***Official*** New Zealand in the West Indies 2014

[Prince EWS]

I can't believe we're even entertaining the discussion that bad luck with umpiring is any more than exactly that. The only other explanation is match fixing.

Bias against lower-ranked sides is an absurd theory that tends to pop up in lots of sports discussion. I have no time for it whatsoever. Bad decisions against such teams just seem more prominent in our minds because they tend to hurt them more. If McGrath gets denied a plumb lbw appeal, we're unlikely to remember it for all that long because he'll get the bloke out soon anyway and his team will probably win, rendering it unimportant. If a worse bowler from a worse side is denied then it sticks in the mind more because the batsman may go on to make a huge score in lieu of other good bowling and the bowler's side is likely to lose and have its fans lament that moment that could've turned the game.

I've got no problem with saying a team was unlucky over [X period] because, contrary to popular belief, it doesn't always even itself out. But bad luck is just bad luck; there's no conspiracy or ingrained bias across an entire elite panel of umpires. The fact that we're discussing it at all doesn't really say much for the thread.

 

[Blocky]

WW may have taken exception to my post saying that it was good of the Windies to gradually ease our batsmen into form.
The point was not that this is a bad attack.
Far from it.

If NZ had faced this attack in NZ, we probably would have lost the Wellington test and perhaps Hamilton as well.

The point is that slowly building up to Windies' best attack (and with some help from India) has helped our batting order to develop and grow in confidence to the point where they're more capable of facing good attacks.
Roach at full fitness, with Taylor bowling well, may have blown us away here.
But he didn't. And that's given our batsmen confidence. So when they face him at full fitness, they may be more capable of dealing with him than they otherwise would be today.

It's like lifting weights. You're not going to be able to deadlift 300kg without training, and attempting that would screw you. But building up to that helps.

I think NZ have been lucky in that the quality of attacks they've faced over recent months have gradually improved, and that's worked in our favour.

I call bull****, to be honest.

I think NZ have to be clear favorites in this series and it's only our pessimism that would make us think differently.

Jerome Taylor for all the promise and potential has only really performed against India. He still averages over 35 with the ball.

Roach is raw and as prone to a bad day as a good day. On his day, he's a great bowler but he has the same problem that everyone in the Windies side not named Chanderpaul has - no consistency of performance.

Shillingford without the doosra can't be considered a serious threat and even with the Doosra, but short of sublime performances in India against India and being able to rankle the Australians - he hasn't performed against any other nation that isn't Zimbabwe. The fact that he's only played in two winning sides as a spin bowler and both of those are Zimbabwe really invalidate the idea that he's been "great" - because "great" spin bowlers win matches in India and win matches on the pitches that have been turned out in the Windies over the last decade.

Chanderpaul is without doubt the best player in either side, even in his advanced age but realistically, if you're picking a "Best 11" out of these two sides, Chanderpaul and Gayle are the only ones who scream out for selection, with Narine (absent) being the only other absolute preference. Would Bravo be selected over Taylor, Williamson or McCullum?

It's only the pessimism that NZ'ers have and the track record of us performing horribly after creating a bit of hope that means we're not openly stating that it would be a disgrace if NZ don't dominate this series. They have the much better seam bowling unit, and the much more consistent (laughably, considering it's NZ) batting unit.

If Chanderpaul doesn't perform miracles this series, NZ will either need to play horribly bad, or they will (as they should) win it.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

At least we now have someone to blame if we get rolled tomorrow morning

 

[ohnoitsyou]

I bet googling that will not end nicely.

completely safe. Try it if you want

 

[Blocky]

At least we now have someone to blame if we get rolled tomorrow morning

I figure at 240/2 - even worse case, losing 4 wickets for 30 runs, we'll still make 400 on the back of a Watling last ditch effort - but ultimately, you have a team that's used to scoring a lot of runs batting on a wicket not giving them any cause for concern at this stage in the match. Our best four players of spin are either at the crease or in the shed ( Williamson, Taylor, McCullum, Watling) and we have a very hungry all rounder with a well known big match temperament wanting to prove that he deserves his spot in Neesham. Jerome has been on a probing line and length but I'd still rather face him than Ishant Sharma - Roach just looks underdone and not likely to scare the batsmen on this wicket which is his predominant weapon when he's bowling well.

