***Official*** New Zealand in India 2016

[Shri]

Yeah I'll just leave this here

Holy ****. Sehwag's wife! Was that intentional?

 

[honestbharani]

lol... amazing

 

[J_C]

https://twitter.com/followyoursport/status/786089045160030210

 

[OverratedSanity]

Mishra and Bhajji

 

[honestbharani]

I loved Srini Mama and Fleming commentating too

 

[NZTailender]

The ****. Cricinfo gave Boult a 5 in the series marks. **** off.

Edit: they gave Taylor 1 and referenced the article they wrote before the series

 

[Zinzan]

I'd possibly have given Boult a 5.5 or 6, but I don't think they're far off, assuming a 5 is a pass.

Taylor deserves a 1 or 2 tbf. He was diabolical, and as they rightly said, he just couldn't back his defense.

 

[NZTailender]

I'd possibly have given Boult a 5.5 or 6, but I don't think they're far off, assuming a 5 is a pass.

Taylor deserves a 1 or 2 tbf. He was diabolical, and as they rightly said, he just couldn't back his defense.

Did you watch Boult bowl? He performed the best of the lot. His stats for the series may be a 5 or 6 but there's more to it than stats.

Giving Taylor a 1 and Nicholls & Guptill a 3 is a bit much and just smacks of them trying to up their pre-series piece. Guptill did well in his 71 but the rest of his innings were just as, if not more, diabolical than Taylor's.

2-3 is about right for Taylor.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah woeful ratings.

 

[Zinzan]

Did you watch Boult bowl? He performed the best of the lot. His stats for the series may be a 5 or 6 but there's more to it than stats.

Yeah I did see Boult, and thought he did pretty well given the circumstances and averaged 33, hence why i'd probably give him a 5.5-6, slightly higher than cricinfo. You think they should have rated him a 7 for 10 wickets @ 33 in 3 tests?

To be fair, Guptill did average twice that of Taylor, so yeah if you're rating Taylor a 1, then Guptill should probably be a 3 or thereabouts. Whether you want to say Taylor should have been a 2 instead of a 1, it's hardly much of a difference is it?

 

[SteveNZ]

It's the ratings at the higher end that have me flummoxed.

Latham a 7, for averaging 32 - less than his career average - and making three starts without cashing in on any of them when his side desperately needed him to. I'd have him close to 5 than 7. Seeing it's a sunny day I'll give him 6 rounded up. Actually no, I won't. An average of 32 shouldn't constitute a pass mark for a Test opener with his ability. How does Kane get three less for averaging slightly more?

Absolutely insane that Boult got 5 for his efforts when Latham, Ronchi and to a lesser extent Santner got two more than him.

Lol at Wagner being a one-trick pony too. Like it matters a **** how people get out.

 

[NZTailender]

Yeah I did see Boult, and thought he did pretty well given the circumstances and averaged 33, hence why i'd probably give him a 5.5-6, slightly higher than cricinfo. You think they should have rated him a 7 for 10 wickets @ 33 in 3 tests?

Considering Shami got an 8 for 8 wickets @ 30, he should've gotten at 7 at least. He bowled better than Shami did imho.

To be fair, Guptill did average twice that of Taylor, so yeah if you're rating Taylor a 1, then Guptill should probably be a 3 or thereabouts. Whether you want to say Taylor should have been a 2 instead of a 1, it's hardly much of a difference is it?

M y point was Cricinfo gave him a 1 and posted their video about his stats from before the series as though it was justification. Taylor had a poor series by anyone standards, but I don't think they could help themselves.

 

[Zinzan]

Well *** me, Just had a look at Taylor's numbers & I never realized he's never managed a Test 50 vs. SA, or that he averages a ridiculous 319 vs. Zim.

It really sucks that young cricket supporters purely looking at overall numbers may very well think Taylor is the Test equal to Martin Crowe.

 

[Zinzan]

Considering Shami got an 8 for 8 wickets @ 30, he should've gotten at 7 at least. He bowled better than Shami did imho.

I was honestly really impressed with Shami, and thought his figures belied how well he bowled, but I would have given him a 7, and Boult a 6 probably.

M y point was Cricinfo gave him a 1 and posted their video about his stats from before the series as though it was justification. Taylor had a poor series by anyone standards, but I don't think they could help themselves.

I'm not getting your point on this, so cricinfo write a pre-series piece regarding Taylor's record against quality opposition & he then fails miserably. So why wouldn't they feel justified in highlighting how right they were?

 

[SteveNZ]

Well *** me, Just had a look at Taylor's numbers & I never realized he's never managed a Test 50 vs. SA, or that he averages a ridiculous 319 vs. Zim.

