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

[BeeGee]

How good was Watling? 89, 22* & 8 catches

****ing incredible, is how I'd describe his performance. Exceptional keeping, especially.

 

[Mike5181]

Can't believe we've won four out of our last five test matches. The coach, captain, and players have really turned this team around.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Man of the Match might be a tough one.

Edit: I see Craig won it ahead of Southee and Watling

 

[Zinzan]

So has Southee officially overtaken Taylor as NZ's best current Test cricketer? Based on his last two years, I'd say, yes

 

[hendrix]

Didn't Beamer say that the pitch for the second test was most likely to favour New Zealand? If that proves to be the case then you'd have to say WI are in big trouble.

I think that that might actually be their best chance.

Taylor has showed that he's a class bowler, and Roach is bowling himself back into form. Our spinners will be less effective without these conditions, while Narine will still cause problems.

 

[Bahnz]

Absolutely phenomenal, his 62 catches takes him to 5th of all time NZ keeper dismissals in only 16 tests behind the stumps, I can only remember one dropped catch in that time – off Alistair cook on day 4 at eden park which was a low one hander.

He's dropped a few actually, dropped a leg side strangle off Southee's bowling in the Dunedin test v WI, and dropped a pretty straight-forward edge off Dhoni's bat at Eden Park. But yeah, generally he's been very good. It's especially impressive to see him keeping so well to the spinners in turning conditions, given he'd have had so little experience of that in New Zealand.

 

[BeeGee]

I think that that might actually be their best chance.

Taylor has showed that he's a class bowler, and Roach is bowling himself back into form. Our spinners will be less effective without these conditions, while Narine will still cause problems.

Narine isn't playing the next test. Last test only.

Although, after this result, the WICB might have another change of mind.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Next test will certainly be an interesting one with Taylor bowling well and Roach looking better and better. I very much doubt we'll put up the same 1st innings performance.

 

[Bahnz]

So has Southee officially overtaken Taylor as NZ's best current Test cricketer? Based on his last two years, I'd say, yes

It's a bit difficult to say who's better when comparing batsmen and bowlers as their roles are obviously fundamentally different. But there's no doubt that Southee has overtaken Taylor as New Zealand's most important test cricketer - basically for the same reasons that Hadlee was always rated above Crowe - Crowe was magnificent, but to win a test match you've gotta take 20 wickets.

 

[Mike5181]

The West Indies should really be looking at playing Jason Holder for the next test if the conditions suit.

 

[Zinzan]

It's a bit difficult to say who's better when comparing batsmen and bowlers as their roles are obviously fundamentally different. But there's no doubt that Southee has overtaken Taylor as New Zealand's most important test cricketer - basically for the same reasons that Hadlee was always rated above Crowe - Crowe was magnificent, but to win a test match you've gotta take 20 wickets.

I don't buy that argument that good bowlers always > good batsmen. I'm giving Southee the nod over Taylor based on his record vs. his contemporaries in the last couple of years. If Taylor averaged 100 in that time, it would be him. Similarly, Hadlee should be picked over Crowe because he was the better cricketer of the two, not because he was a bowler. Think Bradman vs. bowlers in his team.

 

[straw man]

Wonderful victory. Every morning without fail when I woke up to watch the final session I was surprised by how well we'd done in the previous two sessions (aside from the 3rd innings collapse though we already had 3 wickets when I saw the score). I really did not expect us to dominate like this.

While a lot of our players performed very well to me everything stems from that Latham and Williamson partnership to set the game up. So nice to have batsmen that are calm, patient and are able to defend effectively. Neesham and Watling capitalised on that to take the position from good to match-winning, but it would have been much much harder without Williamson and Latham providing such a good platform.

Like a game of tug-of-war, gaining the ascendancy early is so important, particularly if there are confidence or team culture issues in either camp. We saw West Indies crack under pressure and devolve into a collection of good and not-so-good individuals with not much holding them together, and to me that all starts with us taking control early in the match and then continually piling on the pressure.

Southee was exceptional, Craig was very good and Watling's keeping was excellent. Sodhi too loose though enjoys bowling with confidence to tail-enders that don't move their feet. Boult's quiet game could go relatively unnoticed.

To win this series would be an excellent achievement and I believe it will again depend on getting a good start in the next match.

 

[Flem274*]

Some time in late 2011 or early 2012 I said that we didn't need Southee to succeed anymore because we had a good competitive crop of young seamers coming through. I said he wasn't the chosen one anymore, just another promising youngster who was exhausting his chances.

Then he got dropped post-South Africa 2012, and I think he realised he had to work on some things and come back a better bowler because what he was doing wasn't clicking, so he starting fixing himself up.

Looks like it worked pretty well.

I'm stoked he's fulfilling his potential.

 

[Zinzan]

So if NZ win this series 3-0 and England beat India either 3-0 or 4-1 at home, NZ move ahead of India in the test rankings...

 

[Bahnz]

I don't buy that argument that good bowlers always > good batsmen. I'm giving Southee the nod over Taylor based on his record vs. his contemporaries in the last couple of years. If Taylor averaged 100 in that time, it would be him. Similarly, Hadlee should be picked over Crowe because he was the better cricketer of the two, not because he was a bowler. Think Bradman vs. bowlers in his team.

Yeah, disagree to an extent. I'm of the opinion that good bowlers are fundamentally more important in test cricket than good batsmen, especially in the modern era when pitches have generally made it so much harder to achieve results - and positive results are the basis on which all teams are judged. Look at the difference that Mitch Johnson made for Australia earlier this year. Admittedly, that's an extreme case, but it illustrates my point. If you have a bowler who can bulldoze through opposition batting lineups, then you're always going to be in with a chance. On the other hand a world class batsman - especially one operating on his own (such as Taylor for New Zealand or Clarke for Australia) - is going to struggle to have the same impact.

 

[Athlai]

The best part is that Jeets must be kicking himself right now.

 

[Bahnz]

Nah, Jeets knows that even if he'd broken Laker's record for most wickets in a match, Hesson and co. would still prefer Sodhi going forward.

 

[Flem274*]

The best part is that Jeets must be kicking himself right now.

Wouldn't that be the worst part, especially for your fanboyism?

 

[Zinzan]

Yeah, disagree to an extent. I'm of the opinion that good bowlers are fundamentally more important in test cricket than good batsmen, especially in the modern era when pitches have generally made it so much harder to achieve results - and positive results are the basis on which all teams are judged. Look at the difference that Mitch Johnson made for Australia earlier this year. Admittedly, that's an extreme case, but it illustrates my point. If you have a bowler who can bulldoze through opposition batting lineups, then you're always going to be in with a chance. On the other hand a world class batsman - especially one operating on his own (such as Taylor for New Zealand or Clarke for Australia) - is going to struggle to have the same impact.

Or the other way to look at it is bowlers win tests on flat decks and batsmen on bowler-friendly wickets.

 

[Bahnz]

Or the other way to look at it is bowlers win tests on flat decks and batsmen on bowler-friendly wickets.

Yeah, but how many genuinely bowler-friendly wickets are there these days? Surfaces like the one at Hobart are as rare as hen's teeth. Even in this match, the pitch was a pancake for the first three days. And good bowlers are still likely to be critical even on bowler-friendly wickets, as we saw during the Basin test against WI last year.