NZ Cricket
-
@Chris said in NZ Cricket:
Heading in to the Series against Pakistan,SA and Australia the biggest concern for me is the dramatic drop off in form of Devon Conway, since the opening game in the WC he has not achieved much,
Watching him bat yesterday were he was dropped 2 balls in a row the snicked off on the 3rd delivery was concerning 3 poor shots in a row is un Conway like.
11 ODi and 2 tests and a game for Welinington since then and he has looked out of form by a big margin.We might have to face the fact he’s more Mark Greatbatch than KW/Crowe
-
@MN5 said in NZ Cricket:
@Chris said in NZ Cricket:
Heading in to the Series against Pakistan,SA and Australia the biggest concern for me is the dramatic drop off in form of Devon Conway, since the opening game in the WC he has not achieved much,
Watching him bat yesterday were he was dropped 2 balls in a row the snicked off on the 3rd delivery was concerning 3 poor shots in a row is un Conway like.
11 ODi and 2 tests and a game for Welinington since then and he has looked out of form by a big margin.We might have to face the fact he’s more Mark Greatbatch than KW/Crowe
I hope not but it could be
-
@Chris said in NZ Cricket:
@MN5 said in NZ Cricket:
@Chris said in NZ Cricket:
Heading in to the Series against Pakistan,SA and Australia the biggest concern for me is the dramatic drop off in form of Devon Conway, since the opening game in the WC he has not achieved much,
Watching him bat yesterday were he was dropped 2 balls in a row the snicked off on the 3rd delivery was concerning 3 poor shots in a row is un Conway like.
11 ODi and 2 tests and a game for Welinington since then and he has looked out of form by a big margin.We might have to face the fact he’s more Mark Greatbatch than KW/Crowe
I hope not but it could be
Yeah for whatever reason we do have a few guys that start with a hiss and a roar and peter out to become pretty ordinary test players ( not “bad” as such but ordinary )
Aside from Paddy Batch others that come to mind are Matthew Sinclair, Craig McMillan and Lou Vincent.
Perhaps John Reid and Jesse Ryder would have been of that ilk if they’d had longer careers.
A pretty important year coming up for Conway that’s for sure.
-
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.
-
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Cricket:
@MN5 said in NZ Cricket:
Aside from Paddy Batch others that come to mind are Matthew Sinclair, Craig McMillan and Lou Vincent.
Guppy
At test level he didn’t actually start that well did he ?
-
@Chris yeah he's not in form but hasn't played much lately. I think he needs more time in the middle now, same with Ravindra.
Not worried about Conway, form is temporary, class is permanent and all that.
-
@Canes4life said in NZ Cricket:
@Chris yeah he's not in form but hasn't played much lately. I think he needs more time in the middle now, same with Ravindra.
Not worried about Conway, form is temporary, class is permanent and all that.
It worries me a bit, it is his trend of his dismissals that worry me.
He had a bad run since that WC opener 9 ODI and 4 test innings and a Wellington 20/20 were Conway failed that is 14 innings in a row.
That inside edge dismissal is coming in to play along with being bowled around off stump a bit maybe teams are working him out, with playing a bit too far away from his body and the lack of foot movement.
I hope he sorts it out we need Conway in form I am sure Devon and the coaches are analysing what is going on.
You see it a lot a flying start to international cricket then teams put a lot of work in to analysing any flaws in your technique and everyone has them. -
@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.
Stuff
