General Blackcaps Chat

Forums › Sports › General Blackcaps Chat

1 | ... | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | ... | 203

28600 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2821364 30-Nov-2021 09:10

Dochart:

If Latham, Young, Williamson and Conway occupy 1-4 in the batting order who is the next best after Taylor or Nicholls in Domestic cricket. I can’t think of any names who could fill the No 5 position after Taylor or Nicholls.

Ravindra looked awesome, played like he has already built up a great career, yet he's just starting out

Latham, Young, Williamson and Conway are all excellent, but I feel Ross's best days are well behind him. We tend to hang on to old hands for a bit too long IMO

Lenovo

Lenovo computer and accessories deals (affiliate link).

TeaLeaf

5097 posts

Uber Geek

#2821490 30-Nov-2021 11:34

tdgeek:

I doubt a win in the final innings was ever on the cards. More intent means losing more wickets. I "think" the required RR was already close to 4, and the match never got close to that. The outside chance was going near wicketless till the last session AND having a 3 RR, never happen. A draw is good points, India was on top all through the match, go for a draw and a series win is still on the table

I get your point, but I was referring to the first innings. 3rpo was considered avg, these days 3rpo is considered slightly slow. That is for an entire innings. Which means after the first 20 overs, playing with the intention of attacking not defending.

So its 140 runs minimum NZ missed out on by having zero intent. NZ drawing a test in Ind was minimum, as world #1 Test and ODI team and have been NZ's best team imo for 5-8 years (surpassed the Hadlee/Crowe era and just got better each year, as has Kane's avg, now 66 since 2015 vs 54 AT). We missed a real chance to have won a test without much change.

150 more NZ runs just from the 1st innings and finishing off Ind for 100 less on both their innings would have seen a win.

Winning doesnt happen without intent, I don't know many who would argue that if you allow the spin bowlers in India to dominate you, then you will lose. It doesn't even need saying that intent is the only way to counter that. It doesn't mean reckless or doing anything that will risk a wicket more than sticking the bat out to block will. Its simply about placement and running hard on singles trying to force them into 2's and the amount of half trackers that were blocked instead of dispatched in the first innings was nuts. NZ need to reassess how they play more than making wholesale changes to the team. I think Wagner is an obvious inclusion, and dismissing the idea of 3 spinners which NZ just doesnt have, unless you use GP as a similar spinner to Rachin but a better batsman imo and has a SR close to 4.5rpo. But it is more having the intention of not allowing spin bowlers to settle and dominate. Once you allow that to occur, it also makes it harder for the new batsmen, which is how NZ collapsed. Because you then have new batsmen coming in to face deliveries that are threatening the stumps and have 4-5 fielders around them, its a compounding issue.

Without being in the team I can almost certainly say that will be what has been discussed. Along with the one bowling change,

Similar occurred (for different reasons) in Aus when NZ had boult who played 2 and 3 injured, Southee out of form got dropped for #3, Lockie broke down. But despite all that, we had Aus on the ropes in test 2 and 3, I forget details but Aus were circa 160-5, test 2 required Marnus to score a double century and test 3 NZ really should have won but had Paine go on to score a big ton at #7 with tail end support.

Ind was very different as we selected the problem by not playing the bowlers who will take the most wickets, instead playing 3 sub world class spinners for the sake of it being in Ind. Our only real wicket taking spinner is Ish Sodhi and hes not accurate enough for test cricket.

If I was Kane, Id have the strongest batting team I can based around 3 quicks who can bowl on any surface, Tim, KJ and Wags. If it were me I would select GP to replace Somers and Wags to replace Patel and make Kane bowl. You then have 3 part time spinners (which is no worse than what we got from Patel and Somerville) and 3 quicks, but you also had GP who is NZ's next replacement to Ross imo. Id play GP at 5 to get the scoreboard moving should Ross (who has been the one typically in the past to do that job) fail. That would be a heck of a solid team.

But knowing Kane being a conservative captain, I think Wags will be forced in to replace Somers and that is about all we will see change. But in theory its a massive change to runs we have to chase should Tim and KJ repeat test 1.

