***Official*** New Zealand in South Africa

[Athlai]

RSA beat New Zealand in little over 180 overs, just more than two days worth of cricket. And the comment regarding the South African batsman is rather equivocal for RSA only needed their lower order to perform once (first innings of the first test), the rest of the time they went out to the crease for a glorified net and hit around. AB de Villiers had two hits all series, scored more runs than the majority of New Zealand batsman (who had four hits) and looked a different class throughout his innings whilst the Ross Taylor’s of this world struggled to score more runs than Andre Nel, who like AB only batted twice all series.

After Bond broke down. I also believe Amla was dropped before he made any score and Kallis was let off a similar way. While by no means were NZ the better team at any stage, SA were hardly world beaters themselves. And with regards to AB I did say pretty much all of SA's batting, yet if we disclude Kallis and Amla from the equation (giving SA a total of 9 players) Fleming did better than AB etc. A silly way to look at it, yet they were obviously the greatest difference in the squads.

And NZ had the upperhand at least once in each match yet failed, either due to injury or the ineptness of the new look squad. The major disappointment people should have in the NZ squad is that they actually have the talent and showed the ability to turn these matches in their favour yet they were still destroyed. Bloody disgraceful.

 

[TT Boy]

After Bond broke down. I also believe Amla was dropped before he made any score and Kallis was let off a similar way. While by no means were NZ the better team at any stage, SA were hardly world beaters themselves. And with regards to AB I did say pretty much all of SA's batting, yet if we disclude Kallis and Amla from the equation (giving SA a total of 9 players) Fleming did better than AB etc. A silly way to look at it, yet they were obviously the greatest difference in the squads.

And NZ had the upperhand at least once in each match yet failed, either due to injury or the ineptness of the new look squad. The major disappointment people should have in the NZ squad is that they actually have the talent and showed the ability to turn these matches in their favour yet they were still destroyed. Bloody disgraceful.

But even with Bond in the side, RSA still managed to score 100 runs more than the New Zealanders did. If Bond was still fit South Africa would have still won the test match given they had already a substantial lead on that surface.

And the comment of talent in that New Zealand squad has to be questioned. Papps averages less than 20 with the bat and never looks anything like decent, Cumming's found himself in intensive care because he was unable to play shot pitched deliveries (was hit two times in the previous test, once on the head). Pig isn't an international number 4 and has never scored a run on wickets where there is a hint of decent pace and carry whilst Lou Vincent is a complete liability. And then you consider the bowling attack and you struggle to find anyone in that side (aside from Bond) who can be classified as more than ‘good’. And even Chris Martin who bowled 'well' finished the test series with less than flattering bowling figures.

 

[Francis]

I don't get all this, yeah we played **** but was SA that much better?

Yes.

Besides Amla and Kallis their batting was pretty much on par with the Kiwi's while if Bond remained uninjured and catches were held he would have been every bit as useful as Steyn.

A lot of cricket matches are decided because one or two batsmen stood up and made centuries etc. If it wasn't Amla or Kallis, it could've been Smith or Gibbs etc.

This is a transition period and 2 Tests is hardly enough to judge how **** the team is, particularly considering all the injuries we unluckily have suffered.

New Zealand are a good one-day side, but as far as Test cricket in concerned, they've been a poor side for quite a while now.

After Bond broke down.

I think New Zealanders might have to accept the fact that Bond's career will always be injury plauged.

I also believe Amla was dropped before he made any score and Kallis was let off a similar way.

I agree, New Zealand are a horrible fielding side which goes toward them being closer to Bangladesh.

SA were hardly world beaters themselves.

I agree, and yet they mutilated New Zealand.

The major disappointment people should have in the NZ squad is that they actually have the talent and showed the ability to turn these matches in their favour yet they were still destroyed.

I don't know the answer to this, but how many New Zealand batsmen average above 40? How many of the bowlers (Bond aside) average below 30? I don't know the answer to that too... can't be many though. I like Vettori, but he's a one-day bowler.

New Zealand are pretty makeshift tbh.

 

[Smudge]

I think New Zealanders might have to accept the fact that Bond's career will always be injury plauged.

You seriously don't think we haven't accepted that fact already? Regardless, Bond breaking down had an effect on that test - I still think we would have lost though, considering our batting is as about as deep as a paddling pool.

 

[Athlai]

But even with Bond in the side, RSA still managed to score 100 runs more than the New Zealanders did. If Bond was still fit South Africa would have still won the test match given they had already a substantial lead on that surface.

And the comment of talent in that New Zealand squad has to be questioned. Papps averages less than 20 with the bat and never looks anything like decent, Cumming's found himself in intensive care because he was unable to play shot pitched deliveries (was hit two times in the previous test, once on the head). Pig isn't an international number 4 and has never scored a run on wickets where there is a hint of decent pace and carry whilst Lou Vincent is a complete liability. And then you consider the bowling attack and you struggle to find anyone in that side (aside from Bond) who can be classified as more than ‘good’. And even Chris Martin who bowled 'well' finished the test series with less than flattering bowling figures.

