***Official*** New Zealand in Australia 2011

[Days of Grace]

I just ask for one thing tomorrow, and that is better shot selection from our batsmen. The quicks impressed tonight but I have a feeling that Lyon will be the most dangerous bowler tomorrow. Should be able to get a lot of turn (Vettori not turning it is no indication since he hasn't turned a ball since 2003) and bounce and Australia will have catchers around the bat.

It's a shame that McCullum got out but he got a good ball and at least he didn't hit one to mid-on or cover-point.

If our batsmen get out to good balls, then it's disappointing but it is infinitely better than getting out to stupid shots. That would be unforgivable if it happened two times in a row.

Final point: sure our batting lineup has the best averages I have seen in a New Zealand team but they are all, with the exception of Vettori, essentially unproven where it counts, i.e. in Australia, South Africa, and England.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Because our batsmen are better than their bowlers.

Looking at the records of our batsmen, is it acceptable for test standard batsmen to collapse to a side playing two debutants in a four man attack?

A New Zealand series win was always going to be very hard with our bowling unit, but I will be extremely disappointed if we lose.

Being a debutant just makes someone rather an unknown quantity. It doesn't automatically make them crap until they've got 20-30 caps. Experience is severely over-rated.

I think you're getting a bit above your station here. New Zealand just scraped past Zimbabwe ffs. An average of 40 gets you dropped in England, India, Australia and South Africa (unless you're part of the quota). An average of 40 is about what these New Zealand batsmen will manage against Test class opposition and that's on the optimistic side. You have Jonathan Davies Complex (rabid Welsh rugby union fan/player). When the players are doing well and getting away with mistakes or making few of them then you think that's their 'normal' level - which makes them world class. When they don't get away with mistakes it's just as if they've played extremely badly, given it away etc. So the perspective is one of a really top side who's just throwing it away 99% of the time. Not one of an average side who plays really well 1% of the time.

New Zealand's best batsman are all Russian Roulette players. They're good but nowhere near great. You're hanging your hat on guys who average a fraction over 40 with the bat, 35-40 with the ball and you're still automatically picking a nigh on 37yo bowler who averages 35 (boosted by Bangladesh), is the worst batsman in international cricket yet was named your Cricket of the Year. England could pick an XI of guys with 10 or less caps and it would still outclass NZ. So could India. And Australia could pick the bulk of a team that would do so.

NZ's barometer of euphoric success is still a batsman who can average 40 or more and a bowler who can average less than 35. This puts you just above Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and probably below West Indies. When you have the have the majority of a line-up that can do those things and even 1/2 guys who average 45+ with the bat or under 30 with the ball then you can expect to on a par with the middle ranking teams like Australia.

 

[Athlai]

McCullum, Ryder and Taylor throw their wickets away all the time. It's their trademark. You can be furious if you want but I don't think you can be surprised.

Taylor throws away his Test innings all the time. Yeah, na.

 

[Uppercut]

Taylor throws away his Test innings all the time. Yeah, na.

I'm not arguing that he's bad, just that a disproportionate amount of his dismissals are to ridiculous shots. Same with Ryder and McCullum, really.

 

[Redbacks]

Get Shane Smeltz to play cricket and NZ will be unstoppable!

 

[Redbacks]

They should be kicking themselves. Butterfingers cost them a chance at being roughly level after the 1st innings. Normally a good fielding team but let us way off the hook today.

 

[kingjulian]

Being a debutant just makes someone rather an unknown quantity. It doesn't automatically make them crap until they've got 20-30 caps. Experience is severely over-rated.

I think you're getting a bit above your station here. New Zealand just scraped past Zimbabwe ffs. An average of 40 gets you dropped in England, India, Australia and South Africa (unless you're part of the quota). An average of 40 is about what these New Zealand batsmen will manage against Test class opposition and that's on the optimistic side. You have Jonathan Davies Complex (rabid Welsh rugby union fan/player). When the players are doing well and getting away with mistakes or making few of them then you think that's their 'normal' level - which makes them world class. When they don't get away with mistakes it's just as if they've played extremely badly, given it away etc. So the perspective is one of a really top side who's just throwing it away 99% of the time. Not one of an average side who plays really well 1% of the time.

