*Unofficial* New Zealand Black Caps Thread

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I know it’s a debate from 20 years ago, but Fleming’s failure to make more tons really does need to count against him. Pretty scores of between 50 and 99 don’t tend to win or save you matches; tons tend to count more in that analysis. From that perspective, I’d be inclined to look elsewhere for the middle order - assuming you have an equally good captain to take that role.

 

[SteveNZ]

I know it’s a debate from 20 years ago, but Fleming’s failure to make more tons really does need to count against him. Pretty scores of between 50 and 99 don’t tend to win or save you matches; tons tend to count more in that analysis. From that perspective, I’d be inclined to look elsewhere for the middle order - assuming you have an equally good captain to take that role.

It's a really interesting one mate, I read a Dylan Cleaver column where he said he asked Kane what his biggest bug bear was about the media...and he said the over analysis of conversion rates. God bless Kane who knows Test cricket better than I ever will, but I can't see how to agree on that in the modern era.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

It's a really interesting one mate, I read a Dylan Cleaver column where he said he asked Kane what his biggest bug bear was about the media...and he said the over analysis of conversion rates. God bless Kane who knows Test cricket better than I ever will, but I can't see how to agree on that in the modern era.

Really? That's astounding. Of all of the things to choose, he chooses conversion rate analysis. Really surprising that. Wonder if they hear a lot more about that in their inner sanctum.

 

[ataraxia]

There's a good argument to be made that much about conversion rates is essentially random. Unless you're Fleming or Sinclair it's a non-factor that sometimes gets overblown.

Anyway, it's funny that Kane would say that considering his incredible conversion rate over the past few years.

 

[Flem274*]

I guess as captain he might have viewed scores in context. His WTC final 49 and 51* were better and worth more than 200* at Napier in March.

 

[SteveNZ]

Really? That's astounding. Of all of the things to choose, he chooses conversion rate analysis. Really surprising that. Wonder if they hear a lot more about that in their inner sanctum.

Yep, I'll take a screen shot and post it when I get the chance

 

[Immenso]

Two interesting conversations on latest Front Foot podcast.

I haven't listened to the title piece yet on Ashwin, skipped that, will listen at a later time.

They have John Bracewell discussing spin bowling development & coaching, in NZ specifically.

and then Paul Wiseman talking about latest Domestic U19 tournament, and the youth pathways.

On The Front Foot Episode 203: Paying tribute to the career of Ravi Ashwin - On The Front Foot

On The Front Foot is your weekly cricket podcast with Bryan Waddle and Jeremy Coney. Two of the most iconic voices of New Zealand cricket, keep you up to date with the leather on willow this summer. Powered by Newstalk ZB and iHeartRadio

pca.st

 

[Immenso]

^^
I have heard Coney quite often lately discuss NZ’s treatment of spinners, and the blackcaps specifically.

I don’t 100% agree with all he’s says on that topic usually, E.g. I don’t mind horses-for-courses - and I’m in favour of the best 4 bowlers being picked. So, don’t mind if the allrounder (and 5th bowler is the spinner in NZ conditions, as long as the 4 seamers are good enough)

But some context I have heard him give before (either on other podcast or in commentary). Is that the blackcaps teams he was a part of in the early 1980s, with Frank Cameron as chief selector, usually didn’t pick a spinner either. With Lance Cairns as a 4th seamer doing the spinners donkey role (and Coney himself as 5th bowler with his mediums)

E.g. NZ didn’t pick a spinner at all for any of the home tests of 81/82 and 82/83 season, and in only 1 out of the 3 tests in the 80/81 season.

When he became captain, and Glen Turner became the first ever coach, the team always had a spinner (with Bracewell securing that spot).

Curiously. If you look at that 3 season span from 81 to 83. The 1 match out of 8 that they played a spinner he took 9 for 136.

I first started watching cricket in the 82/83 season as a kid. I had actually watched 1 and a half seasons before I ever saw an NZ spin bowler (Boock, 2nd test v England in 83/84). And IIRC he took a wicket with his first delivery. Up until that moment, I think I thought spinners were just these things that England had which Lance Cairns hit for 6)

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Must say, Macewell has been looking in very good form with the bat this SS.

Augurs well for him for the CT.

Wellington have been batting him too low. wonder if that is a directive or request from BC management (or himself?) to replicate his role at the higher level.

Wellington have a decent top 4 (in theory) and absolutely no middle-lower order, it makes total sense to send him in at 5 or 6.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

It's a really interesting one mate, I read a Dylan Cleaver column where he said he asked Kane what his biggest bug bear was about the media...and he said the over analysis of conversion rates. God bless Kane who knows Test cricket better than I ever will, but I can't see how to agree on that in the modern era.

There's a good argument to be made that much about conversion rates is essentially random. Unless you're Fleming or Sinclair it's a non-factor that sometimes gets overblown.

Anyway, it's funny that Kane would say that considering his incredible conversion rate over the past few years.

