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

[Blocky]

Yeah, Bravo was **** in the first game, but bounced back with a century in the second that was seriously classy. He's also had one less chance to bat compared to Taylor, which matters in a sample size of 2 Tests.

Ross really hasn't been impressive IMO. But it's testament to his overall quality that he's still averaging 45 for the series. WAG. Could probably justify him in there ahead of Neesh, but I thought the 5th bowling option, even if a bit rubbish at the moment, is a better bet.

Ross has been batting utter **** and in my view cost us big-time while he sat down at one end and let the tail go out for nothing at the other end. Bravo and Braithwaite - you're putting in there on the basis of one good knock rather than consistency. If you selected a side regardless of who should be opening the batting - then Braithwaite would drop out and both Taylor and Bravo would play.

 

[Blocky]

Not enough Neil Wagners, IMO. Put another one in to open the batting.

Wagner would do a better job opening the batting than Fulton, Rutherford and McCullum to date.

 

[hendrix]

Last 10 matches is an incredible disservice to the Windies given that Taylor, Roach, Benn and Brathwaite are all returning to the side, and Blackwood is a debutant.

It's a terrible argument anyway. You don't decide which is the most talented team by picking a combined 11.

 

[Dan]

At risk of sounding like I'm trying to troll you, I'd legitimately take Taylor ahead of Wagner on recent form.

Wagner's been seriously good recently, and he should be in the NZ team, but damn Taylor has been seriously impressive this series.

From your XI there, Taylor for Neesh. Neesham doesn't justify a place primarily as a bowler; he's #6 or #7 or bust in that line-up, and as good as he is, he doesn't make that.

Assuming the 2nd Wagner is Boult, ftr.

 

[Blocky]

Last 10 matches is an incredible disservice to the Windies given that Taylor, Roach, Benn and Brathwaite are all returning to the side, and Blackwood is a debutant.

It's a terrible argument anyway. You don't decide which is the most talented team by picking a combined 11.

It's not a terrible argument, especially considering all betting agencies had NZ in the favourite seat for both test matches. You're just doing the bog standard typical NZ response of "We can't possibly think of ourselves as expected winners here, the pressure will be too intense"

I stand by what I said in the lead up to the second test, NZ needed to play extremely poorly (they did, their batting effort in the first innings and their bowling effort excluding Boult and Southee) to lose to this West Indian side. Take a look at Boult dismissing Gayle or Southee being all over batsmen before nipping them out for bowlers dominating batsmen. Take a look at Taylor, McCullum, Williamson and to a lesser extent Neesham for examples of batsmen gifting softish wickets to bowlers.

The same thing stays for the next match. NZ needs to play poorly and not learn from their selection mistakes for the Windies to win. Person to person, the NZ side is simply better than the Windies side.

 

[Dan]

Ross has been batting utter **** and in my view cost us big-time while he sat down at one end and let the tail go out for nothing at the other end. Bravo and Braithwaite - you're putting in there on the basis of one good knock rather than consistency. If you selected a side regardless of who should be opening the batting - then Braithwaite would drop out and both Taylor and Bravo would play.

Which is why one shouldn't judge exclusively on the stats.


And we're 2 Tests into a 3 Test series ffs. It's a bit hard to select on 'consistency' across 3 innings for the WI batsmen. By that logic, Neesham should be on thin ice -- the ton followed by two sub-20 scores.

And very harsh on Brathwaite considering he has a ton and an unbeaten 20-odd to his name in the game he actually did get to play. That's consistent, and there's no way he doesn't make the combined XI.

 

[Dan]

It's a terrible argument anyway. You don't decide which is the most talented team by picking a combined 11.

Only as strong as your weakest link etc.

And holy damn, NZ has a very weak link in that #2 spot.

 

[Blocky]

At risk of sounding like I'm trying to troll you, I'd legitimately take Taylor ahead of Wagner on recent form.

Wagner's been seriously good recently, and he should be in the NZ team, but damn Taylor has been seriously impressive this series.