New Zealand's best batsman are all Russian Roulette players. They're good but nowhere near great. You're hanging your hat on guys who average a fraction over 40 with the bat, 35-40 with the ball and you're still automatically picking a nigh on 37yo bowler who averages 35 (boosted by Bangladesh), is the worst batsman in international cricket yet was named your Cricket of the Year. England could pick an XI of guys with 10 or less caps and it would still outclass NZ. So could India. And Australia could pick the bulk of a team that would do so.

NZ's barometer of euphoric success is still a batsman who can average 40 or more and a bowler who can average less than 35. This puts you just above Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and probably below West Indies. When you have the have the majority of a line-up that can do those things and even 1/2 guys who average 45+ with the bat or under 30 with the ball then you can expect to on a par with the middle ranking teams like Australia.

Wow man....that's harsh, and i'm quite thick skinned normally.


But i wouldn't really say too unfair. At least the evidence is not there to argue the other side.

 

[MW1304]

Just watching the highlights and wanted to clarify, did one of the Aussie commentators actually say "vodafone off stump"? If so I will kill myself.

 

[benchmark00]

Obv didn't see todays play due to playing commitments, but can I say two things:

1) Suck a fat one to everyone who wanted to drop Ponting, and;
2) Suck a fat one to everyone who wanted to drop Haddin.

Class players are class.

 

[Uppercut]

Nothing like a scratchy fifty against New Zealand to prove everyone wrong.

 

[Uppercut]

Being a debutant just makes someone rather an unknown quantity. It doesn't automatically make them crap until they've got 20-30 caps. Experience is severely over-rated.

I think you're getting a bit above your station here. New Zealand just scraped past Zimbabwe ffs. An average of 40 gets you dropped in England, India, Australia and South Africa (unless you're part of the quota). An average of 40 is about what these New Zealand batsmen will manage against Test class opposition and that's on the optimistic side. You have Jonathan Davies Complex (rabid Welsh rugby union fan/player). When the players are doing well and getting away with mistakes or making few of them then you think that's their 'normal' level - which makes them world class. When they don't get away with mistakes it's just as if they've played extremely badly, given it away etc. So the perspective is one of a really top side who's just throwing it away 99% of the time. Not one of an average side who plays really well 1% of the time.

New Zealand's best batsman are all Russian Roulette players. They're good but nowhere near great. You're hanging your hat on guys who average a fraction over 40 with the bat, 35-40 with the ball and you're still automatically picking a nigh on 37yo bowler who averages 35 (boosted by Bangladesh), is the worst batsman in international cricket yet was named your Cricket of the Year. England could pick an XI of guys with 10 or less caps and it would still outclass NZ. So could India. And Australia could pick the bulk of a team that would do so.

NZ's barometer of euphoric success is still a batsman who can average 40 or more and a bowler who can average less than 35. This puts you just above Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and probably below West Indies. When you have the have the majority of a line-up that can do those things and even 1/2 guys who average 45+ with the bat or under 30 with the ball then you can expect to on a par with the middle ranking teams like Australia.

Hard to disagree with much of that, really.

New Zealand's batting lineup definitely looks better than it has done for a while but they've declined quite badly in fielding and their tail doesn't seem to scrap runs together as often as it used to. They're perenially underrated aspects of the game that New Zealand used to always take advantage of to gain an edge over more illustrious opponents. It's depressing to see them fall behind in a game through dropped chances.

 

[SteveNZ]

Being a debutant just makes someone rather an unknown quantity. It doesn't automatically make them crap until they've got 20-30 caps. Experience is severely over-rated.

