• 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.

Group 1 (Afghanistan, Australia, England, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Ireland)

honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Nintendo said:
England were gonna struggle to make the semi's even before this, they have to beat NZ on the second and hope that Aus don't get there NRR higher vs IRE and AFG, or hope that Aus lose one of the two aformentioned games and that they beat NZ.
Click to expand...
Yeah i felt Aussies got more lower ranked sides to play.
 
S

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
Well that was bloody great. Had the shits big time at 15-3, thinking one poor powerplay might cost us a semi-final place.

Still think Sodhi's spot should be Bracewell's, when considering Bracewell is in better form with the ball and is a waaaay better No.8 option than Sodhi (which may end up being a big factor). And then, you know, our No.3 who just needs to stop chewing up so many god damn balls.

But the show rolls on. Very pleased. GP you brilliant, wonderful, beautiful mad scientist.
 
Nintendo

Nintendo

Cricketer Of The Year
SteveNZ said:
Well that was bloody great. Had the ****s big time at 15-3, thinking one poor powerplay might cost us a semi-final place.

Still think Sodhi's spot should be Bracewell's, when considering Bracewell is in better form with the ball and is a waaaay better No.8 option than Sodhi (which may end up being a big factor). And then, you know, our No.3 who just needs to stop chewing up so many god damn balls.

But the show rolls on. Very pleased. GP you brilliant, wonderful, beautiful mad scientist.
Click to expand...
Yeah while NZ's top order are all in decent nick atm, I still don't like the batting lineup. Neeshaw at 6 and santner at 7 with no all-rounders below 7 is MASSIVE nosebleed. Feel like bracewell for sodhi improves the batting lineup a ton.
 
F

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
Nintendo said:
Yeah while NZ's top order are all in decent nick atm, I still don't like the batting lineup. Neeshaw at 6 and santner at 7 with no all-rounders below 7 is MASSIVE nosebleed. Feel like bracewell for sodhi improves the batting lineup a ton.
Click to expand...
Or bring in Adam Milne for Ferguson. Milne would bat 8.
 
S

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
Fuller Pilch said:
Or bring in Adam Milne for Ferguson. Milne would bat 8.
Click to expand...
I think Milne is the better option right now, but he doesn't bring much more to the table at No.8.

There won't be changes while the 'if it ain't broke' feeling continues, and maybe fair enough. But there's definitely three guys who are vulnerable right now - Kane, Ish and Lockie. Lockie I'm not massively worried about and could bounce back any time, but there's definitely a feeling like a Kane 20 off 28 is in the mix, and a 1-45 is in the mix for Ish.
 
Zinzan

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
This would be NZ's strongest XI, even though we know it won't happen except for injury.

Allen
Conway+
Guptill
Chapman
Phillips
Neesham
Bracewell
Santner
Southee
Ferguson
Boult

Guptill at 3 to keep the right/left opening partnership going, and we shouldn't forget Guptill has a great batting game for Australian conditions even if he's not quite the batsman he was.

Chapman has more to offer than Mitchell in spite of the Mitchell/Phillips partnership last night & provides a perfect balance of left/right-handers.

Bracewell over Sodhi (possibly Milne wicket dependent) which really strengthens the batting with Santner dropping down to 8.

Wouldn't care if the captain was any of Southee, Santner, Guptill or Conway. There's enough leaders within the group anyway.

Very strong and well balanced XI that, without any glaring weakness except possibly the 5th bowling option if Bracewell didn't come off.
 
H

Hurricane2

U19 Cricketer
I would swap Guptil for Kane, but I have been advocating Kane be dropped from T20s for over 5 years. Mid tournament I wouldn't swap Kane out too disruptive.
My other comment is I think it is much better that NZ only bat to number 7 in a T20. It makes the top order take responsibility for being there at the end. In past NZ teams we have batted down low with NMac at 9 and Kyle Mills at 10 and the balance of those teams was worse with the top order always failing. Perhaps they thought there was plenty of batting so it didn't matter if the openers failed.

Our team balance is unique. 6 batsman and 5 front line bowlers with our 6 and 7 being all rounders,
Most other teams have 4 specialist bowlers while we have 5.
I think the NZ line up and team balance is innovative and pace setting.
Finally I think M Bracewell is a no rounder bits and pieces player who ideally won't ever play again for the blackcaps.
 
H

Hurricane2

U19 Cricketer
Fuller Pilch said:
Yes. We only just escaped from 15/3. Imagine if we'd been 8/4 like SL or if Phillips had been caught early on.
Click to expand...
Then we lose if we were 8 for 4 and thems the breaks. We would probably would have lost from 8 for 4 with an extra batsman up our sleeve anyway.

With batting down to only number 7 our team is optomised to have a chance at beating the big fish teams like Australia and England where you need 180 plus runs AND a potent attack.
If you try to build a team that never collapses and is a team for all occassions and all situations you will end up being consistent yes and always achieve around the 160 run production mark but never ever be good enough to win an ICC tournament where you need to be more than "just consistent".
By choosing an innovating team balance we are rollling the dice on our 7 batsman coming off. Part of ensuring that our 7 batsman come off is the fact we have included Kane Williamson amongst our 7 instead of Martin Guptil. Most games Kane will not fail.
To win an ICC tournament you need a strategy. And with a strategy comes disadvantages of your strategy.
If you try to be team to cover all the bases then you don't have a strategy. You are just trying to be a bit of everything.
If you want a sensible team we wouldn't have beaten Australia the other day.

My other comment is NZ were stupid last night. As soon as they knew a world class spinner was going to open then Conway should have faced the lion share of the first over instead of Allen then we wouldn't have been 15-3.
Give Sri Lanka some credit. They have world class spinners and they came at us with a very clever and cunning tactics. Good for Sri Lanka for really applying their mind to the game and taking some risks themselves.
The summary of my post is that if you want to win an ICC tournament then you need a cutting edge strategy rather than a team strategy borrowed from ODI cricket. In ODI cricket you have an all rounder bowl ten overs. New Zealand are right on the money by having no overs from an all rounder Jimmy Neesham or Glenn Phillips or Bracewell. We are going for wickets with every over we bowl no reprise no let up.
New Zealand are leading the tournament for cutting edge thinking. Get on board with our tactics.
 
S

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah, I don't like Sodhi at 8. You want the guys above to have the ability to bat freely, not that Santner comes in at let's say over 13 or so and thinks he has to bat somewhat responsibly until the 18th, given Sodhi/Southee/Ferguson/Boult aren't reliable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top