***Official*** New Zealand in Zimbabwe and South Africa 2015

[Bahnz]

Except this "KW had no problems accumulating at a strike rate of around 80 throughout most of his innings" is a complete fallacy.

Williamson had massive issues early in his innings. He was still on 0 after what, 15 balls?

The key point is "acceleration through the middle overs".

Yes KW had a slow start, but once the initial threat from the new ball was seen off he started accelerating. Between overs 15 and 35, Williamson scored 74 from 63 (at a SR of 117). By comparison, Taylor scored 35 from 57 balls (SR of 61). I'm not saying that Taylor needs to always score at a SR of 100+, but 60 odd with only 4 fielders outside the circle on a flat track against a weak bowling lineup really isn't good enough.

 

[Zinzan]

Agree, even though KW was uncharacteristically slow & the start by his own standards, I wasn't overly concerned with either he or Taylor in those early overs given they needed to consolidate. But there's just no excuse for scoring at SR of around 60 between the 15th & 35th overs when you're only 2 down on a good track with a fast outfield, even if you do play catch-up at the end to some extent.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Pretty cheap & over-simplistic point tbh. I don't think CG was implying Taylor was the only player to blame for the loss, that's certainly not the way I read it.

I know it seems the easy and popular thing to oversimplify it & jump all over CG for critiquing a player who just scored a 100, the only problem is his critique of Taylor's first half of his innings is actually quite valid, especially with hindsight when you look back at how the respective teams approached their batting.

It's not 2002 anymore, where a score of 300 wins 95% of matches. That was a very good wicket (even if a little on the slow side), where batsmen could hit through the line and the outfield was incredibly fast. In hindsight it was probably a 320-330 par pitch. Therefore it's fair to say there was a lack of urgency in NZ's innings (particular from Taylor) after he and Williamson they did well to weather the early storm, which admittedly needed to be done. This doesn't mean the other NZ batsmen who failed and the bowlers who were loose shouldn't receive criticism either, but your reply seems to suggest that because Taylor scored a hundred, he should be immune from any criticism at all, even though anyone who watched the innings could see he was sucking up far too many dot balls.

Anyway, I'm sure we'll see more urgency in the batting in the next game, particularly if NZ bat first.

Thanks Zinzan. You and I agree that in the modern ODI game, there can be bad 100's.

Some stats:

KW outscored Ross in partnership: 89 runs to 46:
Elliot outscored Ross in partnership: 43 runs to 35:

Ross 50: (86) (far too slow)
Ross 53: (92) (end of 40 over)
Ross 61: (97) (end of 42 over)
Ross 70: (100) (end of 43 over)
Ross 81: (106) (end of 46 over)
Ross 92: (110) (end of 47 over)
Ross 97: (114) (end of 48 over)

Hit next ball for four.

I don't think that is an appreciable concern through the 90's as someone else mentioned. But the first 92 balls were far too slow. 53/92 is a SR of 58. That was unacceptable on that pitch. Totally unacceptable in the match conditions, it was two wickets down for most his innings, not 5 or 6. The acceleration at the end, that is the expected norm these days. Whether it him scoring those runs, or Neesham and Ronchi. 50 off 30 balls is hardly special these days, its getting rather more typical, especially for a batsman who has already faced 86 deliveries. This is the Amla, De Villiers, Kohli, Raina, Maxwell, Faulkner, Anderson, Ronchi, Williamson era of ODI cricket. SR has more value than ever before.

 

[Hurricane]

Ross is boss.

Cricket is a team game. If we had've had devcich and Brownlie at 3 and 4 then we don't make 200. Ross Taylor is a superb player. The only bad 100s is where you are batting second and you know you need 380 to win then his 100 was too slow.

Ross is boss assessed the conditions, the state of the pitch, the quality of the bowlers, and that really we only had Elliot to come after him who has been patchy overseas and calibrated that 300 would have to be enough.

Cricket is a team game and the bowlers needed to fire up and defend 300 against a team who is despite their test win still a minnow. This team is not Bangladesh calibre. Ross is boss knew that and he expected better from his bowlers because he is used to seeing better from his bowlers.

Will he bat the same way the next game now that he knows his bowlers are toothless? Probably not but Ross is boss played a flawless and measured inning last night.

He is the boss.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Ross is boss.

Cricket is a team game. If we had've had devcich and Brownlie at 3 and 4 then we don't make 200. Ross Taylor is a superb player. The only bad 100s is where you are batting second and you know you need 380 to win then his 100 was too slow.

Ross is boss assessed the conditions, the state of the pitch, the quality of the bowlers, and that really we only had Elliot to come after him who has been patchy overseas and calibrated that 300 would have to be enough.

Cricket is a team game and the bowlers needed to fire up and defend 300 against a team who is despite their test win still a minnow. This team is not Bangladesh calibre. Ross is boss knew that and he expected better from his bowlers because he is used to seeing better from his bowlers.

Will he bat the same way the next game now that he knows his bowlers are toothless? Probably not but Ross is boss played a flawless and measured inning last night.

