New Zealand doom and gloom thread

[Bahnz]

I don't know how he will go ( Kane)
We have already seen him a number of times in odis and he was an average captain who made no mistakes while doing nothing memorably inventive.

The bar is pretty low as to what he has to live up to in the test match space so I am confident new Zealand's test match winning record will improve with him at the helm. Or basically even Tim southee at the helm.

I was so jealous of Australia actually having plans for our batsman. I look forward to a new era of cricket.

Godspeed Kane.

Did Australia really have plans for our batsmen though? I mean, besides bowling in a tight off-stump corridor to Kane - which isn't really rocket science in the first place, I struggle to think of the Australians really executing set plans, it was more just a case of them bowling well.

 

[Hurricane]

Did Australia really have plans for our batsmen though? I mean, besides bowling in a tight off-stump corridor to Kane - which isn't really rocket science in the first place, I struggle to think of the Australians really executing set plans, it was more just a case of them bowling well.

1) Guptil - any delivery will do - no plan necessary
2) Latham - Plan equals = in the channel since he is still developing his leaving game. If he gets to 40 bring on Lyon.
3) Kane - yes definitely a plan and an intricate one which would take me a while to describe if I was to come close to doing it justice.
4) Nicholls - doesn't warrant a plan plus he was new to them.
5) Brendon - They got him out with a back up plan in the first inning. Everything in at leg stump and at his hip. Without that plan he was on for 250.
6) Corey - He is not an LBW candidate don't waste your time with balls at the stumps. Be patient and let him self implode.
7) BJ Watling - 6/7th stump line by memory. They went wider than normal iirc

 

[Spark]

1) Guptil - any delivery will do - no plan necessary
2) Latham - Plan equals = in the channel since he is still developing his leaving game. If he gets to 40 bring on Lyon.
3) Kane - yes definitely a plan and an intricate one which would take me a while to describe if I was to come close to doing it justice.
4) Nicholls - doesn't warrant a plan plus he was new to them.
5) Brendon - They got him out with a back up plan in the first inning. Everything in at leg stump and at his hip. Without that plan he was on for 250.
6) Corey - He is not an LBW candidate don't waste your time with balls at the stumps. Be patient and let him self implode.
7) BJ Watling - 6/7th stump line by memory. They went wider than normal iirc

TBF they very much tried to get him LBW in the second innings of the 1st Test, and it worked perfectly.

 

[Hurricane]

TBF they very much tried to get him LBW in the second innings of the 1st Test, and it worked perfectly.

True but they didn't go back to that though in the 2nd test. I don't rate him as a weak defender off the stumps. I think his entire defensive system is test match standard and definitely better than Martin's and Brendon's to name two people. He has no third gear though. And the Aussies dried him up at times.

 

[Spark]

True but they didn't go back to that though in the 2nd test. I don't rate him as a weak defender off the stumps. I think his entire defensive system is test match standard and definitely better than Martin's and Brendon's to name two people. He has no third gear though. And the Aussies dried him up at times.

Which surprised me, to be honest, since they were getting notably more reverse swing than in the 1st Test. Probably that's just a product of the fact that MMarsh was bowling particularly well at the time, and it was something that Smith decided to try out on the spot rather than a set play.

I do agree with the lack of a third gear though. Against really good, relentless attacks, you gotta find a way to turn the strike over at least semi-regularly, and not just let the bowlers pin you down.

 

[Hurricane]

Which surprised me, to be honest, since they were getting notably more reverse swing than in the 1st Test. Probably that's just a product of the fact that MMarsh was bowling particularly well at the time, and it was something that Smith decided to try out on the spot rather than a set play.

Agreed

 

[Skyliner]

I think the big thing working against Kane was that the Australians could devote 95% of their planning time to developing intricate plans to stop him scoring and to get him out, because they knew that most of the other guys would get themselves out.

I remember Simon Doull on commentary ****ling on and on about where Tim Southee should bat and how much of a threat he'd pose the Aussies further down the order. After several minutes of this Brendan Julian gave an audible snort of derision and said "Trust me, the Australians won't be worried about Tim Southee, they'll be worried about breaking this partnership".

It worries me the extent of control Hesson / McCullum had over individual players methods of scoring runs. I remember in the Playing Mantis book Coney saying how players have to find their own method, and this is exemplified by Kane's approach. It is a team game played by individuals. I honestly believe that Latham , Anderson have undersold themselves at times because they've been encouraged to play an overly aggressive style.

Kane in the second innings NZ innings of the second test saw off Hazlewood then harvested against the inferior bowling of Marsh. That was smart batting. There should not be pressure on batsmen in tests to maintain a consistent strike rate. Sometimes you have to admit the bowlers are on top, weather the storm, then make the hay later.

