• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
Flat tracks are particularly bad in NZ because we play so many 2-match test series and a large number of NZ test matches lose time to rain.

We should be aiming pretty much every match for pitches with some seam assistance where 300 is a par score (depends a bit on overhead conditions and how much it swings), you basically have one innings per day and you get a result in four playing days. Most NZ pitches are not going to break up on days 4 and 5 so that would be asking too much.

Basically the Basin Reserve pitch from the Windies series.
 

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
I think the idea behind it is that India are less equipped, certainly mentally, when it comes to batting on green seamers than we are. That may even extend to their bowlers as well. I can imagine someone like a Yadav getting carried away with a new ball kissing through off a green surface and bowling too short, whereas our guys are much more experienced in finding a fuller length when conditions allow it.

It's also probably a lot harder for our curators to produce bounce and carry without achieving so with a grass cover. Auckland seemed like it might have a bit of it in the Boxing Day ODI, although whether that will hold for 5 days is an unknown. And Wellington has perhaps traditionally needed a covering to get it humming through. The last thing we want is a deck like Napier in 09, when we put scoreboard pressure on by scoring 600, bowled them out cheaply then had a pitch where anyone who didn't want to get out, didn't get out on a road and no spinner to cause any issues.

Our best XI, at this very point in time, contains four seamers - not three and Ish. So that strikes me as the best plan to work around, team wise and pitch wise. Play Jesse (even if it means pushing Corey to 7), leave out Doug and Ish, rejoice in a longer batting order with four seam options, Jesse as a fifth if required and Kane to do any slow bowling required. With an order like that, the openers' job is to bat time - if they are 10-0 off 20, so be it. Give them the first session, in the knowledge that we have stacks of batting once it stops nipping around early doors.

I'm totally all for Blocky's suggestion of using the Duke, especially in domestic cricket. Get it moving off the straight and test techniques out - weed out the front foot bludgers who score runs on the Rangioras of this world.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Yeah look, time will tell I guess. But I was saying the same thing vs. South Africa, and SA's monster lineup attack fell to Ishant of all people because the pitch allowed him some movement.
 
Last edited:

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
Our best XI, at this very point in time, contains four seamers - not three and Ish. So that strikes me as the best plan to work around, team wise and pitch wise. Play Jesse (even if it means pushing Corey to 7), leave out Doug and Ish, rejoice in a longer batting order with four seam options, Jesse as a fifth if required and Kane to do any slow bowling required. With an order like that, the openers' job is to bat time - if they are 10-0 off 20, so be it. Give them the first session, in the knowledge that we have stacks of batting once it stops nipping around early doors.
It's a tempting plan to stack the batting, South-Africa style, like that. I have three problems with it. One is telling Anderson his role has changed from batsman-who-bowls to bowler-who-bats. I really want him to justify his place as a batsman first as he really needs to bat 6 long term if he's going to stay in the side. The second is requiring more overs from Anderson and Ryder, both injury risks, not to mention more overs from Southee and Boult. The third is, where does it leave us for subsequent series? Next series we're going to require a fourth bowler, probably a spinner for the West Indies series - makes it very difficult to work out who to drop and leads to us fiddling with the balance of the side an awful lot.

That said, if we're willing to accept the above then that would be a fantastic batting side to put on the park for the first test.
 

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
It's a tempting plan to stack the batting, South-Africa style, like that. I have three problems with it. One is telling Anderson his role has changed from batsman-who-bowls to bowler-who-bats. I really want him to justify his place as a batsman first as he really needs to bat 6 long term if he's going to stay in the side. The second is requiring more overs from Anderson and Ryder, both injury risks, not to mention more overs from Southee and Boult. The third is, where does it leave us for subsequent series? Next series we're going to require a fourth bowler, probably a spinner for the West Indies series - makes it very difficult to work out who to drop and leads to us fiddling with the balance of the side an awful lot.

