**Official** New Zealand v Pakistan in UAE

[Notorious1]

None of the NZ bowlers can be penetrative in these conditions apart from Vettori (best finger spinner in the world) and Bond.

Not much fire power in the bowling for these conditions.

Having said that, Pakistan fully capable of self destructing.

 

[Xuhaib]

This match the fact is Pakistan were in a fair bit of trouble batting first but escaped through a combination of some weak follow-up bowling and the stars aligning for Afridi. And then some good hitting from Akmal. It's true that NZ batsmen don't usually excel in these sorts of conditions against good spin bowlers, but if we'd been chasing 200-220 as could have been then should still have had enough to get across the line.

Plus, you forgot Tuffey. Tuffey + Mills replace Butler + Southee and things look better (though before Athlai jumps on me, yes Southee did do well last night ). Ryder for Redmond. Elliott for N McCullum or Oram.

Pakistan IMO still slight favourites in these conditions if NZ full strength. But at present Pakistan bigger favourites, more like 70:30.

you complain too much you have Salman Butt playing for you who I can bet will be the most consistent player for you, 10 vs 12 is always an advantage for any team if NZL can't even win with this advantage then I fear they are a really dire side.

 

[Hurricane]

On the one hand I hope they play an extra batsman in the next game.
On the other hand Vettori is going to bat 6 so that extra bat needs to go at 7.

Other comment - Styris is a slow starter in a series so hopefully he will find his mojo in the later games.

 

[DIRK-NANNES]

Maybe bring in Broom @ 4 and shift the rest down.
Redmond against Ajmal is a worry, a coach would have come in handy

Redmond
McCullum
Guptill
Broom
Styris
Taylor
Vettori
Oram
Mills
Southee
Bond

 

[straw man]

None of the NZ bowlers can be penetrative in these conditions apart from Vettori (best finger spinner in the world) and Bond.

Not much fire power in the bowling for these conditions.

Having said that, Pakistan fully capable of self destructing.

True, can you please organise that to happen for the next game

 

[straw man]

you complain too much you have Salman Butt playing for you who I can bet will be the most consistent player for you, 10 vs 12 is always an advantage for any team if NZL can't even win with this advantage then I fear they are a really dire side.

You need have no fear, I'm sure the excellent Salman Butt will score a century for us next game.

 

[Flem274*]

you complain too much you have Salman Butt playing for you who I can bet will be the most consistent player for you, 10 vs 12 is always an advantage for any team if NZL can't even win with this advantage then I fear they are a really dire side.

Haha, arguing that we should win due to just one of your players, who by the way averages 37 with eight centuries. Um, what?

Yes, with Taylor, Guptill, Styris not firing and no Elliott or Ryder, we can't bat. Thats pretty straightforward.

 

[Howsie]

Haha, arguing that we should win due to just one of your players, who by the way averages 37 with eight centuries. Um, what?

Yes, with Taylor, Guptill, Styris not firing and no Elliott or Ryder, we can't bat. Thats pretty straightforward.

And Broom, don't forget Broom.

 

[straw man]

And Broom, don't forget Broom.

Yeah, Broom was due a hundred last match IIRC

 

[Scaly piscine]

No. Would rather he go up to three if he is ever to be moved. 4 is best for him, and we should wait until the end of the series before we start talking about making changes to the roles of the established players.



When Taylor wants to bat like a proper batsmen he is superb. Imagine the T20 things will disappear as the summer wears on, and return at the next IPL/World T20.

Someone is dreaming. Look at his record List A average is practically his FC average. Look at his run of scores at 3 - absolutely atrocious. He's very much a limited overs player, every indicator points to it. There's basically a 100 foot billboard saying it with big flashing lights and you're missing it.

I mean just look at this list ffs

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

21 innings. Three 50s against minnows that boost his positional average. So 18 innings against proper bowling. 15 abject failures, a 25 scored in a T20 scenario and two 100s on a pitch where 336-4 was a losing total and 286 was chased down in 40 overs.

With proper bowlers and a contest between bat and ball he's had it. In a specialised limited overs scenario where the ball doesn't do much and it's about quick runs then that's his game. If Tests weren't played on roads so often these days he'd have a long list of failures in that too.

 

[Howsie]

Dis-crediting one day 100's because they were scored on apparent roads, Taylor must be the only batsmen doing that in one day cricket

The attack he faced to make his second 100 at three, Bracken, McGrath, Tait and Hogg, awful was it?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Oh come on even Fulton managed to score at well above a strike rate of 100.

 

[SmityNZ]

Even a full strength NZ side would struggled in these conditions against Paksitan.

Ryder (Dangerous, but inconsistent)
Elliot (Good player, would have made a difference)
Mills (Not of much use in these conditions, but could have done a better job than Butler or Southee.)

