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

[hendrix]

Most of you said "Neesham isn't a Test #6" and most of you were scared after the first day to say "The Windies have no chance here" - I think I was the only one who openly and blatantly said "After that first day, New Zealand will not only win, but will dominate"

that's because we're not assholes and we actually value the input of the few West Indian posters and don't want this place to become a circlejerk.

 

[Blocky]

that's because we're not assholes and we actually value the input of the few West Indian posters and don't want this place to become a circlejerk.

Actually, most of you were chiding him for being too aggressive about the Windies chances, then apologising to him that you'd been over-celebrating the first day - but hey, while you're revising history, you might want to give Boult a few more wickets just so your "OMFG he's so much better than Wagner it's not funny" rants have some merit.

 

[Blocky]

In the almighty Plunket Shield Boult takes his wickets at 24 and Wagner at 26

Might have something to do with the pitch Boult gets to play most of his matches on... I mean, it's not like all of the Northern Districts pace bowlers in recent history have had absurdly low averages is it? Arnel, Aldridge, Boult, Southee, Baker.... In any case, whether Boult is a good bowler or not isn't even the question - he's a great bowler, but this constant "Wagner sucks" rhetoric really defies rhyme, reason and recent results.

Southee first, obviously - then I'd have Wagner any day of the year in India, Windies, Bangladesh and Pakistan over Boult. But I'd have Boult over any other bowler currently operating in NZ.

 

[hendrix]

goodnight guys.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I'm very glad WW and blocky have largely avoided one another

 

[Flem274*]

I'm very glad WW and blocky have largely avoided one another

I'm not. I kind of want to see this.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I'm not. I kind of want to see this.

Some men just want to watch the world burn

 

[Hurricane]

I'm not. I kind of want to see this.

I don't poor old WW will get perma'd - Marc will be third man in during the fight - and Blocky will get a zero infraction point general warning as a first time offender.

 

[Blocky]

I'm very glad WW and blocky have largely avoided one another

What's he going to argue with? Everything I say comes true. I've had most of you eating large servings of humble pie over Wagner... if he wants to argue the merits of the Windies vs NZ at the moment, I'm all for it - unlike the rest of you, I don't really get personally attached to subjective opinionated points on a message board.

 

[Prince EWS]

But hey, what do I know, I'm only the one that said Craig would do well on the basis of accuracy and consistency, Sodhi would still look **** despite the pitch being helpful and that ultimately, Neesham's hunger to succeed would see him do a job for NZ at #6. I of course also said Watling would score runs, but that's hardly a big call these days.

This isn't even remotely true. With the exception of Neesham (who I was on your side with), this was pretty much the consensus before the game. No-one here barring possibly Howsie actually thinks Wagner should be left out for Sodhi; the disagreement merely stems from your assertion that he'd be better than Boult in these conditions. No-one has a problem with that disagreement per se either; opinions on cricket are always going to clash, and whether or not you were "right" on other issues that few people actually disagreed with you on is really of no bearing whatsoever.

You have perfectly valid reasons for thinking Wagner is better than Boult in certain conditions and most of us disagree on balance. That's absolutely fine. "I think X and was right on Y, therefore Z is false" just isn't one of those valid reasons though, so don't be surprised you're treated with hostility when you attempt to back up your case with such arrogant, irrelevant and dismissive arguments, particularly when we all know full well you're capable of arguing your case without resorting to ad hominem. If you really did think this community added nothing you couldn't think of yourself then you'd not waste your time frequenting it.

 

[Blocky]

This isn't even remotely true. With the exception of Neesham (who I was on your side with), this was pretty much the consensus before the game. No-one here barring possibly Howsie actually thinks Wagner should be left out for Sodhi; the disagreement merely stems from your assertion that he'd be better than Boult in these conditions. No-one has a problem with that disagreement per se either; opinions on cricket are always going to clash, and whether or not you were "right" on other issues that few people actually disagreed with you on is really of no bearing whatsoever.

You have perfectly valid reasons for thinking Wagner is better than Boult in certain conditions and most of us disagree on balance. That's absolutely fine. "I think X and was right on Y, therefore Z is false" just isn't one of those valid reasons though, so don't be surprised you're treated with hostility when you attempt to back up your case with such arrogant, irrelevant and dismissive arguments, particularly when we all know full well you're capable of arguing your case without resorting to ad hominem. If you really did think this community added nothing you couldn't think of yourself then you'd not waste your time frequenting it.

