New NZ Test match philosophy & team

[anzac]

It would appear from the recent series v RSA that NZ wants to adopt a more attacking style of batting to 'advance the game' to place themselves in a better position to win more matches. While this is an admirable strategy / philosophy, the question is do they possess the right disciplines, mix & players in their team in order to do this successfully & then to win????

Me thinks not on current showings.............

8D

 

[anzac]

The simple objective of the game is to score more runs than your opposition while taking 20 wickets to win the match. Your strategy / philosophy are about how you approach the game, and your tactics are how you execute this during the match.

This said where does your player selection come into it?? Are your selections based upon your philosophy or do your player resources go some way to determining both your philosophy & tactics?

8D

 

[anzac]

Using AUS as the example (as current No1), their philosophy is one of attack & their strategy is to build a big run total quickly to advance the state of the game & create extra time for their bowling attack to take the required 20 wickets.

To achieve this they use a 'traditional' 6 batsmen - 4 bowler mix. With the bonus of having a 'keeping allrounder they effectively have batting strength down to No7. They accelerate their run scoring from their Openers, and have a number of aggressive batsmen in their lineup - probably 5 out of 7, with the remaining 2 being attacking without necessarily being aggressive (Martyn & Katich?) or 6 out of 7 when Symonds plays. Because they have batting strength in depth they can afford to loose wickets while still going for their shots in an effort to dominate the opposition bowling & tactics. Furthermore only 2 of their 'Tail' can be called 'traditional', with the Nos 8 & 9 also liking to play shots (Warne & Lee / Bickell).

They then use a 'traditional' 3 seam / 1 spin bowling attack, but all of whom are 'strike / attacking' bowlers, as opposed to any 'containment' bowlers. They are able to use an all out attack as they generate the extra runs req'd with their batting. Their contaiment options come from their slow bowling options from their batsmen.

In contrast the NZ team is nothing like this.............

8D

 

[Lions81]

I do think that a team's philosophy must be consistent with the kind of players it has, but that doesn't mean a team can't produce any kind of players it wants.

New Zealand is flush with all-rounders who bowl good some good fastish medium-pace. This makes their batting lineup considerably longer than other teams (which the South Africans discovered after letting their guard down after pushing NZ to 6 or 7 down only to see them double their score before being all out.) But they don't really have any batsmen who can dominate a side. Astle and Fleming aren't the same as they used to be. They don't have a Hayden, but the way they play, they don't need it. They don't go out expecting a century from anyone, but expect everyone to bat with a solid 40 and they always seem to end up at around 350-400.

I think it is a wise decision for them to become more attacking, as Test cricket has become increasingly attacking. No New Zealand batsman will give bowlers of any class nightmares, but they are all gritty players. Their historically good touring record is evidence of this. Likewise, no New Zealand bowlers will give batsmen of any class nightmares (even Shane Bond is now reduced to medium-pace apparently, although hopefully that's only until he regains full fitness) but they bowl smartly and probe away until they take wickets. Also Fleming's captaincy can't be discounted.

The only thing New Zealand really lacks is a high-quality spinner. But really how many teams have one? Only Australia, Sri Lanka and India come to mind. (Pakistan do have Mushtaq, but he seems a spent force, and Kaneria is too inexperienced to say at this juncture). This means the other seven test teams really have no spinner of note, but that doesn't mean New Zealand shouldn't try. I think Vettori is highly overrated, and is in the team more for his batting than his harmless bowling. A bowler with a test average of 37.8 is not good, and I don't care what anyone will say about New Zealand pitches not being conducive to spin; he doesn't bowl well on spin-friendly surfaces either. That seems to be the last piece of the puzzle as far as New Zealand are concerned.

One weakness that New Zealand have is quick deliveries which swing, as Akhtar and Sami made clear. (South Africa didn't do as well as Pakistan because Ntini has good pace but he bowls too straight, and in my opinion underuses his effective cutters, and Pollock gets prodigious swing but not enough pace. Nel - who knows what he'll bowl next!)

To be honest, I've typed too much and I've forgotten my main point so I'll stop here!

 

[anzac]

In contrast NZ currently lines up with 5 batsmen, 2 allrounders, 'keeper & 3 specialist bowlers. Potentially they can bat down to 9 (Vettori).

Of their primary batting one Opener is defensive (Richardson), 2 are attacking (Papps & Fleming), with the remaining 5 being aggressive (Styris, Macca / Astle, Cairns, McCullum & Oram).

In the bowling lineup they primarily have 4 seamers & 1 spinner. Of these they have generally only had 1 genuine 'strike' option (Tuffey), although they have the option to change this with more resources available (Bond & C Martin). Neither of their allrounders nor their spin option can be called 'strike' bowlers, with Oram & Vettori in particular being 'containment' style.

