• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

Blocky

Banned
Haha, that's crap.

You can only really compare how Boult and Wagner played in this one match. And in this one match it's pretty even - Wagner bowled superbly with the old ball in the first innings, Boult came back and bowled brilliantly with the new ball in the 2nd.

Yeah, you could probably argue that Wagner bowled better during the India series. But there is no way in hell that Wagner bowled better in the first series v WI. Wagner was as bad as Boult was sublime in that series.
Crap?

They're actually performing pretty much identical since the start of the 2013/2014 series.

They're actually performing about the same in pure statistics in their last two seasons (including this series)

Boult in 2013/14 - 10 matches, 41 @ 26.5
Wagner in 2013/14 - 7 matches - 31 @ 27.0

But breaking down those wickets?

Boult has taken 20 wickets of batsmen batting 8 or lower and 21 wickets of batsmen batting 7 or higher.
Wagner has taken 20 wickets of batsmen batting 6 or higher.

Half of Boult's wickets come in the tail, two thirds of Wagner's wickets come in the top 6.
 

Blocky

Banned
I'd challenge you to come up with anyone saying anything of the ilk you've just suggested there. You're taking hysterical posting to new heights. And the don't know **** and pretty girl stuff, that's really embarrassing. Sorry.
Go re-read Howsie or Hendrix in their posts, or anyone prior the two home series against Windies and India. It's hardly hysterical - even post a performance which put us back into the match we're seeing people understate the value of Wagner in the team.

This notion of "He doesn't perform as effectively as Southee and Boult" - well in world cricket at the moment, very few perform as effectively as Southee, but as I showed in the stats above, Boult and Wagner are averaging the same, taking wickets at roughly the same rate but Wagner is taking his in the top order.

Boult is the prettiest girl in the NZ side - what I mean by that is not his looks, or his femininity. I mean the ball he bowls. He looks beyond world class when he's dominating players with swing, pace and bounce and it does look very pretty - but once the shine is off, i.e the make up - he's an uglier dog than the honest Wagner who just runs in and bowls all day.
 

RossTaylorsBox

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I'm happy to give him a big tick over the last two series. But if we keep trotting out the "big wickets" line it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where when he bowls well it was crucial and when he doesn't it has no bearing on the match.

It comes down to bowling well and doing a job. He's doing that. But we shouldn't miss the forest for the trees- he has to be susceptible when he's not performing and the "big wickets" theme obscures that.
Agreed. I'm not even sure how you can quantify "big wickets". Is getting Gayle in the first over a bigger wicket than dismissing Braithwaite when he's got a half-century? Does it count if you dismiss Chanderpaul after he's made 100?
 

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
Look, here's the thing: Wagner is not a new ball bowler, he's a damn good 3rd seamer, Boult is also a damn good bowler, who is very adept at cleaning up tails given his late shape and pace. Tim Southee is a world-class swing bowler who can clean anyone up. Together, with their powers combined, they are team New Zealand. So why are we bothering with all this comparison stuff? Given we can have both Trent AND Wagner, it's all happy days.

If Boult/Southee were to get injured, I would be of the mind to replace them with a new ball bowler. Wagner is doing what he's doing as third seamer and I see no reason to change that.
 

NZTailender

I can't believe I ate the whole thing
4-1 over the course of the last six months is a fair reflection of these two teams IMO.
Fair reflection of the stats too tbh, even if they are fairly similar in certain areas. We scored on average 10 runs more per innings and took wickets at 10 runs less. WIndies scored only 200-odd less but took 21 more players' innings to get there. We faced more deliveries despite this. We bowled less overs and took more wickets.

Batting and Bowling.

The Bowlers

The Batsmen
 
Last edited:

Mike5181

International Captain
Reading through the comments before the home series against Windies and India will tell you most of these people think Wagner was a poorer selection than Sodhi. It doesn't matter that they had a big serving of "You don't know **** about Cricket" when he took a tonne of wickets at home, It doesn't matter that they've had another serving of "Boult may be the prettiest girl in the team, but doesn't take the important wickets like Wagner does" in this series - in their view, Wagner is a substandard cricketer and Doug Bracewell would be a much better option.
Everyone knows Williamson is the prettiest girl in the team, though.
 

