Mike Hesson - Is it time?

[Immenso]

On Larsen as head of selectors.

Out of interest, how do you categorise CdG's test selection, the reasons?

A balls out aggressive batting all rounder selection. Or is it his higher percentage 'safe' seam
bowling.

He seemed like a greentop specialist, based on his hit the right areas seam bowling.

But his continued selection? Aggressive selecting, or lazy safe don't change a winning team selection?

 

[The Hutt Rec]

On Larsen as head of selectors.

Out of interest, how do you categorise CdG's test selection, the reasons?

A balls out aggressive batting all rounder selection. Or is it his higher percentage 'safe' seam
bowling.

He seemed like a greentop specialist, based on his hit the right areas seam bowling.

But his continued selection? Aggressive selecting, or lazy safe don't change a winning team selection?

Not really sure why he was selected, but as always with the NZ side, now he's had one great performance he will be an automatic selection for the next 18 months.

 

[Immenso]

Not really sure why he was selected, but as always with the NZ side, now he's had one great performance he will be an automatic selection for the next 18 months.

Yeah. Sums up my thoughts.

Although I'm ok that the selection puts pressure on Jimmy and Corey from a what's required for a 4th seamer perspective.

I'm frustrated that Jimmy, in pretty good form, and a better test bat that both Nicholls and CdG, not currently injured ..... is on the sidelines. Probably for a while until someone puts in an embarassingly bad performance.

 

[thierry henry]

I don't really see Hesson and McCullum as being opposites at all. Always saw them as two peas in a pod. I think "cricket personality" is more important than "personality" and the two of them had similar cricket personalities and therefore worked well together.

I'm an avowed "H8R" but I would describe the shared McHesson cricketing personality as being devoid of basic cricketing sense, full of meaningless self-help garbage but imbued with a shared purpose, enthusiasm and positivity that made it work for a while. I personally don't believe it was "destined" to work- it was a high risk strategy which involved no future-proofing and which could easily have backfired horribly. It worked and that was cool.

KW is (disclaimer: I am about to make outrageous assumptions about the inner workings of someone I don't know) a cricketing pragmatist who knows and understands the game (McCullum literally knows nothing about cricket. Still doesn't. This is an outlandish and obnoxious statement but I truly believe it) but might be a little too resistant to anything "funky". He expects his teammates to understand the game and to turn up and give a whole hearted effort and perform according to tried and true cricketing principles. However, he has inherited players and a coach used to something totally different. It is possible their performances have dropped as they are not used to or inspired by the grind that is "old-fashioned cricket". They have become used to some new-age "aggression and fun at all costs" BS and are listless without that sort of thing to motivate them.

I don't want KW paired with his opposite so that we have someone to motivate the boys. I want him paired with a coach who has the same "cricketing personality" as him and let's build a team of hard working cricketers who don't try to take BMac-era shortcuts for everything and actually understand how to play the game.

I know that this probably looks like regressive, back-to-the-future thinking and there will be cries of "but we don't have the players for this! We need to do things differently to succeed! We need to be trailblazers!". You may be right. I don't intend to argue for or against that proposition. I just think that IF we are investing in Kane as captain, we are better off investing in an overall "Kane philosophy". The cohesive philosophy is what made McHesson more successful than it had any right to be, not any "Yin and Yang" stuff.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Am I the only one who thought McCullum retired a bit early? I thought he could have had another two-three years.

 

[thierry henry]

Am I the only one who thought McCullum retired a bit early? I thought he could have had another two-three years.

Meh. He was 34, had played international cricket for 14 years, had played EVERY test for New Zealand for 12 straight years, had hit his peak as a batsman (2014) and as a captain (2015 CWC), his batting was starting to become more reckless and less effective and his team was going downhill.

Made pretty good sense to me.

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah, throw in the fact that McCullum's last couple of seasons were affected by persistent back issues and the fact that after the Australian series there was nothing significant coming up on the NZ cricketing calendar, and it really does seem like a logical stepping off point (though still wish he'd hung around another month for the T20 World Cup).

 

[The Hutt Rec]

Although now he's seemingly got his back sorted out, it would have been interesting to see if his batting would have returned to something around 2014 levels.

I think he could have played as a batsman for a couple more years (not captain).

Interesting point you make about Williamson's captaincy thierry. I remember reading Shane Bond's book and him saying that he thinks we have some of the most naturally talented cricketers in the world in NZ. He hates the talk of overachieving and actually thinks we use that as a crutch to underachieve - not having the self belief and not putting the work in to be as good as we could be. Sorta ties in with the way Williamson goes about his business as captain, rather than the extreme positivity of McCullum, because "we won't compete otherwise".

I am awaiting the day Bond becomes the Blackcaps head coach, myself.

 

[Zinzan]

Yeah, throw in the fact that McCullum's last couple of seasons were affected by persistent back issues and the fact that after the Australian series there was nothing significant coming up on the NZ cricketing calendar, and it really does seem like a logical stepping off point (though still wish he'd hung around another month for the T20 World Cup).

That was the bizarre thing for me, that his natural swansong wouldn't be 1 last crack at leading NZ in the form he was best known for. Especially considering it was only a month or so after that Australian home series, & it didn't clash with the IPL.

Still can't remember if he provided any sensible rationale for missing that tournament. I can only think the Chris Cairns thing could have been playing on his mind as he did mention in his book that was a big distraction in the Australian tour.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

That was the bizarre thing for me, that his natural swansong wouldn't be 1 last crack at leading NZ in the form he was best known for. Especially considering it was only a month or so after that Australian home series, & it didn't clash with the IPL.

