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

[Slifer]

Just saw the results. Moral of the story, not a good idea to pick 5 bowlers at the expense of an extra batsman especially with such a fragile batting lineup. And the poster who keeps on insisting that NZ are well above the WI needs to let it go. Yes we get it NZ are a better team but not miles better and nothing in this series has shown otherwise.


All in all great great series from both teams and the future looks bright for both teams, assuming our selectors (in particular) can use common sense (asking a lot I agree). Also I couldn't help but notice that quite a few of Nz's future series are of the 2 test variety; surely NZ warrants at least 3 tests IMO. I can't see any team outside of maybe RSA or Oz beating Nz in NZ and although I wouldn't expect NZ to beat the likes of India away, I can see them being highly competitive and maybe pull off an upset (or two). WI IMO do not need to necessarily go back to the drawing board. I think this series showed that we have a excellent core of players to push on into the future with. I Still hold to the notion that we should try and blood a new batsman or two (ditto bowlers) in the upcoming Bangla series. Last but not least I just knew that Mr Holder would excel at test level and sure enough he even exceeded my expectations (his batting display especially). Why he wasn't bowled more is any one's guess...maybe Ramdin was trying to prove a point to the selectors (who knows)

 

[Zinzan]

Anyone prepared to put the series loss down to the WICB not picking Narine?

I am. Call me bitter.

Anyone prepared to put the reason for NZ not white-washing the series 3-nil down to the absence of Vettori on these wickets (given his sub-30 career average against the Windies) ?

Counter-trolling aside, all the talk of Narine this, Narine that...might I remind you, that last test he played in which he got that 5-fer which we keep being reminded about, NZ actually won that test rather comfortably and Narine failed to get a second innings wicket on the 4th day as NZ got the 130 odds runs for victory.

 

[BeeGee]

Also I couldn't help but notice that quite a few of Nz's future series are of the 2 test variety; surely NZ warrants at least 3 tests IMO.

Amen, brother.

 

[BeeGee]

Counter-trolling aside, all the talk of Narine this, Narine that...might I remind you, that last test he played in which he got that 5-fer which we keep being reminded about, NZ actually won that test rather comfortably and Narine failed to get a second innings wicket on the 4th day as NZ got the 130 odds runs for victory.

Don't spoil the legend with your dirty facts.

 

[Zinzan]

Wonderful performance by the lads. Back to back series winners 4-1 vs. the Windies and that's 5 wins and 1 loss in their last 3 series for NZ. I'll do my series ratings for both teams later. Nice to see McCullum getting kudos by Vaughan on twitter for his positive captaincy and kudos to Flem and co who were pro McCullum declaring overnight, when a few of us others weren't quite so sure

 

[Maximas]

Narine's last home series against the Kiwis shouldn't be forgotten either

 

[hendrix]

Anyone prepared to put the reason for NZ not white-washing the series 3-nil down to the absence of Vettori on these wickets (given his sub-30 career average against the Windies) ?
.

or Jeets' unavailability...or not dropping at least one of Fulton-Rutherford...or Jesse Ryder's unavailability...or not picking Wagner in the second test...

 

[Slifer]

I think I need to address the Narine situation. I don't think that anyone here in the WI thinks he's the next Murali or anything remotely close but the popular notion in the WI is that he is our best spin bowling option and given his age it would have been a good idea to start an extended run with him in this series. He violated the WICB's stipulation and was rightly/wrongly suspended for a test but IMO he shouldn't have been banned for the whole series. Hopefully he gets a shot versus Bangla and against tougher opposition later this year.

 

[hendrix]

Narine's last home series against the Kiwis shouldn't be forgotten either

Nor should Jeetan Patel's last home series against the West Indies either.

kinda silly.

 

[Slifer]

or Jeets' unavailability...or not dropping at least one of Fulton-Rutherford...or Jesse Ryder's unavailability...or not picking Wagner in the second test...

Could NZ have white washed us....yes but they didn't. They could have done the same at home and again they didn't.....I think 2-1 (either way) is an accurate reflection of the difference between the two teams.Realistically, NZ should have won 3-0 at home. Bottom line: WI suck overseas and remain competitive at home; NZ are excellent at home and very good on the road (at least vs weaker teams like the WI)...still left to be seen how they (NZ) do away vs the stronger teams (esp the SubCon teams).

