*Official* New Zealand in England 2015

[Niall]

Does anybody remember the Jadeja shot in the second innings against South Africa where he tried to smash Robbie P a million miles

That is what I thought when Boult got out like that in the first test, no logic to it all

 

[NZTailender]

Bell has been averaging 35 for the past couple of years? Okay so that's pretty average but I've always thought him to be a class player and I think he's batting out of position at the moment. I'd swap him with Root and bring Hales in at 3.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Any reason why Root can't bat at 3? Or is he better suited to the middle order?

 

[Days of Grace]

Bell has been averaging 35 for the past couple of years? Okay so that's pretty average but I've always thought him to be a class player and I think he's batting out of position at the moment. I'd swap him with Root and bring Hales in at 3.

He's the senior batsman in the side. He should have no.4 locked down.

 

[NZTailender]

He's the senior batsman in the side. He should have no.4 locked down.

So he should be dropped entirely? He's not an ATG who could bat anywhere in the order. He seems best suited to the 5 or 6 position, where he excels. Granted, that position is usually for newer batsmen to dip their feet into international cricket and now that Root has, I think he should move up to 4.

England would be better served with Root/Bell at 4/5 averaging so 50 and 45-50 respectively than Bell/Root averaging 35-50+.

 

[Flem274*]

Bell has the best technique in the team to bat at #3 but there is no way in hell I would trust him there, and this strikes at the heart of my Bell conundrum.

I instinctively think he's trash but not long ago he had better raw numbers than Martin Crowe. In the past he has been genuinely world class in spurts playing really gritty innings but his entire career he's run around being the worst batsman to average 45+ I've ever seen but that's pretty much saying he's the worst top class player ever - he's still top class, somehow. If his average reflected my thoughts on him he'd average 35-40.

I think it's because when he gets out for a low score or a start he does it in the stupidest way possible. It's hard to look good when you play beautifully for 40 balls then spoon it to short cover or chip it to the outfielder.

I don't know, it must just be a show of my bias I guess because even during his spurts and shows of tough runs I always expected it to end. Now he is genuinely mediocre since his good Ashes and finally he's not so confusing. He's a player who, if he has another spurt, will probably be rated much higher in 20-30 years by people who never lived through his career but I'd take every experienced test batsman from this series just gone ahead of him (Cook, Root, Williamson, Taylor and McCullum). He's just a batsman I'd never trust in the top four because he's perfected the art of keeping his career record looking excellent despite also perfecting the art of making his mixture of talent and excellent technique look perfectly average.

Bizarre batsman. Should be at #3 because his technique and his record scream it, but no way would I ever trust him there. I'd love to see him pushed up there though to protect the newbie (Ballance) and to see if the responsibility spurs him on to another hot streak. Bell and Root should be first and second drop in the Ashes.

I don't understand you Ian Bell or what you do to my perceptionz.

 

[Hurricane]

Bell has the best technique in the team to bat at #3 but there is no way in hell I would trust him there, and this strikes at the heart of my Bell conundrum.

I instinctively think he's trash but not long ago he had better raw numbers than Martin Crowe. In the past he has been genuinely world class in spurts playing really gritty innings but his entire career he's run around being the worst batsman to average 45+ I've ever seen but that's pretty much saying he's the worst top class player ever - he's still top class, somehow. If his average reflected my thoughts on him he'd average 35-40.

I think it's because when he gets out for a low score or a start he does it in the stupidest way possible. It's hard to look good when you play beautifully for 40 balls then spoon it to short cover or chip it to the outfielder.

I don't know, it must just be a show of my bias I guess because even during his spurts and shows of tough runs I always expected it to end. Now he is genuinely mediocre since his good Ashes and finally he's not so confusing. He's a player who, if he has another spurt, will probably be rated much higher in 20-30 years by people who never lived through his career but I'd take every experienced test batsman from this series just gone ahead of him (Cook, Root, Williamson, Taylor and McCullum). He's just a batsman I'd never trust in the top four because he's perfected the art of keeping his career record looking excellent despite also perfecting the art of making his mixture of talent and excellent technique look perfectly average.

