New Zealand doom and gloom thread

[Hurricane]

I don't know about the "halfway" thing. We're really not asking much of him.

What is his current status has he been stood down or has he voluntarily stood down - or both?

Half way means if he gets sober and gets some 50s bring him back.

 

[Bahnz]

Ryder gets back into the team if he earns it. We are not giving him a free ride, that's the worst possible way to go about it. It's not like he has to do much, anyway, if he's really so talented it shouldn't be hard to string together few decent innings in our domestix.

Watching Jesse Ryder in domestic cricket can be hilarious. He seems to get really bored with how **** the bowlers are, and treats them all with abject contempt...which quite often leads to him tossing his wicket away with an awful slog.

I can't see him coming back for the SL test series, but he does have plenty of PS matches to make his case before the SA tour, if indeed he makes himself available for that tour. If he averages 45+ (remember it'll be early season green tops), then it may be worthwhile giving him a callup. However, even if he shows a good attitude and strong form, I'd rather keep him out of the action until England come touring next year.

I do think New Zealand Cricket needs to communicate very carefully with Ryder. Talk to him about when he wants to come back, when NZC thinks he should come back, and what he has to do to achieve that.

 

[Meridio]

What is his current status has he been stood down or has he voluntarily stood down - or both?

Half way means if he gets sober and gets some 50s bring him back.

Am reasonably sure he's made himself unavailable for selection at the moment. However, he has picked up a Wellington contract so presumably he will be playing for them from the start of the domestic season; whether that means he'll then become eligible again I don't know. Anyway, we can't just give him a free ticket back into the national team, he needs to earn it both through performance on the field and attitude off it.

The only thing I will contribute to the discussion is that I don't think williamson got out to a tough nut in the 2nd dig. His general off side play needs better execution (except for his back foot drive which is excellent).

I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with his off side play. He's technically as good as anyone; if I had a criticism of him it's that IMO he's let the bowlers bowl at him as they please, rather than looking to put pressure on them - not necessarily through aggressive shots, but by looking to pick up singles rather than dead-batting in defence. Means the bowlers can bowl as they want, surrounded by as many catchers as they want.

 

[SteveNZ]

The only thing I will contribute to the discussion is that I don't think williamson got out to a tough nut in the 2nd dig. His general off side play needs better execution (except for his back foot drive which is excellent).

I am still of the belief that Guptil's dismissal caused a chain of unneccessary dismissals. Yadav would never have bowled that nut to Baz unless he had've tasted success against Martin etc.

I have no general comments on the health of new zealand cricket other than something needs to be done to get Ryder back into the team. He would be an upgrade (if playing his best) on either Franklin or Flynn.

Why did Ryder have to have troubles with alcohol.

Think you're being a touch harsh to Gup. It was a full bunger he didn't really pick up, it wasn't like he tried to hoick it or do anything stupid. Just didn't see it like he would have wanted to. A ball like the one that Yadav bowled to Brendon could have come at any time.

 

[Hurricane]

Think you're being a touch harsh to Gup. It was a full bunger he didn't really pick up, it wasn't like he tried to hoick it or do anything stupid. Just didn't see it like he would have wanted to. A ball like the one that Yadav bowled to Brendon could have come at any time.

I'm an expert at getting out - and I've never been bowled by a full toss - (wait yes once it was a big looper (his slower ball) and I tried to hit it into next week.)

He got beaten for pace really - but he wasn't bowling 150kms or 155kms. I don't know what to say about it - I felt it was an important dismissal.

 

[Hurricane]

I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with his off side play. He's technically as good as anyone; if I had a criticism of him it's that IMO he's let the bowlers bowl at him as they please, rather than looking to put pressure on them - not necessarily through aggressive shots, but by looking to pick up singles rather than dead-batting in defence. Means the bowlers can bowl as they want, surrounded by as many catchers as they want.

If I had $10 for every dismissal he has to off side shots I would have enough for a good night out. At first I used to think he was using bad judgement in picking his shots now I just think it is his execution.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I'm an expert at getting out - and I've never been bowled by a full toss - (wait yes once it was a big looper (his slower ball) and I tried to hit it into next week.)

He got beaten for pace really - but he wasn't bowling 150kms or 155kms. I don't know what to say about it - I felt it was an important dismissal.

I don't see how he could've been beaten for pace, he was a good few years early into the shot. Just tried to clobber it and forgot all about technique, was a lousy shot all around. Don't see how it excuses any of the others, though.

 

[SteveNZ]

I'm an expert at getting out - and I've never been bowled by a full toss - (wait yes once it was a big looper (his slower ball) and I tried to hit it into next week.)

He got beaten for pace really - but he wasn't bowling 150kms or 155kms. I don't know what to say about it - I felt it was an important dismissal.

I just really think he didn't pick it up. Sure, Yadav being a bit quicker didn't help. I've bowled a few guys with full peas, especially early in their innings. Sub-conciously, you're not looking for a ball there. Hence why beamers cause such issues. Later in an innings you can deal with it better but early on it can get you, and certain sitescreens can cause issues too.

