2024–25 NZ domestic season

[wellAlbidarned]

I honestly think it's not just that his numbers are eh but that he low key has always kinda sucked (omg wow look guys it's TH being negative). Ok that's harsh, but he was always this guy and was never our next great all-rounder. Like, he was a theoretically exciting combo of big hitting and pacey-ish bowling, but he's basically always been a pretty substandard bowler and an unreliable slogger (who has probably gotten worse and worse as a pure batsman the more he has focused his game on flat-footed T20 boshing).

But yeah...his brand of boshing lends itself to the occasional clutch knock if you bowl in his (admittedly wide) arc, and his licorice allsorts bowling is mostly quite bad but occasionally golden arm-y.

Sorry Jimmy.

If you're purely there to slog and bowl quite badly, doesn't this sort of mean you're not that good? Like, really you either want a proper bowler who is also a good finisher, or a dodgy bowler who's also a proper batsman.

Even in the increasingly sabermetric-ed world of post T20 ODI cricket, and with me squinting as hard as possible and clenching vigorously in an attempt to accept niche (get it) boshing roles, I'm still saying that Neesham has occupied the role of a...not that good cricket playing guy.

you've set me off, time to do a full scale analysis of this instead of finishing a work project I'm over budget on

The people didn't ask for it, and here it is. Apologies for the delay, caught a nasty norovirus which wiped me out for four days.

First call is comparing Jimmy's batting against those batting in the same position

So for batting 6 and 7, Neesham both averages and strikes above the average number 6 or 7 player.

Next we compare by game phase:

Once again... Jimmy is firmly above par. No, he's not Sachin. But compared to everyone else (and I haven't even accounted for all-rounders vs specialist batsmen) who's had to do the same job as him, he's done a pretty solid job. I've been sick so I might do his bowling later, but even if he's a bog standard replacement level death slop bowler (which is almost certainly true) this makes him an extremely useful player.

I've always been frustrated by the dialogue around middle-lower order players and non-atg allrounders because it seems like players are held to a standard which is almost impossible to achieve in the role. You have to compare against what others have done in the same context.

ps: I have a million box plots too which I think are cool but clutter things up a bit too much and don't add that much to the argument

 

[ataraxia]

The people didn't ask for it, and here it is. Apologies for the delay, caught a nasty norovirus which wiped me out for four days.

First call is comparing Jimmy's batting against those batting in the same position
View attachment 45805View attachment 45806
So for batting 6 and 7, Neesham both averages and strikes above the average number 6 or 7 player.

Next we compare by game phase:
View attachment 45807View attachment 45808
Once again... Jimmy is firmly above par. No, he's not Sachin. But compared to everyone else (and I haven't even accounted for all-rounders vs specialist batsmen) who's had to do the same job as him, he's done a pretty solid job. I've been sick so I might do his bowling later, but even if he's a bog standard replacement level death slop bowler (which is almost certainly true) this makes him an extremely useful player.

I've always been frustrated by the dialogue around middle-lower order players and non-atg allrounders because it seems like players are held to a standard which is almost impossible to achieve in the role. You have to compare against what others have done in the same context.

ps: I have a million box plots too which I think are cool but clutter things up a bit too much and don't add that much to the argument

Gun post this. I'd be interested to see the same thing done for Latham.

3rd and 4th plots are copies, BTW.

 

[thierry henry]

The people didn't ask for it, and here it is. Apologies for the delay, caught a nasty norovirus which wiped me out for four days.

First call is comparing Jimmy's batting against those batting in the same position
View attachment 45805View attachment 45806
So for batting 6 and 7, Neesham both averages and strikes above the average number 6 or 7 player.

Next we compare by game phase:
View attachment 45809View attachment 45808
Once again... Jimmy is firmly above par. No, he's not Sachin. But compared to everyone else (and I haven't even accounted for all-rounders vs specialist batsmen) who's had to do the same job as him, he's done a pretty solid job. I've been sick so I might do his bowling later, but even if he's a bog standard replacement level death slop bowler (which is almost certainly true) this makes him an extremely useful player.

I've always been frustrated by the dialogue around middle-lower order players and non-atg allrounders because it seems like players are held to a standard which is almost impossible to achieve in the role. You have to compare against what others have done in the same context.

ps: I have a million box plots too which I think are cool but clutter things up a bit too much and don't add that much to the argument

Biggest thing this highlights for me is he averages over 33 at 6/7 compared to 28 for his career, which is enough of a difference to cast his batting in a slightly different light.

Weirdly he has scored 37 runs for 8 dismissals at an average of 4.87 when batting 8 or lower. So basically when playing as primarily a bowler he has been so aggressively bad with the bat that it noticeably hurts his numbers.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Biggest thing this highlights for me is he averages over 33 at 6/7 compared to 28 for his career, which is enough of a difference to cast his batting in a slightly different light.

