The Hutt Rec
International Vice-Captain
Yes to this side.
I think the last minute desperation move of Nicholls to opener actually helps our team balance so much, if we go with this side.
-
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* India Tour of New Zealand 2019
- Thread starter Gomez656
- Start date
I think the last minute desperation move of Nicholls to opener actually helps our team balance so much, if we go with this side.
TheBrand
First Class Debutant
This is 100% my starting XI and squad of 15 too. All those mentioning Milne are absolutely dreaming (although would be nice) and I doubt we'll see any bolters in the squad, except maybe Anderson instead of Bracewell if fit.
Senile Sentry
International Debutant
Brilliant innings from Rayudu. He isn't pleasing on the eye but he simply does not give up. Such a fighter.
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Our openers start slow and late over hitting doesn't materialize often . Enough chinks to exploit .
Senile Sentry
International Debutant
India's away record in ODIs read 32-8 since 2016. That is scarily good.
Borges
International Regular
They generally do better when the pitch has a little bit in it for their bowlers, than on the dreadful flat tracks they dish out at home for ODIs.
It is an abominable format of the game; everyone tries to kill it as a reasonable contest between bat and ball; they succeed in doing that to an extreme extent in India.
Senile Sentry
International Debutant
Yep. England comfortably leads the economy rates and average since last 3 years. India is third closely followed by SA
Aggregate/overall records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
I have had a soft corner for him for a while now, since he is being bashed here in CW so much. This team still needs a Dhoni or Rayudu in the middle order to stabilize the innings. Still feel it should be only one of him or Dhoni at 4, with Jadhav, Karthik and Pandya to follow.
India's batting strategy is still very poor. On relatively easy surfaces, the top-3 generally plays at a SR of less than 6/over, ensure that nos. 5/6/7 almost never get much of a chance to settle down before getting on with the big thump, and consistently fail to top 330. The last time I recall that happening was in the Yuvi-Dhoni-partnership match where Yuvi started hitting out from the 30th over.
Unless Rohit is batting really well, you rarely ever see it happening. Dhawan generally slows down the longer he bats and Kohli only tries to accelerate towards the fag end of the innings. 330 is a good score on a fair pitch, but on the flat highways that can be expected to be served up in England, it would be woefully inadequate (Re: IND vs SL CT17).
Unless Rohit is batting really well, you rarely ever see it happening. Dhawan generally slows down the longer he bats and Kohli only tries to accelerate towards the fag end of the innings. 330 is a good score on a fair pitch, but on the flat highways that can be expected to be served up in England, it would be woefully inadequate (Re: IND vs SL CT17).
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
India's bowling has come a long way since then though. Anyone remembers anything about the middle overs when Jadeja and Ashwin used to play?
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
I'd still have Munro around as cover for CdG tbh. While he's rubbish as an opener I think he's just as good as a late innings power hitter. Unfortunately neither of them + Neesham have the cricketing smarts that Grant Elliott did.
Grasshopper
State Vice-Captain
Ain't that the truth. Neesham's dismissal was comically dumb.
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
Only caught bits of the match, bad performance from NZ after a brilliant start.
Agree with all the comments about NZ taking foot off the throat after having India 4 down. A couple of overs from CDG and Neesham on a pitch with some assistance, fine, but it was silly to bowl Astle and Santner so little.
Boult is really back in wicket-taking form and it sounds like Henry had a touch more zip than he has recently, though probably still not enough to justify a spot in the top XI.
India should be done for cruel and unusual punishment bowling a legspinner to De Grandhomme - that's just unfair. De Grandhomme seems almost intent on playing himself out of the top XI, batting has been rubbish every match.
Neesham's dismissal clearly looked terrible but I guess it can happen, didn't know where the ball was and ends up looking like a dick. It's a concern though that neither he nor CDG nor Santner (nor Anderson) seem to respond very well to pressure situations. Really need someone with a cool head who knows what's required and can marshall the rest of the tail. As the only guy in the lower order who demands a spot in the side, Neesham will have to be the one to grow into that role.
We need to admit far more nuance than Flem is about this 5th bowler/allrounder position. It's a given that our top two seamers are bunnies with the bat and the likely number 9 (Sodhi/Henry/Southee) is barely better. That's all fine. But having a good hitting batsman at 7 (i.e. better than Santner) and a passable one at 8 is not just about their individual score - it's about batting partnerships and accelerating an innings towards the end, rather than chewing up dot balls and then getting out with a wild slog. Have we already forgotten all the times we blew platforms from 200 odd for 3 to 255/9 in the last few years? Must've happened a dozen times. Unfortunately on flat pitches, ODIs are won primarily by batmen and we can't ignore that. Only genuine wicket-takers can disrupt that and whoever our fifth bowler would be, they're not a genuine wicket-taker. This isn't a 'we must pick CDG at 7 and Santner at 8' post but rather a 'let's consider all pros and cons of what we are gaining/losing by picking a fifth bowler vs an allrounder' post. Also acknowledge we don't have a lot to work with for that second 7/8 spot - CDG, Bracewell, Munro too, probably Astle, all seem like they're going to contribute poor bowling, poor batting or total mediocrity in both. Neesham could solve a lot of problems if he could continue to improve with the ball, though he's coming off an extremely low base and there's always a risk he'll revert to worst-ODI-bowler-in-the-world stuff.
