And just 24 if you knock-out that century at Trent Bridge. Fleming is a proven failure as an opener, every bit as bad as Bell.
'Cos it impacts on whether someone lacks the class, that stays there regardless of the years passing. You suggested in your first post on the matter that Bell lacked the class, rather than any technical or temperamental flaws, but I think he's done enough in the past to suggest he doesn't.
Haha, very dire and equally hypocritical of me there. At least I was trying to type "he" and not "he's" though.Ugh.
Gillespie's figures flatter him a bit. I certainly don't think he should be dropped for Southee, but he's bowled quite poorly at times during his two Tests and picked up the tail.Isn't it amusing that a bowler who averages 25.27 in Tests (Mark Gillespie) is being very seriously considered for the chop while one who averages 30.26 in his most recent and best spell is nailed-down certainty in the team.
I know that, haven't you read my posts in this thread where I talked of him mopping-up the tail and turning fairly poor figures into good ones? (And was promptly yelled at by Geg, of course)
Yeah, but Ambrose's innings, for mine, was the biggest difference between a commanding position and a weak one. It was a really intelligent innings, too - he realised the ball had stopped swinging and seaming much, and went straight for his shots (having played with caution at the start when it was still doing a bit). More than Geraint Jones managed to do in his entire Test career, sadly.
For any future comment on NZ domestic cricket, simply "copy" and "paste".
I think it does TBH. I want conditions to favour the home side - that's the whole point in touring IMO. To play in conditions which are not your own. It even works domestically - there are huge variants in grounds even in a small country like England. Wantage Road, Northampton and Headingley, typically, are two surfaces at the precise opposite end of the scale every bit as much as the Basin Reserve and Chepauk Stadium, Chennai. And Northamptonshire and Yorkshire are no different to New Zealand and India - they should have home conditions to favour them, and should be challenged to play in different conditions when they go to each others' grounds.
Tbh I'm not sure what the arrangements are in other parts of the world, or indeed NZ, but the Basin Reserve's groundsman is an employee of the Wellington Regional Stadium Trust, not NZ Cricket, so technically what the governing body wants is irrelevant.
I don't disagree with what you say. I do like variety in pitches, and as you say it is not strictly international cricket where this occurs. I don't really see anything wrong with teams playing to their strengths and designing their pitches to suit. Against the odds tours are all part of crickets intrigue.
I agree, there was nothing wrong with the pitch, it was an excellent wicket for cricket. There was enough in it to keep the bowlers interested throughout, barring perhaps as much assistance as the spinners would have liked. But they too would have enjoyed the bounce, and world class match winning spinners I'm sure would have a bigger say in the outcome.
Yeah, but Wellington's association are a subsidary of NZC - same as Yorkshire are a subsidary of the ECB, and the like. By chain, the groundsman should be doing what NZC want when New Zealand are playing. Of course, every now and then in places like India the local association decides to deliberately defy the national, because of personal conflicts.
Resulting in Mumbai 1981\82s and Nagpur 2004\05s.Oh, no, it was an excellent cricket wicket, there's no doubt whatsoever of that. The only problem was, it wasn't what New Zealand wanted.
No, but you can only play to your current strengths. It's domestic surfaces that need to be tailored that way. In any case, I don't want NZ to stop being what it traditionally has been: seam-friendly. But if NZ at any given time have more spinners than seamers of quality, it makes sense to go towards them for the duration of that time.
?