NZ Cricket
-
@Crazy-Horse said in NZ Cricket:
I have managed to watch a bit of Super Smash this year and one thing that is apparent to me is that despite all the knashing about who should or shouldn't be in the Black Caps, the selectors have pretty much selected the best players. I can't think of any standouts that haven't been given a chance.
The number of chances given to certain players over others is debatable though, but even then I can see their reasoning most of the time.
on this part:
I can't think of any standouts that haven't been given a chance
It is pretty hard to find players these days who haven't been given a chance at some stage in some format. With 90% of international white ball cricket treated as depth-building exercises. The only player in NZ who is good enough to play international cricket but hasn't played it yet in any format is Nathan Smith. But that is mostly down to bad timing and injuries.
and this:
the selectors have pretty much selected the best players.
Where my beef is with the selectors is the simultaneous ageing of the team, and the opportunities missed to gradually re-new. Part of that should occur during the ODI series etc - playing guys who are still actually worse than Nicholls and still still a bit raw, as part of the pathway.
But my only real concern is the ongoing health and transition of the test team.
Basically I am just talking Henry Nicholls. The entire top 6 of the test team is now over 32. We've been talking about Nicholls for the last 2 years, as the weakest and most under-performing of that ageing cohort. Now we are starting to talk about Conway and Latham. Whoever replaces Nicholls eventually is now going to be coming into a top 6 perhaps also carrying Latham and Conway (being given rope based on past form, which is justified, they are worth it). But the weakest batsman playing most of his career in the cushiest spot who is just squeaking by does not deserve the rope he has been given. Or rather the team requirement should have out-weighed the amount of rope given. If we have to replace one of the openers as well as Nicholls at roughly the same time it would be super useful if Ravindra already had a season in the middle order under his belt before elevating to open, etc. With Phillips, Young and Ravindra - there isn't an argument to be made that there isn't the depth to replace that position.
Now, I don't think the selector(s) are totally useless at indentifying talent and elevating where available. The evidence of Mitch Hay being selected as 'keeper for NZ A last season when he wasn't even keeping for Canterbury is an indication that someone there can see talent. The promotion of Mo Abbas early into that A team when still raw as f&*k, is a sign. O'Rourke as well. I assume the same for Foulkes if he hadn't got injured, they would have got those A series.
What I think is apparent. Is the team is controlled by the players. Stead challenged Southee's place back in that disastrous Australian tour, and he obviously got put back in his box and this team has been controlled since by this bulge of 32 to 34 year olds working it's way to the rear end of the snake. WIth not enough concern for ongoing health of the team beyond their tenure.
-
@Rapido said in NZ Cricket:
@Crazy-Horse said in NZ Cricket:
I have managed to watch a bit of Super Smash this year and one thing that is apparent to me is that despite all the knashing about who should or shouldn't be in the Black Caps, the selectors have pretty much selected the best players. I can't think of any standouts that haven't been given a chance.
The number of chances given to certain players over others is debatable though, but even then I can see their reasoning most of the time.
on this part:
I can't think of any standouts that haven't been given a chance
It is pretty hard to find players these days who haven't been given a chance at some stage in some format. With 90% of international white ball cricket treated as depth-building exercises. The only player in NZ who is good enough to play international cricket but hasn't played it yet in any format is Nathan Smith. But that is mostly down to bad timing and injuries.
and this:
the selectors have pretty much selected the best players.
Where my beef is with the selectors is the simultaneous ageing of the team, and the opportunities missed to gradually re-new. Part of that should occur during the ODI series etc - playing guys who are still actually worse than Nicholls and still still a bit raw, as part of the pathway.
But my only real concern is the ongoing health and transition of the test team.
Basically I am just talking Henry Nicholls. The entire top 6 of the test team is now over 32. We've been talking about Nicholls for the last 2 years, as the weakest and most under-performing of that ageing cohort. Now we are starting to talk about Conway and Latham. Whoever replaces Nicholls eventually is now going to be coming into a top 6 perhaps also carrying Latham and Conway (being given rope based on past form, which is justified, they are worth it). But the weakest batsman playing most of his career in the cushiest spot who is just squeaking by does not deserve the rope he has been given. Or rather the team requirement should have out-weighed the amount of rope given. If we have to replace one of the openers as well as Nicholls at roughly the same time it would be super useful if Ravindra already had a season in the middle order under his belt before elevating to open, etc. With Phillips, Young and Ravindra - there isn't an argument to be made that there isn't the depth to replace that position.
