New Zealand doom and gloom thread

[Himannv]

Really hope Southee finds that consistency, especially when the baqll isn't swinging round corners. Like Jimmy Anderson, we know Southee is a real handful when the ball is curving, but hopefully he can find a way to be effective when there is no swing around, like Anderson has developed, a plan B.

I'm also a fan of Doug Bracewell, though he appears to be having a tough time at present. Seems to have struggled on the sub-continent pitches and is leaking too many runs. But hopefully he's learning all the time, still only 22, so I'm sure he can come through this phase of his career a better player.

I've been quite impressed with Southee and Boult from what I've seen of them here. They both looked exceptional with the new ball but probably found it a bit harder later on. On the whole they look like a new ball pairing that will last for a while if they can stay fit together.

Bracewell, on the other hand, hasn't done anything special at all in this test. He doesn't really swing the ball much, nor does he seem to bowl in particularly good areas. I remember he did well against Australia(?) but I didn't watch that game. What are his strengths?

 

[Flem274*]

Bracewell, on the other hand, hasn't done anything special at all in this test. He doesn't really swing the ball much, nor does he seem to bowl in particularly good areas. I remember he did well against Australia(?) but I didn't watch that game. What are his strengths?

Bowling in good areas and swinging the ball away from the right hander.

 

[hendrix]

I know Williamson is good.
I know Taylor is good.
I know Ryder is good.

I also knew all that about McCullum. Are they all going to underperform? End with mid-30s averages and the occasional flashes of brilliance just to tease us and remind us what could've been?

I know this team has enough good players to win tests. I know that we need to be patient.

I can't see a test win happening for a good 2 years.

Pain.

 

[Bahnz]

I reckon we could win a test between now and then. We've got the bowling to take 20 wickets, especially if conditions suit us, and we know from past performances that our batsmen are at least capable of making runs. If everything clicks at once we could definitely win a test. But it would be a flash in the pan, like Hobart, and not the beginning of a sustained upward trend in the sides performances'

 

[SteveNZ]

What's our record since Hobart? Off the top of my head it would be played 9, lost 8, draw one - thanks to Kane. All the talk in the wake of Hobart was making sure it wasn't a once-off and regaining the good faith of the public. Ha.

And if Ross says '*insert reason for failure here* is something we need to work on quickly ahead of the next game' one more time, I will..not enjoy it. Sick of it.

 

[Bahnz]

What's our record since Hobart? Off the top of my head it would be played 9, lost 8, draw one - thanks to Kane. All the talk in the wake of Hobart was making sure it wasn't a once-off and regaining the good faith of the public. Ha.

And if Ross says '*insert reason for failure here* is something we need to work on quickly ahead of the next game' one more time, I will..not enjoy it. Sick of it.

Drawn two actually, and both were more thanks to rain than to Kane.

 

[Flem274*]

Yo Steve, without wanting to draw you out too much on your former career*, do you know what is up with the behind closed doors attitudes and work ethics in the NZ team and how it compares to the FC sides (in general obvz, because they'll all be different)? Evidently the Black Caps infuriate FC players as much as the fans, yet a procession of batsmen, especially openers, have been inducted into the test side and shown promise only to start repeating the mistakes of everyone around them.

*lol jks, half of us are dying to know which ex-Aucland fast bowler you are

 

[Hurricane]

Doom and Gloom post.

We need 4 guys in the team who average over 40 runs. Until we get them there will not be a lot to cheer about on the batting front.

 

[Days of Grace]

Taylor and Ryder are 40+ batsmen. McCullum has been averaging around 40 for the past couple of years.

Williamson might be in the distant future. I don't think we can expect much more than an average of around 35 for Guptill, tops.

Half the batsmen will fail almost every team innings. But with us it seems that there is some days where it is just an absolute train wreck. It's hard to draw on too many other examples of this happening to other sporting teams around the world.

The reality is that if there were four batsmen averaging 40+, then it would be New Zealand's greatest batting lineup. Taylor at 4 and Ryder at 5 should be the backbone of the batting order, and I'd be perfectly happy for the others to average between 30-39 around them.

 

[Flem274*]

This lot are pretty good at getting to 40 and out tbf. They take the averaging 40 thing seriously.

Guptill is a master of it in ODIs.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Averaging 40 is so 1990s though.

 

[straw man]

Taylor and Ryder are 40+ batsmen. McCullum has been averaging around 40 for the past couple of years.

Yup, and he's gone and done it again - despite a performance that has not exactly been endorsed by NZ fans in the last test, that's another 81 runs at 40.5.

Probably due a couple of deliveries with his name on them early in the next test though, as openers are liable to get. That's what happened second test vs India after innings in the first that were very similar to this one.

Half the batsmen will fail almost every team innings. But with us it seems that there is some days where it is just an absolute train wreck. It's hard to draw on too many other examples of this happening to other sporting teams around the world.

Tbh pretty much every other team in the world at present is vulnerable to the full-blown collapse. Our problem is more that our general batting level is very low, so even a moderate day for our batsmen is a failure by the standards of other teams. And the only way we will occasionally make a good score is if Taylor scores a century.

 

[Flem274*]

Averaging 40 is so 1990s though.

The only 50 average this lot will get atm is how many wickets they could lose if given unlimited innings over five days.

 

[Mike5181]

Yup, and he's gone and done it again - despite a performance that has not exactly been endorsed by NZ fans in the last test, that's another 81 runs at 40.5.

He averages 40 as an opener. Only Turner, Richardson, Sutcliffe, and Dempster average more than McCullum in that position.