Gup does have a magnificent way of finding different ways to get out.

 

[Hurricane]

I just really think he didn't pick it up. Sure, Yadav being a bit quicker didn't help. I've bowled a few guys with full peas, especially early in their innings. Sub-conciously, you're not looking for a ball there. Hence why beamers cause such issues. Later in an innings you can deal with it better but early on it can get you, and certain sitescreens can cause issues too.

Gup does have a magnificent way of finding different ways to get out.

Ok fair dues Steve that is a good answer - you would hope though a few throw downs would warm you up though.

@Welabidarned - as a club cricketer than bats number 4 - when my openers get out for **** all and I walk in to bat with the score 7 for 2, the bowlers are bowling absolute jaffas at me because they believe in themselves. When I walk in and the score is on 30 the batting is a lot easier. And much easier on 70.
No way Yadav bowls that beauty to McCullum if Guptil had've kept his one out.
And my theory is ross would've scored more if he could have walked out to bat 15 overs later.

Cricket is a team game - not the just the sum of the scores of the individual batsman. The openers create momentum for the inning.

 

[SteveNZ]

Can't argue with your logic. Yadav did bowl a steaming pile in the first innings and probably got some momentum out of a wicket, albeit an undeserved one.

Unfortunately Ross got out sweeping to Ashwin so I don't think coming in later would have done anything about that. He, and everyone else, are vulnerable at any time.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I don't think any of our batsmen deserve to be cut any slack based on their overall performances, whether Yadav was fired up or not. The delivery to McCullum was decent, but not unplayable from what I remember.

 

[Pup Clarke]

And deliveries need to be unplayable to get wickets? Those are the ones that inevitably beat the edge.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I meant it was a delivery that he could've easily been left. When a guy like Yadav gets on a rhythym, it only takes a couple of overs of playing it safe for him to get frustrated.

 

[Hurricane]

Disagree with you Welabidarned - It was in the channel of uncertainty.
. Most leg cutters bowled in the perfect channel will either get you or beat you unless you are on 60 runs and then somehow you go with the seam movement and hit it anyway.

 

[Bahnz]

Just a gentle bump for this.

A few rays of sunshine for our bowling. Southee really may be showing signs of finally turning his undeniable talent into consistent performances, and in Boult, and co. he has decent support. Our batting, on the other hand, is at it's weakest since the 1960's.

 

[Flem274*]

Too much credit being given to the class of 1995 imo.

 

[Flem274*]

But srsly I think some people in influential places buy into this somewhat. You hear it in interviews with players and management all the time. "If we play our best we will compete" and the like when we're playing teams with similar rankings to ours, let alone higher ups.

And we will never win with the above attitude. Ever. Considering NZ successes in sports of similar sizes with much, much, much less funding behind them, there is no excuse for the second largest sport in NZ to hide behind mummys legs.

If you want to look at the participation to performance ratio, the only sport in New Zealand that could come close to crickets level of underachievement is football, which is a much, much bigger sport globally.

Stand by this.

I'll add that the exaggerated intent of our batsmen bemuses me. If they get told to bat positively they try to hit everything out of the park, followed by padding half volleys back down the pitch when they get told to value their wickets. Coaching them must be like coaching 10 year olds on ponies - they're either galloping or dribbling. It betrays an alarming lack of experience and training. They should have this out of their systems by now.

My fingers will hardly allow me to type this out but van Wyk showed me enough in the last Test...argg....to suggest....yuck...that he deserves...geez...to stay.

post of the thread.

 

[Bahnz]

Too much credit being given to the class of 1995 imo.

Maybe, but it's a close run thing either way. Both teams had one good batsman (Crowe and Taylor) one talented youngster (Fleming and Williamson) one massive under achiever (Rutherford and McCullum). Parore a better batsman than Kruger, Young and Guptill pretty similar talent-wise, Thompson and Franklin both way out of their depth. It's close, it really is.

 

[Woodster]

Just a gentle bump for this.

A few rays of sunshine for our bowling. Southee really may be showing signs of finally turning his undeniable talent into consistent performances, and in Boult, and co. he has decent support. Our batting, on the other hand, is at it's weakest since the 1960's.

Really hope Southee finds that consistency, especially when the baqll isn't swinging round corners. Like Jimmy Anderson, we know Southee is a real handful when the ball is curving, but hopefully he can find a way to be effective when there is no swing around, like Anderson has developed, a plan B.

I'm also a fan of Doug Bracewell, though he appears to be having a tough time at present. Seems to have struggled on the sub-continent pitches and is leaking too many runs. But hopefully he's learning all the time, still only 22, so I'm sure he can come through this phase of his career a better player.

 

[Flem274*]

I've thought of a back handed positive.

If someone can actually ton up against CD, ND or Wellington we know they're a good player.

The negative: Brownlie and Ryder are about the only ones who have, and we already know they're decent.