**Official** New Zealand in Australia 2015

[Skyliner]

My wish for up-coming series is that we hear no more of the John Mitchell type double-speak about *playing our authentic style* and *earning the right to be aggressive* , *proactive captaincy* other such hog-wash. Cricket is a simple game, there are times when you need to attack, times when it is more prudent to defend, times when you need to adapt your game-plan to changing circumstances, nothing more complex than that.

 

[Immenso]

So that absolves him of backing away and weakly exposing his stumps with a 187-run lead, a guy well set at the other end and a guy with a 62.5 over old ball not bowling quickly at all? With two balls to see out before Bracewell gets strike at the other end? I'm not realistic to expect he might get in behind it and do so?

Worth a like, and, a comment to say I really, really, really agree with this.

 

[Hurricane]

My wish for up-coming series is that we hear no more of the John Mitchell type double-speak about *playing our authentic style* and *earning the right to be aggressive* , *proactive captaincy* other such hog-wash. Cricket is a simple game, there are times when you need to attack, times when it is more prudent to defend, times when you need to adapt your game-plan to changing circumstances, nothing more complex than that.

where do you stand on "expressing yourself"

 

[cnerd123]

Surely the end result is everything.

It is, but bad processes can lead to good results and good processes can lead to bad ones. Sometimes luck plays a role, sometimes new factors emerge that weren't under consideration when designing said process.

And anyways, Dan highlighted how Lyon benefitted from being treated differently to every other spinner before him. I thin Aus were extremely lucky to stumble upon him. England have followed the same process with their openers - had Lyth come off it wouldnt have meant they were right. He didnt come off and now they're stuck going back to Compton.

 

[Skyliner]

where do you stand on "expressing yourself"

More bulldust. I see Kane Williamson as a humble guy who leaves absolutely no stone unturned to perform a role where he can remain at the crease and win games for the team. His efforts are not getting the reward they deserve, and there are other players - and it seems to be the younger guys like Latham and Bracewell - who are adopting selfless roles. They are understated and humble yet they are doing the talking with bat and ball in hand. Ross Taylor is an old stager who found the will to defy the Aussies in Perth, and he's another guy of relatively few words.

I couldn't give a toss about *expressing yourself*. Its about doing what it takes to win games for the team and the country, and it's usually an extreme level of guts and application rather than flashy quick runs. I think you are right about McCullum's bat being too heavy; there's a couple of boundary shots in his repertoire that he's in control of. The rest of the time he is flailing the bat and deserves as much luck as gets. Playing that way the best you can expect is streaky runs while your luck holds.

 

[Athlai]

It is, but bad processes can lead to good results and good processes can lead to bad ones. Sometimes luck plays a role, sometimes new factors emerge that weren't under consideration when designing said process.

And anyways, Dan highlighted how Lyon benefitted from being treated differently to every other spinner before him. I thin Aus were extremely lucky to stumble upon him. England have followed the same process with their openers - had Lyth come off it wouldnt have meant they were right. He didnt come off and now they're stuck going back to Compton.

I think the general rule of thumb should be unless someone is demanding the position with domestic success, the incumbent spud should get a home and away series to stake their claim. I think it gradually became clear that Australia made a mistake with letting Hauritz go when they began the spin-merry-go round. I think Michael Bracewell will eventually be Latham's long term opening partner but I think we're at least two years from that.

 

[Skyliner]

It is, but bad processes can lead to good results and good processes can lead to bad ones. Sometimes luck plays a role, sometimes new factors emerge that weren't under consideration when designing said process.

And anyways, Dan highlighted how Lyon benefitted from being treated differently to every other spinner before him. I thin Aus were extremely lucky to stumble upon him. England have followed the same process with their openers - had Lyth come off it wouldnt have meant they were right. He didnt come off and now they're stuck going back to Compton.

Unless you try people you never know. It seems in NZ that there are certain people who deserve to get a gig as of right, and we cry for them when they get dropped - yet no-one crys a river over the guys that never get an opportunity. The thing about Guptill is that he's never set the world on fire in 1st class cricket. He went past the next cab off the rank because of what he did in white ball cricket. That double hundred against the Windies sealed it, and it really shouldn't have. The longer the experiment goes on the more sharply the fact that he is a white ball specialist comes into focus.