I agree with you and it's all fine and proper, unfortunately you get people like Howsie and Hendrix calling others "assholes" because they have an objective point of view that doesn't follow the mundane ordinary cliche that is prolonged in this forum and don't know how to take someone who is happy to put together robust arguments about his points. You said it perfectly "opinions on cricket are always going to clash" - and that's part of the enjoyment of discussing cricket - the subjective argument of "Was Lara better than Tendulkar?" or "Is Sangakkara the best since Bradman" are always enjoyable to me, equally so as putting out the value around Wagner versus Boult in these types of conditions.

I find it amusing, people who get personally insulted by someone disagreeing with their point and being happy to argue it multiple times (and be proven right, in almost all instances) to be amusing to me, I also learn from their viewpoints on cricketers like Craig. I found out more about Craig through a couple of people disagreeing about what he could do than I could've just reviewing scorecards. You'll note I've stopped calling posts "stupid" when they make points like "Sodhi isn't all bad" or "Wagner doesn't deserve a spot in the team" - but it seems most people can't leave their emotions out of their arguments.

Do I laugh when people get wound up when I mention "Wagner would be a better bet for the second test than Boult?" - of course... Do I enjoy it more when I can point to sound statistics and recent performances to back up my point? Absolutely. Do I enjoy referring to past situations where I made a point and had the same level of scorn thrown my way until it proved to be right? Of course. Do I get personal about it or call people assholes? No - you'd ban me for less.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

What's he going to argue with? Everything I say comes true. I've had most of you eating large servings of humble pie over Wagner... if he wants to argue the merits of the Windies vs NZ at the moment, I'm all for it - unlike the rest of you, I don't really get personally attached to subjective opinionated points on a message board.

I've got a theory that you two will annihilate one another on contact in a burst of radiation, destroying CW's servers and killing everyone within a 100m radius.

 

[Flem274*]

unlike the rest of you, I don't really get personally attached to subjective opinionated points on a message board.

omg

 

[SteveNZ]

His issue is that he has no patience, he's so used to having the ball swing massively and late and that's how he troubles batsmen. When the ball stops moving or doesn't go as late, he doesn't have the ability to hit away at a line and length spot to take "hard" wickets. He's the type of guy who runs in trying to take a wicket with every single ball, rather than construct a plan over say ten balls around how to take a wicket. In the right conditions, he can do that. When it's not the right conditions, I'd rather have Wagner.

Trent has played a little over 20 Tests - a significant amount of those in helpful conditions. It's not unreasonable to suggest it may take him until 40-50 to become a factor in benign conditions, which the same can be said of many players who went on to be world-class. Jimmy Anderson being a prime example of a guy who would take 5-50 then 1-150, but had a 4 or so year period where he was consistently there and there abouts as the world's best quick.

Why are we comparing these two, incidentally? One is an opening bowler, one is a third seamer. I don't get why there's such a raging debate - Wagner is never going to take the new seed and Trent is never running in first change. If Ish was a Test-class spinner, this debate wouldn't be relevant

 

[Prince EWS]

On the subject of this, though:

But hey, what do I know, I'm only the one that said Craig would do well on the basis of accuracy and consistency, Sodhi would still look **** despite the pitch being helpful and that ultimately, Neesham's hunger to succeed would see him do a job for NZ at #6.

How many Blocky points do I get?!?!

I actually think I'd probably leave Sodhi out. He just doesn't bowl enough good deliveries to take advantage of the conditions. Craig from what I've seen in the vault actually bowls quite a lot of good deliveries - good areas, well flighted, nice shape - that just end up innocuous because of the conditions he bowls in.

I actually don't think there's much difference between Anderson and Neesham as batsmen.

 

[Flem274*]

Both of you claiming the little difference between Anderson and Neesham points is so cute. I was first when I got in last summer.

 

[Hurricane]

I agree with you and it's all fine and proper, unfortunately you get people like Howsie and Hendrix calling others "assholes" because they have an objective point of view that doesn't follow the mundane ordinary cliche that is prolonged in this forum and don't know how to take someone who is happy to put together robust arguments about his points. You said it perfectly "opinions on cricket are always going to clash" - and that's part of the enjoyment of discussing cricket - the subjective argument of "Was Lara better than Tendulkar?" or "Is Sangakkara the best since Bradman" are always enjoyable to me, equally so as putting out the value around Wagner versus Boult in these types of conditions.

