***Official*** New Zealand in Zimbabwe and South Africa 2015

[CaptainGrumpy]

what a beautiful man ross the boss is

Played Ross

Lol, did that commentator just imply Taylor was the captain?

Thought that was an average 100 from Ross. Scored the first 50 at far too slow a pace. But, I like the fact he has continued to score runs from the ODI's in England.

I laughed at this. But I thought this NZ team should have scored more than what they did. Thought Ross batted too slow to begin with. Not impressed by Guptill's early approach either.

If Williamson maintains recent form, he is better than Crowe. Crowe has acknowledged that.

1st in the thread to say
Ross is boss.

That is all

Seen enough at 107-1 to confirm that NZ should have scored more runs.

Its taken the commentators till 3/4 in the match to realise that Zim is in the game. The Zim bowlers bowled well and contained with no credit from the commentators and NZ (esprcially Taylor) did not bat particularly well despite the commentators talking them up.

I cannot resist doing this. I don't do it as point scoring exercise against other posters. I do it to elucidate a point.

I am not bashing Ross Taylor. The man has a guaranteed position in the NZ team ODI team. But today is an example of a player scoring a century, and getting his team to 300, that effectively lost them the match against a minnow like Zimbabwe. NZ never had enough runs on that belter of a pitch, made worse by the average bowlers Zimbabwe had. The same point applies to Latham fans on today's result. I also wasn't impressed with Guptill's approach either. 50 off 86 balls by Taylor was way below average, given the pitch and the bowlers, 100 of 115 balls was less than required. Ervine had a much better approach to his innings. As did Hamilton and Williamson. I don't even think Zimbabwe bowled well, it was an ordinary bowling attack.

I thought when I say above that Zimbabwe "bowled well and contained" that the commentators were wrong to say the bowlers had "lost Zimbabwe any chance to win" when I thought NZ was behind the 8 ball in terms of runs they should have scored. Zimbabwe's bowlers bowled well enough to contain would have been more accurate. It was more a criticism of the commentators inaccurate appraisal of the pitch and modern ODI cricket than praising Zimbabwe's bowlers.

The game has evolved. Maxwells, Faulkners, Ronchis, Andersons means retaining wickets is less important, its all about SR these days.

Congrats to Zimbabwe, a fabulous result for world cricket.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

That was the single worst bowling performance I have ever seen from a Black Caps unit. In 23 years of watching. Absolutely pathetic.

I disagree.

I do not blame the bowlers at all.

I blame NZ's batting.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

So Neesham bowls a superb over but is replaced by Henry. Jesus ****ing Christ. Piss poor captaincy.

I don't think KW should be unnecessarily burdened by the weight captaincy. Its a good trial run for captaincy post Baz.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Its quite telling when you realize that Zimbabwe didn't look threatened from our bowling since the beginning. I expect a lot of change to the bowling in the next ODI. This was dreadful to watch....its like none of the bowlers were troubling the ZIM batsmen at all out there.

On the bright side, its set the rest of the series up to be quite interesting. Maybe Milne won't be rested again.

 

[Prince EWS]

Why did Chigumbura come in ahead of Sean Williams btw. Williams is a total gun. Should be batting in the top 5.

Well he is. He's at 5.

Chigumbura was coming off back to back tons at #4 coming into this game. He's been really good since he was promoted, while Williams is seen as more of a cool-headed finisher.

 

[Niall]

I cannot resist doing this. I don't do it as point scoring exercise against other posters. I do it to elucidate a point.

I am not bashing Ross Taylor. The man has a guaranteed position in the NZ team ODI team. But today is an example of a player scoring a century, and getting his team to 300, that effectively lost them the match against a minnow like Zimbabwe. We never had enough runs on that belter of a pitch. The same applies to Latham fans on today's result. Wasn't impressed with Guptill's approach either. 50 off 86 balls by Taylor was way below average, given the pitch and the bowlers, 100 of 115 balls was less than required. Ervine had a much better approach to his innings. As did Hamilton and Williamson. I don't even think Zimbabwe bowled well, it was an ordinary bowling attack.

I thought when I say above that Zimbabwe "bowled well and contained" that the commentators were wrong to say the bowlers had "lost Zimbabwe any chance to win" when I thought NZ was behind the 8 ball in terms of runs they should have scored. Zimbabwe's bowlers bowled well enough to contain would have been more accurate. It was more a criticism of the commentators inaccurate appraisal of the pitch and modern ODI cricket than praising Zimbabwe's bowlers.