From your XI there, Taylor for Neesh. Neesham doesn't justify a place primarily as a bowler; he's #6 or #7 or bust in that line-up, and as good as he is, he doesn't make that.

Assuming the 2nd Wagner is Boult, ftr.

I agree Taylor has been impressive, much better than I remembered him being but you've got Wagner bowling NZ to victory against a highly rated side (India) versus Taylor being impressive on his return but being gifted some pretty soft wickets. I wouldn't argue against Taylor being ahead of Wagner or Boult in the running for a position - I think any two out of those three could have an argument in their favour.

Re Neesham, agree although both sides are playing a pretty weak option at the bowling crease in terms of Gabriel/Benn and Sodhi/Craig. I don't think we necessarily miss anything.

The point I'm making though comes back to the fact that consistency is in favour of NZ, the bigger scalps are in favour of NZ and going from 150 for 3 to 220 all out, while being typical of "old school NZ" wasn't due to the abilities of the bowling attack they faced, it was just soft batting.

If NZ turn up, apply themselves properly and have a selection that doesn't include two tourists in their mix - the betting odds will be in their favour as they should be.

 

[Blocky]

Which is why one shouldn't judge exclusively on the stats.


And we're 2 Tests into a 3 Test series ffs. It's a bit hard to select on 'consistency' across 3 innings for the WI batsmen. By that logic, Neesham should be on thin ice -- the ton followed by two sub-20 scores.

And very harsh on Brathwaite considering he has a ton and an unbeaten 20-odd to his name in the game he actually did get to play. That's consistent, and there's no way he doesn't make the combined XI.

Sure, but then considering Bravo was completely absent and left Chanderpaul basically to his own devices in the first test and you could argue that he's ****ed up big-time and really profited on the match position he was left in by Braithwaite and Edwards.

In any case, without flogging a dead horse - NZ should be favourites and by some decent margin based on the two teams in my view. If they don't win, it's because they've under performed or the Windies over performed.

 

[hendrix]

It's not a terrible argument, especially considering all betting agencies had NZ in the favourite seat for both test matches. You're just doing the bog standard typical NZ response of "We can't possibly think of ourselves as expected winners here, the pressure will be too intense"

No, I'm just choosing to acknowledge the talent that exists in the Windies team.

You were spouting the same ignorance after the first Test.

 

[Blocky]

No, I'm just choosing to acknowledge the talent that exists in the Windies team.

You were spouting the same ignorance after the first Test.

And to be honest, I wasn't exactly proven wrong.

Are you going to argue that going from 150 for 3 to 220 all out was due to how well the Windies bowled, or how poorly we batted?

i.e Latham driving at a length delivery and being edged out, Williamson pulling a ball to fine leg, Neesham hitting a wide short delivery straight to a fielder, Watling throwing the hands at a ball outside off stump. Taylor refusing to shield the strike when the collapse happened and putting only 27 runs on the board from Neesham onwards in the first innings?

 

[Zinzan]

Trying to win an away series against top 8 opposition for the first time in ages, so I'm going for a one-off solution for the opening problem:

1. McCullum
2. Latham
3. Williamson
4. Taylor
5. Anderson
6. Watling (wk)
7. Neesham
8. Sodhi/Craig
9. Southee
10. Wagner
11. Boult

Yup, this is the ticket...and based on the series to date, Baz opening is the best thing he can do for the team's cause and what's more, he should look to play his natural game. I don't mean reckless, but if the balls there to be hit, do so. We have Latham and Williamson (if Latham falls early) to play more conservatively.

 

[Zinzan]

Select an #11 out of the two squads for the test.

1. Gayle
2. Latham
3. Williamson
4. Taylor
5. Bravo
6. Neesham / McCullum
7. Watling
8. Shillingford ( Preferably Narine )
9. Southee
10. Taylor
11. Boult

Edit: Forgot Shiv

1. Gayle
2. Latham
3. Williamson
4. Taylor
5. Chanderpaul
6. Bravo / McCullum
7. Watling
8. Shillingford / Neesham / Narine (ideally)
9. Southee
10. Taylor
11. Boult.

