*Official* New Zealand in England 2015

[Skyliner]

Kinda bored of the criticism of Mitch, too. We've got a genuine wicket-taker who's gone for a few on a flat one a couple of times and all of a sudden he's brown bread as an international cricketer (as per the NZ Herald today)? We're accepting of 320-350 as a par score nowadays but someone going at that rate is going awfully? We love to be reactive sometimes don't we.

I'd say all top ODI bowlers are wicket takers, it's just with McClenaghan we've had a pantomime of "aggression" which seemingly excuses a terrible economy rate. In the second half of his international career to date, McClenaghan has been taking wickets are a time when the opposition team is already holed below the waterline and sinking fast, and lately he's not even taking many wickets.

 

[straw man]

It's been the highest-quality batsmen that have absolutely dominated this series.
Williamson: 346 @ 86.5 (SR 110)
Taylor: 328 @ 109.3 (SR 100)
Morgan: 322 @ 82.5 (SR 125)
Root: 270 @ 90 (SR 109)

(Though being top-order players and not getting out, they don't give others lower down the chance to score bulk runs. This next highest is Buttler with 183 at SR 146)

So where the platform that you built you innings towards used to be at 4.5 or 5 an over, the above batsmen are now scoring at more than 6 per over instead and still not getting out. And the death hitting is amazing too, though it's been that way for a few years (90-100 off the last 10 overs, etc). For me the change is more that the best ODI batsmen will make big scores at over a run a ball and seem comfortable doing so.

 

[Skyliner]

I'm talking about average relative to other international bowlers.

Yes, and I'm saying most bowlers in the top international teams should be exceptional bowlers. Our WC attack of Milne / Boult / Southee / Vettori / Anderson was exceptional.
Milne has express pace which would negate a flat pitch to some degree, Vettori's flight and guile would also take the pitch out of the equation to some extent. I don't agree that we need rule changes in order to make mediocre bowlers seem like they are better than they are.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

As a NZ taxpayer I'd be happy for the government to buy back Shane Bond. I'd rather have Bondy than a flag referendum for a start.

No offence to Dimitri M - but "Bonds for Bond" could be a real winner.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yes, and I'm saying most bowlers in the top international teams should be exceptional bowlers. Our WC attack of Milne / Boult / Southee / Vettori / Anderson was exceptional.
Milne has express pace which would negate a flat pitch to some degree, Vettori's flight and guile would also take the pitch out of the equation to some extent. I don't agree that we need rule changes in order to make mediocre bowlers seem like they are better than they are.

Exception bowlers are exceptional, because they are the exception. Everyone can't be exceptional.

 

[Skyliner]

Exception bowlers are exceptional, because they are the exception. Everyone can't be exceptional.

I don't agree. If you have a pool of bowlers out of your entire population and you have to select just 5 to represent your country, there's no reason why all 5 can't be considered exceptional. Rule changes to try to obscure mediocrity are not something I am in favour of.

 

[Immenso]

It seems all batsmen are now exceptional. I reckon a Jos could hit the ball further with his leading edge than a David Gower could with the front.

 

[Skyliner]

Are the bats getting wider? How wide are they compared to the bats of old? Bats are apparently heavier, harder, bigger, wider....compared to when? They were saying on the radio this morning how big Astle's bats were when he played. Craig McMillan wielded a big bat.
...and then we have a diminutive chap like Kane Williamson who doesn't have arms like tree trunks, I find it hard to believe that he is striding out there with a colossal bat. Yet he is playing good cricket shots - no slogging - and scoring at a very fast clip.
is there data available of how bat sizes and weights have increased over the last 20 years, so we can put all this into context?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Weights haven't changed but sizes and densities have. This has an impact on the physics of the bat and serves to make the sweet spot larger than it used to be and thus the bat is more forgiving to mistimed or mi**** shots.

I've owned a number of bats over the years (despite being a pretty poor batsman in reality) and my current bat has edges that are an inch and a half thick at their thickest point. My first adult bat from the late 80s had edges much more uniform in thickness and approximately a centimetre in depth. The height, width and weight is pretty much the same.

 

[Skyliner]

Weights haven't changed but sizes and densities have. This has an impact on the physics of the bat and serves to make the sweet spot larger than it used to be and thus the bat is more forgiving to mistimed or mi**** shots.

I've owned a number of bats over the years (despite being a pretty poor batsman in reality) and my current bat has edges that are an inch and a half thick at their thickest point. My first adult bat from the late 80s had edges much more uniform in thickness and approximately a centimetre in depth. The height, width and weight is pretty much the same.