Still can't remember if he provided any sensible rationale for missing that tournament. I can only think the Chris Cairns thing could have been playing on his mind as he did mention in his book that was a big distraction in the Australian tour.

IIRC did Hesson at one stage say he had really tried to get McCullum to stick around for that, but McCullum had already extended his career after originally wanting to go after the England tour, and couldn't be convinced to extend it again?

 

[Bahnz]

But don't get me wrong, I have absolute contempt for the generation squandering trajectory the blackcaps have headed for the last 2 years. I just don't know yet where to lay all the blame (apart from glaring decline of seam-bowling post Bond)..

Couple points I thought worth bringing up here: to what extent are the Blackcaps actually on a downward trajectory? When New Zealand were carving up in 2013-15, it was generally against weaker sides. West Indies, Sri Lanka, India playing away from home (and even then we won that series by the skin of our teeth) and Pakistan in the UAE. Of those, only the 1-1 draw in the Emirates could be taken as a genuine feather in the team's cap.

Then you compare that with who we've played in the last two years - England in England, Australia home and away, South Africa (playing at home and at full strength), India in India and finally Pakistan. Last season we bullied Sri Lanka just as badly as we did in 2014/15. And we've just finished demolishing the same Pakistan side that drew a series in England earlier this year.

Don't get me wrong, I do think the team is playing worse than when they were at their peak - the bowling and fielding efforts last week were the worst I've seen in a very long while. But I think, more generally, the extent of the decline in performances is being exaggerated (especially given that Baz has left a hole in the middle-order that was always going to be extremely difficult to fill). To a large extent, the win-loss record of the last 2 years is a reflection of the fact that we've just been playing much better teams in that period. Throw in injuries to key players (Boult in particular, but also Anderson, Neesham and Taylor) and at times really poor selection policy (Wagner should've been a regular in the team the moment it became clear that Henry's ODI success wasn't going to translate to test cricket) and I really don't know how much you can blame things on the coaches (or the captain for that matter).

Finally, regarding the "Bond made our bowling attack" theory. I don't put much stock in that either. Southee was already producing fantastic results even before Bond came on board, and the early signs of his decline were there before Bond's departure. Likewise, Wagner is if anything a better (and certainly a more consistent) bowler than he was during Bond's term. While Bond does seem to have be an excellent coach, I think the majority of the blame for the decline in bowling results probably lies at the feet of Southee and Boult themselves.

 

[thierry henry]

For me, tests against Australia are bigger than a T20 comp. I didn't often agree with McCullum's cricketing philosophy but that was one decision that very much did make sense to me.

 

[Bahnz]

That was the bizarre thing for me, that his natural swansong wouldn't be 1 last crack at leading NZ in the form he was best known for. Especially considering it was only a month or so after that Australian home series, & it didn't clash with the IPL.

Still can't remember if he provided any sensible rationale for missing that tournament. I can only think the Chris Cairns thing could have been playing on his mind as he did mention in his book that was a big distraction in the Australian tour.

I think it's more likely that he just wanted to spend a month relaxing with his family before jetting off to India again.

 

[vcs]

I have to say I don't think NZ currently have any chance of winning a Test against SA in the upcoming series. I just can't think of any weapons, or any combination of pitch/conditions NZ can hurt SA with. Bad match up.

Maybe McCullum's all-attack strategy might have given them a better chance, because they certainly aren't going to win by playing conventional or pragmatic cricket against a side that's better man to man.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

I have to say I don't think NZ currently have any chance of winning a Test against SA in the upcoming series. I just can't think of any weapons, or any combination of pitch/conditions NZ can hurt SA with. Bad match up.

Maybe McCullum's all-attack strategy might have given them a better chance, because they certainly aren't going to win by playing conventional or pragmatic cricket against a side that's better man to man.

I honestly don't remember a test match that McCullum's tactics worked in when it was an obviously superior opposition, either though.

 

[Blocky]

I'll start by saying I fully expect South Africa to absolutely dick us.

But....

While you've got Philander who is head and shoulders above our players, and De Kock who is in great form - Rabada can be hit or miss, there is no Abbott or Steyn, possibly no ABDV and then a bunch of batsmen who weren't in exceptional form until the Sri Lankan series (who are the weakest bowling attack outside Bangladesh in those conditions)

The problem for NZ is how badly Southee and Boult are bowling at the moment, the fact that our #5 is a piece of **** player and that we mentally psych ourselves out against teams like RSA and Australia.

Man to man, I'd say NZ has a few advantages.

Williamson is better than this current iteration of Amla, I'm not buying he's had a return to form, more so just faced an easier attack
Taylor is better than Duminy.
Wagner is better than whoever they pick as their third seamer in the absence of Abbott/Steyn/Morkel

 

[Blocky]

I honestly don't remember a test match that McCullum's tactics worked in when it was an obviously superior opposition, either though.

Yeah, Pakistan in the UAE who were at that point moving towards being #1 in the world weren't superior to us, you're right.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

Yeah, Pakistan in the UAE who were at that point moving towards being #1 in the world weren't superior to us, you're right.

Geez you're a dick.

 

[vcs]

Drawing away in England and UAE were great results. Should have won in England TBH.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Drawing away in England and UAE were great results. Should have won in England TBH.

Why? There were only two tests and the one England won, they won by 124 runs.