 

[Blakey]

Blackwash > whitewash

 

[hendrix]

Could NZ have white washed us....yes but they didn't. They could have done the same at home and again they didn't.....I think 2-1 (either way) is an accurate reflection of the difference between the two teams.Realistically, NZ should have won 3-0 at home. Bottom line: WI suck overseas and remain competitive at home; NZ are excellent at home and very good on the road (at least vs weaker teams like the WI)...still left to be seen how they (NZ) do away vs the stronger teams (esp the SubCon teams).

I agree. Honestly i think even 1-1 wouldve been a fair reflection of this series. This was a very even series.

 

[Bahnz]

NZ Ratings
KW 9.5 - would've been a 10 if he hand't have made a habit of getting out in the 40-60 range so often.
Southee - 8.5 - another series, another brilliant performance by Timmeh. Ho-hum. Probably could've finished with another half dozen wickets given how often he beat the bat.
Watling - 8.5 - Terrific, helped set up the victory in the first test with his batting, and with a bit more support probably would've saved the second test as well. Also, his keeping - in tricky conditions - was absolutely spotless.
Neesham - 8 - A great effort with the bat, though was disappointing in his secondary role with the ball. Hope he goes on with it.
Latham - 8 - Could it possibly be that NZ have finally found an opener who might hold up in test cricket? It's early days, but Latham's form in this series was very encouraging - spoiled only by a dreadful shot to get out in his final innings of the series.
Wagner - 7 - Showed just how valuable he is to the NZ side with a typically dogged effort to help change the direction of the deciding test. Should never be left out for a 2nd spinner again.
Boult - 7 - His performances gradually improved as the series progressed. He showed terrific guts to keep up the intensity while battling a fever in the 2nd test, and was unlucky to finish with just 9 wickets.
Taylor - 6.5 - Lots of starts but nothing spectacular to show for it, and a couple of real horrible dismissals. Despite what Roach says, Taylor is still our best batsman, but this isn't a series that he'll remember with great fondness. Fantastic in the slips as usual.
Craig - 6 - A matchwinner in the first test, a pie-thrower in the 2nd, and a bit of both in the 3rd. Showed enough in his debut series to be persisted with.
Sodhi - 6 - All over the place, but showed that he can dismiss good batsmen with big turning deliveries. A lot to be excited about, but he needs some time sorting out his accuracy in the domestics.
McCullum - 4 - So much for the great blossoming of McCullum's latent batting talent. Still, his captaincy was superb.
Fulton - 1 - Bye Fults, will miss your hilariously egg-shaped head.
Rutherford - 0.5 - Oh god, why?!?

 

[Blocky]

Happy with the declaration and happy with the win! Looks like another great Southee-Boult double-act to get us over the line. It's great to see we've finally got that team with 2 40+ batsmen and 2 sub-30 bowlers that Hurricane was craving.

Not too far off three sub 30 bowlers either, Wagner's average has come down from 40 to 33 in his last 7 test matches. In fact, if their career trajectories remain like they have been, we'll have three 40+ batsmen with over 1000 runs (Watling), two 40+ batsman with less than 1000 ( Neesham, Latham), three 30- bowlers and two all rounders capable of 40+ with the bat and 35(ish) with the ball ( Anderson. Neesham )

If we can sort out another opener and get Latham remaining consistent, we have the bones of a team that is relatively young and should play together for the next three to five years.

 

[Bahnz]

I agree. Honestly i think even 1-1 wouldve been a fair reflection of this series. This was a very even series.

Nah, New Zealand showed themselves to be mentally and technically stronger than the WI sides that they played by coming from behind to win this test. However, if WI had played a full strength side then it would've been very very close indeed (Gayle, Brathwaite, Edwards, Bravo, Chanders, Blackwood, Ramdin, Holder, Taylor, Roach, Narine).

 

[Blocky]

I agree. Honestly i think even 1-1 wouldve been a fair reflection of this series. This was a very even series.

Yawn. Session by session, NZ outplayed the Windies. The large difference is the sessions that NZ did lose, they lost by a huge margin due to daft play mostly by their batsman. I think this series was made closer by some pretty hair brained selections in the first two matches, once we settled on the 11 that I was asking for from Day 1 of the first test, we recovered from a pretty poor first innings score to end up dominating the test.

