*Unofficial* New Zealand Black Caps Thread

[NZTailender]

I think Larsen deserves some credit for the de Grandhomme selection? I always assumed that he was behind that. It would be interesting to know how much of a say he gets relative to Stead and the captain.

If Edgar is coming back that would be great, although he's currently coaching Wellington in Plunket Shield so not sure how realistic that is.

In some ways yes he should. From the point de Grandhomme moved to the country he was earmarked as a future international player but his domestic form or temperament never really screamed picked me when he was younger for test cricket, which is possibly why they picked the more exciting prospect in Corey Anderson and then later Jimmy Neesham (faster bowlers, seemingly more sensible with the bat whilst being just as explosive). But when Anderson was perennially injured and Neesham fell out of form and favour they went to the next logical choice in de Grandhomme and it paid off. I had forgotten when Neesham was brought back into the test side he batted 6 iirc and de Grandhomme at 8 and was more of a legit Bowler in that sense.

Same with Mitchell. He was in the side as cover for an injured de Grandhomme. I suspect the selectors have a spreadsheet of the first choice players, and then possible injury replacements of a similar ilk should they be injured. So we can say kudos for finding the right replacement but at the same time it seemed like they knew who could do a job when the first choice was injured or not working. Colin turned it into a good test career, doing probably far more than we ever expected of him.

 

[NZTailender]

That said, should acknowledge that not knowing precisely what goes on behind closed doors and that since he predates Steads tenure, Larsen has overall done a good job and can totally see how frustrating it would be if his selections were vetoed by the coach. Whether or not he attempted a succession plan remains to be seen because right now it doesn't seem like anyone has given it much thought.

 

[NZTailender]

Actually I may be wrong about his form not screaming pick me. He did have the classic NZ domestic good season bad season good season bad season pattern though.

 

[Bahnz]

CDG is the best example ever of how we just don’t have the slightest clue when it comes to selections. CW’s reaction to his debut (mine included) is just hilarious in retrospect.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

In hindsight he was one of the more logical selections Larsen ever made, because his first class stats were really impressive. Not the case with a lot of the recent selections.

But yep, I had a WTF moment when he was named. Don't think I quite realised his numbers were so solid, and just remembered him from his not so impressive stint in the t20 side.

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah was in the time before we started trusting in the standard of PS cricket, when we were looking for the ‘right’ sort of player (I.e. bowls fast) regardless of their stats. CDG I think played a big part in changing our attitudes in that respect.

 

[Binkley]

Man, imagine a world where Bruce Edgar was CEO of NZ Cricket and Heinrich Malan was the national team coach.

 

[thundaboult]

There was one T20 they played together, and Neesham ended up next to him when they lined up for the anthems. It seemed to me that every player had linked arms except them - no idea whether that was deliberate or not.

I don't think there's any issues. I've seen them both interact on Instagram and bantering.

 

[thundaboult]

Don't think I'm going to be tuning in for the SL series. Can't be bothered. Did I hear Stead say the wtc points are important so sticking to the same team. That's us the one above Bangladesh. 3 overseas series and 3 at home discounting the one vs England that had no wtc points.

Meanwhile following last year's trend of playing games vs the associate sides this year we've signed up to play few t20s in UAE.I thought it'd be best to schedule few more one dayers against proper teams but then they've signed up for more t20s.

I really don't know where's nzc headed.

Same. I find test cricket boring enough already and our coaching staff is dead-set on to pushing those boundaries even lower with the way we play and the aging dullards we carry around. Will watch england play tests anyday though. Game moves quick, interesting/debatable decisions are made and it makes the event that much more interesting. For NZ, hopefully the toddlers like sears, phillips, smith and ravindra grow up quick enough to break into this senior citizens nursing home of a test side.

 

[straw man]

First reaction to the news that Larsen was leaving was that this is a good thing, change is needed in the NZ leadership and this is a first step.

It's probably not actually good news.

Good money says he was the dissenting opinion on recent controversial decisions and just doesn't want to tie himself to them anymore if he doesn't agree with them.

Larsen moving on was definitely on cards but he wasn't a problem, it has been Stead. Can't wait for the new selector to not agree with the veto power Stead has. At the moment no matter what names are suggested by Larsen and the captain Stead can veto it. Technically Stead is the ultimate the selector, the postman had some role but he could be comfortably over ruled.

However second reaction is that the above is probably right. Stead is likely the main driver of the current blinkered selection approach, while Larsen (and team)'s selections prior to the Stead years were often successful.

 

[Prince EWS]

First reaction to the news that Larsen was leaving was that this is a good thing, change is needed in the NZ leadership and this is a first step.




However second reaction is that the above is probably right. Stead is likely the main driver of the current blinkered selection approach, while Larsen (and team)'s selections prior to the Stead years were often successful.

Yeah Larsen bowing out but Stead staying definitely suggests he's taken a "I can't abide by this any longer" position to me.

 

[SteveNZ]

I'd suggest it's absolutely Stead driving the vanilla selection approach. The guy just screams 'conservative selection' and loves to pin it up as loyalty.

I dunno how many ho-hum, sub-par man managers have made it big in the coaching world, but it wouldn't be many.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'd suggest it's absolutely Stead driving the vanilla selection approach. The guy just screams 'conservative selection' and loves to pin it up as loyalty.

I don't even hate that so much - erring on the side for contuinity and backing the blokes you think are the best players through rough trots instead is a perfectly valid selection stategy. Sometimes it's the right one and sometimes it's the wrong one, and in the example of Young v Nicholls (to cite just one) I have disagreed with him, but I don't think it's disastrous and I can see both sides to some degree.

