-
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 Sri Lanka 2012
- Thread starter Meridio
- Start date
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
Sad reflection on our recent ODI record that I looked at the score this morning and although we'd lost thought 'looks a decent effort'.
Do feel a little aggrieved that the rain came just after the 20 over mark to make it a match, while still a long way from the finish. SL were favourites from that position but we still had a good chance.
Think the go-slow at the top of the order is symptomatic of the wider problem, which is that the top order know we can't afford to lose too many wickets because the batting is generally weak and ends at 6 (with NcCullum the only reliable bat-thrower). And of course batsmen like Nicol are pretty limited as well.
I'm really starting to hate the way Williamson is floated around the order too, used either as an insurance policy or not at all. Sure he's not a great hitter but he's not as one-dimensional as they make out either. Absolutely no reason he couldn't have come in at 3 yesterday, especially given the success Watling had at 6 v West Indies. Williamson is never going to learn how to play limited-over cricket if this keeps up. It's also just a generally crap tactic - a waste of resources. If they really rate him this little then just pick someone else. Otherwise, captain should back his players.
I would also like to see Southee bat a little more often in limited-overs.
Do feel a little aggrieved that the rain came just after the 20 over mark to make it a match, while still a long way from the finish. SL were favourites from that position but we still had a good chance.
Think the go-slow at the top of the order is symptomatic of the wider problem, which is that the top order know we can't afford to lose too many wickets because the batting is generally weak and ends at 6 (with NcCullum the only reliable bat-thrower). And of course batsmen like Nicol are pretty limited as well.
I'm really starting to hate the way Williamson is floated around the order too, used either as an insurance policy or not at all. Sure he's not a great hitter but he's not as one-dimensional as they make out either. Absolutely no reason he couldn't have come in at 3 yesterday, especially given the success Watling had at 6 v West Indies. Williamson is never going to learn how to play limited-over cricket if this keeps up. It's also just a generally crap tactic - a waste of resources. If they really rate him this little then just pick someone else. Otherwise, captain should back his players.
I would also like to see Southee bat a little more often in limited-overs.
Last edited:
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If you're weak and want to surrender meekly then consolidation is necessary. If you have batsman with a bit of quality who they get in and make it count. Sri Lanka have those sorts of batsmen. New Zealand's batting is full of plodders and sloggers. Guys like Nicol need to be scoring quickly or they're a complete waste of space. New Zealand need to use what they've got and take calculated gambles to make up for their mediocrity. You can catch up runs in ODIs by taking risks.
We are weak. Eighth in all forms of the game confirms that.
We have plodders and sloggers, exactly. So with that mix, isn't plodding at the start mixed with slogging at the end the best fit? I'd suggest it is, given we made 250. I don't see the point of calculated gambles when we didn't take any and made that score, which could well have been a winning one. I don't think our total represented 'surrendering meekly'.
But hey don't worry, with the benefit of experience we'll get better.
Howsie
International Captain
Yep, he can bat at three in the test team but he can't do it in the ODI team. Massive WTF as far as I'm concerned. He averages mid 40's in one day cricket domestically, with a superb record at three, why the **** not bat him there?
Perhaps if he played and missed every third ball, charged down the wicket every sixth ball and wogged the occasional six he'd get a decent run.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Personally I don't think I'll ever be convinced that opening the batting with Ryder in one day cricket is actually a good idea. When Ryder's available again I'd be going with a top five of Guptill-McCullum-Williamson-Taylor-Ryder in both Tests and ODIs. Having Ryder there near the end of the innings would be gold IMO, and I think there'd be advantages to having the same top five in the same order in both formats too, especially when they're all project players to some extent other than Taylor.
Last edited:
Hurricane
Hall of Fame Member
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Haha, project being a homograph definitely would've made it more difficult to spot my typo.*they're
struggled with what u meant
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Opener records v non-minnow nations
Ryder 36.76 with SR of 100+
McCullum 29.8 with SR of around 90.
Ok, so Ryder's record does come from a small sample of matches (he's only opened on 18 occassions, he's also played another 5 times at number 3 where he's averaged around 50), but that's pretty exceptional. McCullum has a lot more experience down the order, and has performed the role with great success. He's also a bit quicker between the wickets, which counts for a lot in the death overs.
I do concede that with the new fielding rules, Ryder's ability to find the gaps could come in handy in the later overs.
Ryder 36.76 with SR of 100+
McCullum 29.8 with SR of around 90.
Ok, so Ryder's record does come from a small sample of matches (he's only opened on 18 occassions, he's also played another 5 times at number 3 where he's averaged around 50), but that's pretty exceptional. McCullum has a lot more experience down the order, and has performed the role with great success. He's also a bit quicker between the wickets, which counts for a lot in the death overs.
I do concede that with the new fielding rules, Ryder's ability to find the gaps could come in handy in the later overs.
Last edited:
_Ed_
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Spikey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
anything that forces batsmen and bowlers to do more than settling for shots to the sweeper during overs 20-40 is alright by me