 

[morgieb]

Wait not Boyce; forgot the name of the chinaman spinner they tried out who did decently in the West Indies.

Casson. I think though he wouldn't have lasted long-term at international level, given it wasn't long before he got dropped from his state team and he had heart issues anyway.

 

[Bahnz]

I am happy with our seamers throughout the match.

Not happy with the batting in the 3rd inning. It was 50-60 runs light.

1) The openers are supposed to be the most defensive batsman in the team but both of them felt frustrated they couldn't score runs in a TEST match. I am more mad at Latham for not learning from Guptil's example. Both out trying to play expansive drives against a Bowler who was on fire.

2) Kane became obsessed with playing the ball late and forgot to push his foot towards the ball, if you are going to bat from the crease then it doesn't take much movement to get an edge. Poor technique from a master technician. I suspect the pitch intimidated him into camping on the crease. Unfortunately - Kane and Ross are our batting plan. There is no plan B. You needed to come off Kane.

3) Taylor -Off balance, premeditated, I could go on.

4) Brendon have already analysed his poor excuse for a defensive technique. Call your next series your retirement farewell as your batting has lost it. I also am convinced you aren't strong enough or a big enough man physically to use a 3lb four ounce bat or whatever they said that tree trunk weighed. You can see Brendon often late to each shot and just struggling to actually generate bat speed. Perhaps he actually pulls off that slash shot in the first inning against Starc with a lighter bat.

5) Santer - 30s and 40s are not good enough. When you are set you must carry on. Despite your innings I think you need more time in Plunket as both of your dismissals were not how a batsman gets out. Signs of someone who does not have many centuries under his belt. I agreed with your decision to go over the top against Lyon - be patient waiting for the right ball and DO NOT make up your mind before he has started his run up. Test cricket is not a development league. I would only be picking you where Cory is unavailable.
I will reserve comment on your fielding for later.

6) Watling - stage fright all series.

7) Mark Craig - does not bat like a team man.

8) Bracewell - has finally figured out how to bat in test cricket. He obviously has a 1st gear, defence, and a 4th gear - smashing it - so just alternated between those two gears. Keep up the good work.

9) Southee/Boult. As a club captain I don't really care how my number 10 and 11 bat. I do care how my number 8 and 9 bat though greatly.
Numbers 8 and 9 should be putting on 20 something every time they bat with the odd fifty thrown in. Numbers 10 and 11 - I don't even really see much point in letting them take up valuable time batting in the nets unless they have come to me and said they want to work their way up the order. To emphasise my point, if Tim and Trent bat like they do out in the middle of a test match with 50 thousand people watching them, how do you think they bat in the nets, it would be a farce bowling to them and I can only imagine it is a circus.
If I had to bowl to either one of them I would run in and fire it six inches outside leg stump so that he just tickles me down to fine leg, rather than bowling him good nuts and watching him belt some good length delivery over my head and making me walk 5 minutes to get it. I am semi serious on this point. Tim's net batting must be a crime scene.

1) I actually didn’t mind Latham going after the ball he got. Unlike the ball that got Guptill out, Latham’s dismissal was much closer to a genuine wide half volley that Latham regularly hammers to the cover fence. The problem was that Latham played for a hint of inswing, and there was none – whether that was clever bowling or a bit of luck on the bowler’s half I don’t know, but it was just enough to beat the middle of the bat and grab the outside edge.
Nonetheless, while the execution of the stroke wasn’t great, the decision to try and drive the ball was ok imo. Latham was done by good pressure bowling followed by an excellent carrot ball. Guptill’s dismissal – on the other hand – was yet another example of a systemic flaw in his judgement. I find his inability to rectify his technical flaws to be far more infuriating than Latham’s mistake.