I think an incorrect approach to test cricket was adopted after the test we won against PAK in the UAE. The Philip Hughes tragedy had occurred and McCullum scored his double-century in an uninhibited, distracted mind state. This uninhibited, let the raw aggression flow through you mindset became the teams blueprint. But PAK minds were not on the game. They didn't want to play on but we're forced to by their board. Craig harvested cheap wickets. It was a unique and wierd test match, but what happened in that game became some sort of 'we've stumbled on the formula for success' moment and I think it took us down the wrong path.

 

[Zinzan]

Still wouldn't mind Taylor getting another run at the captaincy. Still accept that it'll never happen.

Me too, I worry it's maybe 2 years too early for KW and would prefer he concentrates on purely being the teams best batsman for the next couple of years, but yeah won't happen.

 

[hendrix]

It is a team game played by individuals. I honestly believe that Latham , Anderson have undersold themselves at times because they've been encouraged to play an overly aggressive style.
.

Agree with the overriding point, and I agree to a degree about Anderson (although he was probably the only positive from this tour), but it's actually the opposite with Latham.

After he scored his first century in the UAE (a place where you HAVE to play conservatively under normal circumstances), Baz' comments were along the lines of "he knows his scoring regions and he's a battler" which is a massive disservice to his talents. Sure, he sometimes bats a bit like Rigor but he's playing within himself. I think McCullum has said "play you're natural game, Tom, you're a conservative batsman, bat conservatively" when I just don't think that's reality. The guy has shots all around the wicket.

He just needs to go for some 10-15km runs 3-4x per week.

 

[NZTailender]

Latham reminds me of Williamson but left handed. If he takes up Kane's work ethic (or Rigors even), he could generate a really great career.

One of the key things that's come out of the last four months is it really wise to keep playing Southee and Boult when they're obviously not 100%? Do they really have that little faith in the next cabs off the ranks (well, Henry and Bracewell didn't do that great) that they'd rather play faltering players than rest and recuperate them properly?

 

[Hurricane]

Latham reminds me of Williamson but left handed. If he takes up Kane's work ethic (or Rigors even), he could generate a really great career.

One of the key things that's come out of the last four months is it really wise to keep playing Southee and Boult when they're obviously not 100%? Do they really have that little faith in the next cabs off the ranks (well, Henry and Bracewell didn't do that great) that they'd rather play faltering players than rest and recuperate them properly?

Southee's run up looked crocked due to his injury all test long.

 

[Immenso]

Agree with the overriding point, and I agree to a degree about Anderson (although he was probably the only positive from this tour), but it's actually the opposite with Latham.

After he scored his first century in the UAE (a place where you HAVE to play conservatively under normal circumstances), Baz' comments were along the lines of "he knows his scoring regions and he's a battler" which is a massive disservice to his talents. Sure, he sometimes bats a bit like Rigor but he's playing within himself. I think McCullum has said "play you're natural game, Tom, you're a conservative batsman, bat conservatively" when I just don't think that's reality. The guy has shots all around the wicket.

He just needs to go for some 10-15km runs 3-4x per week.

Disagree he has shots all round the wicket at this level. He looked the easiest to plan for and shut down.
The shots he has control over ( the leg clip to the pacers , the cut to the spinners) they would plug with 2 fielders. Then feed the area he has no control over ( his off and cover drives).

Seriously don't think he has any placement skills with his offside play. His drives are all the same shot regardless of the vagaries of how far outside off the line is. Whether the shot then sends the ball through straight, mid off or cover seems to be down to how much slice he gets on it or not.

 

[Immenso]

I think the big thing working against Kane was that the Australians could devote 95% of their planning time to developing intricate plans to stop him scoring and to get him out, because they knew that most of the other guys would get themselves out.

I remember Simon Doull on commentary ****ling on and on about where Tim Southee should bat and how much of a threat he'd pose the Aussies further down the order. After several minutes of this Brendan Julian gave an audible snort of derision and said "Trust me, the Australians won't be worried about Tim Southee, they'll be worried about breaking this partnership".

It worries me the extent of control Hesson / McCullum had over individual players methods of scoring runs. I remember in the Playing Mantis book Coney saying how players have to find their own method, and this is exemplified by Kane's approach. It is a team game played by individuals. I honestly believe that Latham , Anderson have undersold themselves at times because they've been encouraged to play an overly aggressive style.

Kane in the second innings NZ innings of the second test saw off Hazlewood then harvested against the inferior bowling of Marsh. That was smart batting. There should not be pressure on batsmen in tests to maintain a consistent strike rate. Sometimes you have to admit the bowlers are on top, weather the storm, then make the hay later.

I think an incorrect approach to test cricket was adopted after the test we won against PAK in the UAE. The Philip Hughes tragedy had occurred and McCullum scored his double-century in an uninhibited, distracted mind state. This uninhibited, let the raw aggression flow through you mindset became the teams blueprint. But PAK minds were not on the game. They didn't want to play on but we're forced to by their board. Craig harvested cheap wickets. It was a unique and wierd test match, but what happened in that game became some sort of 'we've stumbled on the formula for success' moment and I think it took us down the wrong path.

