***Official*** Commonwealth Bank Tri-Series

[Sir Redman]

When you look at a few of the NZ lower order, who do have the potential to score quickly, so far in the VB series when they've looked to up the run-rate and chase boundaries, they've failed to get bat-on-ball too often. You look at some of the Aus players, and even if they don't hit a boundary, they usually manage to get some bat on it and get a single, while too many balls to the NZ players (McCullum early in his innings has been a culprit a couple of times now) have gone through to the 'keeper.

Yeah, that is something we've struggled with big-time this series. Taylor was doing it really well until Fleming ran him out, but Fulton, Styris, Oram, McCullum etc all hit too many balls straight to fielders. When Oram came in we only needed about 65 off 8 overs or so - that's easy. All he had to do was knock the singles around for 3 or 4 overs to play himself in, and then he could have gone for the boundaries. Instead, he tried to smash it too early and got himself out. I find it a bit harsh to blame Fleming seeing as he scored a hundred - he just needed the others to give him some support.

Something else that bugs me - Taylor should be batting at 3. He's batted there his whole domestic career and has the ability to score quickly while the field is up. He's wasted coming in once the field is back. I suppose it was a bit different when our opening partnerships were miserable, but now that that appears to have a bit more stability he should be coming in at 3.

And our fielding is utterly dire.

 

[Dick Rockett]

I know I'll get whinged at as usual for saying this, but this match is an example of why I've never rated NZ's chances in a World Cup.

We're all perfectly well aware of your thoughts on the matter.

Fleming's captaincy was nowhere near good, take the MCG for example, he placed his fieldsman too far back and gave away easy singles and twos

That's not fair - the MCG is a massive ground and if you bring your fielders in too close you'll be giving away even more twos and threes should the ball get past them.

On the other hand... I've been one of Stephen Fleming's biggest defenders over the years. I've always stepped into the fray when some know-nothing rugbyhead gets stuck into him. I respect his captaincy, and his batting, while not world beating, is consistenly among the best that New Zealand has to call upon.

But... I lay the blame for last night squarely on his shoulders. He needs to understand that having a score next to your name does not mean that you are in form. I know exactly what he was thinking: "I'll be the sheet anchor. Must preserve wickets for the big blast at the end." The problem being that while he's busy not going after Flintoff and Panesar (incidentally what in blue **** was that about - shouldering arms for a entire overs with the required rate above seven), he's running out Taylor. So what we have is Fleming who is out of form and progressively getting worse as his innings progresses, and Scott Styris who has to score at sevens right from the get-go. He fails, the burden is passed to the next guy. He fails, and so on, and so on.

We have been lucky over the last couple of weeks to have some of our middle to lower order players come in and blaze away immediately. You cannot rely on that happening every time, it was bound to fail sooner or later. It wasn't fair to expect the new batsmen to come in and score at such a rapid rate while Fleming shores up an end doing not much.

Fleming would have done much better to have started attacking the bowling when he was in his 80s and batting reasonably well. That way, even if he'd lost his wicket we could have had Oram in with 13-14 overs left and plenty of time to get going. He's not Ricky Ponting - leading from the front isn't what he should be doing right now, not until he truly returns to form.

 

[dass]

was the feild placment big factor in the win? because if it was Micheal Vaughan deserves to the captain.

 

[Prince EWS]

was the feild placment big factor in the win? because if it was Micheal Vaughan deserves to the captain.

No complaints about the field placement but I wouldn't exactly say they were genius. The bowling changes and captaincy surrounding the PowerPlays were brilliant though.

 

[BoyBrumby]

was the feild placment big factor in the win? because if it was Micheal Vaughan deserves to the captain.

TBF Hussain, Botham & Holding were all doing their nuts on Sky's commentary about the gap between first & third slip. Early on quite a few edges seemed to disappear thru the hole for four.

MPV did rotate his bowlers very well tho, we were squarely behind the 8-ball after half a dozen overs of NZ's innings & won fairly comfortably in the end so he's obviously doing something right.

 

[Scaly piscine]

We're all perfectly well aware of your thoughts on the matter.

Yea well, someone of us like to at least try and get it right before being obnoxious.

But... I lay the blame for last night squarely on his shoulders. He needs to understand that having a score next to your name does not mean that you are in form. I know exactly what he was thinking: "I'll be the sheet anchor. Must preserve wickets for the big blast at the end." The problem being that while he's busy not going after Flintoff and Panesar (incidentally what in blue **** was that about - shouldering arms for a entire overs with the required rate above seven), he's running out Taylor.

