***Official*** West Indies in New Zealand 2013/14

[Prince EWS]

Although I was disappointed that Rossco got out so late in the day, and to a needless shot, it was still a very good knock.

I would be happy with 400 tomorrow. BJ needs to BJ and play score another useful 50 with the tail. Southee's gonna Southee and whether he comes off or not will go some way to determining how close we do get to 400.

Can Taylor get his average up to 50? His average at the start of this series was 42, so there's no reason why he can't if he keeps up this rich vein of run scoring. Needs to keep being greedy. As far as I can tell, we've never had a batsman with a 50.00 average after say a cut off of 1000 runs or more. Crowe got his up to 48 in 1992.

Sinclair was actually close, believe it or not - he had 946 runs @ 52.55, and still averaged over 47 when he crossed the 1000 mark.

I do wonder how he'd be remembered if he'd just not played Test cricket after that, especially in conjunction was his awesome First Class record. We may even have people on this forum considering him for New Zealand ATXI status based on it.

 

[Prince EWS]

Actually, Sinclair literally couldn't have got any closer to that landmark

At one stage, he had 999 Test runs @ 49.95. If he scored one more run, he would've averaged exactly 50 the moment the crossed 1,000 Test runs - but he got out (stumped! ) So dire.

 

[Flem274*]

Sinclair was actually close, believe it or not - he had 946 runs @ 52.55, and still averaged over 47 when he crossed the 1000 mark.

I do wonder how he'd be remembered if he'd just not played Test cricket after that, especially in conjunction was his awesome First Class record. We may even have people on this forum considering him for New Zealand ATXI status based on it.

In other words, just me and you.

Sinclair does demonstrate quite nicely the uncertainty in picking the likes of Dempster, Donnelly, Cowie and co. I'm not saying they were Sinclairs themselves, and we have so few players with more than 50 tests to their name they can get away with a small sample size especially when they played every rare test they could, but it does bring home the need to see footage of some of these guys or some other research.

edit: hmm an eleven with a minimum number of tests (20) does look a bit ****.

Turner
Wright
Sutcliffe
Crowe
Taylor, R.
Reid, J.R.
Cairns, C.
McCullum, B.
Taylor, B.
Hadlee, R.
Collinge

 

[Prince EWS]

In other words, just me and you.

Nah, it'd be way too inconsistent with everything else I post on here about longevity etc.

I think he kind of supports my point on that a bit though. I don't think you should be able to enhance your legacy by not playing; and by the criteria many use to rate players he definitely would've been better off doing exactly that after bringing up 1,000 runs.

 

[Flem274*]

Nah, it'd be way too inconsistent with everything else I post on here about longevity etc.

I think he kind of supports my point on that a bit though. I don't think you should be able to enhance your legacy by not playing; and by the criteria many use to rate players he definitely would've been better off doing exactly that after bringing up 1,000 runs.

What's your stance on the players I mentioned above? Bearing in mind they lacked the opportunities they would have gotten had they played in a later era.

 

[Prince EWS]

What's your stance on the players I mentioned above? Bearing in mind they lacked the opportunities they would have gotten had they played in a later era.

I think it's a bit different with them for two reasons:

1. In all their cases, especially Cowie's, playing a handful Tests for New Zealand in that era demonstrated a long and illustrious career for the country, because they just didn't play that many. You still do get a bit of a sample size issue, but Sinclair's first 1000 runs all came within two years - it was a purple patch as such - whereas Cowie's nine Tests spanned twelve years, taking into account more of his potential ups and downs in form.

2. Non-Test First Class cricket was regarded as being much more important than that it is now - it was almost like what ODIs are to us now in terms of a player's legacy, particularly with so few teams being serious Test cricket propositions. Succeeding there was regarded as just as important, especially in terms of tour games against county sides and the likes while on national duty - you often see players' "tour averages" quoted for example. These days it's just a stepping stone to Test cricket, so Sinclair's First Class record doesn't count for as much as Cowie's or Dempster's.

I think Sinclair is a good example of why picking Barry Richards or Mike Procter in an ATWXI for example is perhaps flawed, particularly if you didn't actually watch them play, but I don't think he shows up the selections of Cowie and Dempster because your quality as a cricketer was measured in such different ways at the time; it's all relative.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Well what can i say? the moment i saw that our stupid coach and selectors contrived to pick the same garbage that had embarrassed us in the last two tests i just shook my head, they are so clueless it's frightening. This attack is C class..it's not our A class and it's been evident.