That said, if we're willing to accept the above then that would be a fantastic batting side to put on the park for the first test.
It definitely comes with its downsides. In my scenario, Jesse probably bats at 6 which is too low for him. Unless Brendon bats there, and Jess moves up to 5 (which I'd be pushing for). Then Corey is too low at 7, for exactly the reason you've illustrated above - it means he's getting into the batting with the tail, rather than forging his own innings with a greater deal of selfishness. And given BJ's weight of runs over the last 18 months, 8 is way too low for him as well.

As for overs, I'm comfortable with a scenario that sees Tim and Trent bowl 20-25 each, Wagner shoulder a bit more (seeing he's typecast as 'work horse'), Corey and Jesse share the 4th seamer role and Kane shouldering a load as well.

I would imagine our focus is on picking sides to win the next Test match on the calendar, as I believe it should be. Shunting guys around an order a bit might not be ideal but I'd much rather pick a side to win what faces us next, especially when we are every chance of knocking over India if we get it right. To me, the XI minus Ish/Doug is the one best equipped to do so. We will require another spinner in the Windies, and that guy (we presume Ish) should be released to Plunket Shield duties to bowl ND to victory (as he did the other day) on dry latter-season tracks.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
Personally, our players should be capable against the swinging ball considering our conditions offer as much swing and bounce as England.
Exactly.

Swing has nothing to do with the pitch.

Since this test is being played in Auckland, there should be swing around. All we need is for the pitch to have bounce and carry. We don't need seam movement since our bowlers don't really rely on it (and have in fact taken abundant wickets on flat tracks over the last two years). Seam movement just brings the Ishants and Yadavs into the game.
 

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
It definitely comes with its downsides. In my scenario, Jesse probably bats at 6 which is too low for him. Unless Brendon bats there, and Jess moves up to 5 (which I'd be pushing for). Then Corey is too low at 7, for exactly the reason you've illustrated above - it means he's getting into the batting with the tail, rather than forging his own innings with a greater deal of selfishness. And given BJ's weight of runs over the last 18 months, 8 is way too low for him as well.

As for overs, I'm comfortable with a scenario that sees Tim and Trent bowl 20-25 each, Wagner shoulder a bit more (seeing he's typecast as 'work horse'), Corey and Jesse share the 4th seamer role and Kane shouldering a load as well.

I would imagine our focus is on picking sides to win the next Test match on the calendar, as I believe it should be. Shunting guys around an order a bit might not be ideal but I'd much rather pick a side to win what faces us next, especially when we are every chance of knocking over India if we get it right. To me, the XI minus Ish/Doug is the one best equipped to do so. We will require another spinner in the Windies, and that guy (we presume Ish) should be released to Plunket Shield duties to bowl ND to victory (as he did the other day) on dry latter-season tracks.
I'm still uneasy about it - perhaps this is just conservatism is it goes against the standard idea that you pick your 6 best batsmen, wicketkeeper and 4 bowlers, not 3 bowlers plus 3 all-rounders, however as you've acknowledged there are real risks too. Arguably we're not doing the latter anyway though.

There were quite a few opinions about the overloading of Boult and Southee in the West Indies series and with a flat pitch predicted for the first test this definitely is relevant when looking at this option, even if our possible fourth bowler (assuming Sodhi) may only bowl 15 overs per day. It seems either way there will be a lot of overs for Southee and Boult. Wagner may bleed runs or go missing (not necessarily for the whole test, but will have some very bad spells if history anything to go by), Anderson will pick up more than his share of donkey work, Williamson will chip in a few, and the last bowler is either Sodhi who may get hit out of the attack or another part-timer in Ryder.

To finish my pre-match whinge, can we please make some last minute changes to a) ensure the Eden Park pitch is not a bowler's graveyard and b) draft Henry or Bennett into the playing XI.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
NZ have shown in recent history that they can shoot out sides quicker than they get shot out (Hobart, the chances against England at home, etc)
The chances against England at home were all incredibly flat tracks. The chances against England abroad, we were shot out for 73, when there was just a touch of nip for Stuart Broad.