The required run-rate was 6.37 when the over started, first ball was a wicket and Fleming played left the remaining 5 balls. After the over the required run-rate still wasn't 7. Taylor shares a little of the responsibility for the runout by just putting his head down and charging regardless.

So what we have is Fleming who is out of form and progressively getting worse as his innings progresses, and Scott Styris who has to score at sevens right from the get-go. He fails, the burden is passed to the next guy. He fails, and so on, and so on.

We have been lucky over the last couple of weeks to have some of our middle to lower order players come in and blaze away immediately. You cannot rely on that happening every time, it was bound to fail sooner or later. It wasn't fair to expect the new batsmen to come in and score at such a rapid rate while Fleming shores up an end doing not much.

Fleming would have done much better to have started attacking the bowling when he was in his 80s and batting reasonably well. That way, even if he'd lost his wicket we could have had Oram in with 13-14 overs left and plenty of time to get going. He's not Ricky Ponting - leading from the front isn't what he should be doing right now, not until he truly returns to form.

NZ needed less than 8 an over in the last 10. Flintoff only had 2 overs left. 6 of the last 10 overs had to come from Mahmood, Collingwood, Panesar and Dalrymple. NZ had 7 wickets remaining. You'd expect a team to win from there 8/9 times out of 10, how is it Fleming's fault the middle order choked?

 

[MoxPearl]

Kiwi fans are more demanding than Indian fans imo.

thats a good thing.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The required run-rate was 6.37 when the over started, first ball was a wicket and Fleming played left the remaining 5 balls. After the over the required run-rate still wasn't 7. Taylor shares a little of the responsibility for the runout by just putting his head down and charging regardless.

Think you're being a little harsh there. Taylor simply had to sprint to make it down there in the first place, and was pretty much at full steam by the time Fleming sent him back.

 

[Fiery]

I wonder if Fiery will make it through the night?

The fallout tomorrow should be quite interesting. What will Bracewell have to say?

It was a rough night but I'll box on. Still can't quite believe it and apologise to all English people on this forum for writing them off and for some of the disparaging remarks I've made about their team and players during the series. I redirect that disdain and contempt onto the NZ team now as last night's performance plumbed new depths

 

[burr]

That was such a disappointing effort from NZ – they should never have lost that game.

I think Fleming deserves to be heavily criticised for that innings. The strike rate was unacceptable, he never attempted to up the ante when they desperately needed it, he lets thinks slip during the middle of the innings and put too much pressure on his partners. Hardly a captain’s performance.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Yea well, someone of us like to at least try and get it right before being obnoxious.

I didn't realise that expressing my boredom with the relentless uniformity of your posts was obnoxious, but whatever floats your boat...

Taylor shares a little of the responsibility for the runout by just putting his head down and charging regardless.

Rubbish. The striker calls for shots in front of square, and Fleming called a run. What else would you expect Taylor to do?

NZ needed less than 8 an over in the last 10. Flintoff only had 2 overs left. 6 of the last 10 overs had to come from Mahmood, Collingwood, Panesar and Dalrymple. NZ had 7 wickets remaining. You'd expect a team to win from there 8/9 times out of 10, how is it Fleming's fault the middle order choked?

Because it's unreasonable to expect batsmen to come to the middle and immediately start blasting the ball around. Any batsman will tell you he'd prefer to have two or three overs to get set before playing big shots. While NZ might have had success with that approach earlier in the series, the fact is that it still resulted in one loss, and in the other game they were batting first, hence removing most of the pressure. Fleming was in, he was set, he had 80-odd runs to his name, it was his responsibility to force the pace rather than cool his heels and wait for someone else to do it.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Because it's unreasonable to expect batsmen to come to the middle and immediately start blasting the ball around. Any batsman will tell you he'd prefer to have two or three overs to get set before playing big shots. While NZ might have had success with that approach earlier in the series, the fact is that it still resulted in one loss, and in the other game they were batting first, hence removing most of the pressure. Fleming was in, he was set, he had 80-odd runs to his name, it was his responsibility to force the pace rather than cool his heels and wait for someone else to do it.

You didn't really answer anything I said, you just repeated what you said earlier. It was less than 8 an over against inexperienced bowling and most of the final overs weren't coming from genuine death bowlers. It's not remotely unreasonable to expect a team to achieve the win in that situation, they didn't even need to just blast straight off, they only needed to do that when they panicked and were swinging and missing. Fleming's responsibility as far as I'm concerned was to stay at the crease taking as few risks as reasonable whilst the other end gambled. Obviously this changed when the run rate increased, wickets were lost and so the onus was then on him.