Now, I don't think the selector(s) are totally useless at indentifying talent and elevating where available. The evidence of Mitch Hay being selected as 'keeper for NZ A last season when he wasn't even keeping for Canterbury is an indication that someone there can see talent. The promotion of Mo Abbas early into that A team when still raw as f&*k, is a sign. O'Rourke as well. I assume the same for Smith and Foulkes if they hadn't got injured, they would have got those A series.
What I think is apparent. Is the team is controlled by the players. Stead challenged Southee's place back in that disastrous Australian tour, and he obviously got put back in his box and this team has been controlled since by this bulge of 32 to 34 year olds working it's way to the rear end of the snake. WIth not enough concern for ongoing health of the team beyond their tenure.
Is the team controlled by the players Yes
A good mate of mine who I have coached a fair bit with left the Black caps recently to take up a provincial HC job that was one of the reasons.
He felt they were going to fall in to a dark hole especially in test cricket due to ageing players and staleness.
He thought now was the time to integrate some fresh talent while you still had some decent players to learn from on the field. -
I think there are some good signs for NZ going forward.
Will ODonnell
Zac Foulkes
Mitch Hay
Ferns and Delport from Auckland
Abbas from Wellington
Duffy could do a job considering he has picked his pace upWith Ravindra added to the mix promising for the future.
All look capable of having a test/White ball career.
They need game time though not thrust all in together you do not want 3/4 of your team all learning their trade at the same time. -
@Chris said in NZ Cricket:
@Rapido said in NZ Cricket:
@Crazy-Horse said in NZ Cricket:
I have managed to watch a bit of Super Smash this year and one thing that is apparent to me is that despite all the knashing about who should or shouldn't be in the Black Caps, the selectors have pretty much selected the best players. I can't think of any standouts that haven't been given a chance.
The number of chances given to certain players over others is debatable though, but even then I can see their reasoning most of the time.
on this part:
I can't think of any standouts that haven't been given a chance
It is pretty hard to find players these days who haven't been given a chance at some stage in some format. With 90% of international white ball cricket treated as depth-building exercises. The only player in NZ who is good enough to play international cricket but hasn't played it yet in any format is Nathan Smith. But that is mostly down to bad timing and injuries.
and this:
the selectors have pretty much selected the best players.
Where my beef is with the selectors is the simultaneous ageing of the team, and the opportunities missed to gradually re-new. Part of that should occur during the ODI series etc - playing guys who are still actually worse than Nicholls and still still a bit raw, as part of the pathway.
But my only real concern is the ongoing health and transition of the test team.
Basically I am just talking Henry Nicholls. The entire top 6 of the test team is now over 32. We've been talking about Nicholls for the last 2 years, as the weakest and most under-performing of that ageing cohort. Now we are starting to talk about Conway and Latham. Whoever replaces Nicholls eventually is now going to be coming into a top 6 perhaps also carrying Latham and Conway (being given rope based on past form, which is justified, they are worth it). But the weakest batsman playing most of his career in the cushiest spot who is just squeaking by does not deserve the rope he has been given. Or rather the team requirement should have out-weighed the amount of rope given. If we have to replace one of the openers as well as Nicholls at roughly the same time it would be super useful if Ravindra already had a season in the middle order under his belt before elevating to open, etc. With Phillips, Young and Ravindra - there isn't an argument to be made that there isn't the depth to replace that position.
Now, I don't think the selector(s) are totally useless at indentifying talent and elevating where available. The evidence of Mitch Hay being selected as 'keeper for NZ A last season when he wasn't even keeping for Canterbury is an indication that someone there can see talent. The promotion of Mo Abbas early into that A team when still raw as f&*k, is a sign. O'Rourke as well. I assume the same for Smith and Foulkes if they hadn't got injured, they would have got those A series.
What I think is apparent. Is the team is controlled by the players. Stead challenged Southee's place back in that disastrous Australian tour, and he obviously got put back in his box and this team has been controlled since by this bulge of 32 to 34 year olds working it's way to the rear end of the snake. WIth not enough concern for ongoing health of the team beyond their tenure.
Is the team controlled by the players Yes
A good mate of mine who I have coached a fair bit with left the Black caps recently to take up a provincial HC job that was one of the reasons.
He felt they were going to fall in to a dark hole especially in test cricket due to ageing players and staleness.
He thought now was the time to integrate some fresh talent while you still had some decent players to learn from on the field.Goodness me. I wonder who that could be. It's a tricky one to deduce, what with all those coaches treading that well-worn path of going from the Black Caps set-up to a provincial head coach role!