Clearly, all discussions on competitive makeup of the side are moot if the top 5 don't score runs.
The top XI is now:
Nicholls
Guptill
Williamson
Taylor
Latham
Neesham
Devcich
Santner
Sodhi/Southee/Henry
Ferguson
Boult
Agree with all the comments about NZ taking foot off the throat after having India 4 down. A couple of overs from CDG and Neesham on a pitch with some assistance, fine, but it was silly to bowl Astle and Santner so little.
Boult is really back in wicket-taking form and it sounds like Henry had a touch more zip than he has recently, though probably still not enough to justify a spot in the top XI.
India should be done for cruel and unusual punishment bowling a legspinner to De Grandhomme - that's just unfair. De Grandhomme seems almost intent on playing himself out of the top XI, batting has been rubbish every match.
Neesham's dismissal clearly looked terrible but I guess it can happen, didn't know where the ball was and ends up looking like a dick. It's a concern though that neither he nor CDG nor Santner (nor Anderson) seem to respond very well to pressure situations. Really need someone with a cool head who knows what's required and can marshall the rest of the tail. As the only guy in the lower order who demands a spot in the side, Neesham will have to be the one to grow into that role.
We need to admit far more nuance than Flem is about this 5th bowler/allrounder position. It's a given that our top two seamers are bunnies with the bat and the likely number 9 (Sodhi/Henry/Southee) is barely better. That's all fine. But having a good hitting batsman at 7 (i.e. better than Santner) and a passable one at 8 is not just about their individual score - it's about batting partnerships and accelerating an innings towards the end, rather than chewing up dot balls and then getting out with a wild slog. Have we already forgotten all the times we blew platforms from 200 odd for 3 to 255/9 in the last few years? Must've happened a dozen times. Unfortunately on flat pitches, ODIs are won primarily by batmen and we can't ignore that. Only genuine wicket-takers can disrupt that and whoever our fifth bowler would be, they're not a genuine wicket-taker. This isn't a 'we must pick CDG at 7 and Santner at 8' post but rather a 'let's consider all pros and cons of what we are gaining/losing by picking a fifth bowler vs an allrounder' post. Also acknowledge we don't have a lot to work with for that second 7/8 spot - CDG, Bracewell, Munro too, probably Astle, all seem like they're going to contribute poor bowling, poor batting or total mediocrity in both. Neesham could solve a lot of problems if he could continue to improve with the ball, though he's coming off an extremely low base and there's always a risk he'll revert to worst-ODI-bowler-in-the-world stuff.
Clearly, all discussions on competitive makeup of the side are moot if the top 5 don't score runs.
The top XI is now:
Nicholls
Guptill
Williamson
Taylor
Latham
Neesham
Devcich
Santner
Sodhi/Southee/Henry
Ferguson
Boult
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Didn't watch a ball of yesterday's game, but it seems like you can still take a few positivies away:
a) Neesham looked good, in spite of how stupid his dismissal was;
b) Henry and Boult continue to take wickets at the top;
c) Latham continues to be a reasonable steadying hand in the middle.
Seems to me that the selectors misread the pitch (again). If we'd had Lockie to steam in first change with India at 18/4 we might well have broken through and had another fait d'accompli. Instead, they stacked the team with allrounders and while some did a decent job containing India, nobody really looked that likely to get a wicket (i.e. the template set out in the '03 WC NZ v Aus game).
a) Neesham looked good, in spite of how stupid his dismissal was;
b) Henry and Boult continue to take wickets at the top;
c) Latham continues to be a reasonable steadying hand in the middle.
Seems to me that the selectors misread the pitch (again). If we'd had Lockie to steam in first change with India at 18/4 we might well have broken through and had another fait d'accompli. Instead, they stacked the team with allrounders and while some did a decent job containing India, nobody really looked that likely to get a wicket (i.e. the template set out in the '03 WC NZ v Aus game).
Last edited:
thundaboult
International Debutant
Is there any possible way we can fit sodhi, santner, ferguson, henry and boult into the same team?? Having them all looks like the only way we are going to be able to penetrate top and middle orders in the world cup. If our top order clicks (and it hasn't for a while now), we could really come into this WC with a chance...
Guptill
Nicholls
Kane
Ross
Latham
Neesh
Santner
Sodhi
Henry
Ferg
Boult
Onus is on the top and middle to score runs EACH game and not even think of the no.8 and below batters. We can put up as many names, team sheets and strategies we want to but the fact of the matter is, the execution, application and discipline needs to be there from whoever that is playing, if the best of the best fail, what's the point of a team sheet.
Guptill
Nicholls
Kane
Ross
Latham
Neesh
Santner
Sodhi
Henry
Ferg
Boult
Onus is on the top and middle to score runs EACH game and not even think of the no.8 and below batters. We can put up as many names, team sheets and strategies we want to but the fact of the matter is, the execution, application and discipline needs to be there from whoever that is playing, if the best of the best fail, what's the point of a team sheet.
Last edited: