***Official*** India in New Zealand 2013/14

[Blocky]

Sorry, Hughes was terrible against us, but Warner scored a tonne of runs that series. I mixed up Hughes 86* in NZ as being one he scored during the series in Aussie.

 

[Blocky]

They didn't bowl nearly as much at the death compared to Shami or Bhuvi (and Bhuvi still came out with a decent enough economy rate, all things considered). And economy in ODIs is hardly reflective of wickettaking abilities in Tests, as a lengthy list of medium pacers would attest.

Plus, Ashwin took, what, two wickets in the series? If you can't take wickets with the batsmen coming at you and trying to attack, then outfoxing them when they can wait for the bad ball becomes even harder.

Generally though, the spinners were bowling to Williamson and Taylor, both having the series of their lives. India lacked penetration completely in the ODI series but the spin bowlers were at least able to keep the game in check, it was really overs 35 to 47 (India seemingly always found a good final three overs) that NZ accelerated and took off from India and most of that came against Shami, Ishant and the other pacers. All things told, considering how much of a struggle India found taking NZ wickets, it's not wrong to say Jadeja and Ashwin were statistically the best performers - that's 20 overs for 100 runs in a game, short of the time waste at the start with Guptill, I'd struggle to think of any period in those innings that India wouldn't take that considering they were chasing 290+ in almost every innings.

 

[jcas0167]

re Wagner getting good players out here is his dismissal list. The home series against England last season is the stand out where he got Cook, Bell, Trott & Pietersen twice each. In the recently completed Windies series Chanderpaul a couple of times and Bravo in Wellington.

 

[Dan]

Warner vs Guptill? Give me Warner anytime of the year

Hughes scored runs against us in that series didn't he? and Ponting, Clarke and Hussey were practically always in God Mode against NZ. That pitch was an utter dog, we shot the Australian's out in that innings and it set up the match, 220 on that wicket batting last was always a massive issue.

Don't drag Guptill back into this, nobody wants that discussion again.

No, Hughes' highest score was 20, caught in the slips by the same fieldsman off Martin in every innings.

Ponting/Clarke/Hussey all made runs against India in the series that followed, but at the time of the NZ Tests there wasn't a huge amount of faith in Ponting, and Clarke had yet to prove he could consistently make big runs. Yes, runs came soon after, but when the Tests were played they definitely were not in God mode - whether that was the batting or the bowling is obviously up for conjecture.

 

[hendrix]

Both bowled their overs for around a 5 RPO rate, while everyone else not named Kumar who bowled near 10 overs a game went for 7. And before you say "They didn't bowl in the powerplay or death overs" - actually both of them did.

They barely took a wicket between them. It was a horrible, horrible performance from their spinners. Utterly unthreatening.

 

[Dan]

Generally though, the spinners were bowling to Williamson and Taylor, both having the series of their lives. India lacked penetration completely in the ODI series but the spin bowlers were at least able to keep the game in check, it was really overs 35 to 47 (India seemingly always found a good final three overs) that NZ accelerated and took off from India and most of that came against Shami, Ishant and the other pacers. All things told, considering how much of a struggle India found taking NZ wickets, it's not wrong to say Jadeja and Ashwin were statistically the best performers - that's 20 overs for 100 runs in a game, short of the time waste at the start with Guptill, I'd struggle to think of any period in those innings that India wouldn't take that considering they were chasing 290+ in almost every innings.

They'll be bowling to the exact same Taylor and Williamson in the Test series. Plus Watling, who is a good enough player of spin.

And how economy rate statistics apply in Test match cricket is a completely different thing. Nobody was penetrative in the ODI series, which is worrisome for India. You can't say that the spinners having economy on their side - when we could see that Williamson and Taylor were happy to work them around at 5 an over - is likely to indicate that they'll start taking wickets in the Tests.

 

[Dan]

Also, apologies to Phlegm for repeatedly quoting Blocky.

 

[Daemon]

#Dantheman

 

[Blocky]

They'll be bowling to the exact same Taylor and Williamson in the Test series. Plus Watling, who is a good enough player of spin.

And how economy rate statistics apply in Test match cricket is a completely different thing. Nobody was penetrative in the ODI series, which is worrisome for India. You can't say that the spinners having economy on their side - when we could see that Williamson and Taylor were happy to work them around at 5 an over - is likely to indicate that they'll start taking wickets in the Tests.

Different match situations, different field settings and different pitch conditions. I hope you're right, if Watling, Taylor and Williamson find it easy to milk the Indian spinners for even three an over without much chance of a dismissal then NZ should win this test series easily. But my view is that scoreboard pressure, the fact that they'll probably be looking at 400+ from India on these wickets as a first innings total, it changes the way in which players will respond.

I've seen NZ fail to spinners far too often, and one in our most recent history being Narine who you even point out as not being a great test option.

