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

[straw man]

This is such a good post.

Thanks, saw the post was Liked and immediately thought you in particular would have liked a post about the optimisation curve you can see in your head, even if I deliberately avoided the use of mathsy words like 'optimal'.

 

[hendrix]

It's a little dependent on conditions and opposition bowlers but I think Williamson is most comfortable striking at around SR 33-40

I think Williamson is a fair bit more aggressive than that, nowadays. Around 50 or even slightly higher is where I'd say he's most comfortable.

 

[Bahnz]

Guptil did similar in the last tour to the caribbean didn't he? so id be inclined to wait until he's had a few series under his belt before i can make a full judgement on him..no doubt he looks solid though.

It was weird, because Guptill's efforts in that series were a real aberration . His overall career has been littered with failure (in the 26 test matches either side of that series, Guptill averages barely 20). I agree that one series does not make a career, but I have a couple of reasons for being more optimistic about Latham:

a) Unlike Guptill (who wasn't even averaging 30 when he was called up for NZ), Latham really bossed it in domestic cricket at an early age. No other domestic opener in New Zealand has a first class average anywhere close to Latham's (46).

b) Latham has fewer obviously exploitable technical flaws than Guptill (such as his vulnerability against the short stuff and his penchant for playing well in front of his body).

c) Latham is a lot younger than Guptill was in that tour, and a bit like Brathwaite, has a lot more potential to improve as a batsman.

I agree generally that he's likely to face harder tests than he has so far in this series, and he'll need to get better. But I'm cautiously optimistic about his chances, which I can't say about any New Zealand opener since McCullum.

 

[straw man]

I think Williamson is a fair bit more aggressive than that, nowadays. Around 50 or even slightly higher is where I'd say he's most comfortable.

Really? In County Cricket he's been scoring at around 40 apart from situations where his team was in a dominant position I think.

 

[Bahnz]

I think Williamson, once he gets into a decent groove, likes to strike in the low 40's, but he's probably batting deliberately slow in this series because of the unfamiliar conditions and his importance to NZ's success.

 

[hendrix]

I'll only allow the term "bossed it" because you're talking about Latham. But you're on thin ice, Bahnz.

 

[Dan]

I think Latham and Brathwaite are relatively comparable when it comes to career progression, if completely different batsmen:

- Both showing talent in an area where both teams have tended to struggle in recent years (let's face it WW, a declining Gayle has been partnered by some pretty young-and-talented-but-not-quite-good-enough batsmen in recent years -- Powell, Barath, Brathwaite Mk I) or Edwards as a makeshift opener.
- Both picked as being potential Test bats from a very young age (Brathwaite debuted pretty much immediately at that stage)
- Both have gunned it in FC cricket over the past 18 months, miles ahead of any other player who isn't a Test incumbent.
- Both playing well in the current series while displaying characteristics of openers beyond their years.
- Both need to prove themselves over a longer period of time against a wider variety of opposition in vastly different conditions before we're any more than cautiously confident.

While I'm confident Brathwaite isn't the next Fulton, and Latham isn't the next Barath, there's no point in making huge claims over how they're the saviour of their respective team's fortunes on the basis of one series.

Latham's proven a bit more this series by virtue of playing three-and-a-bit innings away from home so far compared to Brathwaite's one in home conditions IMO. That's not to say Brathwaite's proven nothing -- he clearly has -- just that Latham's been exceptional compared to NZ opener standards, and very good compared to any young Test batsman's standards on their first overseas tour.

 

[Blocky]

I must admit I've seen jack all of it, so I'm not well placed to comment on whether we should've scored quicker against those bowlers. But I know 70-1 would have been a score we'd have taken by stumps.

I'd imagine it'll be stressed on day 4 to come out playing natural games, to hopefully forge a lead by the middle session on day 5 that makes it difficult for 1-all to be achieved.

Again as I didn't see it, why did McCullum open?

It's a risk/reward scenario in my view... by not scoring at a faster rate when runs were potentially on offer, the side remains under scoreboard pressure which means losing a couple of wickets will put the incoming batsmen under immense pressure and they'll be tentative and less likely to play their natural game.

The batsman that are set and are finding things easier, in easier conditions than what will happen later with pitch deterioration, reverse swing and a new ball have an opportunity, even by trying to reach 3 an over, of putting us into a situation where we can put the pressure and urgency back on the West Indian team to conjure something with the ball to take the wickets, rather than relax, bowl channels and play the patience game.