Make those 2 changes, intent to score and Wagner to replace one of the spinners, and NZ would have won the first test. Im not so sure about Mumbai as Ind are bringing back rested players themselves. But I am sure they will make those changes based on experience and not being overly confident in areas we are not even world class in (spin). Play to your known strengths etc, especially when even at their worst our seamers are 3x better than our spinner at their best).

tdgeek

28600 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2821493 30-Nov-2021 11:39

No place for Ravindra?

Yep, intent is good, it has a cost though. Increasing the RR is not free, its more risk = more wickets. India at home is not for the faint hearted.

TeaLeaf

5097 posts

Uber Geek

#2821497 30-Nov-2021 11:48

Dochart:

If Latham, Young, Williamson and Conway occupy 1-4 in the batting order who is the next best after Taylor or Nicholls in Domestic cricket. I can’t think of any names who could fill the No 5 position after Taylor or Nicholls.

We have another keeper who is up there, in fact NZ are absurdly blessed with keepers at the moment.

Glenn Phillips is the obvious choice at 6 but at 5, that is a tough one, which is perhaps why Nicholls wasnt dropped before making 170, which saw 7 catches dropped in that innings lol, which for some reason was good enough to keep him in the team and obviously Taylor even out of form is better than most.

That is a really tough question, especially now we have asked Will Young to turn himself into an opener. Whilst Ive been Conway's biggest advocate we also need to keep in mind hes not proven yet either. So there are a lot of unproven 30yo+ players in and around the team.

I think if you ask me that in 2 years time I will have a better answer haha. Right now I would have to say Glenn Phillips.

Handle9

9640 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2821504 30-Nov-2021 12:00

Williamson bowling 20 overs of spin in an innings with an elbow held together with chewing gum? That makes as much sense as relying on Phillips as a front line spinner.

TeaLeaf

5097 posts

Uber Geek

#2821506 30-Nov-2021 12:01

tdgeek:

No place for Ravindra?

Yep, intent is good, it has a cost though. Increasing the RR is not free, its more risk = more wickets. India at home is not for the faint hearted.

Yep I think give Ravindra another go, but hes pretty unknown even at first class level. I dont want to see him given a summer and not perform and then shelved. Id rather see him prove himself at first class level. The problem is NZ is running out of time to start converting some of the young guys for retiring players.

Again, Im not asking for a risky intent, its the small things that make a huge difference.

People have this notion about Ind at home, but I take the game on its merits and even by the end that wicket was only just starting to really grip and have variable bounce, first innings NZ definitely could have score well above 2.09rpo for 140overs without "risk". It is far more risky in India to not try to score than it is to let their spinners dominate. That is where somebody like Glen Phillips would be good, and a Conway, players who will not go into their shell because supposedly you are meant to let the spinners get away with half trackers down leg that arent turning. Thats all Im saying. We could have done much better without any further risk than the risk of letting the opposition do whatever they want without question.

Dochart

653 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2821507 30-Nov-2021 12:02

With Kane elbow issue he is unable to bowl. Who knows what the pitch in Mumbai is going to be like. It could spin more compared to Kanpur.

Should NZ get rid of Sommerville and replace him with Wagner.

Test XI for the 2nd Test in Mumbai
1. Latham
2. Young
3. Williamson
4. Taylor
5. Philips
6. Blundell (wk)
7. Santner/Ravindra
8. Jamieson
9. Southee
10.Wagner
11. Patel

I think this Test XI will be well balanced. Philips could also bowl spin if Santner or Patel don’t get any wickets. I think this team will be the only way to have Jamieson, Southee and Wagner in the team. That is 6 wicket taking options.

TeaLeaf

5097 posts

Uber Geek

#2821508 30-Nov-2021 12:04

Handle9: Williamson bowling 20 overs of spin in an innings with an elbow held together with chewing gum? That makes as much sense as relying on Phillips as a front line spinner.

Im talking hypotheticals of what could be played with Kane. He has been out of bowling more because of having to prove his action, after all that, hes pretty much been benched from bowling permanently.

I dont think any of NZ's spinners will make any difference as "front line", well I dont just not think it, it was proven. Patel went for runs first innings and was the closest to being front line.

I dont see Glen bowling any worse than Ravindra, what I do see Glen doing is upping the run rate when we are missing Conway.

