NZ domestic season 2023/24

[straw man]

100 for Severin. Highveld graft strikes again, etc., but he is pretty quality.

What age did Severin move to NZ?

He's 24, not quite as young as some of the others like Abbas but does look a very good player. And crucially, bats 3.

 

[Bahnz]

At a guess I'd say quite a while ago, given Wellington is the only team he's played FC cricket for.

 

[jcas0167]

Good runs for Mitch Hay to keep pressing for a back up role to Blundell or maybe the white ball squads.

 

[ataraxia]

Hay with the FC ton that has eluded him. Based on batting, he's well above Chu in the pecking order.

Like Snedden did, Younghusband falls shy of the nightwatchman hundy.

 

[Bahnz]

Very disappointing dismissal for Abass. Smashed the previous one (a similar ball), maybe he just let his attention drop for a second.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Nah, Will Young has opened the batting in county cricket for Northamptonshire.

Yeah. Got a century in cc too if I recall.

 

[Bahnz]

Hay with the FC ton that has eluded him. Based on batting, he's well above Chu in the pecking order.

looks a pretty flack track, but that's still a big hundred against a handy ND bowling attack. Blundell will need to pull his finger out or his spot will be at real risk when Stead's contact ends in 2025.

 

[Nintendo]

looks a pretty flack track, but that's still a big hundred against a handy ND bowling attack. Blundell will need to pull his finger out or his spot will be at real risk when Stead's contact ends in 2025.

Are we talking about red ball or whiteball? Blundell can be hit and miss, but he's still got a similiar batting average to Watling and is a fine keeper. Seriously doubt his spot is under any pressure.

 

[Immenso]

What age did Severin move to NZ?

He's 24, not quite as young as some of the others like Abbas but does look a very good player. And crucially, bats 3.

I've played against an old(ish) man Saverin in Wellington club cricket, wouldn't be surprised if it's his old man - and hence he probably moved young. Don't know, though.

Then again. It was maybe too low a level to be spawning FC level offspring...

 

[jcas0167]

Jordan Sussex with nice dismissals of Bruce and Hay. 30 yr old seamer playing his 2nd first class game. Simon Keene looked quite promising a couple of seasons ago but seems to have slipped back in the pecking order.

 

[Neil Young]

I've played against an old(ish) man Saverin in Wellington club cricket, wouldn't be surprised if it's his old man - and hence he probably moved young. Don't know, though.

I've heard Severin's name bandied round the Welly traps for years. Wouldn't be surprised if he moved as a 10yo.

 

[Immenso]

Jordan Sussex with nice dismissals of Bruce and Hay. 30 yr old seamer playing his 2nd first class game. Simon Keene looked quite promising a couple of seasons ago but seems to have slipped back in the pecking order.

I remember him looking quite impressive on his debut a few years ago, always been surprised he's not played again.

 

[Neil Young]

Then again. It was maybe too low a level to be spawning FC level offspring...

This is interesting (to me, at least), as I've just finished a book called Peak, which argues against natural talent. And puts most of it down to practice.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

This is interesting (to me, at least), as I've just finished a book called Peak, which argues against natural talent. And puts most of it down to practice.

Having a parent who’s there to influence and provide some of the initial steps though must be of massive value in encouraging children down a certain path.

 

[Immenso]

This is interesting (to me, at least), as I've just finished a book called Peak, which argues against natural talent. And puts most of it down to practice.

TBH. It's also a level that has had ex-FC players in it. Just they're reaaaallly old. A league of extremes.

 

[Neil Young]

Having a parent who’s there to influence and provide some of the initial steps though must be of massive value in encouraging children down a certain path.

yep. Starting early and practicing the right things are worth a lot more in the long run than any natural talent.

So being exposed to something as a kid - and by a parent who knows what they are doing - is a big advantage.

 

[Neil Young]

TBH. It's also a level that has had ex-FC players in it. Just they're reaaaallly old. A league of extremes.

The Mercantile league? Though I don't even know if that's still a thing. But, there were always handy players knocking round in that league.