Dropping catches aswell when you had Taylor early just rubs further salt in the wound, NZ better keep milking these clowns because when they come to the caribbean next year they will be facing a different animal altogether.

Anyway in saying all that 300 on this track puts NZ in a vulnerable position imo...we get the tail out for 40 runs then i think we'll have a good chance of getting level or even getting ahead. Samuels, Chanders and Powell barely turned up in the last match so they are all due here. Especially against an attack who will likely get tired the longer our innings goes on.

The key is the openers building a good platform for Bravo, Samuels and Chanders to take advantage of.

 

[Days of Grace]

I forgot about Andrew Jones. He averaged 55.27 after making 3 centuries in 3 innings against the little Sri Lankans in 1991. That was after 19 matches and 1603 runs. In fact Jones and Sinclair's careers follow a very similar path. Gold for the first half but mediocre in the second. Jones at least averaged 35 in his last 20 matches, whilst Skippy shunted badly: 20.88 over 20 matches in 9 years.

I reckon a good cut off might be something like 30 matches AND 5 years minimum to sort out the purple patches from the real quality over time.

Another thing about Jones is that he scored the most runs for a New Zealander in a 3 test series: 513 against Sri Lanka. Can Taylor beat that?

 

[Beamer]

Anyway in saying all that 300 on this track puts NZ in a vulnerable position imo...we get the tail out for 40 runs then i think we'll have a good chance of getting level or even getting ahead. Samuels, Chanders and Powell barely turned up in the last match so they are all due here. Especially against an attack who will likely get tired the longer our innings goes on.

The key is the openers building a good platform for Bravo, Samuels and Chanders to take advantage of.

I don't agree that New Zealand are in a vulnerable position, I'd take their position over ours tbh. It does look like a good surface for shot making but the odd delivery did move a bit and that's with our joke of a pace attack (will discuss that shortly!). Bolt and Southee will clearly get more out of it then Best and Gabriel. I think it's pretty evenly poised at the moment but if the NZ tail wags and post 400-450 they will be in a strong position IMHO. At least we're in a better position than at the end of the 1st day in Dunedin! Ross Taylor was superb again, the best New Zealand batsman I've seen that's for sure. Yes we dropped him twice but he really punished each mistake because he's a class player.

Now onto our pace 'attack'. I cannot believe they selected the same side either WW. I felt like chucking my laptop out of the window when I saw the lineup. I just don't understand the way they think. We desperately needed someone who at least moves the ball, that was evident in the hundreds of overs we bowled for in the 1st test and it was again today. Gabriel is not ready for test cricket. He's woefully out of form, has completely lost the plot in terms of his seam position and is not even bowling as quickly as he was. Tino is Tino. He tried hard, caused some problems with sheer pace but is not the right man to use the new ball or to lead a pace attack. Neither of them bowl the correct length to succeed in these conditions. As for Darren Sammy, you all know my thoughts on him. Not good enough. Couldn't get the job done in these conditions even. 120kph short balls against McCullum.....enough said.

 

[WindieWeathers]

I don't agree that New Zealand are in a vulnerable position, I'd take their position over ours tbh. It does look like a good surface for shot making but the odd delivery did move a bit and that's with our joke of a pace attack (will discuss that shortly!). Bolt and Southee will clearly get more out of it then Best and Gabriel. I think it's pretty evenly poised at the moment but if the NZ tail wags and post 400-450 they will be in a strong position IMHO. At least we're in a better position than at the end of the 1st day in Dunedin! Ross Taylor was superb again, the best New Zealand batsman I've seen that's for sure. Yes we dropped him twice but he really punished each mistake because he's a class player.

To me it's vulnerable because if they get rolled out for about 350/370...even when we were at our lowest ebb in the first test with the majority not having any match practise and were low on confidence after the india fiasco they still managed 218 in the first innings..so one would imagine we'd do better this time around ..especially after the second innings performance. This pitch might offer the NZ pacers something with the new ball but the longer it goes the more tired they will get bro!!..so i really think anything under 400 will give us a chance of doing something.

