***Official*** England in New Zealand 2018

[Moss]

3-2 England probably a fair reflection of the series, wouldn't have grudged them 4-1 either seeing they were far more consistent and threatening than NZ over the course of those 5 games.

Having said that NZ (the middle order more precisely) really stuffed up game 3 which continues a worrying trend in which the majority of the XI rarely comes together or clicks in a single game. Also NZ's performances in must-win games is beyond a joke now. Performance or personnel issue, I'm not sure, but it doesn't look great for the world cup.

 

[jcas0167]

3-2 England probably a fair reflection of the series, wouldn't have grudged them 4-1 either seeing they were far more consistent and threatening than NZ over the course of those 5 games.

Having said that NZ (the middle order more precisely) really stuffed up game 3 which continues a worrying trend in which the majority of the XI rarely comes together or clicks in a single game. Also NZ's performances in must-win games is beyond a joke now. Performance or personnel issue, I'm not sure, but it doesn't look great for the world cup.

Has long been the case. Glenn Turner gave an infamous team talk before the series deciding ODI in India in 1995 pointing out NZ's terrible record in must win games. He was apparently trying reverse psychology and concluded by saying I hope we don't lose by too many. They got hammered.

They should maybe ask Ceri Evans who worked with the All Blacks to help them get over their tendency to freeze in WC play offs.

 

[S.Kennedy]

22nd until the real cricket starts and they both coincide with the SA/Oz 3rd and 4th test so you can basically watch test cricket for an entire day!

 

[Athlai]

Dunno why so many Kiwis are inexplicably saying the English may as well have won 4-1. Series was 3-2, twice we were thrashed, once we were beaten in as close a game as you're likely to get. It was a bloody close series. NZ falling over and clawing back (often thanks to Santner heroics with the bat) should probably be recognised as a decent attribute to have. If we could have a middle order as strong as Englands we'd be a heck of a team.

 

[Days of Grace]

Dunno why so many Kiwis are inexplicably saying the English may as well have won 4-1. Series was 3-2, twice we were thrashed, once we were beaten in as close a game as you're likely to get. It was a bloody close series. NZ falling over and clawing back (often thanks to Santner heroics with the bat) should probably be recognised as a decent attribute to have. If we could have a middle order as strong as Englands we'd be a heck of a team.

I wish I could share your positivity, but we also have big problems taking wickets at the top of the order.

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah, Southee looked decent against Pakistan and the Windies, but against players more used to a bit of swing and nip he's toothless. Henry does need to come in, but I'm not convinced that he's the slam dunk replacement that some are making him out to be. He took some horrific floggings from Australia last summer. And the issue is that his vulnerability at the death throws the current balance of the side out. We could have him in the side in a Mills-esque roll if we had another proven death option like Milne or early Anderson. But a Boult, Henry, Sodhi/Fergie, Santner, Trash line-up is in some respects just as unbalanced as the current mob.

Overall, it's a shame that so little experimentation was done with the bowling attack this season. It seemed like Boult and Southee opened in almost every game, which is questionable from both a long term planning and a short term fitness perspective.

 

[NZTailender]

Dunno why so many Kiwis are inexplicably saying the English may as well have won 4-1. Series was 3-2, twice we were thrashed, once we were beaten in as close a game as you're likely to get. It was a bloody close series. NZ falling over and clawing back (often thanks to Santner heroics with the bat) should probably be recognised as a decent attribute to have. If we could have a middle order as strong as Englands we'd be a heck of a team.

It was close but England were always pretty much on top. The matches we won were close, and we nearly won another (should've won). The ones we lost, we lost bad. We never at anytime looked to win a match in the way England did. Considering we've been a powerhouse at home (essentially), England coming here and winning in such a way proves how good a side they are. Even in the games we won there were questionable captaincy decisions from Morgan with his bowling choices.

We also currently have three NZ ATG ODI batsmen in our top and middle order, who are also ranked in the top 15 for the world. England have 1 in the top 15 (Australia have 2). It's easy to see England have better ODI depth.

I've never been a huge fan of rotational policies for the sake of it, but a year out from a WC we should be seeing fringe players getting a go in the first 1 or 2 matches of a series at least.

 

[SeamUp]

No Will Young is an indication of where he is in the pecking order now. Seems like the A tour did some damage as 'struggled' at the beginning of the domestic season too. Current selection team really have their favourites though.

Black Caps red-ball squad (March 14-15): Martin Guptill (c), Logan van Beek, Tom Blundell, Doug Bracewell, Mark Chapman, Scott Kuggeleijn, Glenn Phillips, Seth Rance, Tim Seifert, Ish Sodhi, Ross Taylor, George Worker.

Black Caps pink-ball squad (March 16-17): Tom Latham (c), Tom Blundell, Colin de Grandhomme, Kyle Jamieson, Scott Kuggeleijn, Henry Nicholls, Seth Rance, Jeet Raval, Mitchell Santner, Nathan Smith, Ish Sodhi, George Worker.

 

[Howsie]

No Ben Wheeler? FMD

And why is George Worker the back up test batsman, he has a career average under 30 for Christ sakes.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I know he is 33, but Greg Hay should be there. Why are Blundell, Phillips and Seifert all in the same red ball squad? Are we trying to turn into Sri Lanka?

