New Zealand doom and gloom thread

[thundaboult]

Baz PR team strikes again.

#dreambig

 

[Flem274*]

The team started showing signs of a rise under Taylor too. The key players were in place and started nabbing some wins.

 

[thierry henry]

The team started showing signs of a rise under Taylor too. The key players were in place and started nabbing some wins.

In conclusion, it's been Vettori that truly sucked all along

 

[the big bambino]

he didn't really put up the kind of numbers that make you ask why he isn't playing tests until he was in county cricket, and by then he was mid-30s and they wanted younger options.

He’d be a regular now.

 

[thierry henry]

I could never really understand Adams' career, would be interested if anyone closer to him new more about him. From the outside looking in, he seemed to go from "white ball specialist talented erratic wildcard" to "red ball guru" at some point in his 30s and I'm not sure how that happened. During his international career he seemed to be, or was pigeonholed as, the polar opposite of a reliable test seamer. He was also somewhat of a late bloomer generally but I've never known much about his cricket background.

The best I can guess is he may not have come through the conventional pathways and then may not have played in the most conventional way, and this may have led to the perception that he was unpredictable or unreliable when in fact he was just a genuine thinker about the game. Or maybe he was just a late bloomer who matured after his physical peak and learned the game too late to help his own international career, I dunno.

 

[Big_Gun]

Speaking of Andre Adams, can anyone here shed light on why he only played one test?

He literally wanted to focus on Tests, he was selected for the ODI team and told the coach Bracewell that he wants to focus on Test Cricket. (bracewell focused more on one day cricket) So he was never selected because of a gripe from bracewell.
Its a shame, I thought he would of been a good Test bowler, he left NZ and played the English first class scene, he took heaps of wickets, he was his teams lead bowler at 40.

 

[govinda indian fan]

He literally wanted to focus on Tests, he was selected for the ODI team and told the coach Bracewell that he wants to focus on Test Cricket. (bracewell focused more on one day cricket) So he was never selected because of a gripe from bracewell.
Its a shame, I thought he would of been a good Test bowler, he left NZ and played the English first class scene, he took heaps of wickets, he was his teams lead bowler at 40.

Boy nz missed a potential great red ball bowler

 

[SteveNZ]

Seems like a good day to resurrect the discussion about Baz. Especially seeing I have little insight to next Wednesday other than 'we'll very likely get thumped'.

The question I'd ask, is if he took a full-time IPL gig from 2013 or did his back in, or whatever, where do you think Kane takes that team from 2013 onwards, or if Ross continues on from the Galle debacle, what happens? If people want to play down the influence outside of those two years, that means Kane could have led the World Cup charge in 2015? Or Ross? And built that culture of being outright unbeatable at home in those 2013-19 years (Australia apart)?

Navel gazing, I know, but it almost feels like a sport to take the piss out of Baz and the 'earn the right' etc, and play down what he brought to his side. And I'm always labelled his PR machine, even though he's just a guy that I admire and I see what he brings to team culture, the way he leads and motivates people etc.

I believe the long shadow of Baz lasted a lot longer than 2015-16 when he walked away. That side had a style, it had a culture, that in my opinion outlived his time in the side. Kane did an admirable job in carrying on from him and keeping things rolling, and obviously Hesson was invested in that way of playing as well. It carried on (again, in my opinion) through to the start of Stead's reign, and has now completely faded into oblivion with most of those senior guys moving on, and Stead tearing all the intelligence, forethought and endeavour out of it.

Only interested in debating it with those who have a viewpoint. If it's 'thanks Baz Jnr' or anything like that, feel free not to engage.

But I see what happened in Pakistan last night and I think ****, this guy gets the best out of people, he can inspire crazy **** that doesn't happen under most other people in this game. That mindset will live on with England beyond his time there. He has his flaws, no doubt, but the contrast couldn't be bigger between him and the boring dunderhead we have in charge.

 

[thundaboult]

I do respect what Baz did in terms of team culture, the way he leads and motivates people, pretty much making the game fun to play for players, fun to watch for viewers. Its very much pressure off cricket and its great for resurrecting dying sides. You're spot on for that and i'm not going to take any jabs at you for wanting to watch cricket that's enjoyable, and a team that has an exciting profile. We watch this for results but also entertainment. Turns out when yer havin fun you keep wanting more whowudathunkit. He defo created a team environment where young exciting players were being blooded all of the time, immediately feeling comfortable to be themselves. In recent times we still have that friendly domain for senior and new players alike, but we have lost the part of constantly introducing the younger players to intl cricket.