A bowling attack missing it's second best Test bowler (in Franklin) and arguably it's third (in Mills) managed to restrict a SA side to a score that was very chaseable even considering the conditions. Martin was also unlucky not to finish with better figures, Gillespie also bowled decently on debut while helped a little by the Saffa's was nothing to be ashamed of.

NZ don't have an opener (maybe never will), Cumming had a great knock till he was knocked a bit himself, and learning to "duck a bit faster" is certainly not the hardest thing for him to work on for the future. Vincent was called into the squad due to mass injuries and scored a half decent 33 yet probably wasn't expecting any cricket at all so I can't really see much merit in judging his performance. Pig played ****.

Taylor needs time to develop mentally, the retirement of Astle did nothing to help him ease his way into the Test team. A pool of talent.

Fulton was desperately needed to push Styris down the order and to keep NZ from collapse mode.

It's been a long time since cricket, hardly surprising that there were so many failures.

Lets see how we do vs Bangers and England before the knives come out (FFS why can't a series be longer than 2 matches?).

 

[Francis]

A bowling attack missing it's second best Test bowler (in Franklin) and arguably it's third (in Mills) managed to restrict a SA side to a score that was very chaseable even considering the conditions.

It was chasable for a regular side, New Zealand are below regular.. According to this link - http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/newzealand/content/player/country.html?country=5 - New Zealand have no batsman who average over 40 and two bowlers who average under 30. Franklin's just OK, nobody would call him world class. Not one of the 20 best bowlers in the world IMO.

NZ don't have an opener (maybe never will)

A possibility.

Vincent was called into the squad due to mass injuries and scored a half decent 33 yet probably wasn't expecting any cricket at all so I can't really see much merit in judging his performance.

"A half decent 33"? How many Bangaldesh players are capable of that? Quite a few.

Lets see how we do vs Bangers and England before the knives come out (FFS why can't a series be longer than 2 matches?).

England will stab New Zealand like a gutted pig, leaving them whithering and lifeless, blood spewing out of its wound, unable to heal, suffering immensely until its last agonising breath.

Bangladesh will go well, but New Zealand will beat them. At least New Zealand could then have a competitive match though.

 

[Athlai]

Yes.

A well rounded argument, yet I continue the point, while NZ was **** SA were hardly the best team in the world, merely average.

A lot of cricket matches are decided because one or two batsmen stood up and made centuries etc. If it wasn't Amla or Kallis, it could've been Smith or Gibbs etc.

Gibbs and Smith failed though, Smith averaged less than Papps. Kallis being a rock and Amla being magic against the Kiwi's gave no great opportunity to see how the lower order fared, though AB played well enough, and Boucher had an innings, no other notable batting efforts came from SA.

New Zealand are a good one-day side, but as far as Test cricket in concerned, they've been a poor side for quite a while now.

Well we don't play Tests much which is a good reason for it, yet it's quite well known that we are down there with WI in Test terms.

I think New Zealanders might have to accept the fact that Bond's career will always be injury plauged.

Did, still there due to his good 15 minutes bowling he provides us which otherwise we might not get.

I agree, New Zealand are a horrible fielding side which goes toward them being closer to Bangladesh.

In terms of fielding, though NZ are certainly looking like we lose a lot of concentration in the catching department, and catches win matches. Two matches though is not enough for me to feel we have really moved down an entire standard fielding-wise.
Aus
SA
SL
Eng/NZ
Bang/WI
Pak/India

I don't know the answer to this, but how many New Zealand batsmen average above 40? How many of the bowlers (Bond aside) average below 30? I don't know the answer to that too... can't be many though. I like Vettori, but he's a one-day bowler.

NZ never have either TBH. Though TBF there are only a handful of bowlers in the world these days who average under 30.

Franklin is close though and Mills has been lately I believe (though earlier in his career was quite dire so his figures are skewed).

Batting wise, Fleming should be around 40. Other than that no one springs to mind. We make do with a long tail, oh wait Franklins out? Mills too? Oram gone? ****.

 

[Athlai]

It was chasable for a regular side, New Zealand are below regular.. According to this link - http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/newzealand/content/player/country.html?country=5 - New Zealand have no batsman who average over 40 and two bowlers who average under 30. Franklin's just OK, nobody would call him world class. Not one of the 20 best bowlers in the world IMO.

Franklin in Test cricket is well regarded as being very good. Hard pressed to see someone make a top 20 in the world without him in it. Just because he serves pies in ODI people assume he is **** in Test which is simply not true. Very talented Test bowler (and batsman). Also worth noting is that Vettori has averaged over 40 in recent years.

"A half decent 33"? How many Bangaldesh players are capable of that? Quite a few.

He played in 1 Match in a position he doesn't like FFS.

England will stab New Zealand like a gutted pig, leaving them whithering and lifeless, blood spewing out of its wound, unable to heal, suffering immensely until its last agonising breath.

Want to make this interesting?