We've faced 40 overs, say these two bat till the sixtieth over for the first dismissal, you likely have ten overs of reverse swing, then ten overs before the new ball - all of a sudden you could be sixty overs, 120 for 2, seventy overs, 140 for 3, eighty overs, brand new ball, scoreboard pressure, still needing to bat another 100 overs to set the Windies a target of around 150 with 40 overs to bat.

You may even end up being in a situation where we bat for around 140-170 overs, give the Windies about 50 overs but give them such a low score to chase that there is no pressure.

 

[Bahnz]

Speaking of pitch deterioration, what's the thought on the way things will play in the last couple of days? I have to say, it looks like it was playing very true from what I saw this morning, and there isn't much turn on offer for the finger spinners. And with all the grass on the pitch, it seems to me that there's a good chance that it will hold together pretty well over the last couple of days. Or am I just clutching at straws?

 

[GotSpin]

An extra wicket would have been handy.

Fortunately, NZ scored so slowly and with so much time left in the match it only takes a few early strikes tomorrow morning and NZ are in deep ****.

I think that's the problem with batting so slowly, behind by so far, and with so much time in the match left. Even on a pitch that still seems to be behaving quite well, a day four strip is bound to present a couple odd balls by this stage and suddenly NZ could find themselves 3 or 4 down with a new ball coming again and the deficit far from covered.

 

[Dan]

As a side note WW, do you feel like Brathwaite's first 10 Tests for an average of 21 (most played at 18 or 19 years of age) reflect the player he is now, even a mere 2 years later?

If so, cool.

If not, do you understand why NZ fans don't consider Southee's first 15-odd Tests (debuting aged 19) reflective of the player he is now?

 

[Blocky]

Speaking of pitch deterioration, what's the thought on the way things will play in the last couple of days? I have to say, it looks like it was playing very true from what I saw this morning, and there isn't much turn on offer for the finger spinners. And with all the grass on the pitch, it seems to me that there's a good chance that it will hold together pretty well over the last couple of days. Or am I just clutching at straws?

I don't think this will ever become a mine field and that's largely because the Windies don't have a big ripper of the ball and New Zealand doesn't have any ability to build pressure through relentless accuracy with their spinning unit. I think it'll just become more variable in bounce and you'll start to see a bit of deviation off the seam in the next two days.

The new ball seems to be the hardest period to get through, but I'd say until at least midway through tomorrow - batting conditions won't be any different to the ones that the Windies amassed 400 in.

 

[Dan]

An extra wicket would have been handy.

Fortunately, NZ scored so slowly and with so much time left in the match it only takes a few early strikes tomorrow morning and NZ are in deep ****.

I think that's the problem with batting so slowly, behind by so far, and with so much time in the match left. Even on a pitch that still seems to be behaving quite well, a day four strip is bound to present a couple odd balls by this stage and suddenly NZ could find themselves 3 or 4 down with a new ball coming again and the deficit far from covered.

This is true, and I understand Blocky's similar argument, however at the same time going out with the mentality that "we will attack Gabriel and Benn no matter what because they tend to suck" means that if they do bowl well (as both apparently did, to at least some extent, last evening), you can lose Williamson and Latham in that evening session and have to rebuild tomorrow with two new batsmen and the scoreboard reading 4/120 rather than 1/70.

And with the amount of the time left in the game, odds are NZ will -- at best -- set WI 150-odd to win. If they made that 400 in 120 overs (which still isn't that quick; 3.33rpo), it leaves WI with a full day and a nasty 5ish over session to chase down 150.

If they make the same 400 in 170 overs (2.35rpo), it leaves the West Indies with about 40 overs to make that 150. Which increases the chance of inducing a collapse exponentially (i.e. more time pressure, higher % of overs by Southee/Boult, less Sodhi half-trackers etc.)

These two scenarios probably sit either side of straw man's optimal point in terms of scoring rate, and I'm pulling the numbers out of my arse, but I think it's pretty easy to understand why Latham and Williamson aren't rushing here -- the risk of scoring quickly is not only being bowled out short of the West Indies total, there's also the risk of setting a modest target -- but with too much time to chase.

The risk of scoring slowly is that two quick wickets bring scoreboard pressure and NZ get bowled out short of the total. But if they get 150 in front, it won't be a 2rpo chase. It forgoes the chance of putting up a 250 chase in 65 overs, but let's face it -- the likelihood of that happening anyway is quite low anyway.