It's either going to meander to a draw due to Chanderpaul, Bravo and maybe Gayle resisting. Or it's going to be an embarassing situation where a side containing the two worst spinners in international cricket (Craig and Sodhi) bowl their team to victory.

 

[Hurricane]

@PEWS

No one's discussing it - so you didn't need to go on a mini rant.

I sympathised with WW because I have seen a small sample of the decisions he is talking about.

Zinzan just felt like correcting me and I semi agreed with him back. I am not going to argue the point as it borders on tin foil hat territory

As a peace offering to you - I agree with one point you made - I remember the decisions against WI clearly because they impacted their chances of winning so much.

The other point you could have raised to discredit the theory is Shane Warne's point. After a particular match where Australia got shafted against India in India before DRS. He said that Australia simply hadn't been positive enough which had led to numerous close in fielders around the bat, numerous intimidatory appeals, and eventually some lame decisions. Often lower ranked teams find themselves behind the 8 ball in games and fall into similar situations to what Australia did that day.

 

[Blocky]

@PEWS

No one's discussing it - so you didn't need to go on a mini rant.

I sympathised with WW because I have seen a small sample of the decisions he is talking about.

Zinzan just felt like correcting me and I semi agreed with him back. I am not going to argue the point as it borders on tin foil hat territory

As a peace offering to you - I agree with one point you made - I remember the decisions against WI clearly because they impacted their chances of winning so much.

The other point you could have raised to discredit the theory is Shane Warne's point. After a particular match where Australia got shafted against India in India before DRS. He said that Australia simply hadn't been positive enough which had led to numerous close in fielders around the bat, numerous intimidatory appeals, and eventually some lame decisions. Often lower ranked teams find themselves behind the 8 ball in games and fall into similar situations to what Australia did that day.

To be honest, every single nation has bad decisions even with the third umpire involved. It's because it's subjective and in certain things like the no-ball law, we're asking the umpire to make a ridiculous millimeter call on TV evidence that has a substandard FPS rating. If they changed the front foot law to be that the line is the umpires and if a part of your foot does not land behind the line itself, then less of these decisions would give cause for concern. Ian Chappell has made that point countless times as a way to solve the situation.

I've seen New Zealand lose matches on dubious decisions. I've seen Australia lose matches on dubious decisions. I've seen South Africa lose matches on dubious decisions - I've seen all sides gain from bad decisions. I've seen all sides lose from bad decisions. I don't even think this one was "bad" - merely subjective, and when you're only generating three real chances in a days play, maybe you should turn an inwards view on your own team, rather than the merits of the umpire and how they perceive the laws.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Think maybe you should take some of your own advise when posting.

Frankly you directing this sort of post at the NZ contingent is the most hypocritical post I've seen on here in a long time, if not ever.

Really? why?

 

[WindieWeathers]

Low i know, but hey puts of this internal for a little while longer.

Thanks for quoting me...i guess we'll have to wait and see whether you do the same at the end of this series.

 

[_Ed_]

Wow, catching up on this thread was a mistake. Think I'll make myself scarce for the rest of the series if it doesn't improve tomorrow.

 

[Teja.]

Think maybe you should take some of your own advise when posting.

Frankly you directing this sort of post at the NZ contingent is the most hypocritical post I've seen on here in a long time, if not ever.

Really? why?

Yeah, no continuance of this discussion.

 

[Mike5181]

If Chanderpaul doesn't perform miracles this series, NZ will either need to play horribly bad, or they will (as they should) win it.

I don't have us as clear favourites because correct me if I'm wrong, but we've only won two test matches away from home against top 8 opposition in the last ten years. Sri Lanka in Colombo, and Australia in Hobart. Poor performance on day one aside, this is a much better side we're playing here than the one we encountered at home, and they're playing in their own conditions.

 

[Bahnz]

To be fair to WW, Blocky and Howsie were making some very confident statements about NZ's chances that I don't think are yet born out by the circumstances of the match. Having said that the majority of NZ posters have been very circumspect about NZ's chances, so I agree that WW should cool it.

I also disagree with the idea that the 3rd umpires systemically favour the higher ranked team, and find it interesting that WW didn't complain when Darren Bravo was given not out on review after clearly gloving the ball to the keeper in the Dunedin test.

 

[Beamer]

I call bull****, to be honest.

I think NZ have to be clear favorites in this series and it's only our pessimism that would make us think differently.

