General Blackcaps Chat

Forums › Sports › General Blackcaps Chat

1 | ... | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | ... | 255

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2290721 6-Aug-2019 09:16

In my view Australia knew that taking BC out was the key and I think they spent a lot of time preparing for it and got him super early. What was apparent to me was how we reacted to that, there wasn't enough preparation mentally for what the plan was if BC went down quick. We just sort of .. gave up.

I agree that the all out approach got us to the final, so fair call he carried on, but failure to adapt was probably our undoing. Who knows...

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2290747 6-Aug-2019 09:48

networkn:

In my view Australia knew that taking BC out was the key and I think they spent a lot of time preparing for it and got him super early. What was apparent to me was how we reacted to that, there wasn't enough preparation mentally for what the plan was if BC went down quick. We just sort of .. gave up.

I agree that the all out approach got us to the final, so fair call he carried on, but failure to adapt was probably our undoing. Who knows...

Ironically, the team we have now, despite repeated failings by both openers at virtually every game, have managed to have enough depth and grit to manhandle a result. Your mental preparation probably is there now, so a bit to look forward to.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2290767 6-Aug-2019 10:08

tdgeek:
Agree. He has been doing some commentary in the CWC and was very good. He invented the modern ODI game, literally. Set the game up from ball 1. Aggressive field placement. . I assume he has had little involvement in the Black Caps, but now perhaps an official role in batting and strategy.

McCullum was a very good captain but inventing the modern one day game? Have you never heard of Greatbatch, Jayasuriya or Kaluwitharana?

McCullum was a decent tactical captain but brilliant at culture and leadership. They are quite different and the second is far more important than the first.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2290770 6-Aug-2019 10:17

Handle9:
tdgeek:

Agree. He has been doing some commentary in the CWC and was very good. He invented the modern ODI game, literally. Set the game up from ball 1. Aggressive field placement. . I assume he has had little involvement in the Black Caps, but now perhaps an official role in batting and strategy.

McCullum was a very good captain but inventing the modern one day game? Have you never heard of Greatbatch, Jayasuriya or Kaluwitharana?

McCullum was a decent tactical captain but brilliant at culture and leadership. They are quite different and the second is far more important than the first.

What I meant was going after ball 1. We have had other innovations, when we open with Dipak Patel the spinner. BMC, going after 6's on ball 1 was monumental. It used to be 3 an over for 15 overs then a bit more. Now its a controlled 20/20. On commentary Ive also heard them say that he changed the game.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2290961 6-Aug-2019 14:28

tdgeek:

What I meant was going after ball 1. We have had other innovations, when we open with Dipak Patel the spinner. BMC, going after 6's on ball 1 was monumental. It used to be 3 an over for 15 overs then a bit more. Now its a controlled 20/20. On commentary Ive also heard them say that he changed the game.

The concept of going hard in the first 10 (originally 15) overs is hardly an McCullum invention. Sri Lanka did it to win the 1996 world cup, Gilchrist was exceptional and Greatbatch did it in 1991. Even England tried to do it in 1991 with Botham (he wasn't good). McCullums tactics were not at all revolutionary.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/standardchartered/content/story/138743.html

The way McCullum and Hesson created a culture and encouraged the Black Caps to be New Zealanders instead of trying to be poor imitations of Australia was far more significant than their tactics.

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2290968 6-Aug-2019 14:34

Handle9:

The way McCullum and Hesson created a culture and encouraged the Black Caps to be New Zealanders instead of trying to be poor imitations of Australia was far more significant than their tactics.

It compares in my mind (and I believe was drawn somewhat from) to what Henry did with the All Blacks. First and foremost he made the AB's accessible to every day Kiwis. You could "touch" an All Black after years of them being isolated from the public, and being unrelatable (under Mitchell and his predecessor). This gave the AB's back their connection to their fans and with the constant improvement/be better internal campaign, restored the desire to win at a deep level for the fans.

Varkk

643 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2290975 6-Aug-2019 14:44

Handle9:

The concept of going hard in the first 10 (originally 15) overs is hardly an McCullum invention. Sri Lanka did it to win the 1996 world cup, Gilchrist was exceptional and Greatbatch did it in 1991. Even England tried to do it in 1991 with Botham (he wasn't good). McCullums tactics were not at all revolutionary.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/standardchartered/content/story/138743.html

The way McCullum and Hesson created a culture and encouraged the Black Caps to be New Zealanders instead of trying to be poor imitations of Australia was far more significant than their tactics.

I remember in the 91 World Cup Greatbatch was lucky to make the sqaud for the cup. He had a run of poor form in the build up games. He was only put in to open against South Africa because John Wright hurt his shoulder against India. The selectors wanted to keep a left/right hand opening partnership. He took the opportunity and unleashed on the SA opening bowlers and set the tone for the rest of tournament. It wasn't some great strategy from Martin Crowe and Warren Lees as much as we might want to look back and think it was. Their big change up plan was to open with a spinner to take the pace off during the first few overs and upset the rhythm of the opening batsmen who would be expecting to face the quick strike bowlers.

