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

[Howsie]

I think the Sodhi/Craig question on non-turners would be closer than some are making out, too. Sodhi is definitely more likely to actually produce genuine wicket taking balls on non-turners as I've admitted all along, but you shouldn't really be relying on your spinner to take many in those conditions anyway and Craig would do a far better job of supporting the actual threats by bowling economically and keeping the pressure on. I'm not convinced that picking someone who's going to average 40-45 and go at 5rpo is really a better option than picking someone who's going to average 45-50 and go at 3rpo when you actually have a good new ball pair who you're basing your attack around.

At home, or on non turning conditions with either Neesham or Anderson in the team you pick Sodhi everytime IMO. I agree that you shouldn't expect your spinner to take a bag of wickets in these conditions but in that case Sodhi is the pick. Three seamers, Neesham/Anderson and Williamson, if Sodhi has a complete shocker their is plenty of cover for him. Give him 10-12 overs a day at this stage and if the seamers can't break a partnership I'm backing him to do it over Craig. With how the team has been built over the last year Sodhi really doesn't have to bowl that many overs, so if he goes at 4 RPO so be it.

That said, for as well as Craig bowled in the first test Sodhi has just as many wickets as he does at a far better average and a very similar RPO.

 

[Flem274*]

we can also use time as a weapon. like with india, we can keep them out there and exhaust them. roach is in his second game back of any sort and on the first day of the last test benn was looking quite tired at the end and bowled some loose deliveries.

plus we'l test their resolve. they've had it all their own way in the match so far. how long can they handle having to work for it? we need to ask them that question.

 

[Dan]

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.

Exactly my point.

If they take 120 off those 40 overs (using 120 because it's rounder and a slightly more conservative estimate), NZ is 46 behind when the new ball hits. Which is pretty decent for Ross/Neesh to attack from, while Watling will do his thing, striking at around 40-45 and holding the tail together. 200 more from there at 4rpo, still only puts you at 154 ahead with basically a full day to go.

If they take 150 off those 40 overs (which they won't, but let's indulge the best-case scenario), NZ is 16 behind when the new ball hits. Pretty much ideal for Ross/Neesh to attack from, hopefully with some Rutherford lols as well, while Watling chills. 200 more at 4rpo puts you 184 ahead by the close.



Scoring at 4rpo will be pretty wicket-intensive though, and I suspect NZ would be 6 or 7 down by the end of play in those circumstances -- Watling left with the bowlers the following day. Which leaves the risk of giving the WI way too long to chase a modest total.

If I were Williamson/Latham, I'd be looking to go along at about 2.5rpo until tea (i.e. see off the second new ball and then attack). Yeah, you're still 66 behind when the new ball hits, and are still 16 behind by tea, but then you can bat reasonably normally in the evening session and into the morning of Day 5 and set 200 in just under 2 sessions.



But if one of Williamson or Latham had gone last night trying to force the pace, we'd be in deep ****. 1/71 off 40 is arguably a perfect platform to springboard into either of our plans! 3/120 overnight makes it far harder to set a target that matches the amount of time left in the game. You may give them a bigger chase in absolute terms, but with a disproportionately higher number of overs to do it in.

 

[Blocky]

we can also use time as a weapon. like with india, we can keep them out there and exhaust them. roach is in his second game back of any sort and on the first day of the last test benn was looking quite tired at the end and bowled some loose deliveries.

plus we'l test their resolve. they've had it all their own way in the match so far. how long can they handle having to work for it? we need to ask them that question.

Difference is, we batted at 3.23 an over during that innings even despite being 5 for 94. If we're 5 for 94 in this innings, we're screwed.

 

[Blocky]

Watling is our guy that you can say knows how to resist for time and can bat with a clear conscience even if runs are dried up.

But Rutherford, Taylor, Neesham? If they're in a situation where they're not adding to the lead, I don't think they'll be as effective. It puts a lot of pressure on the two in at the crease, who are both in form, who have both thrown away positions where they should have batted home the dominance.

Anyway, tomorrow will tell us a lot about the resolve Rutherford has.

 

[Flem274*]

Latham, KW and Taylor have to bat all day tomorrow. Run rates don't matter and atm overs don't matter.