Shami, Zaheer etc aren't world beaters but they're good enough to run through weak batting lineups on green decks. NZ still has a weak batting lineup.
 
Last edited:

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
Our best XI, at this very point in time, contains four seamers - not three and Ish. So that strikes me as the best plan to work around, team wise and pitch wise. Play Jesse (even if it means pushing Corey to 7), leave out Doug and Ish, rejoice in a longer batting order with four seam options, Jesse as a fifth if required and Kane to do any slow bowling required. With an order like that, the openers' job is to bat time - if they are 10-0 off 20, so be it. Give them the first session, in the knowledge that we have stacks of batting once it stops nipping around early doors.
I really don't think Anderson is good enough to be the 4th bowler in a Southee-Boult-Wagner fronted attack. Yes he did well against WI, but I think that any medium pacer with accuracy and a hint of swing (e.g. Aldridge, Arnel, Bates) would've produced similarly encouraging results in the circumstances. Against better sides I just don't think New Zealand will have enough wicket-taking fire power if we pick 3 bowlers plus Anderson - especially if Wagner continues to leak runs like he has been. We need a proper 4th bowler - whether that be a paceman (yes) or a spinner (#flyingpigs).
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
Swing has nothing to do with the pitch.
It does actually. If you have a well grassed pitch, the surface will be softer, and the ball will keep it's shine allowing it to swing for longer. That's why the ball was still swinging after 50 overs at the Basin Reserve test against WI.
 

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
I really don't think Anderson is good enough to be the 4th bowler in a Southee-Boult-Wagner fronted attack. Yes he did well against WI, but I think that any medium pacer with accuracy and a hint of swing (e.g. Aldridge, Arnel, Bates) would've produced similarly encouraging results in the circumstances. Against better sides I just don't think New Zealand will have enough wicket-taking fire power if we pick 3 bowlers plus Anderson - especially if Wagner continues to leak runs like he has been. We need a proper 4th bowler - whether that be a paceman (yes) or a spinner (#flyingpigs).
Can't disagree with that, nor your timely interjection as to the influence of pitch on swing.

I guess when faced with the prospect of Doug v Corey, with runs from the latter, I went with the latter. Not that Corey would lose his spot to Doug, it'd be Jesse. But then again I haven't been privy to how Doug is bowling lately - if he is in better nick, then he's a serious consideration. Otherwise it's 3 front-line seamers who you'd hope will do the majority of the wicket-taking upfront, especially Tim/Trent. I'd imagine India will play a fairly attacking brand, so we don't have to come too hard at them on pitches that are doing a bit, rather we set good fields and execute solid plans with the ball.
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
Can't disagree with that, nor your timely interjection as to the influence of pitch on swing.

I guess when faced with the prospect of Doug v Corey, with runs from the latter, I went with the latter. Not that Corey would lose his spot to Doug, it'd be Jesse. But then again I haven't been privy to how Doug is bowling lately - if he is in better nick, then he's a serious consideration. Otherwise it's 3 front-line seamers who you'd hope will do the majority of the wicket-taking upfront, especially Tim/Trent. I'd imagine India will play a fairly attacking brand, so we don't have to come too hard at them on pitches that are doing a bit, rather we set good fields and execute solid plans with the ball.
Annoyingly the vault has been fairly lax on updating material from the latest round of the Plunket Shield. Based purely on stats, he's being comfortably outbowled by Bevan Small at the moment.
 
Last edited:

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ishant is such a ****. We all know Shami will be playing for sure, and based on what I read about how the bowlers bowled in the tour games I think we should be seeing Zaheer and Yadav as the other two. But the Ishant factor means no one actually knows.
 

Shri

Mr. Glass
Just quietly, you give me Boult, Wagner, Anderson and Southee and I'll stack them up against any seam attack that doesn't include Steyn and Philander and expect them to perform better
LOL?

Harris
Johnson
Siddle

Anderson
Broad
Stokes

Junaid Khan
Mohd Irfan
Umar Gul

Those are all better than yours.
 

Top