-
@Smudge said in NZ Cricket:
@Chris said in NZ Cricket:
@Rapido said in NZ Cricket:
@Crazy-Horse said in NZ Cricket:
I have managed to watch a bit of Super Smash this year and one thing that is apparent to me is that despite all the knashing about who should or shouldn't be in the Black Caps, the selectors have pretty much selected the best players. I can't think of any standouts that haven't been given a chance.
The number of chances given to certain players over others is debatable though, but even then I can see their reasoning most of the time.
on this part:
I can't think of any standouts that haven't been given a chance
It is pretty hard to find players these days who haven't been given a chance at some stage in some format. With 90% of international white ball cricket treated as depth-building exercises. The only player in NZ who is good enough to play international cricket but hasn't played it yet in any format is Nathan Smith. But that is mostly down to bad timing and injuries.
and this:
the selectors have pretty much selected the best players.
Where my beef is with the selectors is the simultaneous ageing of the team, and the opportunities missed to gradually re-new. Part of that should occur during the ODI series etc - playing guys who are still actually worse than Nicholls and still still a bit raw, as part of the pathway.
But my only real concern is the ongoing health and transition of the test team.
Basically I am just talking Henry Nicholls. The entire top 6 of the test team is now over 32. We've been talking about Nicholls for the last 2 years, as the weakest and most under-performing of that ageing cohort. Now we are starting to talk about Conway and Latham. Whoever replaces Nicholls eventually is now going to be coming into a top 6 perhaps also carrying Latham and Conway (being given rope based on past form, which is justified, they are worth it). But the weakest batsman playing most of his career in the cushiest spot who is just squeaking by does not deserve the rope he has been given. Or rather the team requirement should have out-weighed the amount of rope given. If we have to replace one of the openers as well as Nicholls at roughly the same time it would be super useful if Ravindra already had a season in the middle order under his belt before elevating to open, etc. With Phillips, Young and Ravindra - there isn't an argument to be made that there isn't the depth to replace that position.
Now, I don't think the selector(s) are totally useless at indentifying talent and elevating where available. The evidence of Mitch Hay being selected as 'keeper for NZ A last season when he wasn't even keeping for Canterbury is an indication that someone there can see talent. The promotion of Mo Abbas early into that A team when still raw as f&*k, is a sign. O'Rourke as well. I assume the same for Smith and Foulkes if they hadn't got injured, they would have got those A series.
What I think is apparent. Is the team is controlled by the players. Stead challenged Southee's place back in that disastrous Australian tour, and he obviously got put back in his box and this team has been controlled since by this bulge of 32 to 34 year olds working it's way to the rear end of the snake. WIth not enough concern for ongoing health of the team beyond their tenure.
Is the team controlled by the players Yes
A good mate of mine who I have coached a fair bit with left the Black caps recently to take up a provincial HC job that was one of the reasons.
He felt they were going to fall in to a dark hole especially in test cricket due to ageing players and staleness.
He thought now was the time to integrate some fresh talent while you still had some decent players to learn from on the field.Goodness me. I wonder who that could be. It's a tricky one to deduce, what with all those coaches treading that well-worn path of going from the Black Caps set-up to a provincial head coach role!
It’s there for you to see.
-
@Chris said in NZ Cricket:
@Rapido said in NZ Cricket:
@Crazy-Horse said in NZ Cricket:
I have managed to watch a bit of Super Smash this year and one thing that is apparent to me is that despite all the knashing about who should or shouldn't be in the Black Caps, the selectors have pretty much selected the best players. I can't think of any standouts that haven't been given a chance.
The number of chances given to certain players over others is debatable though, but even then I can see their reasoning most of the time.
on this part:
I can't think of any standouts that haven't been given a chance
It is pretty hard to find players these days who haven't been given a chance at some stage in some format. With 90% of international white ball cricket treated as depth-building exercises. The only player in NZ who is good enough to play international cricket but hasn't played it yet in any format is Nathan Smith. But that is mostly down to bad timing and injuries.
and this:
the selectors have pretty much selected the best players.
Where my beef is with the selectors is the simultaneous ageing of the team, and the opportunities missed to gradually re-new. Part of that should occur during the ODI series etc - playing guys who are still actually worse than Nicholls and still still a bit raw, as part of the pathway.
But my only real concern is the ongoing health and transition of the test team.