Santner would have been the only all rounder of choice, but he doesnt average above or below 30 with bat or ball, Im not sure yet whether Ravindra will either, he was picked pretty soon in his career unlike many NZ players who have had to prove themselves due to the quality of players about. I think with Ross retiring in the next 18 months or so, they are in more of a hurry. Glen has had 1 go at test level too. The better his bowling gets the more he will be a certain pick. I hope Rachin puts more effort into his bowling as I have a bad feeling hes not going to avg 40+ with the bat. But if he can be a 30/30 player, then he will be the Santner that Santner never quite lived up to. We could have 2 very similar players, except Phillips will always be more aggressive than Rachin at batting imo.

Handle9

9640 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2821512 30-Nov-2021 12:11

Dochart: With Kane elbow issue he is unable to bowl. Who knows what the pitch in Mumbai is going to be like. It could spin more compared to Kanpur.

Should NZ get rid of Sommerville and replace him with Wagner.

Test XI for the 2nd Test in Mumbai
1. Latham
2. Young
3. Williamson
4. Taylor
5. Philips
6. Blundell (wk)
7. Santner/Ravindra
8. Jamieson
9. Southee
10.Wagner
11. Patel

I think this Test XI will be well balanced. Philips could also bowl spin if Santner or Patel don’t get any wickets. I think this team will be the only way to have Jamieson, Southee and Wagner in the team. That is 6 wicket taking options.

No need for the 10th best test batsman in the world who’s in the prime of his career. Seems logical.

tdgeek

28600 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2821513 30-Nov-2021 12:14

TeaLeaf:

That is a really tough question, especially now we have asked Will Young to turn himself into an opener. Whilst Ive been Conway's biggest advocate we also need to keep in mind hes not proven yet either.

So Conway is not proven? he needs to have done 100 tests before we can consider him a safe option in a test match?

ALL players make a debut when unproven. Give them a short period and you soon see who will make it and who won't. Conway looked the goods very early on

Ravindra debuted, excellent performance. A few starts, and you can see where he may be headed in the future. That's the issue here, we dont like new blood we would rather stick with proven old timers as we know them and trust them, even though the averages are naturally trending down. Thats what we seem to do.

Dochart

653 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2821568 30-Nov-2021 12:21

Handle9:
Dochart: With Kane elbow issue he is unable to bowl. Who knows what the pitch in Mumbai is going to be like. It could spin more compared to Kanpur.

Should NZ get rid of Sommerville and replace him with Wagner.

Test XI for the 2nd Test in Mumbai
1. Latham
2. Young
3. Williamson
4. Taylor
5. Philips
6. Blundell (wk)
7. Santner/Ravindra
8. Jamieson
9. Southee
10.Wagner
11. Patel

I think this Test XI will be well balanced. Philips could also bowl spin if Santner or Patel don’t get any wickets. I think this team will be the only way to have Jamieson, Southee and Wagner in the team. That is 6 wicket taking options.

No need for the 10th best test batsman in the world who’s in the prime of his career. Seems logical.

I’m taking a horses for courses approach. It was either Taylor or Nicholls.

Philips should definitely play in the 2nd test match as he can bowl as well which will allow us to select Jamieson, Southee and Wagner.

Handle9: If Philips comes in who would you have taken out between Taylor or Nicholls?

TeaLeaf

5097 posts

Uber Geek

#2821570 30-Nov-2021 12:24

Dochart:
Test XI for the 2nd Test in Mumbai
1. Latham
2. Young
3. Williamson
4. Taylor
5. Philips
6. Blundell (wk)
7. Santner/Ravindra
8. Jamieson
9. Southee
10.Wagner
11. Patel

I think this Test XI will be well balanced. Philips could also bowl spin if Santner or Patel don’t get any wickets. I think this team will be the only way to have Jamieson, Southee and Wagner in the team. That is 6 wicket taking options.

Most definitely have to play the 3 seamers, no point throwing Ind what the want for the sake of this notion you have to play 3 spinners in Ind.

Phillips is the best of the 3 with the bat at this point down the mid-tail.

