RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Reminder that Kyle Mills batted at 3 in one of those tests. Not as a night watchman, as an actual strategic move.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** New Zealand tour of Zimbabwe and South Africa 2016
- Thread starter Kippax
- Start date
African Monkey
U19 Vice-Captain
Lol I remember that. Chasing 250 we ended up being 28/6 before Marshall and Vettori managed to scrape our way to about 120 iirc, a similar innings to Lords in 2013.
Hurricane
Hall of Fame Member
I once nominated him for the best forward defensive stroke in the modern game.
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
That was the series I joined CW it seems. I didn't have the means to watch any of that series then, but for the following one in 2007 I was on night shift listening to RadioNZ coverage of our batting repeatedly getting destroyed. Despite this I was tired (delusional) and kept finding optimism in minor things, thinking if I did an hour's work I might come back to hear good news. So just to make sure, Steyn, Amla and Kallis completely demolished us beyond doubt.
Kippax
Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah, although Hendrix is quite a good and candid appraiser of emerging bats, and he finds Young to be unimpressive and limited btw. Being completely removed from New Zealand cricket's tribes and agendas, the bitter 'wets vs. dries' divide, I'd say Hendrix has proven himself ideally positioned to make the 'Latham vs. Rutherford' calls, the 'Ronchi should never open against Anderson in England' calls, the ones Hesson and McMillan are slightly too bumpkinish to know intuitively.
Does Young hit a mental brick wall at 60 or 70 because he possesses some really admirable Latham qualities in him, exhausting himself with a hard marking perfectionism? Or does he only get to 60 or 70 because he's even more limited through the leg side than say Sinclair was, and although he's nimble and has been seen happily using his feet to take the game to spinners, really requires the medium-pacers to stray into his favoured zones, otherwise he's negated and ground to a halt? Would a 48 strike-rate against Sri Lanka A's pies on the gentle roads of home become a turgid 28 strike-rate against South Africa or India away?
Last edited:
BeeGee
International Captain
Hell no.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
I'm flattered Kippax.
While I'd love to be considered maven of NZ domestic talent, most people recognized Latham as the better player and I think even the NZ selectors delayed the selection more to prevent stunting his growth than a genuine belief that Rutherford was better.
Moreover, it was you yourself that pulled the shot selection graphics...and those didn't exactly require special insight to read...
If Will Young gets the runs he should get his shot. I do have reservations about his limitations as you mentioned, and I think in terms of ability we'd be better off if Anderson and Neesham dedicated themselves to getting a deserved spot at 5. But hell, we're picking Nicholls - who also deserves his shot as does even Munro at this point. Just because we have an idea who the thoroughbreds might be doesn't mean we shouldn't give the other guys a shot. And Young is, well, young. So I'm all for it.
While I'd love to be considered maven of NZ domestic talent, most people recognized Latham as the better player and I think even the NZ selectors delayed the selection more to prevent stunting his growth than a genuine belief that Rutherford was better.
Moreover, it was you yourself that pulled the shot selection graphics...and those didn't exactly require special insight to read...
If Will Young gets the runs he should get his shot. I do have reservations about his limitations as you mentioned, and I think in terms of ability we'd be better off if Anderson and Neesham dedicated themselves to getting a deserved spot at 5. But hell, we're picking Nicholls - who also deserves his shot as does even Munro at this point. Just because we have an idea who the thoroughbreds might be doesn't mean we shouldn't give the other guys a shot. And Young is, well, young. So I'm all for it.
Kippax
Cricketer Of The Year
This Fairfax writer has talked himself into Dougeh at No. 8 over Henry for Durban. Sounds like Blocky/Fella will enjoy Sodhi's 13th-15th Test appearances before too long though. No emergency Jeets for India.
Black Caps coach Mike Hesson signals changes for step up against South Africa | Stuff.co.nz
Black Caps coach Mike Hesson signals changes for step up against South Africa | Stuff.co.nz
Flem274*
123/5
I'm biased, but as Hendrix says the question is "who is the best player we have?" and not "who is the next kane or ross?". The answer to the former question could be Nicholls, or Young, or someone else. There are a few guys on the radar.
I don't agree with Anderson or Neesham at #5 though. I like both, and both have shown the eye and the courage for test cricket but I think both have technical limitations as well. They're best used as heroic allrounders.
I'm cool with a hypothetical 28* (100) from Young against SA. A young (heh) batsman digging in against a good bowling attack who is strong through the offside, has an awesome leave and plays the ball late is someone we can work with. At the same age Watling was an absolute spud and he improved with time into a classy batsman.
I still suspect Young's problems mainly stem from losing concentration on 60*, rather than his tendency to get his front leg in the way of deliveries going down leg. I figure he should have ground his way to more tons by now if he had the concentration but with limited scoring zones.
I'm ok with Nicholls getting a proper go. He looked like a spud in Zimbabwe but he did show more against Australia's really good attack so he has some credit in the bank there.
I don't agree with Anderson or Neesham at #5 though. I like both, and both have shown the eye and the courage for test cricket but I think both have technical limitations as well. They're best used as heroic allrounders.
I'm cool with a hypothetical 28* (100) from Young against SA. A young (heh) batsman digging in against a good bowling attack who is strong through the offside, has an awesome leave and plays the ball late is someone we can work with. At the same age Watling was an absolute spud and he improved with time into a classy batsman.
I still suspect Young's problems mainly stem from losing concentration on 60*, rather than his tendency to get his front leg in the way of deliveries going down leg. I figure he should have ground his way to more tons by now if he had the concentration but with limited scoring zones.
I'm ok with Nicholls getting a proper go. He looked like a spud in Zimbabwe but he did show more against Australia's really good attack so he has some credit in the bank there.
Last edited:
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
yeah look at the way he plays the shots through the leg side. It's the opposite of the way KW or Ponting or Tendulkar do it. Does not get into line at all. The summit for this type of batsman is probably McCullum, but he was nowhere near as bad as Young in this regard, and certainly miles more talented.
With that said, this technique can actually work against Steyn-style bowlers. There's an Aussie batsman who did ok with it recently. Am I thinking of Burns? Compensates by using the Saffer step-across and it works out ok for him. Will still struggle against guys who can nip it back and keep a tight line. Might not be Burns.
With that said, this technique can actually work against Steyn-style bowlers. There's an Aussie batsman who did ok with it recently. Am I thinking of Burns? Compensates by using the Saffer step-across and it works out ok for him. Will still struggle against guys who can nip it back and keep a tight line. Might not be Burns.
Flem274*
123/5
Yeah that's fair, but I think his 60 and out sprees stem from the head rather than the technique. Colin Munro's batting technique amounts to swinging really really hard and he has no issues averaging 50 at a strike rate of 90 in domestic cricket. Rutherford is an offside width whore and has no issues either.
Plus I'd rather our younger players find out what they suck at in test cricket now rather than when they're 30. That's how we got BJ Watling good. It's why I have hope for Nicholls even if he doesn't succeed yet.
Plus I'd rather our younger players find out what they suck at in test cricket now rather than when they're 30. That's how we got BJ Watling good. It's why I have hope for Nicholls even if he doesn't succeed yet.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Yes, that's certainly true, and why I'd like for Anderson and Neesham to give it a proper crack. They've already played a lot of top level cricket for their age, so they have a working knowledge. Especially Anderson. Not the prettiest technique but I reckon he's learning how to work it pretty well.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Lol Dougeh becoming an allrounder kinda feels like Les Mills personal trainers thinking they're GPs. Floss those nerves! Remove those grains and gluten! Moar coconut oil and saturated fat!