 

[thierry henry]

yep. Starting early and practicing the right things are worth a lot more in the long run than any natural talent.

tbh this is only something that occurred to me relatively recently, having just assumed that "natural talent" was a very real thing, and I think there is a lot of truth to what you say. However, I do still believe that there are significant differences in "natural talent" between people, perhaps most significantly in terms of your physiology (harder for a tiny guy to be a fast bowler, fast twitch is a thing etc) but also stuff like some people having "naturally better hand-eye" at least to some extent. I'd say the latter can more easily be improved by repetition though.

What I mean is, I imagine that most "sporty" kids can think back to when they were young and how some of the other "sporty" kids just picked things up way more easily and were way better than others. Some of that will absolutely be that the good kids had obsessive parents relentlessly training them at home, but a lot will just be the variation in physical abilities between any two humans. You could say the same about a social cricket team (very much drawing on anecdotal experience) where you've got a group of guys who have all played a similar amount of cricket throughout their lives but there is still variance in ability, and in particular some guys can bowl fairly quick and others bowl garbage, some guys are good fielders and some are horrible, etc.

What I think is underestimated though is that if that middle of the road social cricketer had relentlessly practiced from a young age and stuck at it, they would've probably ended up a hell of a lot better than they did. I suspect though that part of what discourages people from reaching that potential might be their relative lack of "natural talent" at a young age. Like, if you're playing cricket all the time as a kid and there are still other kids who are way better than you, you might be inclined to give up. I think natural talent is real to that extent, it's just that the lesser player probably underestimates how good they could've been had they stuck at it.

 

[jcas0167]

tbh this is only something that occurred to me relatively recently, having just assumed that "natural talent" was a very real thing, and I think there is a lot of truth to what you say. However, I do still believe that there are significant differences in "natural talent" between people, perhaps most significantly in terms of your physiology (harder for a tiny guy to be a fast bowler, fast twitch is a thing etc) but also stuff like some people having "naturally better hand-eye" at least to some extent. I'd say the latter can more easily be improved by repetition though.

What I mean is, I imagine that most "sporty" kids can think back to when they were young and how some of the other "sporty" kids just picked things up way more easily and were way better than others. Some of that will absolutely be that the good kids had obsessive parents relentlessly training them at home, but a lot will just be the variation in physical abilities between any two humans. You could say the same about a social cricket team (very much drawing on anecdotal experience) where you've got a group of guys who have all played a similar amount of cricket throughout their lives but there is still variance in ability, and in particular some guys can bowl fairly quick and others bowl garbage, some guys are good fielders and some are horrible, etc.

What I think is underestimated though is that if that middle of the road social cricketer had relentlessly practiced from a young age and stuck at it, they would've probably ended up a hell of a lot better than they did. I suspect though that part of what discourages people from reaching that potential might be their relative lack of "natural talent" at a young age. Like, if you're playing cricket all the time as a kid and there are still other kids who are way better than you, you might be inclined to give up. I think natural talent is real to that extent, it's just that the lesser player probably underestimates how good they could've been had they stuck at it.

Yeah, agree there are some differences that are fairly obvious early on. I guess that's what people refer to when they say a given player has a higher ceiling. Cricket also has roles where huge natural ability perhaps doesn't matter as much. For example Richardson who turned himself from a spinner to very successful opening batsman.

 

[thierry henry]

Yeah, agree there are some differences that are fairly obvious early on. I guess that's what people refer to when they say a given player has a higher ceiling. Cricket also has roles where huge natural ability perhaps doesn't matter as much. For example Richardson who turned himself from a spinner to very successful opening batsman.

I actually wonder if batting is becoming more about "natural ability" in the T20 age. The likes of a Mark Richardson used to be able to get by with a very limited range of shots honed by, I assume, massive amounts of practice and repetition. Those shots in themselves did not involve any expansive movements and his whole job was to watch the ball closely and make accurate decisions. These days a lot of batting involves a combination of physical strength and an ability to be coordinated while swinging a lot harder and "holding your shape" through a much more expansive range of shots. Again, anecdotal, but I feel like a lot of people (e.g. me) could spend their life trying to learn how to hit the long ball and never be much good at it.