Wise

Send money globally for less with Wise - one free transfer up to NZ$900 (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2290985 6-Aug-2019 15:01

Handle9:

tdgeek:

What I meant was going after ball 1. We have had other innovations, when we open with Dipak Patel the spinner. BMC, going after 6's on ball 1 was monumental. It used to be 3 an over for 15 overs then a bit more. Now its a controlled 20/20. On commentary Ive also heard them say that he changed the game.

The concept of going hard in the first 10 (originally 15) overs is hardly an McCullum invention. Sri Lanka did it to win the 1996 world cup, Gilchrist was exceptional and Greatbatch did it in 1991. Even England tried to do it in 1991 with Botham (he wasn't good). McCullums tactics were not at all revolutionary.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/standardchartered/content/story/138743.html

The way McCullum and Hesson created a culture and encouraged the Black Caps to be New Zealanders instead of trying to be poor imitations of Australia was far more significant than their tactics.

I said first ball, not being a bit more aggressive in the opening overs. Ok, Im wrong but so are the odd commentator who says the BMC started the go for a 6 on the first ball mentality.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2290989 6-Aug-2019 15:05

Varkk:

Handle9:

The concept of going hard in the first 10 (originally 15) overs is hardly an McCullum invention. Sri Lanka did it to win the 1996 world cup, Gilchrist was exceptional and Greatbatch did it in 1991. Even England tried to do it in 1991 with Botham (he wasn't good). McCullums tactics were not at all revolutionary.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/standardchartered/content/story/138743.html

The way McCullum and Hesson created a culture and encouraged the Black Caps to be New Zealanders instead of trying to be poor imitations of Australia was far more significant than their tactics.

I remember in the 91 World Cup Greatbatch was lucky to make the sqaud for the cup. He had a run of poor form in the build up games. He was only put in to open against South Africa because John Wright hurt his shoulder against India. The selectors wanted to keep a left/right hand opening partnership. He took the opportunity and unleashed on the SA opening bowlers and set the tone for the rest of tournament. It wasn't some great strategy from Martin Crowe and Warren Lees as much as we might want to look back and think it was. Their big change up plan was to open with a spinner to take the pace off during the first few overs and upset the rhythm of the opening batsmen who would be expecting to face the quick strike bowlers.

Thats how I saw it. He made his name as a big hitter for a while. L Cairns was the same, you always see players like that from time to time. My opinion is just that BMC started going for the boundary first ball and every ball that he could. He can win a game in the first 10-15 overs. If he lucks out, well that can happen to any opener, and does. It was quite a weapon. Now it's normal. Yes, helped by T20 this edays.

floydbloke

3522 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2347170 1-Nov-2019 14:53

Good to see Guptill has carried his superb form through from the world cup.

(Sorry, sarcastic vent made in frustration/annoyance at his getting out for 2 runs in the T20.)

Did Eric Clapton really think she looked wonderful...or was it after the 15th outfit she tried on and he just wanted to get to the party and get a drink?

TeaLeaf

6325 posts

Uber Geek

#2372798 11-Dec-2019 23:09

So this is the EXPECTED side to take on Australia at Optus Stadium in Perth for the day/night test.

Tom Latham, Jeet Raval, Kane Williamson, Ross Taylor, Henry Nicholls, BJ Watling, Colin de Grandhomme, Mitchell Santner, Tim Southee, Neil Wagner, Trent Boult/Lockie Ferguson/Matt Henry.

Im not overly happy with some of the decisions. Jeet Raval is so out of form he could feel a massive inside edge that took the skin off the ball that cannoned into his pads, was given out, asked Latham who was as useless as anything, so he didnt review it. Aside from that hes failed badly in the last 5 innings. In saying that, when he was in form I REALLY liked his Stoic nature of seeing off the new ball, then getting out after 30 overs which is all you need.

However, as an unpopular choice, our BEST 1st class cricketer is Colin Munro with an Avg of 53 and a SR of 95~

That beats David Warner.

He also is in unbelievable form hitting 3 centuries in a row, all at a fast clip and also scored 103 in a T20 friendly against England. Yep he he fails to convert amazing talent. But we do not have another opener in his form. We also do not have a batsman who can counter Warners speed of scoring.

Either way everybody including all the NZ commentators were puzzled by Larsen announcing a touring squad so soon.

IMO with Colin DGH having had a mildly serious injury, Mitchell who is a very similar player, grew up learning to play cricket on WA surfaces, ie bouncy and fast. IMO he should replace Colin for the first test as he is our best player off the back foot and is now a very good driver of the new ball. He also moves the ball through the air more than Colin can. Both solidify the end of our middle order, just Mitchell will perform better in WA imo.

