*Official* - Pakistan in New Zealand 2010/2011

[NZ Guy]

Century making is also a big part of the problem. Taylor should cop his fair share of the blame for this. For our best batsman and number 4 (should be number 3) to have not made an ODI hundred since touring Bangladesh in 2008 is awful, especially after he slapped two in his first 15 matches.

Guptill obviously couldn't make a substantial score to save himself, let alone the team. Ryder, like McCullum often gets too carried away to play lasting innings. Styris (for all his guts) appears to have his best days behind him batting wise. Of our top 6, only Franklin has looked like playing important match changing innings in recent times.

With a batting lineup so full of style and so short on substance, it's hardly surprising that they often don't gel as a unit and underperform. They need to spend a few days watching Astle and Fleming's greatest hits to get an idea of how to build an ODI innings.

I find it amusing that you say the problem is century making and then you tell them to watch Fleming

 

[slugger]

I like astle as much as the next man, but strangely enough astle has a very poor wc avg.

-Span------Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
1996-2003 22 403 102* 20.15 2

Wkts BBI Bowl Av 5 Ct St
11 3/34 38.00 0 9 0

1996 - 1999 inn.
101 - 0 -1 -2 -6 -0 6 -1 -4 -2 -0 -11 -20 -9 -26 -3

2003
0 - 46 -54* -11 -102* -0 -0

century's against england (1996) and zimbabwe (2003)

 

[JBH001]

Well, I'll be at Eden Park tomorrow. So, I'm hoping for a better performance from our boys. They can't continue being this dire.

 

[smash84]

Well, I'll be at Eden Park tomorrow. So, I'm hoping for a better performance from our boys. They can't continue being this dire.

don't bet on it

 

[Bahnz]

I find it amusing that you say the problem is century making and then you tell them to watch Fleming

Fleming may not have been good at converting, but he still made lots of good scores (11 80's or 90's to go with his 8 centuries).

By way of comparison:

Astle passed 50 on 57 occasions. He passed 80 on 31 occasions (54.4% of the time he's made 50). That means he on average, passed 80 14% of the times he played.

Fleming passed 50 on 57 occasions. He passed 80 on 19 occasions (33% of the time). That means he on average passed 80 on 7% of the time he played.

Brendon McCullum has passed 50 on 19 occasions, if you exclude his century against Ireland. He's passed 80 on 6 occasions (31.5% of the time). That means he, on average, has passed 80 3.3% of the time he's played (although this is biased by the fact that he spent a significant portion of his career batting down the order).

Guptill has passed 50 on 7 occasions. Of that he has passed 80 twice (28% of the time). That means he's passed 80, 4.6% of the time he's played.

Taylor has passed 50 on 22 occasions. Of that he has passed 80 on six occasions. However, if you exclude his debut season (07/08), he's made 17 50's and passed 80 just twice (a conversion rate of just 11.7%). If my numbers are right, from his past 77 games, he's passed 80 just 2.6% of the time.

So the current lot have big problems, and Taylor most of all.

 

[Spark]

Once you get to 4 or lower getting hundreds becomes increasingly harder though.

 

[Mike5181]

Fleming may not have been good at converting, but he still made lots of good scores (11 80's or 90's to go with his 8 centuries).

By way of comparison:

Astle passed 50 on 57 occasions. He passed 80 on 31 occasions (54.4% of the time he's made 50). That means he on average, passed 80 14% of the times he played.

Fleming passed 50 on 57 occasions. He passed 80 on 19 occasions (33% of the time). That means he on average passed 80 on 7% of the time he played.

Brendon McCullum has passed 50 on 19 occasions, if you exclude his century against Ireland. He's passed 80 on 6 occasions (31.5% of the time). That means he, on average, has passed 80 3.3% of the time he's played.

Guptill has passed 50 on 7 occasions. Of that he has passed 80 twice (28% of the time). That means he's passed 80, 4.6% of the time he's played.

Taylor has passed 50 on 22 occasions. Of that he has passed 80 on six occasions. However, if you exclude his debut season (07/08), he's made 17 50's and passed 80 just twice (a conversion rate of just 11.7%). If my numbers are right, from his past 77 games, he's passed 80 just 2.6% of the time.

So the current lot have big problems, and Taylor most of all.

That is quite dire from the current lot tbh especially when you consider Astle had quite a long run of low scores before he retired. Its a little bit surprising that Guptill has passed 80 proportionately more than Taylor. You would think with all the flashy 30s Guptill has scored that Taylor would be comfortably ahead.

 

[Bahnz]

Once you get to 4 or lower getting hundreds becomes increasingly harder though.

4's pushing it. Most of the time, we'd have lost a couple of wickets inside the first 10-15 overs. That still leaves plenty of time to accumulate a biggish score.

I agree though the lower you are down the order, the harder it is to make runs. That's why I've eliminated Styris from consideration and added that asterix to McCullum's performances. One of the reasons why I like Taylor batting at number 3, is that it would give him more time to build an innings, and more time before he'd inevitably throw his wicket away slog sweeping. I think his current issues with converting starts into big scores probably stems from the fact that he's really a crap death batsman. He only really has one shot (the hoick to mid wicket) to call upon when the run rate needs to be ramped up, and this makes him quite easy to bowl to.

 

[Bahnz]

That is quite dire from the current lot tbh especially when you consider Astle had quite a long run of low scores before he retired. Its a little bit surprising that Guptill has passed 80 proportionately more than Taylor. You would think with all the flashy 30s Guptill has scored that Taylor would be comfortably ahead.

Guptill's performances are a little deceptive. He made a 100 in his debut match, but in that innings he was dropped on 3 occasions iirc. There's good luck, and then there's just taking the piss.