Basically I am just talking Henry Nicholls. The entire top 6 of the test team is now over 32. We've been talking about Nicholls for the last 2 years, as the weakest and most under-performing of that ageing cohort. Now we are starting to talk about Conway and Latham. Whoever replaces Nicholls eventually is now going to be coming into a top 6 perhaps also carrying Latham and Conway (being given rope based on past form, which is justified, they are worth it). But the weakest batsman playing most of his career in the cushiest spot who is just squeaking by does not deserve the rope he has been given. Or rather the team requirement should have out-weighed the amount of rope given. If we have to replace one of the openers as well as Nicholls at roughly the same time it would be super useful if Ravindra already had a season in the middle order under his belt before elevating to open, etc. With Phillips, Young and Ravindra - there isn't an argument to be made that there isn't the depth to replace that position.
Now, I don't think the selector(s) are totally useless at indentifying talent and elevating where available. The evidence of Mitch Hay being selected as 'keeper for NZ A last season when he wasn't even keeping for Canterbury is an indication that someone there can see talent. The promotion of Mo Abbas early into that A team when still raw as f&*k, is a sign. O'Rourke as well. I assume the same for Smith and Foulkes if they hadn't got injured, they would have got those A series.
What I think is apparent. Is the team is controlled by the players. Stead challenged Southee's place back in that disastrous Australian tour, and he obviously got put back in his box and this team has been controlled since by this bulge of 32 to 34 year olds working it's way to the rear end of the snake. WIth not enough concern for ongoing health of the team beyond their tenure.
Is the team controlled by the players Yes
A good mate of mine who I have coached a fair bit with left the Black caps recently to take up a provincial HC job that was one of the reasons.
He felt they were going to fall in to a dark hole especially in test cricket due to ageing players and staleness.
He thought now was the time to integrate some fresh talent while you still had some decent players to learn from on the field.The bus is already teetering on the cliff. The next few years could be ugly
-
While the focus on a single player with a reasonable record (Nicholls)may seem an over-reaction to the NZ selection competence.
I feel it is the canary in the coalmine, hence my 'goat being got' on the subject.
The structure of the current iteration of the NZ cricket selection 'panel' was suitable when building a new young team (Edgar/Hesson) and then letting that team purr for a few years (Larsen/Stead).
A focus on a team culture with continuiity of selection and loyalty is suitable for those phases.
A team needing renewel and gradual reconstruction needs a more detached and aloof chief of selection, with more power.
-
Keep an eye on Wellington Firebirds opener Tim Robinson. Less than a month after the 21-year-old thumped a big century against Otago, the exciting and hard-hitting prospect clubbed 86 off 46 against Canterbury in Christchurch on Thursday afternoon. The leading Super Smash run scorer’s knock was instrumental in table-topping Wellington’s 21-run victory over the Kings, and prompted teammate and Dutch international Logan van Beek to made a bold prediction. “That guy is going to play a lot for New Zealand in the future,” van Beek told TVNZ shortly after Canterbury started their pursuit of Wellington’s 184-5. -
@KiwiMurph that reads like "Watch Out for the Next Finn Allen!"
-
@Nepia was ahead of his time. Some days it feels like Sumo has commentated Every. Single. Ball. of every Super Smash mens and womens game this summer.
TVNZ defend broadcaster from Ian Smith's 's..thouse" comment
They took the mickey out of Vaughan later on too, so perhaps not as intense as Stuff headlines it.
-
-
@LABCAT said in NZ Cricket:
I actually grown to like Sumo, although I don't he'll ever be as good as Smith, he just doesn't have the same level of passion or knowledge.
Off the cuff remark from Smithy, nothing in it.
In saying that ex players are ALWAYS better commentators than people who haven’t played in my opinion.
-
@MN5 said in NZ Cricket:
In saying that ex players are ALWAYS better commentators than people who haven’t played in my opinion.
Can't say I agree.
-
@booboo said in NZ Cricket:
@MN5 said in NZ Cricket:
In saying that ex players are ALWAYS better commentators than people who haven’t played in my opinion.
Can't say I agree.
The fern is built on disagreements so thats fine.
Prime example for me is the Channel nine crew when Richie, Bill, Tony, Ian etc were in their pomp. Not only ex players but all very good players in their day too.
-
-
@reprobate said in NZ Cricket:
@MN5 Surely the skills you need to be a good cricketer are in fuck-all ways related to the skills to be a good commentator.
Not for me to say but when they’d doing analysis I’ll always listen to the guy who has been there and done that over the guy who hasn’t. Maybe it’s just me.
-
@MN5 said in NZ Cricket:
In saying that ex players are ALWAYS better commentators than people who haven’t played in my opinion.
The names will probably mean nothing to you kids
Brian Johnston, John Arlott, Henry Blofeld.
One season of varsity cricket between them.
Stuff