Bizarre batsman. Should be at #3 because his technique and his record scream it, but no way would I ever trust him there. I'd love to see him pushed up there though to protect the newbie (Ballance) and to see if the responsibility spurs him on to another hot streak. Bell and Root should be first and second drop in the Ashes.

I don't understand you Ian Bell or what you do to my perceptionz.

Nice post as always. I think number 3 would be the making of him. Some players "get" certain positions. E.g. Michael Clark got number 5. I think number 3 would force Ian Bell to dig in a bit more and start his innings in a tighter fashion. Number 4 is a more flamboyant position than 3, and he is not a man I would associate with flamboyance. I may be using this word wrong but I like the word so am going to use it anyway, he comes across as a phlegmatic batsman. And he would do well constructing workman like 30s and 40s before opening up a bit and starting to dominate like he can dominate when he wants to.

I like Ian Bell and think he has a lot to offer. Just needs a good coach to get him in the right frame of mind again. When he was scoring all those runs in that home ashes series I knew he was playing above his station. But I do think a 45 average is about right for him.. He just needs to start putting up some numbers now to justify it.

 

[NZTailender]

I know statistics aren't everything, but when you look at his innings by innings list you notice a pattern emerge when he comes from 5-6 up to 3-4 and back down again. Apart from his double and century around the same time, he hasn't been as prolific or useful in those two positions.

 

[fredfertang]

It's always seemed to me that Bell lacks a bit of self-belief. With all their entourage of coaches, nutritionists, analysts etc England really ought to employ a decent hypnotist

 

[hendrix]

Bell's technique, or more importantly favoured shots are not ideally suited to 3. He loves the cover drive and plays it far more on the up than Root, who plays a touch later.

Would like to see Taylor get a go at 3.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Nice post as always. I think number 3 would be the making of him. Some players "get" certain positions. E.g. Michael Clark got number 5. I think number 3 would force Ian Bell to dig in a bit more and start his innings in a tighter fashion. Number 4 is a more flamboyant position than 3, and he is not a man I would associate with flamboyance. I may be using this word wrong but I like the word so am going to use it anyway, he comes across as a phlegmatic batsman. And he would do well constructing workman like 30s and 40s before opening up a bit and starting to dominate like he can dominate when he wants to.

I like Ian Bell and think he has a lot to offer. Just needs a good coach to get him in the right frame of mind again. When he was scoring all those runs in that home ashes series I knew he was playing above his station. But I do think a 45 average is about right for him.. He just needs to start putting up some numbers now to justify it.

Number 4 is a more flamboyant position than 3, and he is not a man I would associate with flamboyance. I may be using this word wrong but I like the word so am going to use it anyway, he comes across as a phlegmatic batsman.

Flamboyance: (of a person or their behaviour) tending to attract attention because of their exuberance, confidence, and stylishness. "the band's flamboyant lead singer"
synonyms: ostentatious, exuberant, confident, lively, buoyant, animated, energetic, vibrant, vivacious, extravagant, theatrical, showy, swashbuckling, dashing, rakish

Kallis, Border and Richardson. One of them is "flamboyant". Two of them spent most their careers batting at 4 and were anything but.

Perhaps the most flamboyant, Lara, himself averaged a prolific 60+ batting at 3 as opposed to 51 at batting at 4.

I do not understand you at all. You must have had a tough time when Sehwag, Jayasuriya and Gayle opened an innings.

I am aware of the debate whether the best batsmen in the team should bat 3, 4 or lower. I am aware not to expose the best batsmen unnecessarily to the swinging new ball as opposed to say Ponting's view that that is the role of the best batsman.

That is not the same as "flamboyance".

 

[Salamuddin]

But what you've just described places us exactly where we are in the rankings. No one's saying we're the best in the world. We're an attacking cricket side that deserves to be 4th in the world (possibly third) and with series' against Australia and SA to come, are placed as well as we ever have been to compete well. No one's saying we'll beat em. So no one's overhyping them at all unless you think 3rd/4th isn't a fair ranking?