His other one was a 90 against Bangladesh in New Zealand, which despite their improvement, still has to come with a bit of an asterix next to it.

 

[Days of Grace]

Move McCullum back up the order.

Then move him back down

Then back up

Then back down


FFS, the grass is always greener.

But consider this: overs 1-15 are almost always powerplays. Versus 5 overs at the end when noone knows when they will be.

Moving McCullum around the order based on this one 5-over block just ****s with everyone.

Best to open with McCullum and let him cut loose for a whole 15 overs at the start and then for **** sake take the powerplay when two set batsmen are in anywhere between overs 35 and 50. People think that we need an Afridi-like batsman in that powerplay, but in reality any set international batsman should be able to find the boundary and gaps in the field when there are only 2 outside the circle.

Sick and tired of them leaving it and leaving it until we are 6 down with two new batsmen at the crease.

 

[Bahnz]

Move McCullum back up the order.

Then move him back down

Then back up

Then back down


FFS, the grass is always greener.

But consider this: overs 1-15 are almost always powerplays. Versus 5 overs at the end when noone knows when they will be.

Moving McCullum around the order based on this one 5-over block just ****s with everyone.

Best to open with McCullum and let him cut loose for a whole 15 overs at the start and then for **** sake take the powerplay when two set batsmen are in anywhere between overs 35 and 50. People think that we need an Afridi-like batsman in that powerplay, but in reality any set international batsman should be able to find the boundary and gaps in the field when there are only 2 outside the circle.

Sick and tired of them leaving it and leaving it until we are 6 down with two new batsmen at the crease.

There's no right or wrong time to use a power play, which is one of the reasons why it's actually a good innovation. Having said that, we probably did leave it too late in our most recent match.

And from my point of view at least, McCullum's demotion wasn't to take advantage of the power play, but to add some backbone to the middle order. Too many times has our middle order put up a limp effort since McCullum's elevation. I think 2 matches is too few to judge the latest McCullum experiment.

 

[Prince EWS]

There's no right or wrong time to use a power play, which is one of the reasons why it's actually a good innovation. Having said that, we probably did leave it too late in our most recent match.

And from my point of view at least, McCullum's demotion wasn't to take advantage of the power play, but to add some backbone to the middle order. Too many times has our middle order put up a limp effort since McCullum's elevation. I think 2 matches is too few to judge the latest McCullum experiment.

The only issue I have with it is that I really quite hate Ryder opening the batting. If New Zealand had two good non-McCullum ODI openers I'd be fine with him down the order, but he really has to open as it stands IMO.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

It's just plain weird that they promote McCullum to open in Tests, yet demote him for ODI's.

He should be playing the same types of innings in both formats. While he hasn't converted very well in ODI's, I feel the rich vein of form he has found in Test match cricket could have easily continued in the shorter format. I don't know why the hell they would want to use him in a less effective position. Franklin did well down the order in India, and if McCullum did score well at the top of the order the rest of the batting line-up should benefit from that.

Down the order, I can just see him being wasted like he was before he moved up to open. Yeah, maybe he will produce a 50 (35) type innings in a chase like he did before, but how often are the top order going to produce a platform for such an innings? Most of the time he will probably be there in a lost cause and never actually get a chance with the field up, where I think he is most dangerous.

Adding to that, McCullum himself obviously wants to open, so let him open ffs.

I was thinking in India that it would be awesome if he could show that Test form in ODI's. He got injured, came back and made a couple of low scores, and then he got demoted, not even getting a chance to perform.

Such a great way to prepare a side for a major tournament. Shift them around, so even they don't know which role is wanted of them. Destroy there confidence completely.

All they needed was a good couple of wins, and they would have been a lot more confident. Everybody knows what our best XI is, and beside from Ryder in Napier and Vettori in Hamilton, there have been no real injuries (for once), yet that line-up has been used ZERO times.

The selectors can GAGF

 

[Blakey]

Guptill's performances are a little deceptive. He made a 100 in his debut match, but in that innings he was dropped on 3 occasions iirc. There's good luck, and then there's just taking the piss.

His other one was a 90 against Bangladesh in New Zealand, which despite their improvement, still has to come with a bit of an asterix next to it.

He's always been blessed with **** loads of luck. Last nights game there were countless times he should have gone well before his streaky assed 60 odd.

 

[Blakey]

Century making is also a big part of the problem. Taylor should cop his fair share of the blame for this. For our best batsman and number 4 (should be number 3) to have not made an ODI hundred since touring Bangladesh in 2008 is awful, especially after he slapped two in his first 15 matches.

Guptill obviously couldn't make a substantial score to save himself, let alone the team. Ryder, like McCullum often gets too carried away to play lasting innings. Styris (for all his guts) appears to have his best days behind him batting wise. Of our top 6, only Franklin has looked like playing important match changing innings in recent times.

With a batting lineup so full of style and so short on substance, it's hardly surprising that they often don't gel as a unit and underperform. They need to spend a few days watching Astle and Fleming's greatest hits to get an idea of how to build an ODI innings.

Taylor is lauded as being the best batsman - however when you look deeper at his stats he has averaged mid 20's since 2008 (taking Bangladesh out of consideration), and his average against the WI's during this time is 90!

 

[Howsie]

The only issue I have with it is that I really quite hate Ryder opening the batting. If New Zealand had two good non-McCullum ODI openers I'd be fine with him down the order, but he really has to open as it stands IMO.

 

[Mike5181]

I hope Flynn can find some insane form

 

[Prince EWS]

Would sooner give J.Meow another crack.

 

[Howsie]

Yeah but you're a biased CD fan

 

[Hurricane]

Jamie How is infuriating. 10* (30) quickly becomes 40* (55) domestically, and it used to in ODIs, but now he just panics and holes out in the deep.

It is because he is from CD