Santner, Im over santner pulling our a score before he is about to be dropped. At one point, out of 100 wickets, the spinners had only taken 3 wickets. You combine is complete lack of ability to take wickets with his more often than not failure with the bat and hes just not worthy of being in the team as an all rounder. To be an all rounder you need to AVG 30 and above with the bat and AVG 30 and below with the ball. Prior to the Eng test century (his first), he AVG 25 with the bat and AVG 38 with the ball. Thats a flappn hopeless all rounder. Sure he is accurate. But he is no Vettori. When playing Australia at home you need a wrist spinner. NZ chose Astle. Hes not our best leggy, but he also can bat a bit. But his bowling avgs at first class and test just arent up to par, hes about even with Santner which is terrible for a leggy. Our only proven high quality leg spinner is Ajaz Patel who AVG 30 in tests with the ball. He is very much a bowler who cant bat much. So he has to be selected to take wickets, which on day 5 on any Aussie pitch he will. Clock blocking him by selecting Astle in the squad was another ignorant and dumb move by Larsen. What will happen is Santner will get selected for every test. Id rather have Ish Sodhi another player who can turn it all 3 ways, bats a bit better than the tail but has not proven himself at tests yet. So if Santner cannot take wickets, his position in the team is a wasted spot. But because Larsen selected Astle over Patel, there is no point in changing it. Complete mess, thank you Larsen and Williamson, likely will cost us the Sydney test.

Lastly Lockie Ferguson. WTHeck was he not bowling vs England especially in the final test. He is now accurate and bowls line and length at minimum 145kph consistently, the only bowler in the world currently to be so consistent. He is on form with a 5fa the 1 game ago. He is our most lethal bowler with the lowest 1st class AVG of any NZ bowler of 24. I would bowl 5 seamers at Optus and replace Santner with Fergusson, but shuffle the line up. I would do that for all 3 tests actually. But if I coud I would replace Ajaz Patel for Tim Southee at the Sydney test as it turns something wicked there.

We need searing pace and if Fergy is not selected to play optus with its bounce and pace, NZ may as well give up all 3 tests. We need his pace as any batsman wil tell you the difference between 140kph and 145-150kph is insanely different. With his ability to hit the seam with a good line and length if hes high 140s he is going to baffle a lot of batsmen with play and miss and hopefully play and nick to slip/keeper.

He just has to play, even if it was a choice between Southee and Fergy, Tim is mid to high 120s now, he just doesnt hae it anymore. He was great with Boult when they both were bowling around 140kph when Shane Bond was coaching them. Hes still good, but doesnt have the ablity of Fergusson to knock over the stumps.

So Raval will get found out 6 innings in a row by Cummins and Hazlewood, Santner is blocking a position for a real spinner but the one Larsen selected SUCKS and Ajaz Patel with Ferguson and Boult and Wagner would be lethal. And Fergusson given no warm up Tests will go in green, but luckily in provincial form.

Essentally, Gavin Larsen sucks as a selector as he did for the WC.

You cannot win tests without taking 20 wickets.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2381732 27-Dec-2019 13:28

Pretty middling performance from the test side so far in the Boxing Day test. You might be able to come back in a session against most other sides in the world, but not Australia.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2381736 27-Dec-2019 13:38

GV27:

Pretty middling performance from the test side so far in the Boxing Day test. You might be able to come back in a session against most other sides in the world, but not Australia.

It's NZ vs Smith. If he goes, its still a game. That will also ramp up the bowlers and fielders. Batting too slow for a first innings lead, AUS will want to bat big

Commentators curse, Smith out

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2381757 27-Dec-2019 14:24

tdgeek:

GV27:

Pretty middling performance from the test side so far in the Boxing Day test. You might be able to come back in a session against most other sides in the world, but not Australia.

It's NZ vs Smith. If he goes, its still a game. That will also ramp up the bowlers and fielders. Batting too slow for a first innings lead, AUS will want to bat big

Commentators curse, Smith out

We don't have the strike power in this bowling line-up and Aust will bat all the way down to 8.

At this point I'm guessing Williamson is just playing for time and trying to limit the amount of time we might have to bat for.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2381760 27-Dec-2019 14:29

GV27:

tdgeek:

GV27:

Pretty middling performance from the test side so far in the Boxing Day test. You might be able to come back in a session against most other sides in the world, but not Australia.

It's NZ vs Smith. If he goes, its still a game. That will also ramp up the bowlers and fielders. Batting too slow for a first innings lead, AUS will want to bat big

Commentators curse, Smith out

We don't have the strike power in this bowling line-up and Aust will bat all the way down to 8.

At this point I'm guessing Williamson is just playing for time and trying to limit the amount of time we might have to bat for.

Boult and Wagner are not much good?

There have been close calls, but no reward. Bottom line is AUS is a better side then us, always are. Getting Smith out makes their winning a less than a forgone conclusion

By your reckoning AUS will score 600?

1 | ... | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | ... | 255