*Official* New Zealand in England 2015

[CaptainGrumpy]

We would be throwing away money for nothing.

On a team that are brothers in arms completing a walk of life so far away from me?

 

[Zinzan]

Struth, Leicestershire getting their asses handed to them here. 200+ run margin on the cards,

Good to see MM continuing his recent IPL form, even if this is hardly tough opposition.

Remembering he bowled really poorly leading into the WC and of course was poor in that one Bang match he played in, but genuine signs he's getting back to the form that saw him pick up that ridiculous rate of ODI wickets in 2013/ early 2014.

 

[Antihippy]

On a team that are brothers in arms completing a walk of life so far away from me?

No shame to losing to NZ's sultans of swing though.

 

[mightymariner]

Play ****ing six proper bowlers and still bring Akmal on, ****ing hell. Might be a one day game but moan moan moan about team balance again

 

[wellAlbidarned]

the match report said Santa was getting appreciable turn, sounds good

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

No shame to losing to NZ's sultans of swing though.

I just cannot make twisting by the pool work, and referring to Boult and Southee as Romeo and Juliet bowling in a tunnel of love is borderline offensive.

 

[Hurricane]

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".[/QUOTE]

I don't know what you mean by your last sentence, but followed the rest of the post.

My response will be short. Essentially I am speaking in general idealistic terms and obviously there will be countless examples of effective number 4s who were not overly expansive or flamboyant.
Some who would fit my idea of flamboyant would be SRT when he is on song, and MD Crowe.

Your Sehwag example is a hobby horse of mine. I simply would be very reticent to select an opener with a SR higher than 55. I am waiting for Warner to crash and burn and believe I have made a long term prediction that he will be found out. Perhaps he won't perhaps he and Sehwag are just batting freaks. What I do know is that when we construct our club batting order we put the slow and steady chaps in to open and my favourite opener of all time Bruce Edgar certainly fitted this mould.

In short my theories of who belongs where in the batting line up are formed by reading textbooks about cricket as a youngster and my own theories of who generally succeeds in each position. And yes there will be exceptions to my theories.

 

[Shady Slim]

just out of interest then, who is your favourite/preferred out of the current crop of openers?

 

[hendrix]

David Warner has a very compact technique.

 

[Spark]

Warner's technique is excellent. People hating on it are just assuming it must be one thing based on his SR when in fact it's very different.

He actually very rarely gets out nicking off, and gets out LBW a lot less than I thought he would.

 

[Shady Slim]

comparisons:

haha crap those are huge does anyone know how to make them smaller?

sorry

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

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".[/QUOTE]

I don't know what you mean by your last sentence, but followed the rest of the post.

My response will be short. Essentially I am speaking in general idealistic terms and obviously there will be countless examples of effective number 4s who were not overly expansive or flamboyant.
Some who would fit my idea of flamboyant would be SRT when he is on song, and MD Crowe.

Your Sehwag example is a hobby horse of mine. I simply would be very reticent to select an opener with a SR higher than 55. I am waiting for Warner to crash and burn and believe I have made a long term prediction that he will be found out. Perhaps he won't perhaps he and Sehwag are just batting freaks. What I do know is that when we construct our club batting order we put the slow and steady chaps in to open and my favourite opener of all time Bruce Edgar certainly fitted this mould.

In short my theories of who belongs where in the batting line up are formed by reading textbooks about cricket as a youngster and my own theories of who generally succeeds in each position. And yes there will be exceptions to my theories.

Yeah I suspected that you would take exception to Sehwag, Jayasuriya and Warner opening types. Sehwag told Warner he would succeed as a test opener because he would score runs with the aggressive fields at the commencement of the innings. Sehwag's approach was to get runs which 3 slips and gully make more readily available. Same with Warner. You appear to be quite conservative in your approach to test cricket and instinctly reject any playing strategy that is outside the Wisden cricket manual circa 19th century.

The last sentence is a direct challenge to your notion that the #4 batting role is for a more flamboyant batsmen and a more flaboyant batting position than the #3 role. Its a stupid notion. There have been flamboyant openers and number 3s with great success. There have been stoic number 4's with great success. I merely acknowledged that there has been a long debate whether the best batsmen should bat 3 or 4 (or lower). The idea being to protect the best batsmen from a swinging new ball, as opposed to Ponting who believed that the best bats going in at 3 would prevent further wickets falling due to the swinging new ball.