The game has evolved. Maxwells, Faulkners, Ronchis, Andersons means retaining wickets is less important, its all about SR these days.

Congrats to Zimbabwe, a fabulous result for world cricket.

Agreed, he did the same when he scored his century v England, slowed down for his century considerably, even turning down singles and once he got it he opened up again. It was a good innings but he got lucky due to the weather and some gun NZ fielding in the end.

Its not just him though, cricketers place to much emphasis on personal milestones whether it is for themselves or the team,

I still groan at how England approached the 1st test against Lanka, England batted to long in the first innings for Root to get his double and Ballance took his time getting his century when setting a target of 392 which was unneeded.

Lanka finished nine down for 230 or so.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Agreed, he did the same when he scored his century v England, slowed down for his century considerably, even turning down singles and once he got it he opened up again. It was a good innings but he got lucky due to the weather and some gun NZ fielding in the end.

Its not just him though, cricketers place to much emphasis on personal milestones whether it is for themselves or the team,

I still groan at how England approached the 1st test against Lanka, England batted to long in the first innings for Root to get his double and Ballance took his time getting his century when setting a target of 392 which was unneeded.

Lanka finished nine down for 230 or so.

My criticism isn't that he appreciably slowed down for the milestone of a century. My criticism is the way he approached his first 50 off 86 balls. My comment is that in modern ODI cricket, despite fans thinking it was a "boss" innings, it did more harm to us in match result. His innings was too slow at the start. Guptill's approach did not look good either. Latham, despite an early start, also looked to have the wrong approach.

A further minor criticism is that Ronchi was not promoted. At the very least ahead of Neesham.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

No Zimbo fans on CW?

 

[Contra]

Seems like anything other than a McCullum's all-guns-blazing approach is the "wrong approach" these days. Well played Zim though, NZ's spinners are below average, which is encouraging if we ever come across them in the subcontinent in any format.

 

[weldone]

Not selecting Wheeler was a mistake. Williamson has overbowled the spinners (even considering NcCullum took all 3 wickets) and underbowled Neesham

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

gg zimbabwe

 

[CM Punk]

Congrats to Zim.

Our so called depth being exposed again.

Neesham, Latham, McCullum and MM need to be dropped for good from the LOI's side.

 

[CM Punk]

That was the single worst bowling performance I have ever seen from a Black Caps unit. In 23 years of watching. Absolutely pathetic.

They were pretty poor in England too.

 

[Hurricane]

I thought the pitch looked slow and was not a belter grumps.

I didn't see the second inning but 300 is a competitive score.
When Ross is boss walked out to bat we were in a wee spot of bother. Not a big spot of bother but a mild one. He made sure we pushed on. If you want to
Point fingers at the batting then do so with the openers who didn't come off.

 

[weldone]

They were pretty poor in England too.

Ya but either Boult or Southee played in all matches IIRC. That tour was more difficult for the bowlers because of the old rules.

 

[Bahnz]

I do think CG has a point. Taylor was awful during the middle overs. Ball after ball was guided straight to fielders, it took a real toll on our rpo, especially during the 20-35 overs period. Given the pitch and the quality of bowling, Taylor should have scored at at least a run a ball, and probably a good deal quicker than that. If it was a one-off I probably wouldn't pay it any mind, but this has been an issue with Taylor's ODI batting since before the World Cup. It's not the reason we lost but it's definitely a contributing factor.

Well done Zim, sounds like a very professional chase.

 

[SteveNZ]

Ross scored a hundred at nigh-on a run a ball on a pitch that was hard to accumulate on. He didn't get out for 30 off 50, he pushed on. Given there's no bonafide batsmen below him, I'd say it was a very responsible knock - if not the most skilful or stylish. It was >300 if old Ross had've scored 30 off 20 and got out.

 

[Hurricane]

Ross scored a hundred at nigh-on a run a ball on a pitch that was hard to accumulate on. He didn't get out for 30 off 50, he pushed on. Given there's no bonafide batsmen below him, I'd say it was a very responsible knock - if not the most skilful or stylish. It was >300 if old Ross had've scored 30 off 20 and got out.

AWTA - except I wonder if you mean <300.

We were batting 1st as well. Had we been chasing 350 then he would be expected to score faster. That pitch looked sticky to me.

 

[Prince EWS]

AWTA - except I wonder if you mean <300.

You knew what he meant.

 

[NZTailender]

Just logged on to see who was at fault for our loss - the 5 or so bowlers who didn't take a wicket defending 300 or the guy who scored a near run a ball ton. Apparently the latter.

Catch you for the next one.