Nah, take that NZ eye-patch off, you're overrating NZ & underrating the Windies here. Is this XI supposed to be based on the test series to date, form over the last couple of years, all-time records or a combination? If the former, how the heck would you bracket Bravo & McCullum given the latter hasn't scored a run in the 4 innings to date? Also Roach's 7 wickets @ 33 is a damn sight better than Boult's 4 wickets @ 50.

These are two relatively even sides regardless of what sort of spin you want to put on it. If NZ can win/draw the 3rd test, we may have a case to claim a slight edge given they we performed better in our home leg of the series, but there's not much in it either way.

 

[Zinzan]

Anyone else do a double-take seeing Sodhi's series-to-date figures of 8 wickets @ 28? Really thought his average would be in the 50s or thereabouts...Although, makes more sense when I see his ER is 4.73.

 

[kyear2]

Blocky all teams have to play badly to loose, that's why they loose. If S.Africa played badly vs the W.I. they would also loose, probably by a wicket or two or less than 100 runs, they might even manage a draw, that's being head and shoulders ahead of a team. Not loosing by 10 Wickets. W.I. were not perfect either and also didn't select the best possible team. Give it a rest now, all you are doing is trolling.

 

[hendrix]

Blocky all teams have to play badly to loose, that's why they loose. If S.Africa played badly vs the W.I. they would also loose, probably by a wicket or two or less than 100 runs, they might even manage a draw, that's being head and shoulders ahead of a team. Not loosing by 10 Wickets. W.I. were not perfect either and also didn't select the best possible team. Give it a rest now, all you are doing is trolling.

Yeah, South Africa seem to have mastered the art of the double knot. Not sure why all these other inconsistent teams stick with the half hitch, tbh.

 

[Slifer]

Last 10 matches is an incredible disservice to the Windies given that Taylor, Roach, Benn and Brathwaite are all returning to the side, and Blackwood is a debutant.

It's a terrible argument anyway. You don't decide which is the most talented team by picking a combined 11.

Exactly. I do believe that NZ are probably the slightly better side (even if they win the 3rd test) but they r not head and shoulders above the WI I think that's the point that a certain poster is missing. WI got beat badly in NZ and India but we were never gonna beat India in India, only very good to great teams beat India away and that the WI is not. WI were unlikely to be competitive with NZ away due to certain players being missing (Roach and Gayle) and the fact that NZ are a better team at home (probably slightly better overall).

 

[Flem274*]

Touring teams around the world have copped blow outs for the past couple of years anyway for whatever reason. The West Indies were never going to cruise their tour here with or without their best team and it's not indicative of what was expected for the current series. Consensus pre-tour was this would be hard for NZ, unless you're blocky (and I guess easy for WI if you're WW), but back on planet earth...

NZ put in a screamer of a performance in the first test but got dicked last game and no way will NZ cruise the third. If they do I'll be surprised and stoked.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Sure, but then considering Bravo was completely absent and left Chanderpaul basically to his own devices in the first test and you could argue that he's ****ed up big-time and really profited on the match position he was left in by Braithwaite and Edwards.

In any case, without flogging a dead horse - NZ should be favourites and by some decent margin based on the two teams in my view. If they don't win, it's because they've under performed or the Windies over performed.

LOL keep talking pal!!...i love it .

 

[SteveNZ]

I agree Taylor has been impressive, much better than I remembered him being but you've got Wagner bowling NZ to victory against a highly rated side (India) versus Taylor being impressive on his return but being gifted some pretty soft wickets. I wouldn't argue against Taylor being ahead of Wagner or Boult in the running for a position - I think any two out of those three could have an argument in their favour.

The nicest thing I can say is that you have a very selective memory. There was some great stuff in Wagner's 8-for at Eden Park, no doubt, but he went at 6s in the first innings and got a few with long hops across both innings.

Your comments about us being favourites and by a decent margin are based upon your own lack of knowledge of this Windies side, rather than anything else.

But then again, most Tests results are down to one side performing and one not, correct?