It's hard to take you serious when you throw something as flippant and erroneous as Kohli 'not dropped a dolly'. For a start, it was a one-handed left-handed catch that didn't stick. If we're to readdress every Test in history that could've changed on a flashpoint like that, it'd be a complete nonsense. Stuff like 'Had McGrath not stood on a ball, it would've been 5-0' is horse ****. That's sport. If he'd been shot by an Englisman on the grassy noll, fair enough. But he wasn't. And Kohli dropped a catch, which happens throughout every Test in history. So you're probably actually underhyping us. We've not lost a series in how long? 2-3 years? That is seriously impressive.

How is it seriously impressive when the only team they have beaten away from home in that time is the West Indies ?
A 1-1 draw over a rebuilding england isn't as outstanding as people are making out especially for a side that is supposedly the best kiwi one ever. And even the 1-1 draw against pak - good result but let's not go overboard. Nz drew 1-1 with a better pakistan side in the 90,s.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

How is it seriously impressive when the only team they have beaten away from home in that time is the West Indies ?
A 1-1 draw over a rebuilding england isn't as outstanding as people are making out especially for a side that is supposedly the best kiwi one ever. And even the 1-1 draw against pak - good result but let's not go overboard. Nz drew 1-1 with a better pakistan side in the 90,s.

Do you not think that the resurgence of New Zealand drawing overseas and winning at home by playing aggressive and attacking cricket is good for cricket and something for the world to embrace?

 

[Athlai]

How is it seriously impressive when the only team they have beaten away from home in that time is the West Indies ?
A 1-1 draw over a rebuilding england isn't as outstanding as people are making out especially for a side that is supposedly the best kiwi one ever. And even the 1-1 draw against pak - good result but let's not go overboard. Nz drew 1-1 with a better pakistan side in the 90,s.

You aren't taking this from the perspective of a team that has been 7th or 8th for the greater part of the last 10-15 years.

No one is saying we are the best there is or even close to it, even entering into the possibility of that argument, but we are very happy to be leading the rest of the pack instead of trailing it.

 

[Salamuddin]

Do you not think that the resurgence of New Zealand drawing overseas and winning at home by playing aggressive and attacking cricket is good for cricket and something for the world to embrace?

Never said it was bad for cricket. All I'm saying is I don't think people should go overboard in assessing this team. I think they will face far tougher challenges over the next 18 months and then at the end of that we will find out how good they really are. The challenges they have faced so far have only been modest.

 

[Athlai]

Never said it was bad for cricket. All I'm saying is I don't think people should go overboard in assessing this team. I think they will face far tougher challenges over the next 18 months and then at the end of that we will find out how good they really are. The challenges they have faced so far have only been modest.

Absolute rubbish. Even if we get torn apart by Australia it does not diminish that this is one of the best periods of NZ cricket. Where from your neutral perspective have we been better? I can think of two other times in the last century.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Never said it was bad for cricket. All I'm saying is I don't think people should go overboard in assessing this team. I think they will face far tougher challenges over the next 18 months and then at the end of that we will find out how good they really are. The challenges they have faced so far have only been modest.

If you think playing Pakistan in UAE and England in England (regardless if the fact that they are rebuilding) are only modest challenges, I have to disagree. It's like sa and Australia are the only real challenges out there. They're the two strongest teams but for a non SC team to draw a series in UAE is no joke.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I think New Zealand are ****ing ace. [insert video of naff New Zealand cricket anthem for Dan]

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Never said it was bad for cricket. All I'm saying is I don't think people should go overboard in assessing this team. I think they will face far tougher challenges over the next 18 months and then at the end of that we will find out how good they really are. The challenges they have faced so far have only been modest.

Noone has claimed that this team is better than South Africa or Australia.

Many have said this side is as good as India.

Do you think that that is going overboard?

It bet India at home, and has better results overseas than India does of late - does it not?

They were spanked in England last year, beaten In New Zealand and spanked in Australia.

New Zealand drew with England. If I were to be cheeky, I could say NZ drew their last tour of Australia. Not to mention New Zealand drew with Pakistan in UAE after they had beaten Australia.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I think NZ might be better at cricket than China, but fear I may be an innocent victim of nationalistic hubris for which I can only apologise.