What's been really unforgivable is Bracewell and Kuggs. Given Bracewell has visibly improved his bowling and displayed an aptitude for scoring runs against international attacks in other formats I can actually even forgive his selection as a balance-fixing bits-and-pieces cricketer at 7, but picking him as a specialist bowler the first time was insane, and it was doubly insane to do it again a second time. And even putting aside Kuggs's off-field issues, he's just not very good. Showing loyalty and backing continuity in selection of players already in the team is one thing, but picking inferior domestic cricketers just because they're older is another - and even in terms "early 30s bowling allrounders", IMO Dougeh is clearly better than Kuggs, so it was a genuine shocker.

Those two selections (one of which he made twice) really showed extremely poor judgement over and above whether or not we agree with his overall conservative approach.

 

[Flem274*]

I don't even hate that so much - erring on the side for contuinity and backing the blokes you think are the best players through rough trots instead is a perfectly valid selection stategy. Sometimes it's the right one and sometimes it's the wrong one, and in the example of Young v Nicholls (to cite just one) I have disagreed with him, but I don't think it's disastrous and I can see both sides to some degree.

What's been really unforgivable is Bracewell and Kuggs. Given Bracewell has visibly improved his bowling and displayed an aptitude for scoring runs against international attacks in other formats I can actually even forgive his selection as a balance-fixing bits-and-pieces cricketer at 7, but picking him as a specialist bowler the first time was insane, and it was doubly insane to do it again a second time. And even putting aside Kuggs's off-field issues, he's just not very good. Showing loyalty and backing continuity in selection of players already in the team is one thing, but picking inferior domestic cricketers just because they're older is another - and even in terms "early 30s bowling allrounders", IMO Dougeh is clearly better than Kuggs, so it was a genuine shocker.

Those two selections (one of which he made twice) really showed extremely poor judgement over and above whether or not we agree with his overall conservative approach.

Yeah it's this for me too.

McHesson backing players to the hilt helped NZ continue their rise after the Wright/Taylor side put together the core, but they did cut long term failures and put a lot of focus into depth building through introducing new blood. At the 2015 World Cup we had two international standard bowling attacks in our pocket and when we needed to dip into those stocks late (Henry in for Milne), Henry bowled quite well (unsure if the figures show this but I watched both games and he was solid).

Stead just picks the same team over and over across all three formats except for when he yeets in a questionable selection at best and he is very quick to cut fresher players if they make a mistake.

I don't even disagree Ravindra (for example) played like AIDS against Bangladesh, but equally he saved a game for us on debut and I don't think Mike Hesson and Brendon McCullum would have made him carry the can alone for a collective team failure in that test if it were their choice. They put 11 tests into a barely FC standard Ish Sodhi and carried him with effectively a ten man side because they decided the potential pay off was worth the short term challenge. It didn't work but it did to an extent with their next choice, Mark Craig, who won us a few games. They were absolutely determined to find players who fit our needs even if it was hard initially and I respect that.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah Bracewell ended up being a fine selection in Pakistan as part of a 3 spinner attack. You can forgive the wishful thinking a bit in the first Test. But even I had abandoned all hope before that one ended, the second Test was bizarre, I was copping it hard despite not even wanting that selection

 

[Kippax]

IMO Dougeh is clearly better than Kuggs, so it was a genuine shocker.

Should you be comparing those two though? You're well aware of Southee's personality, how someone like him would've felt after the loss to Bangladesh on a very flat one in Tauranga, how he'd scoff at the Dooka returns he's seeing from the domestic guys who can't bounce anyone out.

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah, I mean the Kuggeleijn one, I'd challenge anyone to come up with an alternative for worst selection in living memory for a host of reasons.

 

[thierry henry]

I absolutely loathed CDG for the longest time (and am still not really a fan) so I probably said some really embarrassing things when he was picked.....but tbf what I really hated about the selection is that it had come so belatedly, after he had already been tried in the wrong format, and after we had seemingly invested a lot in a younger, more "talented" alternative in Neesham. I still maintain that the planning and talent ID around that selection was poor - if CDG was the man for the job than he should have been picked in the test team earlier rather than giving so many games to Neesham and picking CDG in white ball cricket when his record suggested he was a red ball cricketer.

CDG wasn't so much a canny selection as a last-ditch selection after they decided Neesham wasn't good enough. I think a lot of the angst was because the selectors themselves had created the impression that CDG wasn't a red ball option, and had left it so late that there was a sense he was already slowing down (including literally the speed of his bowling).

Of course, it seems quaint now to have been concerned that we were picking a 30 year old too late.

 

[Nintendo]

Yeah, I mean the Kuggeleijn one, I'd challenge anyone to come up with an alternative for worst selection in living memory for a host of reasons.

Bracewell over phillips at the time of that england tour is right up there. Phillips was better in every concievable way (bracewell haden't made his odi 100* vs ireland yet) and was younger.

 

[straw man]

Yeah, I mean the Kuggeleijn one, I'd challenge anyone to come up with an alternative for worst selection in living memory for a host of reasons.

There's terrible player selections (and that one is up there for both reasons), and there's terrible team structure selections, which simply should not happen. Selecting a part-timer in M Bracewell as your fourth bowler so that you basically have a three-man bowling attack, as NZ have done twice now, is unforgivable. It comes across as incredibly defensive, risks the fitness of your three bowlers and makes you question whether NZ is even trying to win.

(and yes I know that NZ did in fact win the latter of those two matches, though that was in large part because the opposition pursued a win-at-all-costs approach)