The 2 eras after mccullum: kane/hesson and kane/stead definitely had 3 things in common for me. Boredom and on a couple positive notes, a team environment where i think the players all felt a right balance of affability but also "ok i gotta keep performing to stay". First 3 years of stead/kane were actually pretty dope results-wise, boring but effective. Much better than hesson/kane where we were quite indifferent and not upto much despite a good start with the t20 wc in 16 where we dominated the group stages vs quality sides.

Under the recent stead/kane/southee era the culture is once again still friendly but the senior players seem to be on a "well i can just stay here a while whos gonna drop me? why perform I'm 30+ now i qualify for stead's NZ side". There seem to be no dramas or personal beefs in the side although some of you here have said that stead doesn;t get on good with sam wells and some other players.

 

[Chubb]

Navel gazing, I know, but it almost feels like a sport to take the piss out of Baz and the 'earn the right' etc, and play down what he brought to his side. And I'm always labelled his PR machine, even though he's just a guy that I admire and I see what he brings to team culture, the way he leads and motivates people etc.

I think he's a very good coach and motivator, but he says some funny/weird/self-obsessed stuff. Telling people to "earn the right to be aggressive" is funny - particularly given he said that after getting smashed by South Africa - and some of the stuff England say these days is narcissistic. People make jokes about that, but don't necessarily think he's a bad at his job.

There was always the lingering dislike over the "Otago Mafia" rolling Ross Taylor, though most agree it was the right move, just done in a very shabby way.

I said when England appointed him that it was worth a punt, given how crap England had been and the results he'd got as captain of NZ. And that's been vindicated.

 

[thierry henry]

The more I think about it, the more clear it is that Baz has played an almost impossibly large role in making cricket a sport I like a lot less now. Hearing yesterday about England making 800 in 150 overs and the repugnant Harry Brook making a triple century naturally led me to contemplate, as I often do, just how much cricket sucks these days.

In its current incarnation, the suckiest things are BazBall tests and T20 proliferation. Prior to that it was England's gross white ball cricket, which everyone knows started in 2015, inspired by Baz's NZ team. Coming back to T20 proliferation, we all know that really kicked off with the IPL, and Baz saved possibly his most influential innings ever for the very first IPL game. He personally made sure that garbage T20 could not fail from the outset of the biggest global competition.

All trolling and joking aside, it is incredible how central he has been to making the sport worse since 2008. Given the power wielded by the big cricketing boards etc etc, the way one Kiwi bloke has managed to keep pace with them in the race to make the sport totally **** is straight up stranger than fiction.

 

[thierry henry]

The question I'd ask, is if he took a full-time IPL gig from 2013 or did his back in, or whatever, where do you think Kane takes that team from 2013 onwards, or if Ross continues on from the Galle debacle, what happens? If people want to play down the influence outside of those two years, that means Kane could have led the World Cup charge in 2015? Or Ross? And built that culture of being outright unbeatable at home in those 2013-19 years (Australia apart)?

I believe the long shadow of Baz lasted a lot longer than 2015-16 when he walked away. That side had a style, it had a culture, that in my opinion outlived his time in the side. Kane did an admirable job in carrying on from him and keeping things rolling, and obviously Hesson was invested in that way of playing as well. It carried on (again, in my opinion) through to the start of Stead's reign, and has now completely faded into oblivion with most of those senior guys moving on, and Stead tearing all the intelligence, forethought and endeavour out of it.

If Baz personally hadn't been playing 2013-2016, we definitely would have been worse off because he was in a rich vein of form with the bat and played a succession of ridiculous innings.

We would definitely have done worse at the 2015 World Cup because he personally scored some lightning fast runs. We also played an extremely aggressive style in that WC which worked incredibly well. If he hadn't been captain, we probably don't play that way or do as well.

After he retired, I tend to believe that we had the success we did largely because we had good players. Latham, KW, Taylor, CDG (quite a bold post-McCullum selection btw), Watling, Wags, Southee, Boult. That team was always going to win cricket matches, and post-McCullum we largely did so playing reasonably conventional cricket.