 

[Prince EWS]

I know he is 33, but Greg Hay should be there. Why are Blundell, Phillips and Seifert all in the same red ball squad? Are we trying to turn into Sri Lanka?

I think there's a perception that New Zealand have a really small talent pool of players with any real chance of hacking it internationally, and therefore can't really afford to have players specialise all that much. I suspect that anyone deemed good enough to be in an international squad at all would be pencilled in as one of the best 35 or so players for any format due to this perception.

I don't think it's really correct, but this idea comes up a lot when members of the coaching staff are interviewed, and especially when Styris (who I imagine has a fair bit of contact with the likes of McMillan) is in the commentary box.

 

[SeamUp]

No Ben Wheeler? FMD

And why is George Worker the back up test batsman, he has a career average under 30 for Christ sakes.

That is who I was referring to mainly.

 

[Zinzan]

No Ben Wheeler? FMD

And why is George Worker the back up test batsman, he has a career average under 30 for Christ sakes.

Lol and SMH, I didn't notice that dire selection, but it takes me back to start of the season when wet-fish Larsen was interviewed and he talked about how nice a guy Worker was. To which I of course thought, 'how the hell is that relevant to anything? Does Larsen want to set his daughter up or something?'.. That's little Gavey Larsen for you.

 

[Prince EWS]

Worker playing seemed fairly predictable to me given he was actually in the Test squad against the West Indies. He's probably first reserve batsman now.

It's silly but it's been silly for a while; it didn't surprise me in the slightest.

 

[Zinzan]

Dunno why so many Kiwis are inexplicably saying the English may as well have won 4-1. Series was 3-2, twice we were thrashed, once we were beaten in as close a game as you're likely to get. It was a bloody close series. NZ falling over and clawing back (often thanks to Santner heroics with the bat) should probably be recognised as a decent attribute to have. If we could have a middle order as strong as Englands we'd be a heck of a team.

Think you're overselling NZ here tbh. As NZT correctly stated, the two we won could have gone either way, as with the one we lost closely, and the other two were absolute hidings. I honestly feel 4-1 would have been a fairer reflection of the teams and the way they played overall than 3-2.

Whilst it's true that if everything had have gone our way, we could have actually fluked that series 3-2... if everything had gone England's way they could have taken it 5-0. Hence 4-1 feels closer to the mark for me...but each to their own.

 

[Flem274*]

feels like it has always been the way that the selectors will decide you're a potentially good cricketer or not early on in your career and no matter what you do, it sticks. worker can look pretty good domestically in the white ball forms so he might be getting credit for it here.

and coaches sometimes hold things like Wheelers international meltdown in by far his weakest format against players forever. Bennett was booted into the wilderness after getting injured on debut, despite being a better bowler now by light years.

 

[Flem274*]

Think you're overselling NZ here tbh. As NZT correctly stated, the two we won could have gone either way, as with the one we lost closely, and the other two were absolute hidings. I honestly feel 4-1 would have been a fairer reflection of the teams and the way they played overall than 3-2.

Whilst it's true that if everything had have gone our way, we could have actually fluked that series 3-2... if everything had gone England's way they could have taken it 5-0. Hence 4-1 feels closer to the mark for me...but each to their own.

but they went nzs way because of clutch performances. if you remove the best performances from a team on any given day they tend to lose...

NZ rely heavily on a few players atm yes, but that doesn't mean those performances should get discounted when nz win. this 4-1 thing is just weird wrist slitting for the sake of it. i'd rather talk about how **** southee and the fifth bowling option is, because it's an even worse situation than the latham/chapman/nicholls/CdG disappearing act that has happened when taylor/kane fail or are injured.

 

[Dan]

So what's the depth looking like for NZ? Here's my crack at the top four XIs (based on maintaining the rough structure, and taking into consideration the way selectors seem to be rating certain players)

New Zealand	New Zealand 'A'	New Zealand 'B'	New Zealand 'C'
Tom Latham Jeet Raval Kane Williamson * Ross Taylor Henry Nicholls Colin de Grandhomme BJ Watling + Mitchell Santner Tim Southee Neil Wagner Trent Boult	Greg Hay Martin Guptill * Will Young Mark Chapman Tom Bruce Glenn Phillips Tom Blundell + Scott Kuggelijn Ish Sodhi Matt Henry Lockie Ferguson	Michael Guptill-Bunce Hamish Rutherford Bharat Popli Anton Devcich George Worker Corey Anderson * Tim Seifert + Doug Bracewell Todd Astle Ben Wheeler Hamish Bennett	Michael Papps Henry Cooper Daniel Flynn * Dean Brownlie Daryl Mitchell Jimmy Neesham Dane Cleaver + Logan van Beek Kyle Jamieson Ajaz Patel Jimmy Baker

Filling in the batting was definitely a struggle - literally clutching at straws and slotting in literally anybody I could think of by the third XI.

Anyway, my key point here is #Baker4BCs

 

[Prince EWS]

So what's the depth looking like for NZ? Here's my crack at the top four XIs (based on maintaining the rough structure, and taking into consideration the way selectors seem to be rating certain players)

Well, they've made it extremely clear that they rate Worker ahead of Young, Hay and Bruce.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, but they're wrong so I'm not going to go that far