I think you're getting a bit above your station here. New Zealand just scraped past Zimbabwe ffs. An average of 40 gets you dropped in England, India, Australia and South Africa (unless you're part of the quota). An average of 40 is about what these New Zealand batsmen will manage against Test class opposition and that's on the optimistic side. You have Jonathan Davies Complex (rabid Welsh rugby union fan/player). When the players are doing well and getting away with mistakes or making few of them then you think that's their 'normal' level - which makes them world class. When they don't get away with mistakes it's just as if they've played extremely badly, given it away etc. So the perspective is one of a really top side who's just throwing it away 99% of the time. Not one of an average side who plays really well 1% of the time.

New Zealand's best batsman are all Russian Roulette players. They're good but nowhere near great. You're hanging your hat on guys who average a fraction over 40 with the bat, 35-40 with the ball and you're still automatically picking a nigh on 37yo bowler who averages 35 (boosted by Bangladesh), is the worst batsman in international cricket yet was named your Cricket of the Year. England could pick an XI of guys with 10 or less caps and it would still outclass NZ. So could India. And Australia could pick the bulk of a team that would do so.

NZ's barometer of euphoric success is still a batsman who can average 40 or more and a bowler who can average less than 35. This puts you just above Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and probably below West Indies. When you have the have the majority of a line-up that can do those things and even 1/2 guys who average 45+ with the bat or under 30 with the ball then you can expect to on a par with the middle ranking teams like Australia.

First up, experience is not severely overrated. That's laughable. Ask anyone with knowledge of international cricket and they'll tell you that argument holds no water.

New Zealand is not a side that is lucky 1% of the time. Every single one of our top 5 is a potentially world class player. Look at Vettori. He wasn't a Test batsman's backside for the first half of his career but sheer hard work, application and EXPERIENCE has seen him average 40 in the last whatever period it is. And he has a lot less talent than McCullum, Taylor, Ryder etc.

And that Martin thing about being boosted by Bangladesh, more crap. Newsflash - every country, every bowler in the world plays them and Zimbabwe. He has solid records against other nations as well. Not saying he's a great but the amount of rubbish he receives on here is undeserved.

Whilst you're criticising NZ/basically everything in the world, it's worth noting you're hardly outstanding in the world of posting yourself. The Tapash Baisya of CW.

 

[SteveNZ]

Hard to disagree with much of that, really.

New Zealand's batting lineup definitely looks better than it has done for a while but they've declined quite badly in fielding and their tail doesn't seem to scrap runs together as often as it used to. They're perenially underrated aspects of the game that New Zealand used to always take advantage of to gain an edge over more illustrious opponents. It's depressing to see them fall behind in a game through dropped chances.

That's a kneejerk. We have fielded poorly in this match, granted. But I can't recall a single dropped catch in Zimbabwe Test and we fielded our socks off to win that match. We're still consistently one of the best outfits in the world, fielding wise.

I'm confident over time that we will get decent runs from Bracewell, Southee and the likes of Boult/Wagner when they come in. All are very capable batsmen but green at international level (Southee excepted). Fair point that it isn't happening now

 

[Uppercut]

First up, experience is not severely overrated. That's laughable. Ask anyone with knowledge of international cricket and they'll tell you that argument holds no water.

Did you just try to use the fact that everyone says it's important to discredit the claim that it's overrated?

 

[Scaly piscine]

First up, experience is not severely overrated. That's laughable. Ask anyone with knowledge of international cricket and they'll tell you that argument holds no water.

New Zealand is not a side that is lucky 1% of the time. Every single one of our top 5 is a potentially world class player. Look at Vettori. He wasn't a Test batsman's backside for the first half of his career but sheer hard work, application and EXPERIENCE has seen him average 40 in the last whatever period it is. And he has a lot less talent than McCullum, Taylor, Ryder etc.

And that Martin thing about being boosted by Bangladesh, more crap. Newsflash - every country, every bowler in the world plays them and Zimbabwe. He has solid records against other nations as well. Not saying he's a great but the amount of rubbish he receives on here is undeserved.

Whilst you're criticising NZ/basically everything in the world, it's worth noting you're hardly outstanding in the world of posting yourself. The Tapash Baisya of CW.