2) Nah, KW got good balls in both innings on a pitch where there was movement on offer throughout. Playing at the ball late with its so soft hands is what’s made him a great player over the last 18 months. That’s how he scored a hundred at Lord’s, that’s how he dominated the Aussies in this series. He’s not Bradman, every now and then he will fail (just as he did at Headingly). You just have to hope that when he does someone else in the top 6 will come through.

3) Yeah, Taylor’s batting was far too devil may care for my taste. Maybe he was feeling a bit ****y following his dominance at Perth, but his approach was all wrong in this one.

4) Overreaction much? Ok, his defence technique at Adelaide was poor. Wandering across the stumps and playing with a diagonal bat was completely wrong for the conditions. But saying his batting has lost it following one poor series against a premium quality bowling lineup is ott (especially given how badly he was sawn off at Brisbane when in full flow).

5) Bit harsh on our top scorer in a low scoring match, but I agree that both of his dismissals were horribly loose. The second innings one was particularly heart breaking as he’d played with such determination and endeavour up to that point. Real debutante dismissal, and yeah ideally he wouldn’t be playing test cricket yet. But with Corey and Neesh both some way from a return I suspect he’ll be receiving his middle-order batting apprenticeship at the highest level for a while yet.

6) Yeah, gutting to watch our best player in England come up so far short here – though at least you can say it generally required good balls to get him out.

7) Yeah, look. Craig was bad with the bat but what was really frustrating was that he really should have scored so many more runs. Repeatedly got good starts, saw off tough spells, played some attractive shots and then just threw it away time and time again. Blurgh.

8) No he hasn’t. He batted well in 1 innings out of 5. That’s not good enough. Another D grade for Doug’s batting.

9) Small correction here – numbers 8 and 9 should be aiming to get to 20 every time. You can’t help it if you’re new at the crease and get a 150kmh inswinging yorker first up.

I stopped paying close attention after Santner's dropped catch. As soon as it went up I thought "Please let Martin Guptil be underneath this". But it was the rookie. What annoyed me about the drop was two fold. A) he was a deer in the headlights (all catching requires is determination) B) when they did a close up of him afterwards they showed him looking like Joe Cool with his collar up on end. He is ****y. It reminded me of Latham on debut where he swaggered around and got a top score of 3 or something and then wised up after that. On debut Latham wore a long sleeve shirt on a boiling hot day because it looked cool.

Hahar! Darn youths with their ****y stride and their popular music...

To be honest, I'd much rather watch youngsters strutting around the paddock like they were born to it than someone like Franklin whose shoulder width contracted by 6 inches every time he got hit to the fence

 

[SteveNZ]

Yes, you aren't realistic to expect a #11 to bat like someone who knows how to bat.

Okay well you and I will agree to disagree. As I've said, the guy knows how to bat. http://www.cornwallcricket.co.nz/files/2364/files/Club Championship Booklet 2014.pdf - 2011-12 Batsman of the Tournament – Trent Boult (Otumoetai Cadets). He scored something like 450 runs in 5 matches, with two centuries.

Now before someone regales me with the fact that's club cricket and Test level is completely different, I'm well aware. But why can't I expect a guy who can clearly bat, clearly see the ball, clearly has ability - to not hold up an end when required in Test cricket? He has access to the best coaches, can face first class and Test bowlers etc. Yet when his side needed him, he pea-hearted out to a guy bowling 140km with an old ball, which shouldn't scare anyone.

#11 isn't a badge that makes you useless. Your runs count the same as 10s, or 8s, or 1s. I know I'm not unfair in expecting that he works harder on his game and contribute more, in any situation. Nathan Lyon does it and he's 11. I'd say ability wise there's hardly any difference.

 

[hendrix]

Yeah these guys are professionals.

It's entirely reasonable to expect application at the crease from the tailenders.

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah agree as well. Boult can bat. As Athers pointed out, he's one of the best No. 11's in test history and has shown an ability to both club quick runs, and to hang around and support his partner. The situation yesterday called for the later.

 

[Skyliner]

Yeah agree as well. Boult can bat. As Athers pointed out, he's one of the best No. 11's in test history and has shown an ability to both club quick runs, and to hang around and support his partner. The situation yesterday called for the later.

