*Official* New Zealand in England 2015

[Antihippy]

To be fair on warner compared to sehwag at least he's able to actually move his feet.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

@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.

The problem against cook wasn't the plan, it was the fact that his judgement was so absurdly good Boult had such a small margin for error. Anything straight was dealt with under the eyes or flicked away for runs, anything not hitting the stumps was left.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, uhh, Cook played really well that innings. Sometimes batsmen are just better.

 

[Howsie]

Williamson, all class as usual. Apparently the catch to dismiss him was an absolute sceamer and before he walked off went over and shook the guy who took it's hand.

 

[Smudge]

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

Indeed. I'd go as far to say . . . why worry.

 

[cnerd123]

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.

This coming from the guy who feels every test side should pick the best 6 batsmen and best 4 bowlers, no exceptions.

ITSTL

Also Hurricane's views are solid; guys like Sehwag, Warner and Gayle are freaks. Not the blueprint to be followed. If every young opener tried to bat like them we'd have a dozen Johnson Charles floating about the scene.

There is merit to whacking the new ball about on tracks like those in the subcontinent, where the new ball is easier to score off than the older one, but even a guy like Warner tends to reign it in when it's swinging and just picks his shots really, really well. Same can be said for Gayle or Hayden. Sehwag basically just batted in one gear throughout his career and was found out in trickier conditions.

Also I think there should be smth said for left-handed openers having higher SRs. Maybe it's harder for right-handed outswing bowlers to peg away at a decent area with the new ball, and a tendency to drift into the pads or push it too far across means LH opener have it easier than their right handed counterparts?

 

[Spark]

@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.

Just because a player doesn't fit your theory as to how Test openers must bat doesn't mean he's secretly rubbish and waiting to be found out.

 

[Hurricane]

Yeah, uhh, Cook played really well that innings. Sometimes batsmen are just better.

The problem against cook wasn't the plan, it was the fact that his judgement was so absurdly good Boult had such a small margin for error. Anything straight was dealt with under the eyes or flicked away for runs, anything not hitting the stumps was left.

I will play if the debate stays dispassionate and not with personal exclamations or gifs of people banging their head's against walls.

It was Boult's job as our left handed swing bowler to get rid of Cook in both the first test and the second test. That was his job. It was not a bonus and a pat of the back if he got Cook out. It was his job. Hadlee had men on the other team who he made it his business to get out. He took personal responsibility when they got centuries. They say there is no "I" in team but there is personal responsibility and accountabilities.

My post was poorly worded and there was an error in it. It was nobody's fault that Cook scored 160 in the first test. He played well and he deserved a century.
But it is not ok that he scored 75 in the first inning of the second test. It was 177-0 at one point in that inning, we are fortunate we bundled them out from that position.
We should have strategised before the 2nd test. We knew he was going to leave the ball outside off stump. Instead Boult's response was just to keep bowling outswingers outside off stump which he left merrily.

There is a counter strategy for batsman like Cook and it has been around for donkey's years. Go wide of the crease and angle the ball in and swing it away. It becomes harder to judge what to leave. Maybe he still makes 75 and maybe the score is still 177-0. Or maybe it isn't and maybe it works and we dismiss him cheaply but we didn't try that strategy. I was expecting us to use that strategy before the test started, and Michael Holding was expecting it as well and began to question as to why Boult wasn't trying it. A brief discussion took place where people conjectured why Boult wasn't using the crease. They threw out some reasons, but the only real reason is that Boult and his advisors didn't think of that tactic. In fact they didn't think of any new tactics to try on Cook between the two tests. Why they didn't come up with any new tactics befuddles me but is one reason why I made the quip that perhaps our video analyst and bowling advisors are a bit hit and miss.

I have told this final story before - David Boon scored 142 run out against us in a test. If it weren't for the run out he would have made a triple. He left everything outside off stump with impeccable judgement.
Hadlee recalibbrated before the next test and went wide of the crease and got him out for 9.
Hadlee was a thinking man's bowler. Southee is a thinking man's bowler. Trent Boult is improving and will be better in 18 months from now.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

the only valid conclusion i can come to here is that colin munro needs to open against australia

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I will play if the debate stays dispassionate and not with personal exclamations or gifs of people banging their head's against walls.

I you, Hurricane.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I will play if the debate stays dispassionate and not with personal exclamations or gifs of people banging their head's against walls.

It was Boult's job as our left handed swing bowler to get rid of Cook in both the first test and the second test. That was his job. It was not a bonus and a pat of the back if he got Cook out. It was his job. Hadlee had men on the other team who he made it his business to get out. He took personal responsibility when they got centuries. They say there is no "I" in team but there is personal responsibility and accountabilities.

My post was poorly worded and there was an error in it. It was nobody's fault that Cook scored 160 in the first test. He played well and he deserved a century.
But it is not ok that he scored 75 in the first inning of the second test. It was 177-0 at one point in that inning, we are fortunate we bundled them out from that position.
We should have strategised before the 2nd test. We knew he was going to leave the ball outside off stump. Instead Boult's response was just to keep bowling outswingers outside off stump which he left merrily.