 

[Flem274*]

I used to defend him, but idgaf anymore. He's our Twatto minus the ability to bowl. They even suck at slip fielding together. Turner, Dempster, Wright et al might have similar averages but they have a lot more hundreds in the whites, and against some pretty handy bowlers on some interesting home pitches we wheeled out for Hadlee, Collinge, Cowie etc. When they got in, they made the opposition pay. McCullum scores 40 - 60 and <20 in almost every ****ing test match, and combined with Guptill's 20 - 30 we're always 2/90 at absolute best, and usually 2/30.

Williamson and Taylor are de facto openers who come in knowing we have eight wickets left instead of ten. Batting number four for New Zealand is not the same as batting at number four for some other sides, and that's what kills us. The rot starts at the top.

 

[Hurricane]

Taylor and Ryder are 40+ batsmen. McCullum has been averaging around 40 for the past couple of years.

Williamson might be in the distant future. I don't think we can expect much more than an average of around 35 for Guptill, tops.

Half the batsmen will fail almost every team innings. But with us it seems that there is some days where it is just an absolute train wreck. It's hard to draw on too many other examples of this happening to other sporting teams around the world.

The reality is that if there were four batsmen averaging 40+, then it would be New Zealand's greatest batting lineup. Taylor at 4 and Ryder at 5 should be the backbone of the batting order, and I'd be perfectly happy for the others to average between 30-39 around them.

We have had 4 40+ plus batsman in the team at the same time in recent years - we had
Taylor,
Ryder
McCullum
Vettori

The last two do not have career averages of 40 - but a few years ago they were sustaining high averages and as such were consistent.

When we had those 4 together we were better. We weren't amazing but there were situations where we would be 150-5 and make it through to 300 thanks to Dan and Brendon. We were a better batting team.

This team now only has two 40+ batsman and that puts too much pressure on those two and makes the whole team fragile.

Options to get us back to 4 consistent contributors:

1) Dan and Ryder come back into the team and kick ass. I think this is a long shot for both of them. Ryder is capable but mentally he is a recovering alcoholic and is one drink away from having another fiasco. I think Dan's bowling may recover but I think his batting has jumped the shark. Although he was never a superstar at ODI batting he was decent and it exposed him to international bowling and it "got his eye in" - he can't get up to speed as a test specialist as easily on each tour.

2) We send some of our best prospects - (Rutherford and Latham) over to county cricket and try to build some long term solutions.

 

[Flem274*]

I actually think Vettori's bowling is gone for good but his batting can recover. There has been nothing to suggest 2011 wasn't anything more than a temporary dip. If he gave away being a serious bowler entirely I think he could return even better than before as a batsman who bowls a bit.

But then I am the resident fanboy of Vettori's batting.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Part of me just knows that Vettori is always going to be one of those annoying batsmen who can only score down the order where the pressure's off and the opposition starts napping because they think they're into the tail. I want him to prove me wrong, but that's how I reckon it's going to play out, his technique is great for cashing in on poor deliveries but I don't reckon there's much substance there when he comes up against fired up bowlers hitting the spot consistently.

 

[Flem274*]

Anyway I'll put my money where my mouth is and suggest a side for traditional home conditions.

Vettori/Watling/McCullum/Brownlie/Guptill/whoever
Vettori/Watling/McCullum/Brownlie/Guptill/whoever
Williamson
Taylor (c)
Ryder
Flynn
van Wyk (wk)
Bracewell
Southee
Boult
Gillespie

Our only strength is the depth and quality of our seam bowling so we need to make full use of it. I've mentioned elsewhere I wouldn't mind Dean Brownlie attempting to open since he's such a good player of pace and he would avoid starting his innings against spin. For the opening spots I'm pretty meh on who they pick because the specialists aren't great, McCullum is McCullum and I wouldn't be against some of our middle order blokes reinventing themselves, though I can definitely understand Vettori, Watling and Brownlie attacking Flynn's and Williamson's places in the side listed above, and I won't be holding my breath on their success if they do try to open.

Behind Taylor and Ryder, ever since his return Flynn looks organised and has a technique that will enable him to succeed at test level provided he has the mental fortitude, so I'm starting to get confident for the first time that he will nail his spot in the side and he gets first go at six. I'll probably be eating these words in six months time though because he's from ND and they just don't do batsmen.

If Vettori returns to the side he has to bat in the top six because he is a waste of a bowling spot. Even Jeets has advanced beyond him as a bowler and I never thought I would type that. I hope Jeets' effort wasn't a flash in the pan because he can play a role when the pitch suits if he continues to probe away like he did in the test just gone. Not terrible for someone who averages over 40 in the Plunket Shield. Guns it in County matches though so evidently Wellington should just move all their home matches to England because it seems to turn their players into world beaters.

Looking outside the players we know, only Carl Cachopa has been putting his hand up in a big way (well Sinclair too, but its not gonna happen). He is an organised player and proficient off of the back foot but I'd like to see a video of not just his dismissals but anything that shows him up on a consistent basis, and there's no way Kippax or anyone cbf putting that together. Tom Latham and Hamish Rutherford have had their moments but so did Daniel Flynn before his initial induction into the test side, and Kane Williamson appears to have lost all confidence and he wiped the floor with Plunket Shield bowlers in a fashion not seen since Sinclair debuted, so I think it is fair to say none of the three are a quick fix, even if they become good batsmen.

We've invested nigh on 30 tests into Guptill so we need to make a final call on him soon, and Watling needs his role clarified once and for all so he can put everything he has into it.

It's unfortunate cricket doesn't require two or three wicket keepers instead of openers because then we could ditch the openers and play both Kruger and Watling.

 

[Hurricane]

What the hell Rutherford's FC strike rate is 73. Is he an aggressive player?

@Flem - I don't think any of those options will do any worse than Guptil.