SMH honestly this is just crazy talk here. "Inconsistent"?
the guy just came back from a SIX MONTH layoff and had not played a first class game before the first test..only a t20 game for his local side in barbados where he bowled four overs and then he played a two day game vs a young Barbados eleven..so the kid was totally cold in that first innings and it showed. Second innings he finally got his lines right and he alongside Taylor started to cause all sorts of problems...and the encouraging thing from our perspective is the last time Kemar played a test in trinidad he got a 10fer vs Australia..so write him off if you wish.
Six month layoff from a career that he's never been overly consistent in, he has some amazing performances scattered in between that - his average is inflated by performances against Bangladesh and the last time NZ toured here but I dare say he won't escape this series without some damage to his figures and reputation. He's not in the same league as Boult, let alone Southee. You say "He got better in the second innings" - I say the NZ'ers simply allowed him to bowl at them without putting pressure on him and hitting the bad balls away and made his bowling spell look much better than it was - as we saw with Latham handling him comfortably in both innings.
Even if Kemar takes a 10fer versus us in Trinidad, West Indies will not win. It makes me laugh though, in one sentence you're saying that Roach shouldn't be expected to perform during his first few tests from comeback, the next you're issuing a warning that he'll destroy our batting line up.
Course it's horses for courses. The thing is, Trent is guaranteed a new ball every Test and we don't know when one is going to go around corners. If it does, and Wagner takes it, we're at a disadvantage.
My opinion the whole way along was one spinner and Kane. So now it's Pidg and Kane + three seamers. Jimmy, as wonderful of a talent as he is, is (at this stage) fodder on flat decks at Test level. I truly believe he can become more than that, and he's one hell of an asset in helpful conditions with his batting talent added.
Agree with you on Neesham, height, good raw pace and the ability to hit the seam should give him some tools to work with down the line. Trent - agree to disagree. I think ultimately no one should be a safe selection if they're not likely to contribute in the environment they're playing in and at the moment, for all of his talent, he does struggle in these conditions.
I said Roach AND Taylor together are Boult and Southee's equal acually..and judging by the first test was i far off? Boult only got one wicket and once again hid behind Southee.
And like i said that was due to me being upset that our BEST spinner and NZ's boogy man has been left on the sidelines.
It was a team picked on reputation alone...not on current form...i wanted Brathwaite to start and i was bigging up Blackwood before the series started.
No-one is denying the improvement NZ have shown over the years...but don't get too carried away because there are still major weak points in that side that i believe the better teams will exploit.
Ok..i'll hold you to that.
The truth is NZ only have three proven batsmen at the top level i.e Williamson, Taylor and Mccullum. The rest are still a work in progress and haven't proven themselves against the very best attacks in the game yet...the good sign for us is after Kane got his ton we got him, Taylor and Mccullum fairly cheaply twice...the difference in the game really wasn't those three...it was Neesham's knock and Craig getting wickets.
If you're saying NZ only has three proven batsmen at the top level, then I'll counter and say in recent times, the Windies really only have two... Gayle not really contributing to his usual standard. The issue is also that when you make blanket statements like that, you don't think about match ups in the teams. If you're looking at these two teams side by side, the only two players who are absolutes from the Windies to make the combined side are Gayle and Chanderpaul if you match man for man.
Neesham is coming off back to back tonnes, Watling is setting records as a keeper batsman and if Latham starts to show the same consistency he just has in a season of first class, he'll be another causing pain for the Windies.
Then you have the issue of the bowlers. If you had Narine, maybe you've got room to feel that you've got a bowling attack that could compete with New Zealand. But you don't - comparing Taylor and Roach to Southee and Boult is a little funny, even though Boult is a fish out of water in these conditions, ultimately either Southee or Boult are much better than either Taylor or Roach as bowlers, recent form and entire history tells you that.
Like I say. West Indies won't beat New Zealand, unless something like a sticky wicket situation happens, NZ are sent in first and get rolled on a pitch as bad as they were in the warm up matches. Even then I'd give money on NZ being able to snick out the Windies under a low score.