The AUS batting lineup is generally consistant, with the top order providing a strong platform to launch their attack. Most players usually contribute big scores throughout a series, with usually at least 1 per innings. The NZ top order currently fails to provide a platform, and most of the runs come from the middle & lower order, with only a few big contributions & not all batsmen contributing on a regular basis throughout a series. In the series v RSA all the major batting contributions came in the same match!

8D

 

[anzac]

In view of the above IMO NZ need to either make some lineup changes if they wish to persue this attacking batting, & / or change their strategy in recognition of their resources / strengths. I should point out that IMO NZ's strength has been in 'containment' & restricting / strangling opposition batting, as opposed to 'striking' to take wickets.

So far as their batting goes the lack of quick runs from the Openers places a lot of pressure on the remaining top & middle order to 'advance the game quickly'. Furthermore the middle & lower orders are all primarily aggressive players. If they come off it can be spectacular, but likewise it can also lead to spectacular collapses. The primary solution is to obtain more runs / a better platform from the top order thus relieving the urgency & burdon upon the middle & lower orders; the 2nd is to either install better disciplines in the middle & lower order re shot selection, or to break up the run of aggressive batsmen from 4 - 8.

So far as the bowling goes IMO they need to take wickets to win matches, regardless of the batting. To this end they should pick their bowlers best capable of doing this - 'attack / strike' rather than 'containment'. This may mean a weakening of the lower order / tail batting, but the primary function must be to take wickets.

It is unlikely that they will drop both Oram & Vettori but IMO they can not afford to have 2 'containment' bowlers in the side as primary bowling options. IMO there is no point in trying to 'advance the game' if you are then going to try to 'contain' rather than 'attack'. They must decide who makes the best contributions to the team requirements with ball & then bat.

My pick would be to retain Oram - if this means not having a spin option on anything other than a turning track then so be it until such time as spin then becomes an offensive option.

Based upon this I'd use a 4 seam attack on anything other than turning tracks with Oram one of those 4 selections - the others currently being Cairns, Tuffey, Bond / C Martin. This would then allow for the inclusion of a 6th batsman to break up the pattern in the middle - lower orders. On flat decks I'd also look to bring in another seam option such as Franklin for variety, perhaps in place of C Martin or Tuffey.

In essence I'd say they are close, but as stated IMO do not have the right mix / disciplines currently to execute this new strategy with any level of confidence.

8D

 

[Mingster]

Jesus Christ Anzac.

These 2 series has been the only time in a long time that we have only played 5 specialist batsmen. So I wouldn't call it a traditional way. We played Oram at 6 in SL for a one-off.

 

[Mingster]

In view of the above IMO NZ need to either make some lineup changes if they wish to persue this attacking batting, & / or change their strategy in recognition of their resources / strengths. I should point out that IMO NZ's strength has been in 'containment' & restricting / strangling opposition batting, as opposed to 'striking' to take wickets.

So far as their batting goes the lack of quick runs from the Openers places a lot of pressure on the remaining top & middle order to 'advance the game quickly'. Furthermore the middle & lower orders are all primarily aggressive players. If they come off it can be spectacular, but likewise it can also lead to spectacular collapses. The primary solution is to obtain more runs / a better platform from the top order thus relieving the urgency & burdon upon the middle & lower orders; the 2nd is to either install better disciplines in the middle & lower order re shot selection, or to break up the run of aggressive batsmen from 4 - 8.

So far as the bowling goes IMO they need to take wickets to win matches, regardless of the batting. To this end they should pick their bowlers best capable of doing this - 'attack / strike' rather than 'containment'. This may mean a weakening of the lower order / tail batting, but the primary function must be to take wickets.

It is unlikely that they will drop both Oram & Vettori but IMO they can not afford to have 2 'containment' bowlers in the side as primary bowling options. IMO there is no point in trying to 'advance the game' if you are then going to try to 'contain' rather than 'attack'. They must decide who makes the best contributions to the team requirements with ball & then bat.

My pick would be to retain Oram - if this means not having a spin option on anything other than a turning track then so be it until such time as spin then becomes an offensive option.

Based upon this I'd use a 4 seam attack on anything other than turning tracks with Oram one of those 4 selections - the others currently being Cairns, Tuffey, Bond / C Martin. This would then allow for the inclusion of a 6th batsman to break up the pattern in the middle - lower orders. On flat decks I'd also look to bring in another seam option such as Franklin for variety, perhaps in place of C Martin or Tuffey.

In essence I'd say they are close, but as stated IMO do not have the right mix / disciplines currently to execute this new strategy with any level of confidence.