Saying every one of NZ's top 5 is potentially world class is like saying every player in professional cricket is potentially world class. There's nobody in NZ's top 5 who'd make someone take notice and go that guy's going to a be world class Test batsman. Even Kiwis take the piss out of Williamson's limitations. Ryder doesn't have the work ethic or brain to really learn. McCullum is a flat track bully and getting on a bit. Guptill hasn't shown anything really. Taylor could be a very good finisher in limited overs but his method of scoring isn't conducive to a good average in proper cricket. NZ have more potential for quality seam bowlers, particularly if they're among the few Kiwis who're playing in County Cricket next year.

Players will generally boost their average playing against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, but not usually to the extent where they average 24 against them and 37 against everyone else. 37 is a painfully bad bowling average. Martin's record is good against SA, decent against Sri Lanka and rubbish or worse against every other team. In summary he's ****e.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

NZ really up against it here. Expect a collapse from them tonight and an easy win for the Aussies. From here I guess NZ would take setting the Aussies 180-200 and hope the pitch breaks up.

 

[BeeGee]

They should be kicking themselves. Butterfingers cost them a chance at being roughly level after the 1st innings. Normally a good fielding team but let us way off the hook today.

This is the most disappointing aspect. There is no excuse for bad fielding.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm venturing into Captain Obvious territory here, but NZ need Taylor or Ryder to ton up to make sure they don't fall in an ugly heap tonight.

Both got out to daft shots in the first dig so one needs to prove his class.

Can't see Guptill lasting long, he looked all at sea versus Pattinson when the young fella was charging in. Some impressive heat from Pattinson yesterday, actually. Looks a better bowler when he bends his back; seemed to be getting more movement through the air when he stepped the pace up.

 

[Furball]

First up, experience is not severely overrated. That's laughable. Ask anyone with knowledge of international cricket and they'll tell you that argument holds no water.

New Zealand is not a side that is lucky 1% of the time. Every single one of our top 5 is a potentially world class player. Look at Vettori. He wasn't a Test batsman's backside for the first half of his career but sheer hard work, application and EXPERIENCE has seen him average 40 in the last whatever period it is. And he has a lot less talent than McCullum, Taylor, Ryder etc.

And that Martin thing about being boosted by Bangladesh, more crap. Newsflash - every country, every bowler in the world plays them and Zimbabwe. He has solid records against other nations as well. Not saying he's a great but the amount of rubbish he receives on here is undeserved.

Whilst you're criticising NZ/basically everything in the world, it's worth noting you're hardly outstanding in the world of posting yourself. The Tapash Baisya of CW.

It's spelt "flatters to deceive." What you've posted means something entirely different.

 

[social]

Saying every one of NZ's top 5 is potentially world class is like saying every player in professional cricket is potentially world class. There's nobody in NZ's top 5 who'd make someone take notice and go that guy's going to a be world class Test batsman. Even Kiwis take the piss out of Williamson's limitations. Ryder doesn't have the work ethic or brain to really learn. McCullum is a flat track bully and getting on a bit. Guptill hasn't shown anything really. Taylor could be a very good finisher in limited overs but his method of scoring isn't conducive to a good average in proper cricket. NZ have more potential for quality seam bowlers, particularly if they're among the few Kiwis who're playing in County Cricket next year.

Players will generally boost their average playing against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, but not usually to the extent where they average 24 against them and 37 against everyone else. 37 is a painfully bad bowling average. Martin's record is good against SA, decent against Sri Lanka and rubbish or worse against every other team. In summary he's ****e.

Scaly, you really do talk some absolute rubbish about NZ

"Taylor could be a very good finisher in limited overs but his method of scoring isn't conducive to a good average in proper cricket."

Is that why he averages 50 in tests vs England? Hahahahahahahhahah

Ryder averages 45 in test cricket so he must be doing something ****ing right

IMO, these guys major problem is that they simply dont play enough tests