The Silver Fern

@KiwiPie said in NZ Cricket:

My guesses

• Hadlee 1985 15 wickets
• Ajaz and his 10 for
• Bmac 300
• Can't think of another

Maybe Baz also won it for his fastest test century? That might squeeze into the last 8 years. But his 300 was 11 years ago.

I read that article, and couldn't tell what the trophy was actually for?

So it is 'performance' of the year? Not player of the year?

That would make way more sense than what I thought I was reading about.

@Machpants said in How to rank this RWC?:

@taniwharugby said in How to rank this RWC?:

@Machpants didn't WR change the hosting model post 2011, that had the same model been in place in 2011 NZR would have made more coin

I don't know. I seem to remember us paying less than France did in 2007

The 2007 and 2011 hosting fees were the same.

But, in 2023 France voluntarily upped that £120 million to £150 million to outbid their rivals (and IIRC that extra £30 million was to buy out the corporate, or travel? parts of the income that WR usually retain?)

@taniwharugby said in How to rank this RWC?:

didn't WR change the hosting model post 2011, that had the same model been in place in 2011 NZR would have made more coin

No. The host fee went up in 2015, and up again in '19 and '23.

The 'step change' was really between 2003 and the RWCs that came after. It is from 2007 onwards that the IRB put in place a hosting fee upfront.

The 'more coin' part probably bubbling away somewhere in the back of TR's memory, would be a comparison to the old model. E.g. NZRU would have made a NZD$78 million dollar profit in 2011 using the 2003 model, rather than the NZD $30 million loss (of which $20mil was covered by govt).

But, then .rolling forward ..... it would beggar belief to apply that same thinking to the profits England, Japan , France could have subsequently made using the same model, at the expense of the central WR/IRB profit,

@MN5 said in Black Caps v Pakistan:

Abbas finding out about the highs and lows of cricket at this level.

What a contrast from a few days ago.

Huh? What happened?

@nzzp said in Auckland stadiums - Eden Park, Western Springs etc:

@Rapido the expensive seats and corporate are north and south

For this part.

Taking Eden Park 2.0 irenders n good faith .... I'm expecting covered seating at least at one end, if not both.

I don't expect corporate at either end though, they would remain square.

That would be Adelaide Oval equivalent.

Rare, but not unknown or unsuccessful.

I would expect a corporate lounge oriented side-on that, but at a ground that actually hosts test matches again, so increases cricket days at the stadium by about 200 to 300%, to be of more value than the status quo of about 4 days use per summer.

@nzzp said in Auckland stadiums - Eden Park, Western Springs etc:

@Rapido the expensive seats and corporate are north and south, and the sun goes east west.

So I can't see a realignment happening

I also think it unlikely.

They are quite (demonstrably) comfortable with shit dimensions.

The East-West orientation and sunsets is a real thing for cricket grounds, I agree. But isually not when the ground is a full stadium with building heights no longer making it an issue. Although it would require modeling.

McLean Park (which has a SW orientation) has that issue, where a gap in the stands at exactly due west, causes problems at sunset at certain parts of the summer.

Eden Park orientation is very slightly WNW.

So. In summary.

Eden Paek 2.0 would still likely be a joke by 5m in each straight direction in current orientation. Despite likely lengthening by 5m each way.

But an Eden Park 2.0 with the orientation flipped 90 degrees would be OK.

The retractable seating in the southern stand adds 10m to the boundary length.

So, if they repeated that standard in a new northern stand. You'd add 5m to each straight boundary and reach the ICC minimum of 55m each way. Which would still be shit IMO. (Or 60m each way from centre of the pitch.)

However. At 60m each way from the centre. You now have an option to reorient the pitch along the length of the rugby orientation. Without it being too ridiculous. Basically that is McLean Park sized square boundaries.

The diameter of the current square boundaries at Eden Park are 128m. So, they would already be acceptable as straight boundaries . There is also an extra 5m that can be added now that lower tier of western stand has been demolished and is presumably going to be temporary/retractable going forward.