8D

ORAM IS NOT A BLOODY CONTAINING BOWLER. HIS CURRENT TEST STATS SHOW THAT DUDE.

jeeeeez...

 

[nibbs]

WORD

Oram has got some quite notable batsmen out in his time. His average of 24 or whatever it is, is awesome. He's a strike bowler for sure.

 

[anzac]

I do think that a team's philosophy must be consistent with the kind of players it has, but that doesn't mean a team can't produce any kind of players it wants.

They don't go out expecting a century from anyone, but expect everyone to bat with a solid 40 and they always seem to end up at around 350-400.

I think it is a wise decision for them to become more attacking, as Test cricket has become increasingly attacking. No New Zealand batsman will give bowlers of any class nightmares, but they are all gritty players. Likewise, no New Zealand bowlers will give batsmen of any class nightmares but they bowl smartly and probe away until they take wickets. Also Fleming's captaincy can't be discounted.

The only thing New Zealand really lacks is a high-quality spinner. But really how many teams have one? That seems to be the last piece of the puzzle as far as New Zealand are concerned.

One weakness that New Zealand have is quick deliveries which swing, as Akhtar and Sami made clear.

Sorry for butchering your post but I wanted to highlight the main points as I saw them..........I agree with basically everything you have said, with some provisos.....

I agree that just because a team may not have the 'right' players available for their philosophy that that in itself should cause them to change or not persue such player development - much as the Aussies have done re quick scoring batsmen.

I'd agree that the 40 odd runs expectation has been part of their strategy along with their extended batting up until now, but I do not think it is necessarily complementary to quick runs or advancing the game. The Aussies are the best but any team that has a strong batting lineup has some big contributions per innings...Likewise with the bowling - advancing the game is pointless if you are not going to use the 'extra' time to attack.

Similarly I think that several current players have the potential to cause the opposition headaches - Fleming primarily does so already in ODIs & would do so in Tests if he did not push too hard too early. Same goes for most of the other batsmen. Astle & Macca both have solid averages & can be devastating. Styris, Oram & McCullum are all new to the scene, with Styris & Oram improving with each series. The common failing is that they lack the discipline to put a series of strong innings together on a regular basis - within a match let alone a series.........however this will have to change now that there is competition for batting places across the lineup.

Spin IMO on current tracks unless you are a wrist spinner or playing in the sub-continent you may as well forget it. Likewise the weakness against fast inswing bowling - the reality is there are few very good exponents of either discipline so as to be able to discount them provided you are disciplined re your shot selection.

 

[anzac]

Jesus Christ Anzac.

These 2 series has been the only time in a long time that we have only played 5 specialist batsmen. So I wouldn't call it a traditional way. We played Oram at 6 in SL for a one-off.

Cairns bats at 6 when available, and I was using the basis of Bracewells' comment that McCullum would bat at 6 & Oram 7 in the post Cairns era.........so perhaps traditional is the wrong word - 'itenteds'.........

 

[Mingster]

No you are wrong again mate.

Cairns has always batted 7 with Astle and McMillan at 5 and 6.

Check your stats man.

That's why there was all the talk b4 the Pakistan series that 6 is too high for Cairns in Tests.

 

[anzac]

WORD

Oram has got some quite notable batsmen out in his time. His average of 24 or whatever it is, is awesome. He's a strike bowler for sure.

nope..........not in my book

in 10 matches he has 29 wickets - say 3 per match. From a genuine 'strike' bowler I'd expect that many per innings!!! His strike rate is in the high 60's & ok it's as good or even better than some, but the genuine 'strike' bowlers all have averages in the low 50s or better..............

Oram is IMO primarily a 'containment' bowler but one that does take a couple of wickets.........

please do not confuse my use of the terms 'stike' / 'containment' as opposed to 'attacking ' / 'defensive'........for I do not consider Oram a 'defensive' bowler.......when I use the term 'strike' I am referring to those bowlers whose function it is to take wickets = Bond, C Martin, McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Hoggard, Wasim, Waqar etc...........Oram does not fit this profile IMO.......

 

[Mingster]

You should use different words then anzac, containment gives the impression that he can't take wickets but can only restrict. Who cares if Oram has a bad strike rate, but he's bowling average is still impressive.

Our whole bowling can't be make of strike bowlers, every team in the world has their grafters.

I guess you didn't see Oram with the new ball in Auckland? He wasn't containing.

 

[anzac]

You should use different words then anzac, containment gives the impression that he can't take wickets but can only restrict. Who cares if Oram has a bad strike rate, but he's bowling average is still impressive.

