprecedented height that I am most certainly not quibbling with our overall position, nor with the excellent work done by Baz and Hesson.<br><br>
Hopefully Kane can right the ship and make this peak last way, way longer than the measly 2 or 3 years of the Flem 99 to 02 era. That was a generation that ultimately underachieved. Stress fractures being the ultimate ruiner of those guys long before the wheels actually fell off under Bracewell. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="602119" data-time="1470034609">
<div>
<p>Fair call, probably the heart ruling the head when thinking back on McCullums often spectacular peaks and depressing troughs vs Watlings more steady and consistent results.....</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>In fairness they were very different players. Sometimes you'd kill for Baz to be next in, other times someone like Watling is exactly what you need. In tests, the Watling type player is in much higher demand.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Gezz Baz was good to watch though, I do miss having him in the team. The step down to Nicholls is also quite stark.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="602134" data-time="1470038765">
<div>
<p>In fairness they were very different players. Sometimes you'd kill for Baz to be next in, other times someone like Watling is exactly what you need. In tests, the Watling type player is in much higher demand.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Gezz Baz was good to watch though, I do miss having him in the team. The step down to Nicholls is also quite stark.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Definitely, we've done Baz's legacy to death on TSF but it is worth pointing out he made the esteemed BCs best XI ever on here, perhaps if we did this in a few years it'd be no contest and Watling would shit all over him but no one else comes close to either of those two in all honesty much as it's nice to think back at moments from Smithy and Parore......</p> -
Bit early to be so down on Henry Nicholls I think. <br><br>
As far as this test team goes, our batting shades our bowling significantly. In Williamson and Taylor we have consistent run scorers and more than useful support staff in Latham and Watling. The former two can make runs against anyone, anywhere. We don't have a bowler at this stage who can take wickets against anyone, anywhere. So for the next few years our best chance of making hay while the sun shines is to score heavily and put pressure on opposition batting line ups. We also need to settle on an all-rounder and I'm not at all convinced by Santner. My ideal would be a fit Neesham to confirm a spot. I don't doubt his batting ability but he needs to prove himself as a test bowling option. <br><br>
As someone said, we don't have any serious donkeys so we're in a fortunate position and now just need to make the most of our strengths. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="shark" data-cid="602145" data-time="1470040780">
<div>
<p>Bit early to be so down on Henry Nicholls I think.<br><br>
As far as this test team goes, our batting shades our bowling significantly. In Williamson and Taylor we have consistent run scorers and more than useful support staff in Latham and Watling. The former two can make runs against anyone, anywhere. We don't have a bowler at this stage who can take wickets against anyone, anywhere. So for the next few years our best chance of making hay while the sun shines is to score heavily and put pressure on opposition batting line ups. We also need to settle on an all-rounder and I'm not at all convinced by Santner. My ideal would be a fit Neesham to confirm a spot. I don't doubt his batting ability but he needs to prove himself as a test bowling option.<br><br>
As someone said, we don't have any serious donkeys so we're in a fortunate position and now just need to make the most of our strengths.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Santner is pretty popular on here in that he can do a bit of everything and is a spinner as opposed to the Neesh and Anderson who are ( at times ordinary ) medium pacers.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Black Caps seem to have a need to play a spinner no matter how ordinary but at least Sodhi is a better prospect than Craig ( not counting his serious over achieving with the willow )</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="shark" data-cid="602145" data-time="1470040780">
<div>
<p>Bit early to be so down on Henry Nicholls I think.<br><br>
As far as this test team goes, our batting shades our bowling significantly. In Williamson and Taylor we have consistent run scorers and more than useful support staff in Latham and Watling. The former two can make runs against anyone, anywhere. We don't have a bowler at this stage who can take wickets against anyone, anywhere. So for the next few years our best chance of making hay while the sun shines is to score heavily and put pressure on opposition batting line ups. We also need to settle on an all-rounder and I'm not at all convinced by Santner. My ideal would be a fit Neesham to confirm a spot. I don't doubt his batting ability but he needs to prove himself as a test bowling option.<br><br>
As someone said, we don't have any serious donkeys so we're in a fortunate position and now just need to make the most of our strengths.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>On Santner - really?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He looks like Vettori v2.0 to me, but a better batsman. Would be great if he was able to bat at five or six, but I'll take him gift wrapped at seven. He's got a T20 bowling average of 13 and an ODI batting average of 50. Small samples as yet, but Jesus - he's as promising as Trump at a ballot box.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Biggest problem we have is that presently none of our seamers are going to run through a decent quality batting line-up unless the ball is moving about wildly. Boult seems to have lost a yard of pace with his injury and Timmy's not bowling particularly quick either. If you want to be a serious bowler these days you've got to be able to hit 140ks and - despite the erratic speed gun measurements - these guys aren't hitting that - and not close. Preferably you have someone like Bond who can rack up 150ks on occasion - in which case stands like Masvaure and Tiripano simply don't happen. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Another reason for wanting Anderson or Neesham to come good as bowling no. 6s - we could probably afford to include Milne and give him a relatively light workrate - maybe 15 overs per innings. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="602158" data-time="1470043178">
<div>
<p>On Santner - really?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He looks like Vettori v2.0 to me, but a better batsman. Would be great if he was able to bat at five or six, but I'll take him gift wrapped at seven. He's got a T20 bowling average of 13 and an ODI batting average of 50. Small samples as yet, but Jesus - he's as promising as Trump at a ballot box.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Biggest problem we have is that presently none of our seamers are going to run through a decent quality batting line-up unless the ball is moving about wildly. Boult seems to have lost a yard of pace with his injury and Timmy's not bowling particularly quick either. If you want to be a serious bowler these days you've got to be able to hit 140ks and - despite the erratic speed gun measurements - these guys aren't hitting that - and not close. Preferably you have someone like Bond who can rack up 150ks on occasion - in which case stands like Masvaure and Tiripano simply don't happen. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Another reason for wanting Anderson or Neesham to come good as bowling no. 6s - we could probably afford to include Milne and give him a relatively light workrate - maybe 15 overs per innings. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes, really. Unless he's a true frontline spinner, he's surplus to requirements in test cricket and I'd much rather have Neesham or Anderson in that spot. And if he can become a frontline test spinner, then I'd still shuffle him down a spot to 8 with Neesham or Anderson ahead of him on batting ability. I don't see how the heck we can justify playing a spinner, plus a spinning all-rounder, plus a batsman who can bowl part-time spin, unless we're on the most spin-friendly of wickets. To me it feels like he's holding down the all-rounders' role as a caretaker for one of the former.</p>