I actually think my explanation of the 55m boundary is wrong.

To the eye, I think the straight boundaries are only about 50m.

I think 55m (that is being used) is half of the straight diameter. Which from a cricketing pov is the centre of the pitch and a totally useless starting point.

The ICC minimum is 55m, and Eden Park doesn't conform, but has an exemption.

I can't think of any ground in the world that even gets close to the 55m minimum, though. Seddon Park is probably next smallest in the world at about 58/59m straight.

@WestieFella said in Auckland stadiums - Eden Park, Western Springs etc:

A quick Google tells me EP is currently the world's smallest cricket ground with a 55 metre straight boundary. Whereas the basin reserve boundary is between 137 and 150 metres.

Those comparisons aren't apples and apples.

A 55m boundary is from the stumps to the boundary. So an edge just needs to go 55m and a straight hit is 75m::
55m plus 20m for the length of the pitch.

The Basin straight is about 65m

Caketin is about 60m in all directions.

These are with the ropes and electronic signage pushing them in a few meters.

We are a bowler short. That 11 looks like it will be asking way too much of Abbas's bowling.

Bit, I'm not too bothered. Good to get him a game. Just surprised at the 11.

When (and why) did they knock down that small lower deck of the Western Stand at Eden Park?

Man, it's quiet in that stadium.

Well, nothing much coming through on the TV sound.

Need even louder music and even bigger gas ball explosions. Solved.

@MN5 said in Other Cricket:

Tom Bruce has the kind of record that should have got him capped in the longer form by now. What gives ?

There just haven't been the batting spaces opening up in the test 11.

Initially in his career Bruce was batting too low in FC cricket for CD to be properly considered in his early years, he needed to stretch and bat 3 or 4 at FC level to be, but he was batting 5 or 6.

During Bruce's FC span. A test middle order position has opened up only 3 times.

When Nicholls replaced Baz at number 5. At that stage Bruce had played 2 FC season and had a good record. but was batting low in the order and had a poor hundreds to 50s ratio. Nicholls and Young were the serious contenders for that spot at that time.

Bruce then didn't score a FC century for the next 4 seasons. At the end of that 4 years was the next time a place in the test 11 came up for grabs when Taylor retired and Mitchell took the spot.

The next time a post came up for grabs was when Ravindra replaced Nicholls. At that stage Bruce had a better FC record than Ravindra, but Rachin had the ODIs and had always been rated. Also Nicholls and Bruce are basically exactly the same age, at a time when the entire blackcaps test 11 were over 30.

It will be a record that in hindsight looks like a 'how did this never play a test?' but at the time he was ever really that close. Due to competition from others, a settled test 11, and Bruce himself not nailing his white ball opportunities or NZ A opportunities at times when his competitors did.

Roger Blunt was 29 years old when NZ was granted test match status in 1930.

Blunt, Stu Dempster, Ted Badcock and Tom Lowry were the senior players (approx 30 year old ) at that time who would have made up the senior players of the first NZ test teams.

@Cyclops said in Other Cricket:

NZ triple centurions are on odd bunch. Sutcliffe and Turner obviously class. I know bugger all about Roger Blunt. Mark Richardson and Devon Conway, both good, on the cusp of great. But then you have Ken Rutherford, Dean Brownie, Peter Fulton, Michael Papps and now Tom Bruce. All decent players, but none really set the world alight when given the chance at higher honours.

I'd say the biggest factor there is 4-day FC cricket.

4 of them in the 90 odd years when NZ domestic FC was 3 days. Then 6 in 40 years since it became 4 layers.

Then consider, since about late 90s or 2000 the blackcap schedule that the top batsmen never play Plunket Shield. So it is the more fringe players dominating these fixtures.

Lastly. Quantity of oportunity. Sutcliffe played a Plunket Shield season of only 3 games each. Papps, Brownie etc plated 10 game seasons.