Flem274*

123/5
Regarding Wagner, I think he does bowl well to get wickets a fair amount of the time and during the times he doesn't well, I think it's just a case of left arm psychotics who get in your face being much easier to play from the couch than on the field, much like ignoring blocky is much easier in theory than practice.
I disagree. The Windies have markedly improved in the last couple of years but they still rely an awful lot on consistent performance of their settled stars ( Gayle, Bravo, Chanderpaul and Ramdin) - this is the first series I can recall in quite some time where younger players stepped up for the Windies in Holder, Braithwaite and Blackwood. In the case of Holder and Blackwood, it's the first time I can recall (possibly since Bravo) that people playing in their debut matches stepped up and performed for the Windies which is heartening to see.

I took heat for saying that the NZ first class scene was much better and of a higher standard than the Windies but I'll reiterate that I still believe that and will point to the performance of our younger players, or players who have recently come back into test cricket after a while in domestic - you've got Watling, Latham, Boult, Neesham, Anderson and to a lesser extent Craig all coming into the side after either periods of absence (Watling) or for their first few series and stepping up with performances that assist in victories. The Windies still require their old stalwarts and experience hands to play above average games for them to have a chance (i.e Bravo and his tonne, Gayle spanking 80 quick runs, Chanderpaul's consistency throughout, Ramdin chipping in with late order runs) - where as NZ are getting as much out of players entering test cricket in the last two years as they do the guys that have been around for the last five to six years. That's a big difference in being consistent, because you can't rely on your stars constantly performing.

Signs are great for NZ - has a top tier seam attack in Wagner, Southee and Boult and there is no reason they shouldn't play 60 to 70 tests together in the next six or so years. I've seen signs in Craig that he could improve enough to be a promising bowling all rounder, similar to the role Vettori used to play for us. He won't be as successful as Vettori, but then with our seam attack he doesn't need to be.

We're starting to generate competition for spots in 3, 4, 5, 6 with Neesham, Anderson, Ryder, Mitchell, Ronchi and Munro all looking like they could do a job for us there. We have a near world class batsman occupying 7 for us.

If Latham can continue his form from domestic through to international as per his start, we may have unlocked one of the openers we require and this season in domestic, we're seeing a tonne of established middle order players with track records of success make moves towards opening the batting (i.e Brownlie) but it's still a hole in our line up that holds us back.

Be an interesting couple of years, especially if Taylor can get out of throwing his wicket away, we somehow integrate Ryder back into the side and our selectors start putting our best 11 on the park, rather than a project 11 around what-ifs - i.e "What if Sodhi wasn't utterly ****."
omg lol

could you be any more agribusiness? and i love how taylor gets singled out but not your boy baz who does it far more frequently.
 

NZTailender

I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Team of the two series
1. Latham
2. Brathwaite
3. Williamson
4. Taylor
5. Chanderpaul
6. Bravo
7. Watling+
8. Southee
9. Roach
10. Taylor
11. Boult

12th: Narine/Benn
 

Maximas

Cricketer Of The Year
I'm happy to give him a big tick over the last two series. But if we keep trotting out the "big wickets" line it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where when he bowls well it was crucial and when he doesn't it has no bearing on the match.

It comes down to bowling well and doing a job. He's doing that. But we shouldn't miss the forest for the trees- he has to be susceptible when he's not performing and the "big wickets" theme obscures that.
"Big wickets" as an overall Wagner theme was Blocky's idea - not mine, I was just saying he got the big wickets in this game.

Regarding the self-fulfilling prophecy point it's funny, because it often is crucial when he bowls well because he has a knack for doing it when the rest of the attack is labouring a little, or struggling with the conditions whereas against the WI at home he bowled poorly but that was masked somewhat because of how well the others bowled in conditions and situations where they tend to prosper more.
 
Last edited:

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
"Big wickets" as an overall Wagner theme was Blocky's idea - not mine, I was just saying he got the big wickets in this game.
i know bro. Heart you.