Now onto our pace 'attack'. I cannot believe they selected the same side either WW. I felt like chucking my laptop out of the window when I saw the lineup. I just don't understand the way they think. We desperately needed someone who at least moves the ball, that was evident in the hundreds of overs we bowled for in the 1st test and it was again today. Gabriel is not ready for test cricket. He's woefully out of form, has completely lost the plot in terms of his seam position and is not even bowling as quickly as he was. Tino is Tino. He tried hard, caused some problems with sheer pace but is not the right man to use the new ball or to lead a pace attack. Neither of them bowl the correct length to succeed in these conditions. As for Darren Sammy, you all know my thoughts on him. Not good enough. Couldn't get the job done in these conditions even. 120kph short balls against McCullum.....enough said.

Quite frankly bar Shilly it's the worst attack i've seen in a WI shirt!!..just pathetic which is why i find it hard to rate Taylor's knocks that highly because of the poor bowlers he's faced here..Gabriel was unlucky with the dropped catches yesterday but my God the lad is so short of confidence it's unreal!!..and yet they've given him three tests in a row while Cotterrell sits on the sidelines? it's stupid. They are so conservative and refuse to think outside the box...why keep Edwards opening when Kraigg has arrived? it's naive imo.

I hope this is Best and Sammy's last test series too!!..just not good enough and they never have been tbh...it's time to promote Cummins, Holder, Delorn Johnson etc.

 

[GGG]

Woot, Ryder has put his hand up for the ODI series. Cricket | Jesse Ryder hopes to impress New Zealand... | Stuff.co.nz

 

[hendrix]

To me it's vulnerable because if they get rolled out for about 350/370...even when we were at our lowest ebb in the first test with the majority not having any match practise and were low on confidence after the india fiasco they still managed 218 in the first innings..so one would imagine we'd do better this time around ..especially after the second innings performance. This pitch might after the NZ pacer something with the new ball but the longer it goes the more tired they will get bro!!..so i really think anything under 400 will give us a chance of doing something.

The wicket is green. I think 300 is already a good score.

 

[WindieWeathers]

The wicket is green. I think 300 is already a good score.

Wasn't it "green" in the first test too? hence why we bowled first aswell?

 

[hendrix]

Wasn't it "green" in the first test too? hence why we bowled first aswell?

This wicket is actually much greener, and actually has seam movement as well as bounce and carry. Bowling first was the right option, but when you bowl first you expect the opposition to be out for less than 300, 350 max.

and btw, the Dunedin pitch was flat but there was definitely movement on the first morning. It flattened out heaps by day 2 though.

I'm not sure to what extent this wicket will flatten out.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Wasn't it "green" in the first test too? hence why we bowled first aswell?

Are you serious? Dunedin is quickly becoming famous as an airport runway. Didn't hear much of the pre-match chat but that's pretty dumb if so. The Basin is and has always been a result-producing ground, it's not at all comparable to dunners.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I feel like the difference between dunedin and wellington needs more elaboration. Dunedin is a flat pitch which the groundsman grew some grass on to try to make it look better. Once the grass died, there was nothing. The Basin is a balanced wicket with some grass on top. Once the grass dies there's still plenty in it for the bowlers, so it's not going to flatten out anywhere near the same amount.

 

[Bahnz]

Looking pretty grim in welly atm. Don't think we'll be getting much play before lunch.

 

[Flem274*]

According to metservice it's not raining and there is none forecast. All a conspiracy to by Big Sleep Ins imo.

 

[BeeGee]

The Basin is and has always been a result-producing ground

The last result at the basin was in 2010. Aus scored 459/5d batting first and won by 10 wickets. Since then we've had:

2011 v Pakistan. New Zealand scored 356 batting first, Pakistan replied with 376. Match drawn.

2012 v South Africa. South Africa scored 474/9d batting first. Match drawn.

2013 v England. England scored 465 batting first. Match drawn.

EDIT: That's a bat first average of 438.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

The last result at the basin was in 2010. Aus scored 459/5d batting first and won by 10 wickets. Since then we've had:

2011 v Pakistan. New Zealand scored 356 batting first, Pakistan replied with 376. Match drawn.

2012 v South Africa. South Africa scored 474/9d batting first. Match drawn.

2013 v England. England scored 465 batting first. Match drawn.

I recall there was plenty of rain involvement in those though?