Just as a little tidbit - Kyle Mills has taken 44 wickets at an average of 19 with the ball in the subcontinent in his ODI career. So to say 'he's not of much use' is a fair way off the mark.

 

[NZTailender]

Someone is dreaming. Look at his record List A average is practically his FC average. Look at his run of scores at 3 - absolutely atrocious. He's very much a limited overs player, every indicator points to it. There's basically a 100 foot billboard saying it with big flashing lights and you're missing it.

I mean just look at this list ffs

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

21 innings. Three 50s against minnows that boost his positional average. So 18 innings against proper bowling. 15 abject failures, a 25 scored in a T20 scenario and two 100s on a pitch where 336-4 was a losing total and 286 was chased down in 40 overs.

With proper bowlers and a contest between bat and ball he's had it. In a specialised limited overs scenario where the ball doesn't do much and it's about quick runs then that's his game. If Tests weren't played on roads so often these days he'd have a long list of failures in that too.

Fair point. Thought his record at 3 was not too bad, though clearly not as good as him batting at 4 (which is where I said he is best). I imagine you'll try and pick holes in those scores as well, though.

 

[Howsie]

Oh come on even Fulton managed to score at well above a strike rate of 100.

Wow jeez, I'll have to remember that one. Century's don't count if someone else scores at over a run a ball.

****ing idiot.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Wow jeez, I'll have to remember that one. Century's don't count if someone else scores at over a run a ball.

****ing idiot.

I'm glad you at least have some talent in self-assessment.

Fulton is a slow scorer in limited overs cricket. If you can't differentiate between a typical ODI pitch (flat but still has a little bit there for bowlers at certain stages of the innings) and one where even a guy with a ODI career strike rate of 73 and a 93 T20I strike rate (or 101 overall) scores rapidly over a significant period (ie not just luck or random) against decent bowling then there really isn't much point arguing with you.

As for Taylor coming in at 4, with that you'd have to go through the innings individually, which I can't be arsed doing. Sometimes he'll come in pretty early like in the match just gone, sometimes he'll come in much later. The key is he should be coming in later in the innings if you want to get the best out of him.

 

[Flem274*]

Scaly in NZ suck shocker

 

[Howsie]

I'm glad you at least have some talent in self-assessment.

Fulton is a slow scorer in limited overs cricket. If you can't differentiate between a typical ODI pitch (flat but still has a little bit there for bowlers at certain stages of the innings) and one where even a guy with a ODI career strike rate of 73 and a 93 T20I strike rate (or 101 overall) scores rapidly over a significant period (ie not just luck or random) against decent bowling then there really isn't much point arguing with you.
As for Taylor coming in at 4, with that you'd have to go through the innings individually, which I can't be arsed doing. Sometimes he'll come in pretty early like in the match just gone, sometimes he'll come in much later. The key is he should be coming in later in the innings if you want to get the best out of him.

Fulton was scoring far below a run a ball until he scored 50 from memory: 2nd ODI: New Zealand v Australia at Auckland, Feb 18, 2007 | Cricket Commentary | Cricinfo.com

As yes, when the 41st over began Fulton was 41* of 43 balls, before hitting two sixes of Brad Hogg during that over.

As for not being able to argue with me, you make it sound as though I'm trying to dis-credit someone's 100 because someone else scored quickly

 

[straw man]

Scaly does have a point IMO about Taylor's vulnerability at 3 and in general when he comes in early. His ODI record is also less impressive than both his T20 record AND his test record, and he's definitely struggled lately. The only reason I suggested Taylor might be good at 6 is because it would sometimes give him an opportunity to do what he does so well for Bangalore in 2020. Batting at 4 is ok for now though.

Disagree strongly with Scaly's last point that Taylor has not been a decent test match player for NZ and that he's benefitted more than most from very flat pitches. I know because I looked at his record a while ago to see if Uppercut was right, and was very surprised by quite how well he's done. In fact has scored runs in all series apart from struggling for some reason against Bangladesh and the West Indies, and against Steyn in SA in his debut series. This despite often being exposed to the newish ball when we're inevitably 2 down for not much.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...rt;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

 

[Howsie]

Disagree strongly with Scaly's last point that Taylor has not been a decent test match player for NZ and that he's benefitted more than most from very flat pitches. I know because I looked at his record a while ago to see if Uppercut was right, and was very surprised by quite how well he's done. In fact has scored runs in all series apart from struggling for some reason against Bangladesh and the West Indies, and against Steyn in SA in his debut series. This despite often being exposed to the newish ball when we're inevitably 2 down for not much.

Yea but some of those runs don't count remember. Ross Taylor's first test 100 was scored in an innings where Jamie How made 90, thus it doesn't count. His 150 against India doesn't count either because Jesse Ryder scored a double in the same innings. Now when we take out those scores his average drops down to (a smaller number) and that show's Taylor is a very poor test batsmen.