Black Caps v England
-
NZ win the toss and are bowling
England
1 Zak Crawley, 2 Ben Duckett, 3 Ollie Pope, 4 Joe Root, 5 Harry Brook, 6 Ben Stokes (capt), 7 Ben Foakes (wk), 8 Ollie Robinson, 9 Stuart Broad, 10 Jack Leach, 11 James Anderson.
New Zealand
1 Tom Latham, 2 Devon Conway, 3 Will Young, 4 Kane Williamson, 5 Henry Nicholls, 6 Daryl Mitchell, 7 Tom Blundell (wk), 8 Michael Bracewell, 9 Neil Wagner, 10 Tim Southee (capt), 11 Matt Henry
-
Given the players available, I think that's a much better balanced side. I think there are a couple of ways of looking at the bowling attack:
- Mitchell is arguably under bowled as a fourth seamer/fifth bowling option anyway. Or...
- Even if it goes badly, he'd likely do no worse than Tickner or Kuggeleijn against Bazball style batting.
-
Not a fan of bowling first, hope we can roll them with the new ball, otherwise we are behind the 8-ball from the outset.
-
@Donsteppa said in Black Caps v England:
Given the players available, I think that's a much better balanced side. I think there are a couple of ways of looking at the bowling attack:
- Mitchell is arguably under bowled as a fourth seamer/fifth bowling option anyway. Or...
- Even if it goes badly, he'd likely do no worse than Tickner or Kuggeleijn against Bazball style batting.
Same.
Although I would have gone Tickner over Wagner.
I think Mitchell is veeeery underbowled.
I don't think it's a prefect selection from what we have available. E.g. both Mitchell & Bracewell are 5th bowlers. But they (Bracewell) will be doing a 4th bowler's responisbility/workload. I like Bracewell, but longer term if this is the balance going forward then I'd phase in the specialist (Sodhi). Bracewell is going to be doing a lot of the workload usually carried by the excellent Wagner/CdG/Jamieson old-ball bowling. I doubt he has the skills for that consistently.
I prefer a more traditional 7/4 split, now that we no longer have the players suitable for the 4 seamers (plus allrounder) balance we've been going with the last 7 years. So, the (almost) balance for this game is right with me.
-
A MUCH better side on paper although it’s a bit depressing saying that about Henry, just goes to show the dearth of talent we have with injuries/unavailability’s/retirements etc. we still look a bit short on bowling options overall though.
Holding out hope that KW finds form again and Nicholls has the inevitable huge score at home to save his career.
A bunch of mates and I were hoping to pop down over the weekend with the Mrs’s to sit on the bank and drink beer but in a rookie mistake from all of us we forgot it’s not Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or the Windies. England actually have travelling fans. Completely sold out.
Lucky the couch is comfy and the beer will be better.
-
@Rapido Yep, I'd have been tempted with Sodhi as well. His batting would sit well at #8 in that lineup too.
Looking like Bazball may not be the best approach to batting on an outfield-coloured pitch when sent into bat in the first half hour.
-
@MN5 I think Matt Henry has got better - last three years he averages 30 c.f. his career average of 40. He also hasn't played many tests vs bunnies and probably often hasn't had his preferred role (I haven't checked that). I don't mind him at all.
I think the balance is a bit off for this test. We probably have a bit too much batting and a bit too little bowling. But, if we're up against Bazball cricket, where England is maybe planning to bat only 60 overs in each innings, maybe three specialist bowlers and two part-timers is enough.
Seems a bit like they're carrying Henry Nicholls at the expense of a specialist bowler - which might have been Ish Sodhi.
I like seeing Kane listed at 4!!!
-
-
@Chris-B said in Black Caps v England:
I think Matt Henry has got better
he bowled fucking well in the 2015 world cup final and i thought that would be the making of him. That was quite some time ago
-
@Donsteppa said in Black Caps v England:
It's interesting... of the two Henry's it feels like Matt's stats are a bit worse than he actually plays, but arguably the reverse for Nicholls...
I think that too.
I kind of feel Matt has often bowled without much luck, where Henry has often batted with more than his share (though not quite Marnus' level!).
-
No mention of Nicholls in this article though, so he's not a massively lucky cnut.
Labuschagne - lucky, and making the most of it
Who cashes in on fielders' gifts the most, who doesn't - this is what the numbers say
-
-
@Chris-B said in Black Caps v England:
@MN5 I think Matt Henry has got better - last three years he averages 30 c.f. his career average of 40. He also hasn't played many tests vs bunnies and probably often hasn't had his preferred role (I haven't checked that). I don't mind him at all.
I think the balance is a bit off for this test. We probably have a bit too much batting and a bit too little bowling. But, if we're up against Bazball cricket, where England is maybe planning to bat only 60 overs in each innings, maybe three specialist bowlers and two part-timers is enough.
Seems a bit like they're carrying Henry Nicholls at the expense of a specialist bowler - which might have been Ish Sodhi.
I like seeing Kane listed at 4!!!
I’m not sure I do. I’m so used to Rossco being there and KW at 3. Part of me thinks it should be one of the newer guys there.
Who opens with Latham ? Wouldn’t be surprised at either Young or Conway I guess.
Then again the 3/4 thing might be much of a muchness, all the true legendary batsman of years gone by and the best of today will either be 3/4.
I get your point about Henry. Better than his woeful stats suggest
-
@Chris-B said in Black Caps v England:
No mention of Nicholls in this article though, so he's not a massively lucky cnut.
Labuschagne - lucky, and making the most of it
Who cashes in on fielders' gifts the most, who doesn't - this is what the numbers say
Remember reading this at the time. Think it only focused on drops and missed stumpings.
I think it was just after a couple of Nicholl's innings that included teams opting not to review when he'd edged or been 'out' LBW. Or they'd run out of reviews. Plus a drop or two.There was a home season when he was very lucky, 2 season ago.
-
@Rapido said in Black Caps v England:
@Chris-B said in Black Caps v England:
I like seeing Kane listed at 4!!!
I hate seeing Kane listed at 4.
I'll live in hope that the cricinfo version is correct, as it has him listed at 3.
I like having our best batsman at 4 - giving him an extra layer of protection from the new ball in case of an early wicket.
When we had Rossco at 4, I didn't mind Kane at 3 - but, we have Latham, Conway and Young all used to batting in the top 3 at the top and I would definitely use them there to help mitigate the new ball risk to Kane.