 

[Blocky]

re Wagner getting good players out here is his dismissal list. The home series against England last season is the stand out where he got Cook, Bell, Trott & Pietersen twice each. In the recently completed Windies series Chanderpaul a couple of times and Bravo in Wellington.

31 of his 39 wickets come against players in the Top 7.

 

[hendrix]

31 of his 39 wickets come against players in the Top 7.

Hmmm, do you have a calculator? Can you do the simple equation 7/11?

WHere's Kippax's post in which he showed that Wagner averages more than 45 against the top 5?

 

[Blocky]

Hmmm, do you have a calculator? Can you do the simple equation 7/11?

WHere's Kippax's post in which he showed that Wagner averages more than 45 against the top 5?

I'd dare say Kippax has placed a couple of batsman outside of the Top 5 then - because if he averaged 45 against the top 5 where the bulk of his wickets have come from, his overall average wouldn't be as low as 37 as he doesn't get that many opportunities at the tail - which is why his wicket spread is so predominately Top 7 players.

 

[hendrix]

When I play rugby, two thirds of the players I tackle are numbered between 1-10!

 

[Athlai]

Why do they give the ball to the forwards so much when you play? ITSTL.

 

[Athlai]

I suspect the half back and first five should be kicking it a bit more too instead of getting tackled. Feed the backs FFS.

 

[Blocky]

When I play rugby, two thirds of the players I tackle are numbered between 1-10!

See when you make these absolutely redundant statements, it takes a lot for me not to call you foolish, because top order players obviously have no more value on their wicket than lower order players, right? Because the number in which someone bats in a batting order doesn't indicate what level of talent they're likely to have, a #11 should be considered absolutely equal to a #1.

Statistically, Wagner has 31 out of 39 wickets against the Top 7 players. His average is about 39 for those 31 wickets. He's taken 8 lower order wickets at about 32 which brings his average down to 37 and a bit in total. As indicated, better than Southee, Martin, O'Brien and a fair few other players at the same point in their careers. He's a bagful of wickets away from coming down to an average of 31-32 which would be more than respectable as the third seamer in the side.

 

[hendrix]

See when you make these absolutely redundant statements, it takes a lot for me not to call you foolish, because top order players obviously have no more value on their wicket than lower order players, right? Because the number in which someone bats in a batting order doesn't indicate what level of talent they're likely to have, a #11 should be considered absolutely equal to a #1..

Granted.
The point is that he just hasn't taken that many wickets, and the fact that the majority of his wickets have been in the top 7 doesn't register anything when he's taken so few wickets at such a high average. He's taking well below 2 wickets per innings. Even if we consider that a top 7 batsman will value his wicket more, if he's going to take 1.75 wickets per innings there's a good chance that it'll be from the top order (not that a number 7 is a top order batsman but whatever).

 

[jcas0167]

Out of the other contenders I didn't realise Gillespie's stats were so good. 3 five wicket bags in 5 tests. I would have him ahead of Bracewell.

 

[Dan]

Different match situations, different field settings and different pitch conditions. I hope you're right, if Watling, Taylor and Williamson find it easy to milk the Indian spinners for even three an over without much chance of a dismissal then NZ should win this test series easily. But my view is that scoreboard pressure, the fact that they'll probably be looking at 400+ from India on these wickets as a first innings total, it changes the way in which players will respond.

I've seen NZ fail to spinners far too often, and one in our most recent history being Narine who you even point out as not being a great test option.

Narine took, what, 6/90-odd in 40ish overs in the 3rd Test at Hamilton as NZ racked up 350. He hardly tore through them to bowl them out for under 200. And Hamilton's the best pitch in the country for spin, right?

Of course there are different factors involved in Tests compared to ODIs, which is why I feel a decent ODI economy rate has no bearing on how the Tests are likely to play out. Ashwin's style of bowling, like Narine's, is not suited to flat decks. They may still take wickets, but it's through weight of overs and the wickets having to fall to someone. IMO Zaheer will be far more dangerous than anyone Narine had down the other end.

And Jadeja's a jammy bastard with a nice looking record thanks to playing lolStraya on absolute dustbowls. Him and Ashwin bowled well there, yes, but in NZ they don't have the benefit of pitch assistance to the point that the batsman will eventually get a ball with his name on it.

To be fair, I just really don't rate Ashwin away from home

 

[Dan]

Out of the other contenders I didn't realise Gillespie's stats were so good. 3 five wicket bags in 5 tests. I would have him ahead of Bracewell.

If he's booming through the crease, then yes, he's worthwhile playing.
But when he's "booming" through the crease, he's going to be completely ineffectual.

By the sounds of things, he's only got somewhere near the former in the most recent game, after the squad was selected. I wouldn't have picked Dougeh, but IMO I'd probably take Henry, Bennett, Milne and (possibly) Wheeler ahead of Gillespie.