I find people who get personally insulted by someone disagreeing with their point and being happy to argue it multiple times (and be proven right, in almost all instances) to be amusing to me, I also learn from their viewpoints on cricketers like Craig. I found out more about Craig through a couple of people disagreeing about what he could do than I could've just reviewing scorecards. You'll note I've stopped calling posts "stupid" when they make points like "Sodhi isn't all bad" or "Wagner doesn't deserve a spot in the team" - but it seems most people can't leave their emotions out of their arguments.

Do I laugh when people get wound up when I mention "Wagner would be a better bet for the second test than Boult?" - of course...

hendrix swore at you because you predicted NZ would dominate after day 1 which was a brash thing to say. If New Zealand does go on a winning streak then I predict you and the rest of us will get more used to winning over time. Right now it is foreign for everyone. When it did used to happen back in the 1980s we all followed it passionately but also took it in our stride. I don't know if I have been direct enough with you in this post Blocky but that is what I have to say.

 

[Blocky]

Trent has played a little over 20 Tests - a significant amount of those in helpful conditions. It's not unreasonable to suggest it may take him until 40-50 to become a factor in benign conditions, which the same can be said of many players who went on to be world-class. Jimmy Anderson being a prime example of a guy who would take 5-50 then 1-150, but had a 4 or so year period where he was consistently there and there abouts as the world's best quick.

Why are we comparing these two, incidentally? One is an opening bowler, one is a third seamer. I don't get why there's such a raging debate - Wagner is never going to take the new seed and Trent is never running in first change. If Ish was a Test-class spinner, this debate wouldn't be relevant

Horses for courses to be honest. Anderson and Boult are very similar in terms of their effectiveness in the right conditions and ineffectiveness when conditions aren't right. I can only imagine the out rage if Hesson dropped Boult for the next test but ultimately, would anyone put money on Boult playing a big part in the next test match if conditions are similar to the first test? The other problem we have is that our all rounder at the moment isn't really much of a bowler unless (ironically) conditions suit - Neesham won't bowl effectively on these types of wickets, so now two out of our three mainline pacers aren't likely to contribute, leaving it to a green spinner, a guy who shouldn't even play for ND and Southee - who fortunately is now operating at a world class level.

You're true, it's a no brainer - get rid of Sodhi, play Wagner. But if we were only playing two frontline seamers in these conditions, or conditions befitting dust bowls, I'd take Wagner. That was my argument.

 

[Blocky]

hendrix swore at you because you predicted NZ would dominate after day 1 which was a brash thing to say. If New Zealand does go on a winning streak then I predict you and the rest of us will get more used to winning over time. Right now it is foreign for everyone. When it did used to happen back in the 1980s we all followed it passionately but also took it in our stride. I don't know if I have been direct enough with you in this post Blocky but that is what I have to say.

Hendrix swore at me because he's personally attached to his points and doesn't get the whole idea of "People are allowed to have opinions that differ to yours" - he also doesn't like my assertive style or the fact that I'm not afraid to say to people (such as WW) that they're wrong in advance of the proof arriving. People getting upset at me for pretty much stating exactly what would happen during the test after the first day makes me laugh. If I got everything wrong, I could understand the whole rhetoric people like Howsie and Hendrix throw up...

But at a certain point, when someone has a high hit rate of their opinion being converted to fact when the results come in, you'd imagine people would start listening and stop bothering with petty name calling.

 

[Blocky]

Both of you claiming the little difference between Anderson and Neesham points is so cute. I was first when I got in last summer.

Actually, I don't think I stated "little difference" - I've been saying since the Indian test series that Neesham is a much better test batsman than Anderson and would prove it in due course. I think both are much of a muchness with their bowling, although Neesham has better assets to turn himself into something better than I think Anderson can get to.

Ironically though, people argue this and people would also argue putting Neesham in ahead of Anderson if Anderson didn't get injured in the first test. I think even if Anderson had played and failed in the first test, people wouldn't be asking for Neesham to be ahead of him.

Having played against Neesham while he was still a Parnell boy before moving down South, I can say that every single level he's been promoted to, people have thought "Wow, really? He's probably not ready yet" and he out performs the expectations. He just seems to be a big match player, someone who will likely end up with better statistics in test cricket than he will in first class.