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

[SteveNZ]

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.

You know I actually stopped to think 'is that greater than or less than' and left assured I had it sorted. Long time since primary school maths.

Well done to Zimbabwe. It's one thing to chase 300, it's another to do it when you know how big the scalp is.

Can't help but think we're going to nurse Latham through another year or two then realise he's really not an ODI player at all.

 

[Bahnz]

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.

And there it is, misrepresentation of the argument an an attempt to score points. No one is saying that the bowlers didn't let the team down, or that Taylor was even primarily responsible for the loss. But just because Taylor made hay in the final 10 overs doesn't mean that he should get a free pass for striking at 50 throughout the first half of his innings. That isn't good enough, and I don't buy the excuse that the pitch was sticky. KW had no problems accumulating at a strike rate of around 80 throughout most of his innings, and Taylor was getting a regular stream of bad balls that he should've put away but kept slapping to fielders instead. I'm pleased that he got a hundred, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a very flawed innings and one that acted as a hand-break on NZ's progress as we should've been looking to accelerate through those middle overs.

 

[CM Punk]

Still think NZ were in cruise control when batting, there was no urgency.

We ended up with plenty of wickets in hand and just 300.

I'll put the batting performance down to it being the first time playing with the new rules.

 

[hendrix]

Can't help but think we're going to nurse Latham through another year or two then realise he's really not an ODI player at all.

Boult etc.

 

[hendrix]

Also:

putting this 75% on the bowlers' shoulders. You simply have to take top order wickets and at least one or two during the middle overs. They failed on both counts.

 

[Flem274*]

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.

And there it is, misrepresentation of the argument an an attempt to score points. No one is saying that the bowlers didn't let the team down, or that Taylor was even primarily responsible for the loss. But just because Taylor made hay in the final 10 overs doesn't mean that he should get a free pass for striking at 50 throughout the first half of his innings. That isn't good enough, and I don't buy the excuse that the pitch was sticky. KW had no problems accumulating at a strike rate of around 80 throughout most of his innings, and Taylor was getting a regular stream of bad balls that he should've put away but kept slapping to fielders instead. I'm pleased that he got a hundred, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a very flawed innings and one that acted as a hand-break on NZ's progress as we should've been looking to accelerate through those middle overs.

Blocky was saying it's Taylors fault though.

If you score 300 you have no excuses. Take wickets or piss off.

 

[CM Punk]

Also:

putting this 75% on the bowlers' shoulders. You simply have to take top order wickets and at least one or two during the middle overs. They failed on both counts.

NZ have relied on strong starts with the bat and ball.

Strike up front and hamper the oppositions ability to score quickly with the ball.

And with the bat, attack the bowlers up front and take advantage of the early field restrictions.

 

[CM Punk]

Blocky was saying it's Taylors fault though.

If you score 300 you have no excuses. Take wickets or piss off.

Both deserve blame, we left 20-30 runs out there with the bat.

 

[Niall]

Blocky was saying it's Taylors fault though.

If you score 300 you have no excuses. Take wickets or piss off.

300 is no longer a formidable score though, so runs were definitely missed out on.

Obviously the bowlers take the brunt of the blame as none of them really turned up, but 303/4 against a minnow attack in 2015 while obviously not awful, isn't something that you should get to excited about.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

300 is no longer a formidable score though, so runs were definitely missed out on.

Obviously the bowlers take the brunt of the blame as none of them really turned up, but 303/4 against a minnow attack in 2015 while obviously not awful, isn't something that you should get to excited about.

Zimbabwe looked pretty excited for scoring 300 against the minnow attack.

Henry
McClenaghan
Neesham
NcCullum
Sodhi

is hardly top-class

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

300 is no longer a formidable score though, so runs were definitely missed out on.

This is the modern evolution of the game. 300 can be scored and the total below par for the wicket. A 100 that is not run a ball, especially a big hundred, can be lead you to lose as not enough runs are scored and Taylor left many runs at the crease on that pitch as demonstratedby Kane, Hamilton Ervine and even Elliot.

Taylor is a fine ODI player. A NZ great. But he scored too slow yesterday. Latham and Guptill were not crash hot either. Ervine is not a better batsmen than Taylor. Zimbo bowlers are not better than the NZ bowlers on display.

If a pitch is a 350 to 400 wicket, and 300 is scored, its harder to find fault intuitively because 300 is meant to be a winning score.

 

[Niall]

Zimbabwe looked pretty excited for scoring 300 against the minnow attack.

Henry
McClenaghan
Neesham
NcCullum
Sodhi

is hardly top-class

Yeah, is Milne not fit again?

I'd like to think this is last chance saloon territory for Mc Cullum, you are stuck with Mc Clenaghan though for a long long time though..

 

[SteveNZ]

Boult etc.

? Not sure I pick up the link?

 

[hendrix]

? Not sure I pick up the link?

"not an ODI player"

 

[CM Punk]

On the bright side it gives context to the English series xD

Our second tier bowlers are no good.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Pitch was definitely on the slower side. Ross was fine. Bowlers could not exploit it. Also credit to Zimbo's batsmen.

 

[SteveNZ]

"not an ODI player"

I think that's the way Howsie interpreted what I said at the time...what I actually was articulating was at the time of his naming in the World Cup squad he'd played 3 ODis in 18 months and about 10 overall. I never doubted he could be a good ODI bowler (nor saw him being as good as he was at the WC) but that I didn't understand why he didn't go to the UAE with the ODI squad and that it was risky him being picked sight unseen apart from a couple of the SA matches. Hesson and co probably quite rightly thought he was a class above and would find his feet very quickly.

Latham, completely different story. 27 ODIs, a solitary 50, a bung strikerate and he's hardly looked the part. As I said, I just feel like we're going to get a couple of years down the track then have to look for someone else. Hope he proves me wrong.

 

[jcas0167]

Zimbabwe looked pretty excited for scoring 300 against the minnow attack.

Henry
McClenaghan
Neesham
NcCullum
Sodhi

is hardly top-class

Given the exodus of players and turmoil that country had endured I think Zimbabwe should be thrilled to record a win against NZ, second string attack or otherwise.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Given the exodus of players and turmoil that country had endured I think Zimbabwe should be thrilled to record a win against NZ, second string attack or otherwise.

I definitely agree - I was a bit tongue in cheek - great for Zim

 

[cnerd123]

Loving how BD and Zim are starting to boss it in their own backyards. Awesome stuff.