 

[armchairumpire]

While I'm a New Zealand supporter who always tries to take some positives from every Blackcaps performance, I'm at a loss to find much to be positive about from last night's effort. The only one I can think of is that at least the Blackcaps are consistent - they consistenly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I'm tempted to say Fleming has to go. Maybe the Blackcaps need some fresh thinking in the Captaincy department. Maybe the coach should go. Who knows, but they should be in the CB finals, and I want to blame someone, and the captain and the coach are a good place to start.

Oh well, at least they get to have another go at Australia in the Chappell-Hadlee trophy next week.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Come on fellas, it's not the end of the world.

 

[Smudge]

The striker calls for shots in front of square, and Fleming called a run. What else would you expect Taylor to do?

Indeed - it wouldn't have been so bad if Fleming had just said "yes" then not actually left his crease, but he ended up taking probably 5 steps down the track. I can't see how he ever thought there was a run there - and he's been playing international cricket for 13 years!

 

[Dick Rockett]

You didn't really answer anything I said, you just repeated what you said earlier.

I answered what you said by pointing out that NZs death-batting heroics in previous games haven't really been much of an achievement when looked at in context. If the results of the death-over slogs in those games either didn't amount to anything, or cannot be compared due to entirely different circumstances, how is it reasonable to expect fresh batsmen to stride to the crease with eight ot nine overs left and start hitting boundaries?

It's far more reasonable to expect the player with 80-odd runs and 100+ balls behind him to pick up the slack and give his new partners time to settle. That's exactly what Ricky Ponting did when he scored his hundred the other night, and look how well Brad Hodge did after an ordinary start.

It was less than 8 an over against inexperienced bowling and most of the final overs weren't coming from genuine death bowlers.

So what? There was quality bowlers in Panesar and Flintoff, Collingwood bowled very well, and Plunkett - as you pointed out - came back well from his awful early spell. Besides, eight an over isn't easy - evidenced by the almost complete absence in this series of successful chases of large totals.

 

[Jono]

I know I'll get whinged at as usual for saying this, but this match is an example of why I've never rated NZ's chances in a World Cup.

So many things went right for them, they got England three down early on and Bond was bowling well and the two players at the crease are woefully out of form. Then when they let that slip they got off to a great start without having to do anything really and none of their top 5 got a good 'un early on so they've all got an opportunity to fire. They got a bit of run against Flintoff who was bowling well, it was all setup nicely for them only needing 71 off the last 9 overs with 7 wickets left on a batter's pitch. Flintoff only had 2 overs left and he was the only genuine death bowler, there's two batsmen in with two hard-hitting batsmen to come and several bowlers who can bat pretty nicely. The experience is comprehensively on NZ's side.

Yet England end up winning easily. It's no good people complaining about a favourite hate figure like Franklin or moaning about Fleming batting too slowly or some bad fielding. NZ just don't have the mental strength, that's why they lost. They played better than England for most of the game and fell apart at the business end. This weakness has been there for years, that's why they lose narrowly to Australia so often. This weakness is going to get exaggerated in the World Cup. Look at how much better NZ when they've got nothing to lose (ie when they're getting tonked by Australia), they can pull some good cricket off then but by then it's too late. Even if NZ had the mental strength I think they just lack that 'genius' factor other teams have that would help them beat say an Australia really going for it, but they would be a fairly safe bet to make the semis or final.

As for England I think Vaughan's captaincy is so crucial, I doubt they'd have won if Flintoff or whoever was captain. Not only does he use the bowlers better and have better fielding placings he also has an infectious winning mentality which will be crucial if England can manage to stay in games. With Vaughan as captain England win a far better percentage of ODIs than with Strauss, Tresco or Flintoff as captain.

I actually agree with most of that, and that's probably one of the best posts you've ever written. When you're less attacking and insulting to other nations, your posts are much better, and far less trollish.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Well, New Zealand do lack mental strength & only the most diehard of NZ fans would rate their chances at the World Cup, but it's too late to chop and change now... All they can do is focus on March 16th when they play England again.

 

[pup11]

I think black cap batting order was a real mess yesterday, they should have shown some flexibility with their batting order. Their best batsman was without doubt oram so he should have come ahead of styris(because it was just his 2nd game after his comeback). In the end i think the black caps tried to up the ante, a bit too late than they should have and thats where they lost the game.

 

[pup11]

I think the biggest blow for the Kiwi's is that Brendon McCullum seems to have lost his game completly. Bracewell and fleming experimented with him opening the batting, and due to that his lower order batting qualities seem to have also diminished to a fair extent. It was really a poor idea to make him open and in this process the black caps have really messed up with his game, which was pretty needless.