Kane is right and I think you're missing his point. What matters is overall quantity/quality of runs and postitive match impact. These will usually tend to correlate with more 100s but not necessarily. I also don't think focussing on the arbitrary landmark of 100 does batsmen any good psychologically, given it's proven that they slow down from 90-100 and get out more often from 100-105.

 

[SteveNZ]

Kane is right and I think you're missing his point. What matters is overall quantity/quality of runs and postitive match impact. These will usually tend to correlate with more 100s but not necessarily. I also don't think focussing on the arbitrary landmark of 100 does batsmen any good psychologically, given it's proven that they slow down from 90-100 and get out more often from 100-105.

He may have a point, but I don't think it is an all encompassing point.

Yeah, his 49 + 50 odd not out in the WTC final are the shining examples of quality of runs over 'arbitrary' milestones.

However, you can absolutely compare someone like him, with an insanely good conversion rate, to a Will Young, a Tom Latham etc. Tom Latham makes way too many 30s. Will Young has a sub-par conversion rate in both FC and Test cricket. Both of them can play every shot the MCC manual has to offer, but find new and infuriating ways to get out. It's a mental issue with those players. Surely we can judge players on their ability to turn 30 or 40, into 80 then into 150? The best players do it. Henry Nicholls, for all his faults, if he got in, he converted it (12 half tons and 9 tons - 3 scores over 150, a double ton plus four of his tons were not outs) so he deserves recognition for his mental ability to produce that.

And yeah, in an ideal world - where players are completely rational actors - milestones are arbitrary. But they aren't. Never will be. Until we're robots, round numbers mean something. They are judged on this. Their reputation and possibly their livelihood/job relies on it. When John Wright was coach, he tried to make a conscious team-wide edict that milestones did not matter. It didn't last at all. You're never going to change that in people.

 

[DougieRydal]

I guess it's another arbitrary number, but I've always thought a stat that showed "(number of innings)/(number of times past 50)" would be worthwhile, for instance Williamson's test stat for that would be 2.65, so every 2.65 times he goes out to bat he gets past 50. (186/70)

Here some random comparisons over the years...

Kumar Sangakkara 2.59
Viv Richards 2.64
Jacques Kallis 2.72
Greg Chappell 2.74
Joe Root 2.75
Sachin Tendulkar 2.76
AB De Villiers 2.81
Steve Smith 2.81
Brian Lara 2.82
Allan Border 2.94
Steve Waugh 3.17
Virat Kohli 3.44
Ross Taylor 3.56
David Gower 3.57
Martin Crowe 3.74
Ben Stokes 4.13

And of course the outlier - DG Bradman 1.90

Largely depends on what you think success is too. In my eyes getting past 50 means you've 'succeeded', but doesn't show opposition, conditions, match state etc, for example Tom Latham numbers above sit at 3.59 (about the same as Taylor's)

Anyhow food for thought, but it's a calculation I do automatically whenever I see career stats shown on-screen.

 

[SteveNZ]

It's definitely not arbitrary, although yeah it is like a bikini as the saying goes - it doesn't show the full picture.

Latham having comparable statistics in that regard to Ross Taylor, as an opener versus a #4, is a credit to him in some respects. I wonder what the statistics show for the leading openers of all time, like Cook/Hayden/Strauss/G.Smith etc (I don't like opening batsmen, I'm sure there's better examples)

 

[Immenso]

Here is a sort of heat map by birth year, of all players who have played in NZ domestic cricket so far this season.

Can see the incredible 'class of 90 to 92' are now being eclipsed in quantity by a bulge around 1999 to 2001.

Although the class of that 99 to 01 bulge is way down on 90 to 92. With only 3 all-format players in that later group looking reasonably nailed on (Ravindra, O'Rourke and possibly Hay). Where as 90 to 92 we had entire sqauds worth.

I am quite bullish about the potential of the 2002 to 2004 years though.

 

[Flem274*]

Always promising to see a good bulge

 

[ataraxia]

Yeah that really paints a picture. Over the next few seasons it could be a massive changing of the guard (which Otago seem to have started half a decade before everyone else). Notice there's no Ruben Clinton: is he playing as an overseas player?

 

[ataraxia]

Yeah that really paints a picture. Over the next few seasons it could be a massive changing of the guard (which Otago seem to have started half a decade before everyone else). Notice there's no Ruben Clinton: is he playing as an overseas player?

Nevermind: spotted him. It's itstl that cricinfo sees him as born in 1998 in Texas while CricketArchive gives it as 2004 in South Africa.

 

[Immenso]

Here is the same heat-map colour coded by province (the province picking them, not who produced them).

Doesn't reveal too much. Except ND are getting old, as Howsie has posted.
Otago is a good place to get a start young, which has been the case for a long time.

 

[Immenso]

Blair Tickner rejoins Derbyshire for 2025 season

Black Caps quick returns after stint last summer was cut short following his wife's cancer diagnosis

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[_Ed_]

Great to hear that his wife is doing better.