Credit to the Windies tail for gritting out a performance on the final day, that made it seem closer than the match was and would've been without rain but any view on the "1-1 would be a fair reflection on the series" doesn't have merit in my view. The second test was lost in a single session of sub standard batting, that's the same old NZ curse that keeps people like you pessimistic about what our future potential is.

The real positive for me moving forward is the performance of Latham and Neesham (as a batsman) - Neesham confirmed my suspicions that he is a big match player with pretty good temperament and a lot of natural talent. I think he should focus on his batting and just pray that NZ don't look at him the same way they did with Franklin and struggle to realise he's actually a (very competent) batting all rounder and there is nothing wrong with that. If he's playing the fourth seamer role, he's fine. If he's expected to be our third seamer, he's not.

 

[Beamer]

Congrats New Zealanders, a deserved win in what was a closely fought series. I thought the attitude from your guys was spot on today and we were found wanting against some skilful bowling.

From our point of view, but without wishing to be too hard on Ramdin, he basically dropped the test series at the end of day 3 (or rather let it fly just to his right....). That was a harsh lesson in taking your chances. I remember seeing that and thinking 'he's going to pay for that' and that's exactly what happened. If that catch is taken, we win the series, it's as simple as that.

I also think the 5 bowler ploy was a failed and flawed strategy that robbed us all of the chance to watch a class young batsman do his thing. Very irritating and these strange decisions keep happening. As I said during the 2nd test, I'm starting to lose faith with Gibson. He's the constant behind all this craziness. Captains change, CEO's change, presidents change, directors of cricket change but he keeps going on. He's now got a pretty talented team to work with so these mess ups must stop.

I enjoyed the series and think we have a lot of positives to take from it even though on the face of it a loss is a pretty bad result. I don't think there's much at all between the two teams, it's just that New Zealand are a year or so ahead in terms of developing a winning mentality. I think we now have our own version of Boult and Southee in Roach and Taylor and we will be asking all teams questions with the new ball at last. That can then be backed up by a very talented third seamer who can clearly bat in Jason Holder and a potentially match winning spinner in Narine. We're not far off having a pretty class bowling attack in any conditions.

The batting will clearly be our weaker suit, although again it's not far off. They need to give Blackwood and Braithwaite a run and I'm pretty sure they both have the goods to be test class performers. Darren Bravo needs to realise just how good he could be without these mental lapses (scarily, he averages 44 even with them!).

I'm pretty sure if they select the correct side against Bangladesh in August we will absolutely annihilate them, which will be good for confidence and we can then build towards competing at home and away against the other sides. Anyway, well done NZ, enjoy it.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Amen, brother.

Probably we'll have to show a sustained run of quality play before we'll be avoiding these 2-Test series. It looks like we have the core of a solid team now, with our 2 40+ batsmen and 2 sub-30 bowlers.

If you go on past two years' performance, we have:

Williamson 42
Taylor 52
McCullum 39
Watling 38

Southee 22
Boult 27

Four players who collectively average 170 with the bat and two bowlers who collectively bowl sides out for 250-odd is the strongest core team we'd have had for a long time.

 

[Prince EWS]

The second test was lost in a single session of sub standard batting

It still happened though, and it happens often enough to not just be written off as an aberration. It's part and parcel of this New Zealand team and it lets them down badly at times. "We lost because we played horribly for part of the game" really isn't mitigating; it just demonstrates an execution flaw - it's bad cricket. Teams shouldn't be judged by what they can do but what they actually do and are likely to replicate.

I disagree with you that New Zealand had the better of the first two Tests but I also disagree with hendrix that 1-1 would've been a fair result. New Zealand were conclusively the better side in the third Test IMO. It was a really good Test that ebbed and flowed, but when you a team scores 50 more runs for 3 fewer wickets it's hard to say they didn't have the better of the game. The result was made artificially close by rain; New Zealand still had a set batsman in on 160* with three wickets left - they could've added another 50 runs easily (or more, tbh) if they had more time and made the result look much more conclusive.

 

[Bahnz]

I don't think there's much at all between the two teams, it's just that New Zealand are a year or so ahead in terms of developing a winning mentality.

Yeah this. Two years ago, New Zealand would've lost this match. But this team has had enough success now that they back themselves to win from most situations, and that makes an enormous difference. You can see that just from the declaration that McCullum made.