It really sucks that young cricket supporters purely looking at overall numbers may very well think Taylor is the Test equal to Martin Crowe.

Yeah...someone posted one of those stats-based articles from Cricinfo which painted Ross out to be a downhill skiier. My instinct was to get defensive and find it outrageous that a guy can be accused of downhill skiing 6 months after scoring the highest ever total by a touring batsman in Australia. However, it's a fair argument when you look at the breakdown of who he's scored runs against. I wouldn't suggest he's a downhill skiier but he's certainly a rocks and diamonds (with more number of rocks) sort of player against good sides.

 

[Zinzan]

Yeah...someone posted one of those stats-based articles from Cricinfo which painted Ross out to be a downhill skiier. My instinct was to get defensive and find it outrageous that a guy can be accused of downhill skiing 6 months after scoring the highest ever total by a touring batsman in Australia. However, it's a fair argument when you look at the breakdown of who he's scored runs against. I wouldn't suggest he's a downhill skiier but he's certainly a rocks and diamonds (with more number of rocks) sort of player against good sides.

Look the 290 was a superb effort, we can't deny him that, but let's be honest about it, that was the road of all roads that particular wicket in Perth, perfect for a Taylor-type batsman.

 

[SteveNZ]

Look the 290 was a superb effort, we can't deny him that, but let's be honest about it, that was the road of all roads that particular wicket in Perth, perfect for a Taylor-type batsman.

I agree. I still think it took immense powers of concentration and effort, which are to be particularly applauded not only in general, but because Ross has been regularly (and rightly) accused of lacking these qualities. That attack still had Starc, Lyon, Hazelwood etc in it as well, so it deserves massive plaudits but not necessarily all-time status. And without further form to build upon it, plus the fact we didn't win that Test, it feels a bit all in vain.

 

[straw man]

Will say again that the Windies tour of NZ in 13/14 was the turning point in Taylor's test batting career. Prior to that he'd been the opposite of a downhill skier, scoring runs when it was difficult and giving away his wicket when it was easy, so as to kindly let someone else have a turn and boost their average.

Then the Best/Permaul/Sammy/Gabriel/Shillingford bowling lineup visited New Zealand and Taylor gorged himself, scoring 495 runs for two dismissals. Hey this is easy. I remembered only two important innings he'd played since then; 104 in Dubai and 290 in Perth, so I checked and yep, those were his only significant contributions since. The next highest score not against Zimbabwe was 62 at Lord's. He was a glutton against Zimbabwe but aside from that there've been lots of single digit scores and lots of 30s and 40s. Before anyone says yeah nah of course batsmen's stats don't look good if you take out the big scores, I disagree, the cricinfo article had a perfectly fair point. Two (2!) significant innings out of 40 (again exc Zimbabwe) since that home series vs WI is nowhere near enough.

This is obviously not to say Taylor should be dropped or any over-reaction like that, we just need more from him. A whole lot more. I had hoped for a renaissance in Taylor's batting once Kaneh took over; it removes any lingering feelings with McCullum re captaincy, he gets to be the statesmanlike elder senior batsmen, and he likes batting with Williamson (or would if they would stop running each other out). But that hasn't been the case so far. Score some runs ffs.

 

[SteveNZ]

I've always felt like motivation was Ross' great downfall. Obviously his epic innings in Colombo had **** you written all over them. But past 2014 or so, as Brendon became more readily accepted as the right choice for captain then scored the 224 and 302 v India, and Kane was seen as the next master and apprentice, Ross was for all intents the third wheel. He could score big scores v sub-standard opposition and that didn't require too much mental or physical effort from thereon in, and throw in one or two good knocks v major opposition to solidify a spot.

I just don't feel like he particularly wants it that much anymore. As I remember, there was conjecture around his place going into Perth and that was most likely the middle finger up to those who wanted him dropped. Now, there's not really that much to get him up in the morning, cricket-wise. He's rich, his average is good, people see him as a candidate for our all-time XI (rightly or wrongly) and there's not much left for him to achieve that mere mortals who aren't Kane strive for.

 

[straw man]

I'm always reluctant to ascribe lack of success to a lack of desire or motivation unless I really know someone, which I obviously do not with Ross Taylor. Don't know how hard he trains, what still motivates him or doesn't. Though he went to play English County Cricket this year which he didn't need to do aside from getting match practice.

I thought Williamson & Hesson making him captain for the second test was a good move, giving him responsibility and ensuring once again that he's in the fold. He sounded fairly motivated to me. His batting though was awful and if anything the tentativeness on display probably demonstrated the responsibility he feels rather than vice versa. This still leaves the question of why his technique against spin was so awful - he has the experience that he should have been rethinking that, but also the batting coach should have been working on it very closely with him. Not sure why that wasn't remedied.