There is a counter strategy for batsman like Cook and it has been around for donkey's years. Go wide of the crease and angle the ball in and swing it away. It becomes harder to judge what to leave. Maybe he still makes 75 and maybe the score is still 177-0. Or maybe it isn't and maybe it works and we dismiss him cheaply but we didn't try that strategy. I was expecting us to use that strategy before the test started, and Michael Holding was expecting it as well and began to question as to why Boult wasn't trying it. A brief discussion took place where people conjectured why Boult wasn't using the crease. They threw out some reasons, but the only real reason is that Boult and his advisors didn't think of that tactic. In fact they didn't think of any new tactics to try on Cook between the two tests. Why they didn't come up with any new tactics befuddles me but is one reason why I made the quip that perhaps our video analyst and bowling advisors are a bit hit and miss.

I have told this final story before - David Boon scored 142 run out against us in a test. If it weren't for the run out he would have made a triple. He left everything outside off stump with impeccable judgement.
Hadlee recalibbrated before the next test and went wide of the crease and got him out for 9.
Hadlee was a thinking man's bowler. Southee is a thinking man's bowler. Trent Boult is improving and will be better in 18 months from now.

So any bowler not as good as Hadlee is a pile of faeces? Or Boult is a pile of faeces for not being as good as Hadlee?

You are referring to 87/88. Hadlee had had 14 years of test cricket under his belt by that stage. But that series is more memorable for Hadlee's complete and utter failure to get Michael Whitney out and salvage a draw from the series.

Hadlee needs to take accountability and responsibility for that as Mike Whitney had a glorious batting average of 6 in test cricket and 5.6 in FC cricket. Personally that is how I and I think most the cricket world will remember Hadlee. A failure who could not get a number 11 out to save a test series int he third test. Useless. All his focusing on Boon in the second test and Border scores a double century.

Yes, I am taking the piss about Hadlee, it was only through his bowling Whitney was even at the crease, but that is how ridiculous your assessment of Boult is. If Boult did anything "wrong" as a cricketer needing him to take responsibility and accountability for on the recent tour on the field - it was his batting at Lords.

Lets just say that it was a fair reflection that the player of the series was Cook and Boult together (with Watling snapping at their heels.)

 

[Stapel]

I will play if the debate stays dispassionate and not with personal exclamations or gifs of people banging their head's against walls.

It was Boult's job ...... snap ........... Trent Boult is improving and will be better in 18 months from now.

I like this post!

I'm not sure I agree with it 100%, but I do agree with its concept: From a bowler's point of view, cricket is very very much a brain game. We may add captaincy / field placement to it. The whole point, imho, is that plans should start really simple.

Three years ago, I was watching Eng - WI at Lord's. Strauss was shifting some bodies around: a guy to deep square lag and one to deep mid wicket. Short ball. Pulled away. Out. A radio commentator thought it was brilliant captaincy. Obviously, this was not brilliant captaincy....... It was a simple ploy, yet good! A simple example of having done one's homework.

The thinking bowler is not a brilliant bowler who comes up with a cunning idea in de midst of the 42nd over. It's as simple as making plans before one enters the ground. And sometimes these plans can be ridiculously simple! Which makes it harder to understand when absent.

It's tough to comprehend why professional sport, be it cricket, football or cycling, can be so horrendously amateuristic.

 

[Daemon]

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.

the ways of bowling to sehwag didn't really emerge, they were always there. he just lost his superb hand eye coordination towards the end there I believe.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah Sehwag just declined. If there really was a surefire way to get Sehwag out (when the ball wasn't swinging) you'd have thought bowlers like Steyn and McGrath wouldn't have allowed Sehwag to get massive scores against them.

He had weaknesses, sure, but they only really became massive stumbling blocks when the ball swung a lot and when he lost his eye and had those shoulder problems.

 

[Zinzan]

the ways of bowling to sehwag didn't really emerge, they were always there. he just lost his superb hand eye coordination towards the end there I believe.

Yup this re Sehwag.

Chap was never going to make it on non-subcontinent decks once his eye started to deteriorate, even if it was only by a microscopic amount.

 

[vic_orthdox]

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.

Warner's off-side technique is excellent. There are some issues hitting through the leg side, serious ones.

 

[weldone]

Sometimes early in his innings, he has a tendency to close the bat face too early to deliveries between his hip and rib.

 

[Zinzan]

Weather forecast looks okay.

 

[CharlesLara]

@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.

I'm not on anyones side.

I just think you are underrating the behind scenes work that goes into these cricketers to enable to them perform at optimum levels. As you obviously know professional sport is a big business and the decisions these guys make are generally very well informed.

With regards to having a plan for Cook, you think NZ wouldn't have had multiple plans for Cook? Cook's judgement was back to its impeccable best, thus reducing the margin for error. Sometimes the opposition meets and rises to the challenge. Full credit to Cook.

Those general principles apply to any format of cricket to be honest but thats a fair point. I would say that its moreso how the outsmarting the batsman that has evolved. There was an audio series I remember listening to with John Buchanan during the world cup where would be given stats and data and explain how coaching stuff would turn that into a full blown plan for a specific batsman in certain periods of play. So amount of resources to hatch these plans are unmatched in todays super professional era.

 

[Spark]

Warner's off-side technique is excellent. There are some issues hitting through the leg side, serious ones.

Hence the LBW comment. Doesn't get out that way too often, though, which makes it not such a problem because it's not like he has a lack of scoring options.