I agree with you that New Zealand are the better side as it stands. However, I think you might well be as guilty as you say WW is in over-rating your side, the difference isn't that huge. Lets analyse the sides:

- Both of our teams have poor opening partnerships but at least we have one Test class opening batsman averaging over 40. Advantage us.

- Up until your last home summer our middle order was in a different league from yours. The NZ middle order have picked up form and are batting well at the moment but I'd still prefer Edwards, Bravo, Shiv and Samuels to Kane, Taylor, Mcullum, Neesham. I'd say current advantage to New Zealand based on form and confidence but in terms of pedigree that could change at any moment, especially in these conditions.

- The keeper batsman, as discussed before yesterday, average exactly the same as each other over the last 2 years so take your pick. Even as far as I'm concerned, and it's backed up by stats.

- We have the better spin options, even without Narine. Advantage us.

- You have the better seam options. Advantage You.

Due to current form, I fear New Zealand will win but if one or two of our big bats hit form, which is entirely possible, the balance between the two teams will completely change because there is not much in it. Right, now I've said that, I am going to avoid this jingoistic flag waving that some of you are indulging in and concentrate on the cricket as it happens.

 

[WindieWeathers]

3rd umpire, no Narine. As was just shown you talked up Shillingford and your've already deemed him done after one day. Talk about an overreaction.

3rd umpire isn't an "excuse" it's a fact and so is the Narine situation which i openly said made me not want to watch this series i was/am so bitter about it. Shilly is "like a boxer who can't use his right hook" as someone said on a WI forum...and that's why i'm saying he's done but hey i'd love to be proven wrong...i really would.

 

[Blocky]

I don't have us as clear favourites because correct me if I'm wrong, but we've only won two test matches away from home against top 8 opposition in the last ten years. Sri Lanka in Colombo, and Australia in Hobart. Poor performance on day one aside, this is a much better side we're playing here than the one we encountered at home, and they're playing in their own conditions.

Looking at ten years worth of history doesn't really give you a feel for what is current.

What is current is that

NZ has one of its best middle order batting line ups ever, in some of their best individual form ever complimented by two of its best seam bowlers, ever

versus

Windies rely heavily on Chanderpaul, with Gayle and Bravo being the only other two you'd consider world class - against an attack that isn't only bad, but sorely untested in recent times at test level and making a comeback this series. (Benn, Taylor, Roach)

You can either say "But history tells us..." or you can look at the two sides and the wicket they're playing on and make a call. My call is ultimately that NZ should be ashamed if they don't win this series based on talent available to both sides.

 

[Blocky]

To be fair to WW, Blocky and Howsie were making some very confident statements about NZ's chances that I don't think are yet born out by the circumstances of the match. Having said that the majority of NZ posters have been very circumspect about NZ's chances, so I agree that WW should cool it.

I also disagree with the idea that the 3rd umpires systemically favour the higher ranked team, and find it interesting that WW didn't complain when Darren Bravo was given not out on review after clearly gloving the ball to the keeper in the Dunedin test.

You'll also find that both of us have made points about the spinners NZ are playing being utterly terrible and ultimately that we're relying on the side not capitulating and making use of the first innings to build a lead and get to a point where the pitch will naturally do the rest despite how bad the spinners are.

 

[WindieWeathers]

One day in and suddenly everything WW has said is invalidated? At least wait till the end of the series

Yep..people quoting me left, right and centre...we're gonna see who was right when this series is done.

 

[hendrix]

T
I also disagree with the idea that the 3rd umpires systemically favour the higher ranked team, and find it interesting that WW didn't complain when Darren Bravo was given not out on review after clearly gloving the ball to the keeper in the Dunedin test.

WI were ranked higher at that point in time

 

[WindieWeathers]

To be fair to WW, Blocky and Howsie were making some very confident statements about NZ's chances that I don't think are yet born out by the circumstances of the match. Having said that the majority of NZ posters have been very circumspect about NZ's chances, so I agree that WW should cool it.

I also disagree with the idea that the 3rd umpires systemically favour the higher ranked team, and find it interesting that WW didn't complain when Darren Bravo was given not out on review after clearly gloving the ball to the keeper in the Dunedin test.

Cheers...i'm glad someone else saw it aswell, and that coupled with my gripe about the 3rd umpire, our crap bowling and Narine sitting at home really left me angry...apologies to anyone who thinks i went ott.