What's happening with the flamingo thing? There was an instance where Boult did the knee raise, then exaggerated it a while after the ball had pinged off the bat. Is he trying to make himself a figure of fun like Bowden and the crooked finger? I remember him scoring quick runs at Hobart and thinking he could be an all-rounder of sorts with a bit of work. Both him and Southee now seem to treat their batting as a joke.

 

[Bahnz]

What's happening with the flamingo thing? There was an instance where Boult did the knee raise, then exaggerated it a while after the ball had pinged off the bat. Is he trying to make himself a figure of fun like Bowden and the crooked finger? I remember him scoring quick runs at Hobart and thinking he could be an all-rounder of sorts with a bit of work. Both him and Southee now seem to treat their batting as a joke.

To a certain extent I don't mind them not working on their batting. Their bowlers, and their value to NZ is in them being the best bowlers they can be. But it is sad seeing Southee playing a forward defence so awkward it would make even Chris Martin sn-igger.

EDIT: God damn it mods, could you sort out the filter so that the last 6 letters of the word sn-igger don't get starred out?!

 

[Skyliner]

To a certain extent I don't mind them not working on their batting. Their bowlers, and their value to NZ is in them being the best bowlers they can be. But it is sad seeing Southee playing a forward defence so awkward it would make even Chris Martin sn-igger.

EDIT: God damn it mods, could you sort out the filter so that the last 6 letters of the word sn-igger don't get starred out?!

I just wonder about the flamingo leg raise. You'd expect the batting development to go forwards over time, rather than work in an alarmingly comical leg raise.

 

[Skyliner]

Five reasons why the Black Caps lost the third test - other than Nigel Llong | Stuff.co.nz

I'm sure the media read these threads.

 

[Immenso]

Kane didn't play in the 2 day Mickey-Class match with the pink ball/lights. Some others, e.g. Watling batted twice.

Kane is someone I trust not to need a cattle prod to take his preparation warm up opportunities seriously. Unlike about 75% of the rest of that team. But. He now has a pink ball average of 15.5 ..... And a red ball average of 49.

Just sayin' Kane.

 

[Skyliner]

Kane didn't play in the 2 day Mickey-Class match with the pink ball/lights. Some others, e.g. Watling batted twice.

Kane is someone I trust not to need a cattle prod to take his preparation warm up opportunities seriously. Unlike about 75% of the rest of that team. But. He now has a pink ball average of 15.5 ..... And a red ball average of 49.

Just sayin' Kane.

Warner was player of the series and I reckon his pink ball average is pretty dire as well. Watling batted twice and Guptill got a century in the pink ball warm-up, and boy did we see the pay-off in the test.

 

[Hurricane]

2) Nah, KW got good balls in both innings on a pitch where there was movement on offer throughout. Playing at the ball late with its so soft hands is what’s made him a great player over the last 18 months. That’s how he scored a hundred at Lord’s, that’s how he dominated the Aussies in this series. He’s not Bradman, every now and then he will fail (just as he did at Headingly). You just have to hope that when he does someone else in the top 6 will come through.

I once programmed a computer game for cricket. We rated each delivery as Great, Good, Average, poor. Different types of batsman had different propensities for getting out or alternatively scoring runs for each delivery type. The better the bowler was the more likely he was to bowl a great or good delivery.

Both of those balls to Kane were between Great and Good. I have seen much better deliveries than those two in my life and seen the batsman live to tell the tale.

We needed Kane.

Apparently when the stage was large and the West Indies needed Viv according to something I was reading he was always there, always, not sometimes, always.

Kane and Ross needed to come through. It can't be a case of well sometimes the supporting batsman need to do their share too, not in the final innings of the deciding test match of a historic match. You don't leave it up to Santner and Watling. You lead from the front as the premier batsman and you score those runs. As I have pointed out had he moved his foot forward positively he wouldn't have gotten out. He got a bit freaked out by the pitch and wasn't positive enough in his defence. For the rest of the tour he had managed positive foot movement while also playing it late. Here he lingered on the crease.