Id put 7. Santner/Ravindra/Phillips

Well known I dont rate Santner, but at least you know what you get with him in both areas. GP made a 50 on debut but got a duck also from memory. But 1 match doesnt make any player.

The other option is to replace Blundell with Phillips or Latham and play Ravindra/Santner.

I think the 3 seamers are a certainty, I think it will come down to how daring Kane is on the day who of the 3 is picked. I doubt they will replace Blundell, although I see Blundell being replaced within 2 years. IMO Kane will go the most conservative traditional route and pick the player he knows the best not who is the best, which imo might be Santner and Nicholls unfortunately.

So this is what I see Kane picking.

Test XI for the 2nd Test in Mumbai
1. Latham
2. Young
3. Williamson
4. Taylor
5. Nicholls
6. Blundell (wk)
7. Santner
8. Jamieson
9. Southee
10.Wagner
11. Patel

For me that is such a dicey batting line up, Taylor out of form, Nicholls nearly dropped last season saved by 2 very very very streaky innings, Blundell never been close to Watlings level and easily intimidated (although I thought played spin well the first innings) and Santner is rocks or diamonds, Jamieson was never going to avg above 30 without work on his batting. Id definitely be going for the most wicket takers in that scenario, the batting is likely to let themselvs be intimidated again with an in form Taylor, no Conway and no Phillips.

Handle9

9640 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2821571 30-Nov-2021 12:24

tdgeek:
TeaLeaf:

That is a really tough question, especially now we have asked Will Young to turn himself into an opener. Whilst Ive been Conway's biggest advocate we also need to keep in mind hes not proven yet either.

So Conway is not proven? he needs to have done 100 tests before we can consider him a safe option in a test match?

ALL players make a debut when unproven. Give them a short period and you soon see who will make it and who won't. Conway looked the goods very early on

Ravindra debuted, excellent performance. A few starts, and you can see where he may be headed in the future. That's the issue here, we dont like new blood we would rather stick with proven old timers as we know them and trust them, even though the averages are naturally trending down. Thats what we seem to do.

It’s been very very successful for a long time. Consistency of selection and professional development pathways have been key factors in our success.

Test batting isn’t a young man’s game.

Handle9

9640 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2821583 30-Nov-2021 12:28

Dochart: Philips should definitely play in the 2nd test match as he can bowl as well which will allow us to select Jamieson, Southee and Wagner.

Handle9: If Philips comes in who would you have taken out between Taylor or Nicholls?

There’s zero reason to play Phillips. He bowls bad off spin and has a worse batting record than Taylor or Nicholls.

TeaLeaf

5097 posts

Uber Geek

#2821611 30-Nov-2021 13:08

Handle9:

No need for the 10th best test batsman in the world who’s in the prime of his career.

I see both sides to this, ie you suggesting a proven formula. But I also tend to agree with Dochart.

Horses for courses.

Nicholls was as good as gone had 1 of his 7 catches in that innings at home been taken.

He is terrible player of spin and averages 24 away from home, he doesn't handle pressure or producing match winnings innings when NZ is crumbling (which doesnt help with our other middle Taylor being out of form, nobody to stop the rot). So in this situation I tend to agree with not playing him. In Ind there are more reasons not to play him than to play him. But Kane will play him, Kane is not fond of letting go of old guard.

This is where rankings can be deceitful. If you look at the chart it has him up near David Warner and Babar. Its beyond a giggle to put him in their league based on a couple of flukey innings and being mostly an at home only batsman. The one innings he did well was vs Pak in the UAE, which is why heading into NZ summer vs mostly easy opposition and even then getting out twice with a total of 9 dropped catches.

But who do you replace him with, for the sake of keeping the scoreboard ticking over I think Phillips has earnt another go at Test level.

He averages better than Ravindra at first class in bowling and is about the same with the bat (but quicker). I think you do him a bit of a dis service especially when its clear he is part of NZ's future. I think right arm leg break is very handy.

Both of them avg about the same as Henry Nicholls in first class.

So I dont think logically its a bad idea to replace Henry who is easily bogged down into defending with somebody who will try to use offense to get out of the bog.

But I know Kane wont take risks and will stick with Henry despite his real world form (not what the Stats tell us)

1 | ... | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | ... | 203