 

[Blocky]

As a side note WW, do you feel like Brathwaite's first 10 Tests for an average of 21 (most played at 18 or 19 years of age) reflect the player he is now, even a mere 2 years later?

If so, cool.

If not, do you understand why NZ fans don't consider Southee's first 15-odd Tests (debuting aged 19) reflective of the player he is now?

Judging very young players at a test level is always a little hard to do - you end up with the Martin Crowe who flatters to deceive initially and ends up being seen as one of the best bats of his era and the best of all time in NZ - then you also end up with the Vinod Kambli who starts extremely well and peters out very quickly thereafter.

I'd say what you're looking for is a guy who seems to be in control, rather than be lucky. Although I wouldn't consider it tried and true yet, it's interesting to look at the control percentage that Cricinfo is supplying in their infographics on innings. The interesting thing for me is that both Braithwaite and Latham were firmly ensconced in the nineties early on in their innings, where as others like Williamson started in the 60s and 70s and built up to it.

What Latham has shown is that he can be consistent and has a process that seems to work for him. What Latham hasn't shown is that ability that players like Lara made his fame out of, of taking those 85s and turning them into 185s and more. Williamson is another who has a nasty tendency of throwing away innings and not making big scores. That comes down to a concentration lapse as much as anything else and maybe a change of process,

But I do feel you've got to target bowlers who may not perform at the level of the wicket takers in the side... if you're not profiting off of the Sodhi, Craig and Neesham combination then you make it all that much more different to see off the Southee and Boult strikepower. The same can be said of almost every attack at the moment with maybe South Africa being an exception.

 

[Blocky]

This is true, and I understand Blocky's similar argument, however at the same time going out with the mentality that "we will attack Gabriel and Benn no matter what because they tend to suck" means that if they do bowl well (as both apparently did, to at least some extent, last evening), you can lose Williamson and Latham in that evening session and have to rebuild tomorrow with two new batsmen and the scoreboard reading 4/120 rather than 1/70.

And with the amount of the time left in the game, odds are NZ will -- at best -- set WI 150-odd to win. If they made that 400 in 120 overs (which still isn't that quick; 3.33rpo), it leaves WI with a full day and a nasty 5ish over session to chase down 150.

If they make the same 400 in 170 overs (2.35rpo), it leaves the West Indies with about 40 overs to make that 150. Which increases the chance of inducing a collapse exponentially.

These two scenarios probably sit either side of straw man's optimal point in terms of scoring rate, and I'm pulling the numbers out of my arse, but I think it's pretty easy to understand why Latham and Williamson aren't rushing here -- the risk of scoring quickly is not only being bowled out short of the West Indies total, there's also the risk of setting a modest target -- but with too much time to chase.

The risk of scoring slowly is that two quick wickets bring scoreboard pressure and NZ get bowled out short of the total. But if they get 150 in front, it won't be a 2rpo chase. It forgoes the chance of putting up a 250 chase in 65 overs, but let's face it -- the likelihood of that happening anyway is quite low anyway.

I'm not saying go out and spank them no matter what. I'm saying show some positive intent and look to formulate plans that enable you to score more frequently from their bowling and put them under pressure. Whether it's using your feet to the spinners, or it's looking to adopt some of the ODI batting styles against the pacer ( using drop and runs, working singles, looking to change their line and length ) - it's how you put pressure on the captain and make him make the same sorts of mistakes Dhoni is so prone of doing when he's in box seat after the initial innings.

And again, it's about batting windows... you know that basically from the 20th to the 60th over is the easiest time to bat if the opposition doesn't have a superstar spinner. You still look to apply the fundamentals of batting but you definitely look to attack width where you can and you don't just shut up shop and defend first as a mentality.

 

[hendrix]

Yeah, you basically make an educated guess about these players based on how they look. Latham is going to be a very good player, I've been saying it for over a year and it has very little to do with his domestic averages. It's to do with watching him bat.

I do agree with Blocky that we should be targeting Gabriel. Bravo, Brathwaite and Edwards all targeted both our spinners to much success, and it gave the Windies some impetus.

 

[GotSpin]

This is true, and I understand Blocky's similar argument, however at the same time going out with the mentality that "we will attack Gabriel and Benn no matter what because they tend to suck" means that if they do bowl well (as both apparently did, to at least some extent, last evening), you can lose Williamson and Latham in that evening session and have to rebuild tomorrow with two new batsmen and the scoreboard reading 4/120 rather than 1/70.

