*Official* New Zealand in Pakistan

[marc71178]

Credit to Hamish Marshall however, top effort in my book.

Aided in part by Inzy's use of some strange new Death Bowlers!

 

[anzac]

Just a final point regarding Marshall's form.........and yes I know it's still early days yet after only 3 matches......

IMO not only should he be considered for the starting lineup of the regular ODI playing team (we all know they need another batsman as well as an opener), but he should also be considered for the position in the Test squads as batting cover, currently held by Jones & previously held by Horne & Sinclair.

Admittedly he is not a specialist opener, but the reason I suggest this is he was first selected 3 yrs ago as a Test player & made his international debut as a 20 yr old in the 3rd Test v RSA when he scored 40 no in SA in a loosing Test.

IMO to date he has done nothing wrong so far as his international career is concerned, and his current results in ODI make a mockery of his domestic form (not a big enough challenge for him????). Another plus for him is that he is still young enough to improve and contribute to the squad & team for the best part of another 10 years & thus providing some continuity.

8D

 

[anzac]

Aided in part by Inzy's use of some strange new Death Bowlers!

be that as it may credit where credit is due - the record books don't distinguish who he got those last runs off & he certainly faced a better attack than some who have scored tons in either form of the game against the minnows in Test & WC ODIs....(Bangladesh, Holland, Kenya, Namibia.....)

:P

 

[THE MINGSTER]

Good innings from Marshall. Even though it was him along with Harris that got the required run rate soaring. You can't blame Marshall. Jones for the 2nd time now has got us off to the worst possible start, getting 23 off 49 balls. The match was lost by then.

Marshall's future position is at 3, in my opinion. He has a sound technique and at 4 he takes too long to settle in. However it was still a sensational innings from young Hamish, he has already done something in 3 games that Lou Vincent has failed to achieve in 52 games. The look to this side has a much better feeling than the one that got thrashed consistently against India and Australia only a few weeks ago. At least we are starting to play specialists again.

Why they put Cairns in front of Harris, I will never know.

Marshall must be the front runner for the Astle's middle order Test place.

With everyone fit (which rarely happens) I would like to see Fleming and Astle opening again. I hate this **** that he is vulnerable etc. He hasn't got the best record in NZ at opening for no reason.

Hamish Marshall at 3, and I think he can really make it his for a while. He has probably one of the best techniques in the team and is a sound player. Give him a chance at 3 to really build an innings like he did last night.

Scott Styris, even though he did not tour, his place is secure at 4 where he has stamped his mark over the last year. In the mould of Marshall, he is a descructive player and must be kept here.

McMillan, Cairns or another specialist batsman to follow.

 

[Tim]

Had NZ sent in Cairns when Harris was in they could have at least got 300 if not the required score.

It was a poor decision, NZ did not need 2 similar players at the crease who were content to nudge the singles. If Cairns had his eye in by the 40th over then things could have been alot different.

 

[Tim]

That was Marshall's first hundred in FC/OD cricket...he's seems to be backing up what he said about being more comfortable at international level.

And for christ sakes Marc, those bowlers only bowled the last 3 overs...he deserved that century im sorry.

 

[THE MINGSTER]

Can I say that IMO the NZ brains trust on this tour have failed miserably. Yes they were on a hiding to nothing given their squad situation, but IMO they have not only failed to try to address the major positional / tactical concerns, but have also failed regarding their match day gameplans.

Yet again we see another wholesale change for the bowling lineup back to virtually the same 'attack' that failed in the opening match. Only Cairns & Vettori have remained for the 3 matches so far & Cairns has yet to provide anything with the ball. No consistency regarding selection of players nor a rotation of the pairing of bowlers. Eg Mason & Walmsley have yet to bowl with Tuffey or Canning to see what their 'balance' is like.

Well they have insisted on rotating the players because of this tough schedule. The bowling combination of Mason and Walmsley bowled superbly in the first ODI, and their figures were only ruined by the last over. Mason was seaming and swinging bowl and causing trouble to the Pakistani batsmen.

While I applaud the selectors on the one hand for not jerking the top order around, I do not think that not changing the top 4 for the 3 matches so far has actually solved anything. McCullum could have been used as an opener with Cumming to look at another option, as Jones' scoring rate is too slow for ODIs.

Agreed. Jones is a Test player. Well you wanted consistency in the bowling, and now you want them to make wholesales changes in the batting when both facets have failed?

McCullum must be looked at for the next match. Oram and Tuffey will come back as well.

It is incredible that we have not seen the kind of experimentation carried on with the batting lineup in the regular squad, just when the situation requires it to address the issues raised by their earlier experimentations (from memory Fleming had 3 or 4 different opening partners in the WC)!!!! Canning & Walker are supposedly handy with the bat and are potential 'allrounders' in competition for regular spots with the likes of Cairns, Oram, Adams & Harris, but have had little opportunity in the 3 matches so far.

