Black Caps Tour to Zimbabwe
-
<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> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="shark" data-cid="602163" data-time="1470044678">
<div>
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>34 wickets in 27 FC matches certainly doesn't fill me with awe either but to be fair he did pull out some pretty handy cameos at critical times over the summer.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="shark" data-cid="602163" data-time="1470044678">
<div>
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I think he's a genuine spinner and our current no. 1 - with the added bonus that he can bat at six.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>We evidently look at him much differently - he's one of my first names on the team.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="shark" data-cid="602163" data-time="1470044678">
<div>
<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<strong><em>. To me it feels like he's holding down the all-rounders' role as a caretaker for one of the former.</em></strong></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>We have a problem in that we don't have a 6 who can average 40. To be fair we almost never have (MacMillian for a while? Oram got close) Santner & Anderson both look like 35 on a good day, Anderson maybe less, Neesham will never be fit enough to consistently play tests, he might struggle to play ODIs.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>We sort of have to play an all rounder there because our pace attack isn't a consistent threat in different conditions, Southee has regressed to where he was 3 years ago - superb in swinging conditions, fodder otherwise, Boult has sort of stayed still. Wagner is a workhorse (good 3rd quick) but good backfoot batsmen won't have an issue with him. And the rest are increasingly looking like they aren't fit enough to be anything bar ODI / T20 specialists. So we need a 4th bowler to balance that.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On a turning wicket we play 3 quicks, Ish & Santner, on a non turning wicket drop Ish for Anderson. If Anderson isn't fit, Ish & Santner is no worse than any other combo even on a pace track, unless we dig up a test 6 who can bat like a test 6. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="602187" data-time="1470050766">
<div>
<p>We have a problem in that we don't have a 6 who can average 40. To be fair we almost never have (MacMillian for a while? Oram got close) Santner & Anderson both look like 35 on a good day, Anderson maybe less, Neesham will never be fit enough to consistently play tests, he might struggle to play ODIs.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>We sort of have to play an all rounder there because our pace attack isn't a consistent threat in different conditions, Southee has regressed to where he was 3 years ago - superb in swinging conditions, fodder otherwise, Boult has sort of stayed still. Wagner is a workhorse (good 3rd quick) but good backfoot batsmen won't have an issue with him. And the rest are increasingly looking like they aren't fit enough to be anything bar ODI / T20 specialists. So we need a 4th bowler to balance that.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On a turning wicket we play 3 quicks, Ish & Santner, on a non turning wicket drop Ish for Anderson. If Anderson isn't fit, Ish & Santner is no worse than any other combo even on a pace track, unless we dig up a test 6 who can bat like a test 6. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Asking NZ to have a 6 who can average those numbers might be a bridge too far, I mean only a few short years ago James Franklin was seen as that guy !</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm all for "variety" but not if the variety is substandard like the majority of our spinners are.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="shark" data-cid="602436" data-time="1470122848">
<div>
<p>"Asking NZ to have a 6 who can average those numbers might be a bridge too far, I mean only a few short years ago James Franklin was seen as that guy !"<br><br>
My bad ;)</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Steve Waugh's don't just grow on trees you know....</p> -
<p>Awesome avatar MN5, I presume that's Bennett from "Commando". Yep, I get it, in the Crusaders chainmail away jersey.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Provincial Stalwart" data-cid="602458" data-time="1470125465">
<div>
<p>Awesome avatar MN5, I presume that's Bennett from "Commando". Yep, I get it, in the Crusaders chainmail away jersey.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, please refer to the Movie Review thread in "Off topic" for further information of how that came about.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="602449" data-time="1470124362"><p>
Steve Waugh's don't just grow on trees you know....</p></blockquote>
Without doing a stats guru query to back up my hunch, I'd say Waughs batting ave at 6 wasn't all that, would be sub-40 I reckon. Once he got good he moved up the order and scaled back the bowling. <br><br>
So an all rounder at 6 averaging >40 is indeed scarce.<br><br>
Ours are quite good, especially as they aren't holding back a specialist bat who could average 40. Anderson would actually be a long term candidate for 5 given the current lack of internal/domestic competition. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Immenso Rapido" data-cid="602476" data-time="1470127147">
<div>
<p>Without doing a stats guru query to back up my hunch,<strong> I'd say Waughs batting ave at 6 wasn't all that</strong>, would be sub-40 I reckon. Once he got good he moved up the order and scaled back the bowling.<br><br>
So an all rounder at 6 averaging >40 is indeed scarce.<br><br>
Ours are quite good, especially as they aren't holding back a specialist bat who could average 40. Anderson would actually be a long term candidate for 5 given the current lack of internal/domestic competition.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>56 Batting @ 5.....51 batting @ 6.........spent pretty much his whole career in these spots with his bro owning 4 for the majority of that time.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Only 15 innings at 3 and 4 and averaged mid 30s there.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I do get what you're saying though, six can be a funny position very often a guy there is a bowler of some note too or a keeper. I remember Viv Richards batted there quite a bit which I found odd for the best batsman in the team.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="602482" data-time="1470128117"><p>
56 Batting @ 5.....51 batting @ 6.........<br><br>
Only 15 innings at 3 and 4 and averaged mid 30s there.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Wow.<br><br>
Much better than I thought. <br><br>
Remember his career average being high 30s about the time he graduated up to 5. Maybe some time at 7 when he was still relatively mefiocre with guys like Phillips or Mathews at 6 dragged his career average down. <br><br>
Or, alternatively, my memory has gotten dodgy.