NZ need wickets in hand going into day 5 so they can control what happens to an extent. If they go into day 5 on their last legs or wobbling, they're ****ed regardless of lead.

 

[Dan]

we can also use time as a weapon. like with india, we can keep them out there and exhaust them. roach is in his second game back of any sort and on the first day of the last test benn was looking quite tired at the end and bowled some loose deliveries.

plus we'l test their resolve. they've had it all their own way in the match so far. how long can they handle having to work for it? we need to ask them that question.

> Tire them out in the field
> Rest the bowlers
> Maximise the proportion of overs in the chase to be bowled by Southee/Boult
> Minimise the proportion of overs to be bowled by people who get taken for 4rpo
> Kane Williamson h4x in the dying overs to bowl them out for 140 and win by 10-30 runs
> ???
> Profit (aka series win)

 

[Blocky]

Latham, KW and Taylor have to bat all day tomorrow. Run rates don't matter and atm overs don't matter.

NZ need wickets in hand going into day 5 so they can control what happens to an extent. If they go into day 5 on their last legs or wobbling, they're ****ed regardless of lead.

I think we can afford to lose three wickets tomorrow, so long as we've erased the deficit. We need to target around 260-270 runs tomorrow whih will give us a lead of around 80-100 runs - if we're 80 ahead and four down, we're giving Watling, Neesham and the tail end a chance to make it uncomfortable.

I think no one can expect that we'll bat two entire days from the position we're in now, so the key is to maximise the time we do bat and try to make it interesting.

 

[Dan]

But Rutherford, Taylor, Neesham? If they're in a situation where they're not adding to the lead, I don't think they'll be as effective. It puts a lot of pressure on the two in at the crease, who are both in form, who have both thrown away positions where they should have batted home the dominance.

Yeah, I'm assuming KW/Latham bat for the entirety of the scenario, the coincidentally both get out at around the time the acceleration should start. Very flawed approach, obvs. Both need big tons here tbh. Either of them going in the first session throws even the best-laid plan into disarray.

And yeah, clearly wouldn't ask Rutherford/Taylor/Neesham to block. You tell them to play their natural games, but be smart about it.

Then you hope and pray to whatever deity you believe in that Rutherford grows a brain, gets away with his natural game, and tons up.

 

[Blocky]

Well that is the potential here, I still don't actually feel like the Windies are a great bowling unit despite being highly impressed with what Jerome Taylor has come back into international cricket with... I'd still consider him a guy that is steady without being deadly and in many instances, our guys were gifting soft dismissals rather than being worked over and then taken out.

Looking at how well the Windies were able to cope against our bowlers, I still feel that it's not beyond the scope of reason that guys like Neesham (in form) and Watling can put on a similar effort to what they did a couple of months ago against India.... but they either need one of Williamson, Latham and Taylor to make a biggie (a double or more) or for two out of the three to make decent centuries (150 or more)

In saying that, you could also find that the pitch does deteriorate and the lessons weren't learnt in the first innings where we collapsed badly after a reasonably solid start.

Rutherford is kind of in last chance saloon and it'll be interesting to see how he approaches it... I'd rather him come out and look to hit the bowling around rather than try to replicate what Williamson, Watling and Latham can do - his technique isn't good enough and he'll be eeked out.

 

[Bahnz]

Rutherford is kind of in last chance saloon and it'll be interesting to see how he approaches it... I'd rather him come out and look to hit the bowling around rather than try to replicate what Williamson, Watling and Latham can do - his technique isn't good enough and he'll be eeked out.

I don't think it is quite yet. If McCullum had made runs as an opener then there'd have been a good chance of him staying up the top and NZ bringing in Anderson for the 3rd test. But as it is, I doubt Rutherford will be dropped even if he gets a blob in this upcoming innings. Even though it's probably the best option available, NZ aren't going to move KW up to open just yet, and Fulton is the only other competition for the opening spot. Barring injury, Rutherford will definitely play the 3rd test.

 

[Blocky]

I don't think it is quite yet. If McCullum had made runs as an opener then there'd have been a good chance of him staying up the top and NZ bringing in Anderson for the 3rd test. But as it is, I doubt Rutherford will be dropped even if he gets a blob in this upcoming innings. Even though it's probably the best option available, NZ aren't going to move KW up to open just yet, and Fulton is the only other competition for the opening spot. Barring injury, Rutherford will definitely play the 3rd test.