And with the amount of the time left in the game, odds are NZ will -- at best -- set WI 150-odd to win. If they made that 400 in 120 overs (which still isn't that quick; 3.33rpo), it leaves WI with a full day and a nasty 5ish over session to chase down 150.

If they make the same 400 in 170 overs (2.35rpo), it leaves the West Indies with about 40 overs to make that 150. Which increases the chance of inducing a collapse exponentially (i.e. more time pressure, higher % of overs by Southee/Boult, less Sodhi half-trackers etc.)

These two scenarios probably sit either side of straw man's optimal point in terms of scoring rate, and I'm pulling the numbers out of my arse, but I think it's pretty easy to understand why Latham and Williamson aren't rushing here -- the risk of scoring quickly is not only being bowled out short of the West Indies total, there's also the risk of setting a modest target -- but with too much time to chase.

The risk of scoring slowly is that two quick wickets bring scoreboard pressure and NZ get bowled out short of the total. But if they get 150 in front, it won't be a 2rpo chase. It forgoes the chance of putting up a 250 chase in 65 overs, but let's face it -- the likelihood of that happening anyway is quite low anyway.

Yeah I'm definitely not advocating that they should have gone out there and tried to smack them around.

But scoring at this rate just doesn't really help NZ in achieving a win or draw, unless ofcourse, tomorrow they come out with a bit more intent. But that approach also has its faults. Yes the pitch may be holding together well, but a 4th day wicket is bound to present some opportunities for the Windies. For my mind, scoring at under 2 over while in deficit just delays the inevitable.

 

[Blocky]

The risk of scoring slowly is that two quick wickets bring scoreboard pressure and NZ get bowled out short of the total. But if they get 150 in front, it won't be a 2rpo chase. It forgoes the chance of putting up a 250 chase in 65 overs, but let's face it -- the likelihood of that happening anyway is quite low anyway.

That's where strategy comes in for me, these two should be working towards a plan around the result they want to bat towards and break that down in ten over considerations, the reason I say that is, say these guys do manage to bat past the reverse swing stage and into the new ball tomorrow, they bat another 40 overs on where they are today - if they only score another 70 runs, we're still 100 behind and the Windies get another crack at us and we probably go into a shut up shop session in which we know players like Taylor, Neesham, Rutherford and our tail end are just not good at defending ball after ball after ball.

If they accelerate, and take say 130-150 off those 40 overs - then you're in a situation where you're only 50 runs behind when the new ball hits, hopefully you manage to restrict the success that the tiring bowlers have during that period. Then you're giving players like Neesham, Taylor and Rutherford an opportunity to go out there and take on a tiring bowling attack and accelerate the scoring above and beyond the three or so an over that should be manageable by these two.

Yes, it risks the potential of a wicket, and yes, planning for that eventuality puts a lot of faith in the idea that these two can stay together for another 40 overs - but if you're not planning that way and you're simply looking to soak up time, you're giving yourself less options later in the innings to make it hard for the opposition to win.

In an ideal world, we end up being around 240-270 for 3 at tea time tomorrow, deficit erased, new ball into about its twentieth over and tiring bowlers in the opposition side.

If we're 150 for 3 at tea time tomorrow - still around 100 behind their score, all the pressure remains on us.

That's the risk/reward nature of test cricket and why I think the idea of just pottering along at 2 an over simply won't do.

 

[BeeGee]

If he's recovered, I imagine he'll be next in to bat tomorrow.

Rutherford was sick and off the field. He'll bat at 7.

...assuming Rudds is in next Jimmy is coming in at 4 down and we really don't want to be 4 down and not in the lead.

If he's recovered, I bet he'll bat 5 so as not to force any other batsman out of position. Taylor needs to bat in his normal position at 4, imo.

 

[Blocky]

Yeah, you basically make an educated guess about these players based on how they look. Latham is going to be a very good player, I've been saying it for over a year and it has very little to do with his domestic averages. It's to do with watching him bat.

I do agree with Blocky that we should be targeting Gabriel. Bravo, Brathwaite and Edwards all targeted both our spinners to much success, and it gave the Windies some impetus.

Yup - ultimately the fact that they took Neesham, Sodhi and Craig for about 4 an over meant they could accelerate the game when our stars weren't bowling and put themselves in a position where their run rate was 3.35 - if we'd restricted them to a run rate of 2, like we're currently running at, they'd only have put 280-300 on in the time that their innings took.

We're only twenty overs off the entire time of their innings if we combine our first and second innings together - yet we're still a good 166 runs off the pace.