I do not fathom how Bruce Edgar is your favourite opener of all time unless there is a strong parochial or nepotistic element in your selection. He was far behind John Wright. If you saw it as the opener's role merely to take the shine off the ball, then Trevor Franklin would enter your estimations, who despite his pathetic average was part of New Zealand's most successful opening partnership. Yes, Franklin and Wright scored more runs than Edgar and Wright. A lot more runs. But Geoffrey Boycott has a much better record than three aforementioned and someone like Mathew Hayden was a run scoring machine. There are 100s of better openers than Bruce Edgar throughout test cricket history. Textbooks are great but many great players do not fit the mould and the textbooks' content changes over time as the game evolves. Sehwag made runs. Warner has scored runs. Both doing a far better and more memorable job than Bruce Edgar. Warner has carried his bat in a loss. 2nd Test: Australia v New Zealand at Hobart, Dec 9-12, 2011 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo Edgar never carried his bat.

When I read your post and your discussion of 'textbooks' I immediately think of scene from Good Will Hunting. I have pasted the link.

 

[Hurricane]

Yeah I suspected that you would take exception to Sehwag, Jayasuriya and Warner opening types. Sehwag told Warner he would succeed as a test opener because he would score runs with the aggressive fields at the commencement of the innings. Sehwag's approach was to get runs which 3 slips and gully make more readily available. Same with Warner. You appear to be quite conservative in your approach to test cricket and instinctly reject any playing strategy that is outside the Wisden cricket manual circa 19th century.

I do not fathom how Bruce Edgar is your favourite opener of all time unless there is a strong parochial or nepotistic element in your selection. He was far behind John Wright. If you saw it as the opener's role merely to take the shine off the ball, then Trevor Franklin would enter your estimations, who despite his pathetic average was part of New Zealand's most successful opening partnership. Yes, Franklin and Wright scored more runs than Edgar and Wright. A lot more runs. But Geoffrey Boycott has a much better record than three aforementioned and someone like Mathew Hayden was a run scoring machine. There are 100s of better openers than Bruce Edgar throughout test cricket history. Textbooks are great but many great players do not fit the mould and the textbooks' content changes over time as the game evolves. Sehwag made runs. Warner has scored runs. Both doing a far better and more memorable job than Bruce Edgar. Warner has carried his bat in a loss. 2nd Test: Australia v New Zealand at Hobart, Dec 9-12, 2011 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo Edgar never carried his bat.

When I read your post and your discussion of 'textbooks' I immediately think of scene from Good Will Hunting. I have pasted the link.

I am not sure why the Goodwill Hunting post unless you think you have schooled me or something with your post.

Anyway - the only debates I let myself be involved in are good natured ones and the first part of your post is certainly good natured so I will respond in kind.

You make good points essentially. You might like to note that I am older than most people on this message board and formulated my views early in life.

Bruce Edgar is my favourite due to his style of play and for emotional reasons. He tonned up in the first match I saw on TV - the underarm game. I was amazed than an opener could last the whole inning. I don't think it is normal for people to have to justify their favourites anyway. They are just favourites.

With regards to Warner, he is weak (compared to the rest of his game) right at off stump. The trouble is being accurate enough to bowl right there. He punishes any width and as mentioned by someone above, possibly Hendrix or Spark, he virtually never nicks off.

You must pressure him until he cracks. I doubt we will have any special plans for him and he will probably cart us when we play against him. Shane Bond would have sorted him out though.
Not because he was quick either. But because Shane admitted to watching hours and hours of video footage prior to each game and hatching a plan in his mind for each batsman.

Every bowler should be doing that, but somehow I doubt they are.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I am not sure why the Goodwill Hunting post unless you think you have schooled me or something with your post.

Your reliance on your outdated textbooks for the "right" answer instead of thinking for yourself. There are other schools of thought than the textbooks you read as a child. I am not surprised that you took the defensive position of being "schooled".

Anyway - the only debates I let myself be involved in are good natured ones and the first part of your post is certainly good natured so I will respond in kind.

You make good points essentially. You might like to note that I am older than most people on this message board and formulated my views early in life.

People with an open mind can change their viewpoint over time.

Bruce Edgar is my favourite due to his style of play and for emotional reasons. He tonned up in the first match I saw on TV - the underarm game. I was amazed than an opener could last the whole inning. I don't think it is normal for people to have to justify their favourites anyway. They are just favourites.

That was an One Day game. He has never carried his bat in a test innings. Warner has.

With regards to Warner, he is weak (compared to the rest of his game) right at off stump. The trouble is being accurate enough to bowl right there. He punishes any width and as mentioned by someone above, possibly Hendrix or Spark, he virtually never nicks off.

He is short so there is slightly less margin for error on length and he is brutal on anything that is not directly on the money. He can readily hit bowlers off their line and length.

You must pressure him until he cracks. I doubt we will have any special plans for him and he will probably cart us when we play against him. Shane Bond would have sorted him out though.
Not because he was quick either. But because Shane admitted to watching hours and hours of video footage prior to each game and hatching a plan in his mind for each batsman.

