-
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* New Zealand in Bangladesh Thread
- Thread starter southern man
- Start date
Macka - while I'm grateful for your support re my selections v AUS (to the extent we have the same lineups), I must confess to disagreeing with some of your logic...........
1 - by selecting Marshall at #6 you have essentially strengthened the middle / lower batting order by lengthening it with a specialist batsman, and by playing him at #6 rather than above one of the current players.
2 - while I agree that the Top order is of concern regarding a steady opening pair, IMO this has distracted from the real problem with the brittle & shortened middle order with having only 5 specialist batsmen & the wrong sort of players being selected.
3 - I agree re NOT playing Astle at #3 - rather I'd use him at #4 & Styris at #5. The pitch / playing conditions at #4 should be similar enough to what Astle faces at #3 in ODIs, which is supposedly his preferred spot. I also think Astle has enough experience to be better suited to forming partnerships at #4 than Styris - maybe I'm just biased in favour of having a solid player in that position such as Martyn's example in IND.
4 - I don't think we need another player to come in at #3 when Sinclair has not been given a chance ATM - he has the better credentials of any of the players used recently & it would mean blooding someone like Fulton & Co to bring in an alternative. Apart from that this is somewhat irrelevant as Fleming is the current #3 & there is no indication that he will be moving up no matter what we may think here.
5 - I'm in favor of the 'advance the game' theory particularly as a strategy to win games with depleted bowling resources, but I have some major reservations about it's viability with our current selections & 5-5 split. Basically it's too much like playing Russian Roulette with 4 rounds in the chambers under the current situation IMO.
I'm giving Astle the benefit of the doubt ATM re his being out of the game for so long. However he needs to have a strong tour in AUS for me to retain him ahead of the likes of Fulton fetc or the Home series v SRL.
However this does NOT signify an automatic return call for Macca. As I said in the original post on the other thread I want 6 batsmen & players suited to the roles required - this also means that the replacements need to be able to fit this pattern, or that any change in the order still meets this requirement.
Basically I do not care who the player is (batsman or bowler) nor how good their stats may be, if they are unable to fit into the team strategy requirements then they basically have to wait their turn until the current encumbant keeping them out of that role needs to be replaced. E.g. a batting lineup of 6 Laras, Pontings or Tendulkars may not work / gel together.............likewise a bowling attack of 4 McGraths or 4 Warnes would be equally flawed...........
1 - by selecting Marshall at #6 you have essentially strengthened the middle / lower batting order by lengthening it with a specialist batsman, and by playing him at #6 rather than above one of the current players.
2 - while I agree that the Top order is of concern regarding a steady opening pair, IMO this has distracted from the real problem with the brittle & shortened middle order with having only 5 specialist batsmen & the wrong sort of players being selected.
3 - I agree re NOT playing Astle at #3 - rather I'd use him at #4 & Styris at #5. The pitch / playing conditions at #4 should be similar enough to what Astle faces at #3 in ODIs, which is supposedly his preferred spot. I also think Astle has enough experience to be better suited to forming partnerships at #4 than Styris - maybe I'm just biased in favour of having a solid player in that position such as Martyn's example in IND.
4 - I don't think we need another player to come in at #3 when Sinclair has not been given a chance ATM - he has the better credentials of any of the players used recently & it would mean blooding someone like Fulton & Co to bring in an alternative. Apart from that this is somewhat irrelevant as Fleming is the current #3 & there is no indication that he will be moving up no matter what we may think here.
5 - I'm in favor of the 'advance the game' theory particularly as a strategy to win games with depleted bowling resources, but I have some major reservations about it's viability with our current selections & 5-5 split. Basically it's too much like playing Russian Roulette with 4 rounds in the chambers under the current situation IMO.
I'm giving Astle the benefit of the doubt ATM re his being out of the game for so long. However he needs to have a strong tour in AUS for me to retain him ahead of the likes of Fulton fetc or the Home series v SRL.
However this does NOT signify an automatic return call for Macca. As I said in the original post on the other thread I want 6 batsmen & players suited to the roles required - this also means that the replacements need to be able to fit this pattern, or that any change in the order still meets this requirement.
Basically I do not care who the player is (batsman or bowler) nor how good their stats may be, if they are unable to fit into the team strategy requirements then they basically have to wait their turn until the current encumbant keeping them out of that role needs to be replaced. E.g. a batting lineup of 6 Laras, Pontings or Tendulkars may not work / gel together.............likewise a bowling attack of 4 McGraths or 4 Warnes would be equally flawed...........
donaldduck
Cricket Spectator
Hi everyone,
Been reading for a while now and thought i would reply with some of my own thoughts.....and please remember that they are only that----my thoughts!
Playing Richardson in the 'A' tests is not as stupid as it sounds. NZ need him to perform in Australia and he isnt gonna be on top of his game sitting at home watching the ODI's on tv. And these academy games that he is involved in just simply isnt enough for him. I would have played him in Sth Africa with the A team. For those that think playing our best test batsman in a A series is a **** take then honestly take a look at yourselves and understand basic logic..... There is no exact 100% selection rules with A teams and the good thing about the A tours is it gives a chance to try up and coming players at a higher level, give the fringe players cricket at that higher level and to give the top players some cricket.
---- That is what i reckon ---- But as always there is another side to it.... perhaps Mark Richardson simply wanted some time off. Cricket players are human after all and tours take alot out of them.
Sherlock ---- forget the kids first class record, he can bowl sharpish and was well worth a spot on the A tour. Im not so sure about Walmsley.