Weirdly he has scored 37 runs for 8 dismissals at an average of 4.87 when batting 8 or lower. So basically when playing as primarily a bowler he has been so aggressively bad with the bat that it noticeably hurts his numbers.

yeah reading between the lines of interviews with him it sounded like he always struggled a bit mentally with batting, and thrived once he got a clearly defined role.

 

[Immenso]

Pretty terrible umpiring decision for Hampton LBW to Foulkes. Might have clipped the top of leg stump of a second set of wickets.

Edit: and the Seifert dismissal a bit iffy

 

[straw man]

Ah didn't realise Plunket shield back on.

Yeah that Foulkes lbw wasn't surviving a drs.

 

[DougieRydal]

Pretty terrible umpiring decision for Hampton LBW to Foulkes. Might have clipped the top of leg stump of a second set of wickets.

Edit: and the Seifert dismissal a bit iffy

Boom! - I posted that very thing on Twitter earlier, that was a shocker, high and missing leg by the looks (not the best view mind, but...)

 

[ataraxia]

I thought the Jack Boyle one was the worst of the lot tbh.

Anyway, nice to see Bruce back in the FC groove after a few poor games. And Joe Carter continues his FC prime.

 

[ataraxia]

That's a beaut from Foxcroft to get Tashkoff. I feel like he's a seriously underrated bowler tbh; still has a gun FC record.

 

[ataraxia]

#4 batsmen watch:

Kelly 117* (182)
JF Carter 132 (179)
Bruce 212* (260)
Sodhi 3* (6)

 

[Mike5181]

Is there anyone with a comparable record to Bruce's that's never played a test? 6k runs @ nearly 48. Munro played one test. Greg Hay did average 42-43 but it's a bit unlucky lol.

 

[vandem]

Is there anyone with a comparable record to Bruce's that's never played a test? 6k runs @ nearly 48. Munro played one test. Greg Hay did average 42-43 but it's a bit unlucky lol.

Next best I think Chapman 3259 FC runs @ 45, Bharat Popli 4624 runs @ 40.

Some other high FC run scorers played only 1 or 2 tests - Munro as above, Ingram (5623 runs @ 39, 2 tests), Broom (8457 runs @ 37, 2 tests).

 

[ataraxia]

Next best I think Chapman 3259 FC runs @ 45, Bharat Popli 4624 runs @ 40.

Some other high FC run scorers played only 1 or 2 tests - Munro as above, Ingram (5623 runs @ 39, 2 tests), Broom (8457 runs @ 37, 2 tests).

Schmulian's up there too: 3180 runs @ 40.

 

[Bahnz]

Bruce's record is insanely good. Damn unlucky to enter his prime at the same time as Mitchell.

 

[Howsie]

Is there anyone with a comparable record to Bruce's that's never played a test? 6k runs @ nearly 48. Munro played one test. Greg Hay did average 42-43 but it's a bit unlucky lol.

Cleaver has 5000 runs @ 40. Crazy to think really. Imagine saying we’d have a keeper with that record in FC back in 2011/12 and he’d never get a test match

 

[straw man]

Bruce is a really fine player and might've had the potential to do something Mitchell-like for NZ, if Mitchell hadn't done it first. A similar powerful ball striker who sets the tempo.

He really shouldn't have spent so much time batting down the order for CD - quite a while at 6 and then a long time at 5. This certainly affected how much I valued his runs, and probably did the NZ selectors too, particularly with CD's pitches usually on the flatter side. Bruce also always in Will Young's shadow as an NZ prospect from CD.

There fundamentally just haven't been spots up for grabs in NZ's middle order the last several years though. Aside from Nicholls eventually getting punted for Rachin.

 

[NZTailender]

Where's The Ship? I hope his season hasn't sunk

 

[Howsie]

Bruce currently 288 not out. Nice effort. Must be said that Auckland attack is shithouse though. Would it kill them to provide some decent fast bowling for once

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

300 up for Bruce and looks to be upping the run rate a bit.

Here's the list of domestic 300s to date as far as I can tell.

• 385 Bert Sutcliffe Otago v Canterbury at Christchurch 1952/53
• 355 Bert Sutcliffe Otago v Auckland at Dunedin 1949/50
• 338* Roger Blunt Otago v Canterbury at Christchurch 1931/32
• 334 Dean Brownlie Northern Districts v Central Districts at New Plymouth 2014/15
• 327* Devon Conway Wellington v Canterbury at Wellington 2019/20
• 316* Michael Papps Wellington v Auckland at Wellington 2017/18
• 301 Peter Fulton Canterbury v Auckland at Christchurch 2002/2003

 

[ataraxia]

Declarations are for wimps.