If anything, grounds should be getting bigger then. But how would you make some of the small international grounds bigger, particularly in NZ. Scrap some grounds? Eden Park would be on the chopping block.
Or should there be a standardised bat that is more in keeping with the bats of yesteryear. i.e. Outlaw the bats of today and bring in bats with a smaller area of dense density.
These are the things that should be looked at, rather than mucking around with numbers of fielders inside the ring or power plays or whatever.

 

[Dan]

Or, y'know, maybe go for the option that doesn't require billions of dollars of ground redevelopment or pointless legal restrictions. Something like producing pitches with a bit in them, perhaps?

Or is that too radical a notion for the 'bewildered herd' that is Mr. and Mrs. Joe Public to handle?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Smithy was literally saying that the groundsmen should be thanked for producing such great pitches in this series. I think Holding was with him in comes, quietly seething.

 

[Jono]

4 matches in a row of this is a bit much.

 

[Skyliner]

Or, y'know, maybe go for the option that doesn't require billions of dollars of ground redevelopment or pointless legal restrictions. Something like producing pitches with a bit in them, perhaps?

Or is that too radical a notion for the 'bewildered herd' that is Mr. and Mrs. Joe Public to handle?

Yeah, try and prepare a pitch with a bit in it for the seamers, and then hope it doesn't calm down for the 2nd innings.
And then if conditions are conducive to swing bowling....

 

[Skyliner]

4 matches in a row of this is a bit much.

2 would be acceptable, 3 is pushing it, 4 is producing howls of outrage.
Maybe prepare half he decks as seamers, and the other half flat as a pancake, in order to stagger the high scoring games.

 

[Skyliner]

If bat standardisation is seen as pointless (?) legal restrictions, fair enough - but could someone therefore get the commentators to stop carping on about "The bats are getting bigger! The bats are getting bigger! Top edges go for six!".

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Wow, went to bed after the BCs innings feeling good about winning the series, wake up to this.

England put to bed the ghosts of their failure to defend 300 against Sri Lanka with this match.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, try and prepare a pitch with a bit in it for the seamers, and then hope it doesn't calm down for the 2nd innings.
And then if conditions are conducive to swing bowling....

There's not a dichotomy between 'strip of Bangladeshi highway' and 'raging Dunedin greentop circa-2002'.

 

[jonbrooks]

Guys, it's not about the bats. It's all about the pitch i.e. zero assistance for bowlers of the deck. Put a bit of green on it and even the contest up. What is happening now is ridiculous.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

If bat standardisation is seen as pointless (?) legal restrictions, fair enough - but could someone therefore get the commentators to stop carping on about "The bats are getting bigger! The bats are getting bigger! Top edges go for six!".

The commentators have to justify why 200 was a good score to defend in their day and why this hitting and approach was not taken earlier. Except it was, just by very few batsmen who's records stand out in the past eras. Viv Richards for example.

Players are now batting closer to run maximisation. The game is not about batting averages, but economy rates and strike rates to maximise team scores. The one rule change which has completely and unfairly challenged the bowler is only 4 outfielders not 5. So the commentators say, oh you can do that with the new bats. The new bats may be drier (is that really possible - moisture in wood would have rotted the old bats if a significant difference), they talk of pressing the bats less - whatever that may be, and the bats are lighter according to Gower, and heavier according to Australian commentators.

Scores in ODI cricket are regaularly hitting totals that many of us I believe were always possible if the batsmen had chanced their arms. Coaches and selectors are giving licence to the players to play that way, and the likes of Maxwell and co with their daring play can give it a nudge without fear of being dropped if it does not pay off.

Williamson and Amla have upped scoring rates without taking many more chances. Scores like this should have been scored more often in the past. But batsmen thought it was a novelty to bat big in the first powerplay with Greatbatch and then Jayasuriya. And instead of waiting for the last 5 overs to charge (the death). They do it for the last 15. Furthermore in the middle overs, aggressive single running and boundary hitting occurs much more frequently. Attitudes and approaches have vastly changed putting the bowlers under immense pressure.

The commentators are the paid experts who's knowledge through playing the game previously is meant to inform the viewer of what is happening. Except the viewer knows that the batsmen never played that way. Last night they praised spin at the death and what a great move it was and that the commentators had wanted that for years to occur. After the first two balls went for six, the commentators said it was risk by Bell to do that and he should have left Wood with some overs. It was priceless.