The ball barely moved either. I was surprised he didn't at least edge it to 2nd slip with the outside half of his bat.

tl;dr version - Unplayable balls do happen in cricket. In 33 years of cricket I have faced 5-6 unplayable balls out of 500 innings. Neither of those balls were unplayable. He needed to perform and the fact he had made centuries earlier in the tour doesn't excuse him. RossisBoss moved his feet better than him.

Cricketing theory version - We once had a long debate one winter's evening between tours out of what was the key to success
a) Did we want our good players - at the time, young Kane, Ross, Brendon and Daniel to score more runs than they already were or did we want the supporting cast to chip in more regularly to take the weight off their shoulders. Half of the posters were split. I actually leaned towards asking for more of a team effort and wanted more contributions from everyone.

As it turned out history has shown us with our performances that we picked up when those four (minus Dan) went to new levels and did even better. RossisBoss suddenly went to new levels and Kane has become a top 3 batsman in the world. That has been what has changed this team and is the key to success. Kane and the Boss must show up when it counts and not leave it to other people. Even if that does sound like an unreasonable demand from them.

I agreed with some other things you said and disagreed with others but Kane was the only thing I thought strongly enough to respond over.

 

[Skyliner]

I once programmed a computer game for cricket. We rated each delivery as Great, Good, Average, poor. Different types of batsman had different propensities for getting out or alternatively scoring runs for each delivery type. The better the bowler was the more likely he was to bowl a great or good delivery.

Both of those balls to Kane were between Great and Good. I have seen much better deliveries than those two in my life and seen the batsman live to tell the tale.

We needed Kane.

Apparently when the stage was large and the West Indies needed Viv according to something I was reading he was always there, always, not sometimes, always.

Kane and Ross needed to come through. It can't be a case of well sometimes the supporting batsman need to do their share too, not in the final innings of the deciding test match of a historic match. You don't leave it up to Santner and Watling. You lead from the front as the premier batsman and you score those runs. As I have pointed out had he moved his foot forward positively he wouldn't have gotten out. He got a bit freaked out by the pitch and wasn't positive enough in his defence. For the rest of the tour he had managed positive foot movement while also playing it late. Here he lingered on the crease.

The ball barely moved either. I was surprised he didn't at least edge it to 2nd slip with the outside half of his bat.

tl;dr version - Unplayable balls do happen in cricket. In 33 years of cricket I have faced 5-6 unplayable balls out of 500 innings. Neither of those balls were unplayable. He needed to perform and the fact he had made centuries earlier in the tour doesn't excuse him. RossisBoss moved his feet better than him.

Cricketing theory version - We once had a long debate one winter's evening between tours out of what was the key to success
a) Did we want our good players - at the time, young Kane, Ross, Brendon and Daniel to score more runs than they already were or did we want the supporting cast to chip in more regularly to take the weight off their shoulders. Half of the posters were split. I actually leaned towards asking for more of a team effort and wanted more contributions from everyone.

As it turned out history has shown us with our performances that we picked up when those four (minus Dan) went to new levels and did even better. RossisBoss suddenly went to new levels and Kane has become a top 3 batsman in the world. That has been what has changed this team and is the key to success. Kane and the Boss must show up when it counts and not leave it to other people. Even if that does sound like an unreasonable demand from them.

I agreed with some other things you said and disagreed with others but Kane was the only thing I thought strongly enough to respond over.

That's just so harsh. If those 2 deliveries were only between Great and Good then what about all the short and wide filth that our lads committed hari kari too? The guy carried the NZ batting in Brisbane, and was one half of the partnership that carried us in Perth. How about the captain - approaching 100 consecutive test matches - not slash like a maniac with the inevitable result? I feel that Kane should be entitled to not have to carry the batting in every innings.

We've also had Watling praised to the skies for his batting, and he decided not to turn up on this tour. He got a succession of Jaffa's?; sh*t, he even hit a full toss straight into someone's hands.

Kane's so good it seems we are now excusing others playing like schmucks: stage fright or summink. Watlings got 5 test centuries and featured in too of our best partnerships of recent times - he has no excuses.