His big wickets in the Windies first innings weren't any bigger than S&B running a train through the top order in the second innings or even Craig's second innings wickets. Windies were one partnership away from chasing this score down - a situation to which they have to credit 4th day rain and a bold declaration, but still makes those wickets damn crucial
 

BeeGee

International Captain
I think whether we go full Blocky and call him NZafrican Mitch Johnson or our very own Ishant Sharma, 2 things have been very clear over the last few series:

1. He hasn't been injured. This is freaking huge in the context of NZ bowlers and the support Southee and Boult require.

2. He's taken wickets by perfectly executing smart bowling plans. Credit Bond or McCullum for this, but you gotta give big props to Wagner for that. There's a particular level of bloodimindedness that goes into bowling to plans for catches at short cover and he's done it like a champ.
Yes, this!

The other thing I'd mention is that he's the perfect complement to Southee and Boult because he performs when they don't, just like in the first innings. We don't want another Southee or Boult type as a third seamer because when the ball is doing **** all then all three of them will be toothless.
 

Blocky

Banned
i know bro. Heart you.

His big wickets in the Windies first innings weren't any bigger than S&B running a train through the top order in the second innings or even Craig's second innings wickets. Windies were one partnership away from chasing this score down - a situation to which they have to credit 4th day rain and a bold declaration, but still makes those wickets damn crucial
Bollocks.

West Indies were 150-1 against a target of 293 with Braithwaite and Edwards. Wagner took out Braithwaite, then Edwards and Bravo settled on a near 50 run partnership, Wagner took out Bravo, Southee got Edwards in quick succession - then we got Chanderpaul cheaply, at that point, 1 for 150 was 5 for 240 and a long tail was exposed.

That's match changing. Those are the wickets that won the match - Southee and Wagner combining to rip out a well set middle order.

Even in that first innings, the Windies were scoring freely and exceeding four an over for most of it, Wagner was the only one who put a bit of control on it and put a bit of pressure back on the batters.

It's no more relevant than Williamson, but turning a match around to converting a strong position is a different theme of thing.
 

Blocky

Banned
i know bro. Heart you.

His big wickets in the Windies first innings weren't any bigger than S&B running a train through the top order in the second innings or even Craig's second innings wickets. Windies were one partnership away from chasing this score down - a situation to which they have to credit 4th day rain and a bold declaration, but still makes those wickets damn crucial
Bollocks.

West Indies were 150-1 against a target of 293 with Braithwaite and Edwards. Wagner took out Braithwaite, then Edwards and Bravo settled on a near 50 run partnership, Wagner took out Bravo, Southee got Edwards in quick succession - then we got Chanderpaul cheaply, at that point, 1 for 150 was 5 for 240 and a long tail was exposed.

That's match changing. Those are the wickets that won the match - Southee and Wagner combining to rip out a well set middle order.

Even in that first innings, the Windies were scoring freely and exceeding four an over for most of it, Wagner was the only one who put a bit of control on it and put a bit of pressure back on the batters.

It's no more relevant than Williamson, but turning a match around to converting a strong position is a different theme of thing.
 

Blocky

Banned
i know bro. Heart you.

His big wickets in the Windies first innings weren't any bigger than S&B running a train through the top order in the second innings or even Craig's second innings wickets. Windies were one partnership away from chasing this score down - a situation to which they have to credit 4th day rain and a bold declaration, but still makes those wickets damn crucial
Bollocks.

West Indies were 150-1 against a target of 293 with Braithwaite and Edwards. Wagner took out Braithwaite, then Edwards and Bravo settled on a near 50 run partnership, Wagner took out Bravo, Southee got Edwards in quick succession - then we got Chanderpaul cheaply, at that point, 1 for 150 was 5 for 240 and a long tail was exposed.

That's match changing. Those are the wickets that won the match - Southee and Wagner combining to rip out a well set middle order.

Even in that first innings, the Windies were scoring freely and exceeding four an over for most of it, Wagner was the only one who put a bit of control on it and put a bit of pressure back on the batters.

It's no more relevant than Williamson, but turning a match around to converting a strong position is a different theme of thing.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
I agree that Wagner's wickets were match-changing. But you don't need to be Neil Wagner to take match-changing wickets.

Other bowlers do it. Some do it as regularly if not more regularly than he does.
 

Top