Bond was a great bowler but I am not certain that Warner is as a brittle as you may necessarily like to think.

Every bowler should be doing that, but somehow I doubt they are.

You doubt that the opposition bowlers have not watched footage to find a weakness for Warner? He is one of the three prized wickets in the Australian line up at present. He is also a batsmen who can make the bowlers look very foolish. I think you'd find that the bowlers are doing this, and Warner so far has been more successful than they have been.

Anyway I would be quite content to see Warner's career slide. Despite his enormous talent as a player, he is not the best image for the game. Despite his runs scored, there is an attitude in him which is on public display which is not healthy. I have less concern for alcoholics and drug users playing the game than Dave Warner antics. But that is just my opinion. Perhaps his time in captaining his IPL franchise will sort him out for the better.

 

[Hurricane]

Your reliance on your outdated textbooks for the "right" answer instead of thinking for yourself. There are other schools of thought than the textbooks you read as a child. I am not surprised that you took the defensive position of being "schooled".

Essentially posts on an Internet message board lack context - I think you are jumping to conclusions about me and the intent of my posts. There may be some merit in your conclusions I am sure but either way I am pulling out of this debate.

My advice to you is to get to know the posters on the message board a bit more. I for one tend to be loose with words but my intent is always earnest. All for now CaptainGrumpy.

 

[Hurricane]

just out of interest then, who is your favourite/preferred out of the current crop of openers?

Braithwaitte

 

[CharlesLara]

I am not sure why the Goodwill Hunting post unless you think you have schooled me or something with your post.

Anyway - the only debates I let myself be involved in are good natured ones and the first part of your post is certainly good natured so I will respond in kind.

You make good points essentially. You might like to note that I am older than most people on this message board and formulated my views early in life.

Bruce Edgar is my favourite due to his style of play and for emotional reasons. He tonned up in the first match I saw on TV - the underarm game. I was amazed than an opener could last the whole inning. I don't think it is normal for people to have to justify their favourites anyway. They are just favourites.

With regards to Warner, he is weak (compared to the rest of his game) right at off stump. The trouble is being accurate enough to bowl right there. He punishes any width and as mentioned by someone above, possibly Hendrix or Spark, he virtually never nicks off.

You must pressure him until he cracks. I doubt we will have any special plans for him and he will probably cart us when we play against him. Shane Bond would have sorted him out though.
Not because he was quick either. But because Shane admitted to watching hours and hours of video footage prior to each game and hatching a plan in his mind for each batsman.

Every bowler should be doing that, but somehow I doubt they are.

Most international teams have analysts who have this very information at the very click of a button. I would say most international teams plans for the top order in particular, and go through this process alot more as the information is readily available for them to use. Teams don't just formulate plans from nothing. NZ in particular are meticulous in their bowling plans.

Also, because you formulated your views early in life is the exact reason that those views should be able to change as time goes on, because the game you knew back then isn't the same as it is now. Hell I'm born in 1990 and the games changed dramatically in my short lifetime.

 

[Days of Grace]

It's good to see Blocky back anyway.

 

[Bahnz]

It's good to see Blocky back anyway.

Nah, CG has already said that he backed Guptill for a test recall. There's no way that Blocky could ever stomach posting something like that, even if it were as part of an attempt to deceive CW as to his identity.

 

[Hurricane]

@charleslara
Then perhaps they hire incompetent people as the correct plans are often noted by both fans and commentators e.g dry up warner's scoring areas and yet teams seem to have other ideas such as trying to get him to nick off. And why didn't boult make adjustments to cook and allow him to make 160 and then look unmoveable in the second test first innings until Craig got him. Where were boult's advisors and computer analysis then. Both hadlee and bond would have reacted to that cook inning and been ready with a new game an for the second test. Instead we had nothing up our sleeve.

As for the rest of your post Why are you on captain grumpy's side.
As to why my views haven't evolved
I personally don't think the game is much different in tests since the 1980s. Don't ask me to say that about odis they are completely different. So I have evolved my thinking about limited overs.
John wright and Bruce Edgar would be good players today. Maybe more john than Bruce as Edgar's average was quite low.
Craig McDermott would be a very fine bowler in today's day and age.
Back then a score of 300 was middling and it still is middling.
People do score faster in tests but not dramatically so. The same principles apply. Out think the batsman as a bowler and bowl in good areas.
That's what the game plan was in the 1980s as well.

The only difference in test match play is the arrival of Dilshan sehwag and Warner on scene. Because those players represent less than 1% of the playing population I choose to regard them as anomalies rather than a trend. I also don't believe that style of play is sustainable. There were ways of bowling to sehwag that started to emerge near the end of his tenure and ways to deal with Warner will arise.

I am on my phone so there will be no checking for typos or grammatical errors. Apologies for the length.