Also, let's not forget that the extended golden era up to winning the WTC lasted for 3 years after Stead was appointed. I say this not to suggest that Stead was a good coach, but to make the point that we were winning because we had good batters and bowlers, not inspiring leadership.

 

[Bahnz]

I believe the long shadow of Baz lasted a lot longer than 2015-16 when he walked away. That side had a style, it had a culture, that in my opinion outlived his time in the side. Kane did an admirable job in carrying on from him and keeping things rolling, and obviously Hesson was invested in that way of playing as well. It carried on (again, in my opinion) through to the start of Stead's reign, and has now completely faded into oblivion with most of those senior guys moving on, and Stead tearing all the intelligence, forethought and endeavour out of it.

Tbh, I think the style of cricket that NZ played changed pretty much the second Baz left. Compare NZ's approach to test cricket in 2014 - early 2016 with the next few years that proceeded it and it's night and day. Now part of that is obviously down to swapping out McCullum for Henry Nicholls. But equally when you look at the way that guys like Taylor, Williamson and even Watling were playing during McCullum's reign, it's pretty clear that the mindset changed very quickly after McCullum retired.

I'm not saying one was better than the other. The 2015 England tour is a great example of the pro's and con's of bazball. I don't think KW's NZ team loses that 1st test v England. But I don't think they won the 2nd test either: NZ played some classic counterattacking bazball in that game to secure a win despite day 4 being washed out.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Getting back to coaches and this test in Pakistan, why don't NZC approach Jason Gillespie??

With crushing defeats at home to Bangladesh and now getting totally Bazballed on a highway his job can't be that safe considering how often Pakistan changes their coach. Let's at least give him an option if/when he gets sacked/quits.

 

[Bahnz]

Hearing yesterday about England making 800 in 150 overs and the repugnant Harry Brook making a triple century naturally led me to contemplate, as I often do, just how much cricket sucks these days.

Sig-worthy

 

[thierry henry]

Tbh, I think the style of cricket that NZ played changed pretty much the second Baz left.

Yeah. We were pretty damn BazBallish for the last 2.5 years of McCullum and my recollection is we literally played "normal" as soon as he retired.

 

[Starfighter]

Getting back to coaches and this test in Pakistan, why don't NZC approach Jason Gillespie??

With crushing defeats at home to Bangladesh and now getting totally Bazballed on a highway his job can't be that safe considering how often Pakistan changes their coach. Let's at least give him an option if/when he gets sacked/quits.

TBH, is Gillespie's CV that great? He's overseen years of utter suck coaching South Australia. And I've been quite a fan of of the idea of him coaching Australia.

 

[Bahnz]

I will say that I don't think it's a coincidence that KW was at his best as a batsman during McCullum's term. That push he gave Kane to score a little bit faster led to him imposing himself much more effectively on high quality bowling attacks. Since McCullum's departure his batting has been much more risk averse, which has worked wonderfully against mediocre bowling attacks, but led to him being quite easily contained and eventually worn down by the better sides.

 

[Immenso]

I think he's a very good coach and motivator, but he says some funny/weird/self-obsessed stuff. Telling people to "earn the right to be aggressive" is funny - particularly given he said that after getting smashed by South Africa - and some of the stuff England say these days is narcissistic. People make jokes about that, but don't necessarily think he's a bad at his job.

it's always been weird to me how much this site reacted to that Bazism.

It's surely just a transposition of the very common rugbyism (common when Baz would have been growing up) of "you have to earn the right to go wide"

Which meant to play attacking rugby and spin it wide you needed to earn that first via the hard unglamorous work of forward play. Get field position and front-foot ball.

This is an anachronism now, though. Probably hasn't made sense or been rugby orthodoxy for over 20 years. Is now about 'transitions'.

Although I don't know what particularly Baz meant by that back in 2013 in the cricketing sense. My best guess is the very bland ' 100/2 earns a freedom to attack that 20/2 doesn't'. Etc.

But paradoxically, bazball batting by England could be summed up as 'un-earned early aggression earns the right to milk it orthodoxically'.

 

[SteveNZ]

See, I love this ****. A bunch of different perspectives that let me see past the biased one I have