Thing is, this is our last match before South Africa visit our shores later in the year and there will be a couple of A tours as well as some friendlies to consider. I think obviously Fulton is completely out of the picture and while Rutherford will go into it being the incumbent, I do expect that one way or another, NZ will probably try to play both Neesham and Anderson at home. I still think our best option is just to bite the bullet and move KWill up one. He has the temperament and technique to be a great opening batsman and Taylor being bumped to three shouldn't be a major issue for him either.

 

[Bahnz]

The SA tour is ODI's only.

 

[WindieWeathers]

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.

Good post...just a few things

Brathwaite actually got four test 50s under his belt aged 18...which was better than what Sobers had at a similar age. Also last year when he was 20 he got a decent 45 in the 3rd test vs NZ...while he also done well in india when we toured there in 2011...facing the likes of Ashwin and Ohja on a turning pitch towards the end of a days play with the fielders all over him at the crease...i think those experiences really done him the world of good..lets remember during that india series Barath who was 21 and Kraigg who was 18 put on an opening stand of 130 odd...which to this day i believe they are the youngest pairing in test history to do so..

So thus far at test level Kraigg has faced very testing spin conditions in india and is now facing a dangerous pace duo...Latham is yet to have those experiences..so it remains to be seen how he copes with that...next test he might be facing Narine again and that should be an interesting battle..because Sunny had the upper hand in a major way the last time they met...he's gotten better since then so id love to see how he deals with Narine this time.

 

[hendrix]

So thus far at test level Kraigg has faced very testing spin conditions in india and is now facing a dangerous pace duo...Latham is yet to have those experiences..so it remains to be seen how he copes with that...next test he might be facing Narine again and that should be an interesting battle..because Sunny had the upper hand in a major way the last time they met...he's gotten better since then so id love to see how he deals with Narine this time.

While Taylor-Roach isn't quite as good (yet) as Southee-Boult (primarily because Roach is still not back to his best), it's a pretty good attack. It's not green seamy conditions, but he endures plenty of that in NZ domestic cricket against some pretty good attacks. Not Test attacks, no, but not far from the next best thing. I'm pretty happy that Taylor's spells in particular were testing enough that they'll help his development along nicely.

What's encouraging is that he is a very good player of spin - a rarity for an NZ batsman, particularly an opener. He could possibly learn to use his feet more a la Kane. And there are certain minor weaknesses in his game.

 

[hendrix]

Anyway I was just thinking this:

1. The NZ team of 2 years ago would have collapsed against Benn and Shillingford in the first test. I have no doubt about this.

2. The Windies team of 6 months ago would have collapsed against Southee and Boult in this test.

3. The Windies bowling attack of 6 months ago would not have been able to bowl NZ out for 220 in this test.

So massive, massive developments for both teams.

 

[Bahnz]

So thus far at test level Kraigg has faced very testing spin conditions in india and is now facing a dangerous pace duo...Latham is yet to have those experiences..

Good to see you're smartening up as to who has the superior fast bowlers

 

[Blocky]

Still can’t believe the selection blunders though – that’s the funniest thing about this series.

NZ trying to rely on two unproven ( @ domestic and test ) spinners and an all-rounder who doesn’t seem to have any incisive ability with the ball to back up proven seamers. Not to mention touring with two highly out of form opening batsmen.

Windies not selecting their best spinner (and best performing player against NZ) due to IPL wrangling, not to mention taking Gabriel over Holder and a few weird options around batting, etc.

As much as I say if Wagner played this test, Windies wouldn’t have scored as many runs nor scored them as quickly as they did, you’ve got to think that we not have handled Narine as well as we have Shilly and Benn.

But as I said a few posts ago, it’d take a major **** up by New Zealand to allow the Windies a chance in the series, losing our last 7 wickets for about 80 runs quantifies as that in conditions that everyone else has shown to be relatively easy if you’re not facing Southee and Boult with the new cherry.

 

[Kippax]

Wagner eh. These drones setting these odds are really mailing it in, which I like the sound of.

 

[hendrix]

Those Watling odds...

Those Brathwaite odds in what is likely to be a very small chase...