Our whole bowling can't be make of strike bowlers, every team in the world has their grafters.

I guess you didn't see Oram with the new ball in Auckland? He wasn't containing.

if I wanted to give that impression I would have called him 'defensive' or 'restrictive' - I'm talking about roles as much as style........all I'm saying about his bowling is that he is not the sort of bowler who is going to take a haul of wickets - that is not his role..........

The Aussies don't have too many grafters in Gillespie, McGrath, Lee & Co..........

Yeah he had to step up as a result of Tuffey's injury, but it is not his primary role as a bowler.............and even so he still did not take a hat full of wickets - 1 / 47.............

 

[anzac]

No you are wrong again mate.

Cairns has always batted 7 with Astle and McMillan at 5 and 6.

Check your stats man.

That's why there was all the talk b4 the Pakistan series that 6 is too high for Cairns in Tests.

yeah you're right - 'intends' is the more appropriate term as Cairns is a bad reference having been out of the side as much as he's been in it............

still doesn't change the point being Bracewell batting McCullum at 6 = 5 specialist batsmen, 'keeper, allrounder? & 4 bowlers........

IMO it's too soon to be calling McCullum a 'keeping allrounder, and goes to my point about Oram at 7 is in effect primarily a 5th bowler...........

my point being that I think we have too many 'containment' bowlers - not enough 'strike' bowlers nor enough batsmen........if we want to persue the strategy of advancing the game & then taking advantage of it...........

so aside from the details re Oram's bowling etc - how do you feel about the strategy & mix etc?????

 

[Craig]

I do think that a team's philosophy must be consistent with the kind of players it has, but that doesn't mean a team can't produce any kind of players it wants.

New Zealand is flush with all-rounders who bowl good some good fastish medium-pace. This makes their batting lineup considerably longer than other teams (which the South Africans discovered after letting their guard down after pushing NZ to 6 or 7 down only to see them double their score before being all out.) But they don't really have any batsmen who can dominate a side. Astle and Fleming aren't the same as they used to be. They don't have a Hayden, but the way they play, they don't need it. They don't go out expecting a century from anyone, but expect everyone to bat with a solid 40 and they always seem to end up at around 350-400.

I think it is a wise decision for them to become more attacking, as Test cricket has become increasingly attacking. No New Zealand batsman will give bowlers of any class nightmares, but they are all gritty players. Their historically good touring record is evidence of this. Likewise, no New Zealand bowlers will give batsmen of any class nightmares (even Shane Bond is now reduced to medium-pace apparently, although hopefully that's only until he regains full fitness) but they bowl smartly and probe away until they take wickets. Also Fleming's captaincy can't be discounted.

The only thing New Zealand really lacks is a high-quality spinner. But really how many teams have one? Only Australia, Sri Lanka and India come to mind. (Pakistan do have Mushtaq, but he seems a spent force, and Kaneria is too inexperienced to say at this juncture). This means the other seven test teams really have no spinner of note, but that doesn't mean New Zealand shouldn't try. I think Vettori is highly overrated, and is in the team more for his batting than his harmless bowling. A bowler with a test average of 37.8 is not good, and I don't care what anyone will say about New Zealand pitches not being conducive to spin; he doesn't bowl well on spin-friendly surfaces either. That seems to be the last piece of the puzzle as far as New Zealand are concerned.

One weakness that New Zealand have is quick deliveries which swing, as Akhtar and Sami made clear. (South Africa didn't do as well as Pakistan because Ntini has good pace but he bowls too straight, and in my opinion underuses his effective cutters, and Pollock gets prodigious swing but not enough pace. Nel - who knows what he'll bowl next!)

To be honest, I've typed too much and I've forgotten my main point so I'll stop here!

You make some good points in there, but I have to disagree about Fleming's batting - going to play for Middlesex in 2001 was the best thing he has ever done.

 

[Lions81]

You make some good points in there, but I have to disagree about Fleming's batting - going to play for Middlesex in 2001 was the best thing he has ever done.

Fair enough. I am being a little unfair towards Fleming. But after his magnificent 192 against Pakistan in the first test of their recent tour of New Zealand, he really faltered, getting two ducks and a 24 while his team collapsed around him, so I suppose those unfairly left more of an impression than the 192. But yes, his batting has improved since 2001.

 

[marc71178]

ORAM IS NOT A BLOODY CONTAINING BOWLER. HIS CURRENT TEST STATS SHOW THAT DUDE.

No, they show he took wickets on substandard pitches then has been averaging in the mid 30's since then.

 

[Mingster]

No, they show he took wickets on substandard pitches then has been averaging in the mid 30's since then.

He's played 10 tests.

India only played 2 Tests here last year.