It's like you've reached inside my head and grabbed my thoughts. Been thinking the exact same thing on all these points.

 

[Flem274*]

Pretty sold on a powerful engine room for South Africa

1. Tom Latham
2. Martin Guptill
3. Kane Williamson
4. Ross Taylor
5. Henry Nicholls
6. Corey Anderson
7. BJ Watling
8. Mitchell Santner
9. Neil Wagner
10.
11.

Santa is probably going to be a batting allrounder in time but the teams needs trump his needs - he plays in the engine room as Vettori's heir and in return we don't expect him to win test matches with his bowling unless India pull out another Dean Elgar 7fer pitch.

Nicholls gets the summer barring something extreme. A 50 and three failures against the second best bowling attack in the world in his debut series is fine.

There is no one better qualified for the second opener spot than Martin Guptill in ODI mode. One good but not dominant season from Ben Smith (who tends to get out to balls rising on him a lot) is not enough. Daniel Flynn is in that kind of territory and Brownlie is flopping.

Will Young needs to score more hundreds to make the team. Michael Bracewell might require his timing to be on and own the jammiest hundred in NZ A history, but the guy knows how to score tons. Hasn't really fired this season though. Happy with either to join the squad.

Pull Southee and Boult from the T20 no one cares cup and get them working with Jurgenson/Bond all winter to correct the technical issues other posters have raised over the summer. If they can't be corrected in time, they don't play because they were far from test standard this summer and it sucks to admit that. I love piling on Northern Districts but I've always loved watching our new ball duo.

I'll end by saying something that is probably equally a good chance and also a desperate hope - Kane Williamson will be New Zealand's Allan Border as captain.

Feel free to put that in the laughable/genius calls threads in five years either way.

 

[Moss]

I hope Latham views his county stint as an opportunity to REALLY work on his stamina and capacity for crease occupation. Though of course it's not that simple, he struggles with piercing the field quite a bit for example. But would be happy if he got back to where he was during the Windies/UAE.

And yeah, Southee/Boult for the World T20? Sigh. If I'm not mistaken they have IPL contracts as well.

 

[Dan]

Might be a controversial opinion, but NZ may well be better without Baz.

 

[mr_mister]

tell ya what I admire the passion and level of analysis you kiwis display regarding your team

 

[Zinzan]

I've been thinking he's not really gonna sound good reading out the Dream Big New Zealand ad.

Great player, bad voice.

Indeed, he doesn't have a voice for future commentary either...

 

[Bahnz]

Southee's run up looked crocked due to his injury all test long.

Yeah, this was certainly the case at Wellington, and he was probably still in pain at Christchurch as well. Fully concede to Flem that we should've left Southee out in this series given his ruined build-up and the fact he was only about 80% fit.

 

[Bahnz]

I think the big thing working against Kane was that the Australians could devote 95% of their planning time to developing intricate plans to stop him scoring and to get him out, because they knew that most of the other guys would get themselves out.

I remember Simon Doull on commentary ****ling on and on about where Tim Southee should bat and how much of a threat he'd pose the Aussies further down the order. After several minutes of this Brendan Julian gave an audible snort of derision and said "Trust me, the Australians won't be worried about Tim Southee, they'll be worried about breaking this partnership".

It worries me the extent of control Hesson / McCullum had over individual players methods of scoring runs. I remember in the Playing Mantis book Coney saying how players have to find their own method, and this is exemplified by Kane's approach. It is a team game played by individuals. I honestly believe that Latham , Anderson have undersold themselves at times because they've been encouraged to play an overly aggressive style.

Kane in the second innings NZ innings of the second test saw off Hazlewood then harvested against the inferior bowling of Marsh. That was smart batting. There should not be pressure on batsmen in tests to maintain a consistent strike rate. Sometimes you have to admit the bowlers are on top, weather the storm, then make the hay later.

I think an incorrect approach to test cricket was adopted after the test we won against PAK in the UAE. The Philip Hughes tragedy had occurred and McCullum scored his double-century in an uninhibited, distracted mind state. This uninhibited, let the raw aggression flow through you mindset became the teams blueprint. But PAK minds were not on the game. They didn't want to play on but we're forced to by their board. Craig harvested cheap wickets. It was a unique and wierd test match, but what happened in that game became some sort of 'we've stumbled on the formula for success' moment and I think it took us down the wrong path.

Agree with a lot of this post but disagree with this point. Anderson has always been prone to an ill-advised wog when well set in test cricket, and I haven't seen any change in Latham's approach whatsoever. Southee only ever briefly flirted with trying to bat properly, and basically gave that away once his bowling started becoming good in 2012. In fact, the only batsmen who I've seen noticeably change their approach in test cricket has been McCullum himself. The real impact of the "UAE blueprint" has been the tendancy for McCullum to experiment with more ott fieldsets, that he's tended to chop and change without a clear plan.