Maybe because they haven't experimented because the tide of the matches hasn't allowed them so?

In regard to their 'gameplans' they are not making any inroads regarding the final 10 overs for a start, either by changing the bowlers or by type of delivery to be bowled. Admittedly I have not seen any coverage of any of the games but the match reports indicate more of the same in each match. Have they tried McGrath's tactic of bowling low full toss outside off stump - or perhaps none of the bowlers used have the control / accuracy to do so without being 'wided' - if so time to look at someone else!!!

Similarly the run chase tactics in this last game have been questionable (the 2nd match does not count as there was no chase thanks to Sami). While I may understand their wanting to rebuild the innings & perhaps conserve wickets with Sinclair & Marshall, some direction needed to be given regarding their run rate & targets etc. Furthermore the chase needed a definative acceleration once Sinclair was dismissed if they were to have any chance at all.

Well you haven't seen the games so far, and you think the gameplans and tactics ar wrong. Enough said.

Chucktar was almost unplayable at times during his fiery spell. Our bowlers in the last ten bowled yorkers but Razzag still managed to find them to the fence.

Cairns is supposedly the game breaker for this team & has done so b4 (as per his century v RSA in the VB series where he came in at an earlier stage, or as in NZs ICC Trophy victory v India). I would have thought this situation to have been tailored for him to be an ideal scenario for his batting heroics ('coz he can't bowl anymore), but instead the selectors persisted with their tactic of promoting Harris - who can no longer be considered a player to accelerate a run chase from the start of his innings. Harris may have been a more viable option at only 3 down if the run rate required was only around 5 & with more than a third of the match to go. As it was Harris' run rate was not that bad and he did make a reasonable score, but it was not what was required for the team effort in the context of the match! Mr Bracewll please take note as we will remind you of your oft quoted comments re your future selections & tactics!!!! As a consequence further overs were lost as the 'hitters' & 'allrounder' in Cairns, McCullum & Walker sat on the sidelines until it was too late.

Why they put Harris infront of Cairns, I will never know.

A **** weak effort for which Ross & Cairns need to take the majority of the blame, but so should Harris as he should know the requirements better than anyone with the number of games he has played. Quite frankly IMO Carins & Harris are there only because of their experience & not on current form following the TVS Cup!

I some how doubt the situation would have been the same had Fleming been on ground - rather go down in a blaze trying to make something happen & be bowled out inside 40 overs, rather than miander to 50 overs & still have wickets in hand & be 50 runs short!!!

 

[marc71178]

And for christ sakes Marc, those bowlers only bowled the last 3 overs...he deserved that century im sorry.

They actually bowled 5 overs in total for 45 runs.

With 3 overs to go, he was on 77* from 94 balls.

Are you seriously saying that had the last 3 overs been bowled by Sami and Shoaib he'd have got there?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Are you seriously saying that had the last 3 overs been bowled by Sami and Shoaib he'd have got there?

I don't see why not. He had nothing to lose, so he may have connected on a couple and gotten there regardless. He may even have really connected on some and won the game for NZ. You can't assume these thing, cricket is a game of glorious uncertainties.

 

[anzac]

As I said I haven't seen the games and only have the reports to go on......

but I find i difficult to conceive that Mason & Walmsley bowled well when the Pakistani top & middle order got starts in the 1st ODI, and then built a big platform in the next 2 - their figures just don't support this. However if you saw the game & say it is so then I stand corrected. Perhaps it is a case whereby Mason is another contender to bowl in the middle overs as 3rd / 4th seamer, and we are still looking for an opening / 'death' bowler?

A rotation of players because of the schedule is one thing, but there should have been some continuity to the seam selection in order to rotate the bowler pairings. After all the main idea is to find Tuffey an opening partner in lieu of Bond, and to find someone capable of bowling at the death. You are not going to do this unless you mix the bowlers up. Mason & Walmsley are the other 'opening' bowlers in the squad yet neither have played with Tuffey who is the established opening bowler!!!!!!

I am not suggesting they make wholesale changes to the top order, but they should have made a change or 2 by now. Jones' strike rate was always going to be too slow for him to be regarded as a serious contender for the opening spot in ODIs - so why have they not changed the order particularly when chasing big totals? McCullum is the obvious candidate to be promoted to open with Cumming in an attempt to get a 'flyer', and Jones could have come in at first drop if they lost an early wicket to re build.

So far as experimenting in the middle & lower orders is concerned at this level you need to take any & every opportunity you can. Cairns, Harris, Oram, Vettori & McCullum are all known quantities regarding their batting - Canning & Walker are not.

They got it wrong last night because the had wickets in hand & were 50 runs short at the end - a basic sin in Limited Overs Cricket. Their attempts to accelerate the run chase were too little too late & they showed little or no ability to adapt their established batting strategy to the situation as it unfolded. The message needed to go out to the batsman as early as Sinclair & Marshall, and certainly Marshall & Harris. They simply ran out of overs in which to attack. Jones - 23 from 49, Sinclair - 32 from 55 & Harris - 46 from 62 are all simply not quick enough under the circumstances.