 

[Francis]

Franklin in Test cricket is well regarded as being very good. Hard pressed to see someone make a top 20 in the world without him in it.

I actually can't think of many upper-level Test teams Franklin would even get selected in. Maybe Sri Lanka, since their lacking in a pack attack. But Pakistan, India, Australia, South Africa, even England, would find it hard to accomodate Franklin.

Very talented Test bowler (and batsman). Also worth noting is that Vettori has averaged over 40 in recent years.

That's one NZ batsman who averages over 40.

Want to make this interesting?

Absolutely. But British currency is far stronger than New Zealand currency, so what "interesting" to you may mean something different for me.

 

[Athlai]

I actually can't think of many upper-level Test teams Franklin would even get selected in. Maybe Sri Lanka, since their lacking in a pack attack. But Pakistan, India, Australia, South Africa, even England, would find it hard to accomodate Franklin.

Pakistan when fit have a gun attack yet he could probably make the team as 3rd seamer. India he would make the team pretty easily considering their seam attack. Australia course not. South Africa, possibly he could make it over Nel and England, considering all the breakdowns could have the spot the likes of Sidebottom and Tremlett fill.

Absolutely. But British currency is far stronger than New Zealand currency, so what "interesting" to you may mean something different for me.

Less interested in your money than nailing your nuts to a post personally. Loser leaves CW eh?

NZ win or draw series.

 

[Francis]

Gibbs and Smith failed though, Smith averaged less than Papps.

I'm just making the point that in each game different players make different scores. Gibbs and Smith didn't make good scores. That's not to say they couldn't do it in the next game. I said that basically because you're trying to say Amla and Kallis were the difference, but in any game there's usually two or three players who were the difference. SA may many players who could be the difference.

Batting wise, Fleming should be around 40.

Fleming's below 40 and should be dropped from New Zealand. Fine batsman once upon a time, but... what's a word opposite to "talismanic"? Fleming's a hex on the New Zealand batting - he prevents it from flourishing.

 

[Athlai]

I'm just making the point that in each game different players make different scores. Gibbs and Smith didn't make good scores. That's not to say they couldn't do it in the next game. I said that basically because you're trying to say Amla and Kallis were the difference, but in any game there's usually two or three players who were the difference. SA may many players who could be the difference.

Gibbs and Smith failed in each game, Amla and Kallis were the difference in each game. While it could differ this is what is true of the series.

Fleming's below 40 and should be dropped from New Zealand. Fine batsman once upon a time, but... what's a word opposite to "talismanic"? Fleming's a hex on the New Zealand batting - he prevents it from flourishing.

 

[Francis]

Less interested in your money than nailing your nuts to a post personally.

What have you got against me?

Loser leaves CW eh?

NZ win or draw series.

Well... seems a bit silly since you obviously like CW. I don't know if you're good for it. Ask James and seek permission - The loser of the bet gets blocked by him from CW forever.

 

[Prince EWS]

India and Pakistan would pick Franklin for sure. In the last test series Pakistan played, Rao was the third seamer in the squad. At full strength, Gul, Asif and Akhtar would get picked ahead of him, but they are hardly ever at full strength and he'd push for selection as an allrounder anyway. Franklin is better than Sreesanth and RP Singh, easily. Australia and South Africa wouldn't pick him, but that's really not that big of an insult IMO as they both have good attacks. Out of England's attack, only Flintoff and Hoggard are clearly better bowlers than him and he has the batting advantage over Sidebottom who he's probably about on par with as a bowler.

Franklin's a very good test player, rest assured.

 

[Athlai]

What have you got against me?

Oh nothing personal, just find it funner to gamble for pride than it is for money.

Well... seems a bit silly since you obviously like CW. I don't know if you're good for it. Ask James and seek permission - The loser of the bet gets blocked by him from CW forever.

Sure.

 

[pasag]

Ask James and seek permission - The loser of the bet gets blocked by him from CW forever.

Haha, not going to happen. Not sure how appropriate it is for you to use Ed's picture as your avatar without his permission though.

 

[Athlai]

Haha, not going to happen.

Sure a blocking isn't neccesary TBH.

 

[Francis]

Haha, not going to happen.

We have to ask James first silly.

Not sure how appropriate it is for you to use Ed's picture as your avatar without his permission though.

Thanks Bill Lawry.

Sure a blocking isn't neccesary TBH.

I don't trust you to stay gone after England's victory. Blocking ensures this. James is a good lad, he'll be fair.

 

[Athlai]

I don't trust you to stay gone after England's victory. Blocking ensures this. James is a good lad, he'll be fair.

Whatever you like then.

 

[Prince EWS]

We have to ask James first silly.



Thanks Bill Lawry.



I don't trust you to stay gone after England's victory. Blocking ensures this. James is a good lad, he'll be fair.

James isn't around at the moment and pasag (along with Jack and Rich) is in charge. I'd certainly be against it if it was raised among the mods and I have a fair idea that James would be against it as well. We aren't going to ban people for losing a bet on a cricket game. It's just not going to happen.