A massive key component to a successful test side is a quick bowler, u only have to look at the akhtar's, gillespie's and lee's and wot have done to batsmen all over the world and i think the latest and best example is a lad from Durham in England called Harmison. England were shite for so long..... OK there all round game has improved but the reason they have turned into a good test side is cos they have someone that scares the shite out of batsmen. It is needed. I hope Ian Butler can become that sort of player. He has the ability to bowl quick, NZ just need it all the time. Shane Bond was that quick bowler that NZ have needed....but now he seems to be finished...well for now anyways.
Answering someones earlier question about how fast wellingtons Gillespie bowls..... answer ..... with a bit of beating around the bush..... Bond and Butler are the only two bowlers in NZ that bowl consistenly quicker than him. Tuffey,Oram,Franklin, Mills, etc etc etc are all slower. I would suggest Sherlock can bowl quicker than Gillespie but when gillespie is bowling quick even Butler is behind him. You only need to ask around first class players that have faced the guy when he is bowling quick. BUT...once again there is that BUT... it may be great that he can bowl rapid... but every now and then doesnt cut it now does it. Same goes with Butler and Sherlock.
James Franklin ----- bloody wrapped for the guy. But how long is it gonna be before he fades away again. To be fair he only really has an opening spell. Thats when he swings it sideways... after that he becomes a military medium dobber!!!!
Peter Fulton ---- i dont care if you score 300 in the NZ first class scene, the backyard or even in the bloody bath.... the fact is to do it you must bat a long time. He has followed up that 300 with solid performances in the following seasons and i think the guy will do well.
Fleming---- magic --- enough said.
Wiseman --- what is the point. I reckon NZC invest every waking hour in Jeetan Patel and Bruce Martin....... these are the next best. Do whatever is takes to bring them up to speed. Martin is injured --- anyone know when he is back playing.
Well this novel should really be wrapped up..... all readers have probably either logged off, fallen asleep, planned there abusing reply or just simply over looked it and moved on.
anyways like i said up top.... these are just my thoughts....
QUACK QUACK!!!!!
Been reading for a while now and thought i would reply with some of my own thoughts.....and please remember that they are only that----my thoughts!
Playing Richardson in the 'A' tests is not as stupid as it sounds. NZ need him to perform in Australia and he isnt gonna be on top of his game sitting at home watching the ODI's on tv. And these academy games that he is involved in just simply isnt enough for him. I would have played him in Sth Africa with the A team. For those that think playing our best test batsman in a A series is a **** take then honestly take a look at yourselves and understand basic logic..... There is no exact 100% selection rules with A teams and the good thing about the A tours is it gives a chance to try up and coming players at a higher level, give the fringe players cricket at that higher level and to give the top players some cricket.
---- That is what i reckon ---- But as always there is another side to it.... perhaps Mark Richardson simply wanted some time off. Cricket players are human after all and tours take alot out of them.
Sherlock ---- forget the kids first class record, he can bowl sharpish and was well worth a spot on the A tour. Im not so sure about Walmsley.
A massive key component to a successful test side is a quick bowler, u only have to look at the akhtar's, gillespie's and lee's and wot have done to batsmen all over the world and i think the latest and best example is a lad from Durham in England called Harmison. England were shite for so long..... OK there all round game has improved but the reason they have turned into a good test side is cos they have someone that scares the shite out of batsmen. It is needed. I hope Ian Butler can become that sort of player. He has the ability to bowl quick, NZ just need it all the time. Shane Bond was that quick bowler that NZ have needed....but now he seems to be finished...well for now anyways.
Answering someones earlier question about how fast wellingtons Gillespie bowls..... answer ..... with a bit of beating around the bush..... Bond and Butler are the only two bowlers in NZ that bowl consistenly quicker than him. Tuffey,Oram,Franklin, Mills, etc etc etc are all slower. I would suggest Sherlock can bowl quicker than Gillespie but when gillespie is bowling quick even Butler is behind him. You only need to ask around first class players that have faced the guy when he is bowling quick. BUT...once again there is that BUT... it may be great that he can bowl rapid... but every now and then doesnt cut it now does it. Same goes with Butler and Sherlock.
James Franklin ----- bloody wrapped for the guy. But how long is it gonna be before he fades away again. To be fair he only really has an opening spell. Thats when he swings it sideways... after that he becomes a military medium dobber!!!!
Peter Fulton ---- i dont care if you score 300 in the NZ first class scene, the backyard or even in the bloody bath.... the fact is to do it you must bat a long time. He has followed up that 300 with solid performances in the following seasons and i think the guy will do well.
Fleming---- magic --- enough said.
Wiseman --- what is the point. I reckon NZC invest every waking hour in Jeetan Patel and Bruce Martin....... these are the next best. Do whatever is takes to bring them up to speed. Martin is injured --- anyone know when he is back playing.
Well this novel should really be wrapped up..... all readers have probably either logged off, fallen asleep, planned there abusing reply or just simply over looked it and moved on.
anyways like i said up top.... these are just my thoughts....
QUACK QUACK!!!!!
it may be a bit late but welcome aboard...............
always interested to read anyone's thoughts particularly when they are accompanied by some thought process...............
and I think I still have the mortgauge on regular LONG posts as I'm sure other members will be quick to agree...........
always interested to read anyone's thoughts particularly when they are accompanied by some thought process...............
and I think I still have the mortgauge on regular LONG posts as I'm sure other members will be quick to agree...........