Bowling yorkers outside off is not the same as bowling them on the stumps - but again I stand corrected if you saw them doing so.

My main gripe re the 'brains trust' is that IMO they have failed to address the main issues regarding the ODI squad - opening bat, new ball attack & bowling at the death. IMO these issues are of greater significance than the results of this series - hence the comment re Harris needing time in the middle is completely irrelevant to these issues, particularly as his batting is a known quantity.

As I see it at the moment the selectors are going to come away from this series with very few of their questions answered, primarily because they have not seen their options in action in the middle.

I will let them have their gameplans for the 1st 2 matches, but not last night's effort.

:!(

 

[marc71178]

I don't see why not. He had nothing to lose, so he may have connected on a couple and gotten there regardless. He may even have really connected on some and won the game for NZ. You can't assume these thing, cricket is a game of glorious uncertainties.

Until the winning game you actually had a point there.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Until the winning game you actually had a point there.

Just because Sami and Shoaib are supposed to be better bowler doesn't mean they will be.

 

[anzac]

They actually bowled 5 overs in total for 45 runs.

With 3 overs to go, he was on 77* from 94 balls.

Are you seriously saying that had the last 3 overs been bowled by Sami and Shoaib he'd have got there?

just saw this re Marshall's scoring rate & he appears to be as 'bad' as the others I have criticised. In reality his 50 from 70 was on a par Farhat (67), quicker than Hameed (80), but not as quick as Youhana (46). His 2nd 50 came from 36 deliveries which is as good as Inzi (25 from 18), but pales in comparison to Razzaq (34 from 16).

It is also interesting to see that the NZ chase remained within a few overs behind the Pakistanis. From this it would appear that the NZ run chase lacked an impact batsmen earlier in the innings to bridge the gap from the slow start, as the partnerships of Marshall with Sinclair & Harris were able to keep them relatively close without being able to bridge the gap.

Pakistan scored something like 50 more runs than NZ in the last 10 overs (which was the difference in the end), with the NZ lower order 'hitters' failing to have an impact.

 

[anzac]

just as an aside.......

in light of Marshall's form in this series are there any other former fringe players who may bear a 2nd look regardless of their recent domestic form - not just for ODIs but Test squad as well????

brother James, Bell, Franklin ??????

What has the 'A' team selections & performances been like of recent seasons??????

It may be a case that the selectors have more to think about regarding their pool of resources rather than just the up & comers like McIntosh & Co.

 

[Tim]

Well I think suggesting a batsmen didn't really deserve a century without witnessing the game is in very poor taste..I suppose that because Shabbir Ahmed & Razzaq both finished with 10 overs for 40 or more runs you think they bowled crap Marc?. Considering Marshall has not scored a single FC or OD century up until yesterday it was a brilliant effort & NZ did him a diss-service by bringing Harris in.

Marshall started slowly, but i'll give him credit that he was able to accelerate..there was no point having 2 guys out there dabbing it around..either McCullum or Cairns needed to be out there playing some shots, I thought NZ basically waved the white flag when Harris came to the crease.

This tour was also about discovering the ability of 2nd tier players or at least giving them some experience...why the hell they thought Harris needed time in the middle is way beyond me.

 

[marc71178]

Just because Sami and Shoaib are supposed to be better bowler doesn't mean they will be.

Sami was bowling extremely well, and I imagine he would'nt have gone for too many in his last 2 overs had he bowled them.

 

[Tim]

So I presume you have been watching this series on TV Marc?
Had Cairns come in 10 overs earlier than he did, I don't think even Sami would have been safe.
It was once again tactical errors which perhaps cost New Zealand a chance of at least having a decent shot at the total. It seems to be a common theme on this sub-continent tour & how much Ashley Ross has to do with this I don't know.

 

[marc71178]

Could someone please tell me where I have said he didn't deserve a century?

All I have pointed out is that without the friendly bowling at the end, it is very unlikely he wouldn't have got one.

And Tim, what relevance have your comments about Razzaq and Shabbir to anything?

If a team needs over 6 an over, than a bowler who concedes 5 or less has done well.

 

[Tim]

Perhaps deserve was the wrong word to use, but I find it funny how you can judge the last 5 overs without even watching it live.
Marshall has not even scored a century in any FC/OD match, so do you think playing easy bowlers would have made it any easier? it probably would have made it harder because he knew that really he should get the 100 facing that kind of bowling.

 

[marc71178]

Perhaps deserve was the wrong word to use, but I find it funny how you can judge the last 5 overs without even watching it live.

If these bowlers were any good, how come they'd never been called on to bowl in ODI's before?

Answer because they're not actually any good, and I reckon Inzy was just giving them a go to give the lad a chance.