***Official*** New Zealand tour of Zimbabwe and South Africa 2016

[Starfighter]

suspect it was 50% giving seamers 1st chance and 50% hiding the opening bats.

20/80

 

[Zinzan]

Kiwis in big trouble here.

Think the decision to bowl first suits their team selection but it counts for nowt if you don't take wickets

Yeah, I really don't on this occasion. Tactically, their best option was to bring Raval in for Nicholls, drop Guptill down the order and back themselves to handle to first hour or two while it was fresh. Just didn't back themselves.

 

[Starfighter]

When you've jumped that far off the ground to defend it might be worthwhile to duck or sway instead.

 

[hendrix]

Yeah, I really don't on this occasion. Tactically, their best option was to bring Raval in for Nicholls, drop Guptill down the order and back themselves to handle to first hour or two while it was fresh. Just didn't back themselves.

There's no reason to think Guptill will be any better than Nicholls.

And if you're going to drop anyone, you drop the guy who's conclusively and repeatedly proven to not be a test standard batsman.

 

[StephenZA]

100 run session for no wickets... good going boys. Well done!

 

[Zinzan]

There's no reason to think Guptill will be any better than Nicholls.

And if you're going to drop anyone, you drop the guy who's conclusively and repeatedly proven to not be a test standard batsman.

You're possibly right. It's Guptill's attractive stroke-play that gives me irrational hope that he might still make it as a competent Test no. 5 , not to mention I really don't like what I've seen of Nicholls to date. Not just in terms of his output either.

 

[Zinzan]

Played SA, couldn't have gone more to script than that. Good lesson for KW on his captaincy journey too. Even if they had some luck and nabbed two wickets in the session I'd say it was the wrong decision.

 

[hendrix]

You're possibly right. It's Guptill's attractive stroke-play that gives me irrational hope that he might still make it as a competent Test no. 5 , not to mention I really don't like what I've seen of Nicholls to date. Not just in terms of his output either.

Look I don't rate Nicholls either, but I can't stand the fact that people want to drop him to keep Guptill in the team.

I could understand if it was a Root scenario, where you know he's good enough but he hasn't quite been up to it at the top. But this is Martin Guptill. He's never looked up to it against test standard bowling.

Give Nicholls his shot (this should be he last test) then drop him if you want. Bring in a middle order batsman; I don't care who it is, just not Guptill.

 

[91Jmay]

I don't understand the idea that you can move a loose opener down the order and suddenly their flaws are masked. Nick off merchants will always be in trouble in test matches from ball 1 to ball 1000

 

[Starfighter]

Well the theory is obviously that the told ball won't swing and they won't nick off, but has it ever worked in practice?
They might just nick off to the spinners instead, or get out to balls deviating a small amount rather than missing them.

 

[NZTailender]

Gun that there's the Eng-Pak ODI one to watch during the lunch break.

 

[hendrix]

Well the theory is obviously that the told ball won't swing and they won't nick off, but has it ever worked in practice?
They might just nick off to the spinners instead, or get out to balls deviating a small amount rather than missing them.

Guptill's problems aren't that he's a nick-off merchant in the classical sense.

He just has no ability to play the ball late, underneath his eyes. He has developed his technique as a tall batsman able to bully medium paces by golf-swinging off the front foot. Thus even his best-intentioned defensive push is still a push way in front of his body. Worse, he cannot read length so if the bowler gets any appreciable bounce it will always catch the shoulder of his bat as he pushes forward.

Innocuous good length or back-of-a-length deliveries are completely unplayable for him at anything above medium pace from a bowler any taller than 5'10. He is invariably caught in the gully pushing forward and the ball takes the shoulder of the bat. A look down at the pitch as if the ball 'jumped' off it - no, it was just standard bounce from back-of-a-length.

 

[Zinzan]

Look I don't rate Nicholls either, but I can't stand the fact that people want to drop him to keep Guptill in the team.

I could understand if it was a Root scenario, where you know he's good enough but he hasn't quite been up to it at the top. But this is Martin Guptill. He's never looked up to it against test standard bowling.

Give Nicholls his shot (this should be he last test) then drop him if you want. Bring in a middle order batsman; I don't care who it is, just not Guptill.

Yeah, I need to get over the romanticism of Test-Guptill prospering, I can't disagree about his inability vs. test bowling.

 

[Starfighter]

Guptill's problems aren't that he's a nick-off merchant in the classical sense.
Innocuous good length or back-of-a-length deliveries are completely unplayable for him at anything above medium pace from a bowler any taller than 5'10. He is invariably caught in the gully pushing forward and the ball takes the shoulder of the bat. A look down at the pitch as if the ball 'jumped' off it - no, it was just standard bounce from back-of-a-length.

Why's he got such a good one day record though? I haven't seen too much of him, being young and all that, but he looked unsure at the crease even on the very benign wickets down here last summer, and certainly didn't look anywhere near a test class batsmen.

 

[NZTailender]

I don't feel as though 500 runs is worthy of scoreboard congratulations or notification.

 

[Starfighter]

Wait till four figures at least. I never see 1500 runs being considered a milestone.

 

[hendrix]

Why's he got such a good one day record though? I haven't seen too much of him, being young and all that, but he looked unsure at the crease even on the very benign wickets down here last summer, and certainly didn't look anywhere near a test class batsmen.

a) Most important is that there are poorer bowlers in ODI cricket - he really dines out on crap bowlers. Further to this is that his average is extremely good against the worst teams.
b) The best bowlers only get 10 overs - there'll always be a weak link
c) bowling plans and fields suit him a bit better - fewer slips, gullies, more fielders on the boundary.
d) FIelding restrictions also mean it's quite predictable where a bowler will bowl.

Smart teams have actually figured out that to Guptill they can get him if they treat the field and bowling plans like a test.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Why's he got such a good one day record though? I haven't seen too much of him, being young and all that, but he looked unsure at the crease even on the very benign wickets down here last summer, and certainly didn't look anywhere near a test class batsmen.

In ODIs he has a license to attack which somewhat hides his awful defense. Some people think he should just go out and attack in tests as well because it's better than his current strategy of getting out for single digits.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Actually hendrix's post makes more sense.

 

[hendrix]

In ODIs he has a license to attack which somewhat hides his awful defense. Some people think he should just go out and attack in tests as well because it's better than his current strategy of getting out for single digits.

yeah also that.