He is the boss.

Hurricane, with all due respect, on cricket scoring rates, I find your approach to be anachronistic. 50 off 86 balls is flawed. Its further flawed for 2 wickets down for most of the innings then three wickets down. Its flawed for that pitch. 300 was sub par on that pitch. NZ bowlers contained Zimbabwe sub par. You can have bad 100's batting first. You can score 300 batting first and be sub - par. Its a new era. Ross's concern is not "his bowlers" but hoping to ensure he does his part so that NZ score as many runs as possible within 50 overs and score above par to help his bowlers ensure victory in the second innings. Kane should not have outscored him 89 to 46. That is a quite some margin. Then Elliot outscores him as well.

As Smithy, Botham, Hussain and the Sky commentators observed in England this year "400 is the new 300". If there is to be a New England, there could well in time be a New Hurricane.

 

[NZTailender]

Pretty cheap & over-simplistic point tbh. I don't think CG was implying Taylor was the only player to blame for the loss, that's certainly not the way I read it.

I know it seems the easy and popular thing to oversimplify it & jump all over CG for critiquing a player who just scored a 100, the only problem is his critique of Taylor's first half of his innings is actually quite valid, especially with hindsight when you look back at how the respective teams approached their batting.

It's not 2002 anymore, where a score of 300 wins 95% of matches. That was a very good wicket (even if a little on the slow side), where batsmen could hit through the line and the outfield was incredibly fast. In hindsight it was probably a 320-330 par pitch. Therefore it's fair to say there was a lack of urgency in NZ's innings (particular from Taylor) after he and Williamson they did well to weather the early storm, which admittedly needed to be done. This doesn't mean the other NZ batsmen who failed and the bowlers who were loose shouldn't receive criticism either, but your reply seems to suggest that because Taylor scored a hundred, he should be immune from any criticism at all, even though anyone who watched the innings could see he was sucking up far too many dot balls.

Anyway, I'm sure we'll see more urgency in the batting in the next game, particularly if NZ bat first.

Thanks for imagining who I was criticising but during his innings and afterwards multiple people have criticised Ross for his slow scoring rate. My post was glib sure and he certainly could've scored more runs had he not had such a slow first 50 odd balls, but his name seems to be getting bandied about most, not Guptill, Henry or McClenaghan - all of whom are the relatively senior players in the side. Hell even KW was striking at <50 early on in his innings and failed to capitalise his 90 into a big 150-180.

Perhaps we could criticise the whole team for seeming a bit complacent for not expecting an improving Zimbabwe side to outclass us in the end. Credit to them.

 

[Skyliner]

I thought Ross was ok. It was slow going early on, Latham scored a couple of streaky boundaries, Guptill didn't do much, Kane was slow to start and then his superlative run harvesting skills came to the fore, Elliot was very good and Nesham struggled to not much effect. Ross was the glue that held the thing together and made hay when very well set.
The pitch was very slow, and Zim employed a battery of slow bowlers and spinners who took the pace off and made batting heavy going. We bowled a reasonably pacy attack who were not accurate enough in those conditions. We played an expansive leg spinner who also gave up numerous scoring opportunities.

 

[Skyliner]

I don't think you can compare this match to what happened in the UK and say that scores should now be around 400 as of right. Totally different pitches - massive factor, less all-round batting and bowling firepower on both sides, ICC changed one significant rule since England.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I don't think you can compare this match to what happened in the UK and say that scores should now be around 400 as of right. Totally different pitches - massive factor, less all-round batting and bowling firepower on both sides, ICC changed one significant rule since England.

Re ICC rule change: Ross' scoring was fine overs 40-50. Its overs 10-40 that we take issue with.

 

[Bahnz]

Thanks for imagining who I was criticising but during his innings and afterwards multiple people have criticised Ross for his slow scoring rate. My post was glib sure and he certainly could've scored more runs had he not had such a slow first 50 odd balls, but his name seems to be getting bandied about most, not Guptill, Henry or McClenaghan - all of whom are the relatively senior players in the side. Hell even KW was striking at <50 early on in his innings and failed to capitalise his 90 into a big 150-180.

Perhaps we could criticise the whole team for seeming a bit complacent for not expecting an improving Zimbabwe side to outclass us in the end. Credit to them.

Yeah, but people have been criticising the whole team. Again, nobody's been saying that this was a superb team effort let down by one player. The only reason why the post match discussion has centred on Taylor is because it's a point that people disagree about.

 

[Skyliner]

The thing Taylor is being put under the gun over is the same thing people gave Gup a free pass on, along the lines of "he starts really slowly, but certainly makes up for it by accelerating later in his innings". The outlier of QF against the Windies being the towering exception.

 

[Zinzan]

Thanks for imagining who I was criticising but during his innings and afterwards multiple people have criticised Ross for his slow scoring rate. My post was glib sure and he certainly could've scored more runs had he not had such a slow first 50 odd balls, but his name seems to be getting bandied about most, not Guptill, Henry or McClenaghan - all of whom are the relatively senior players in the side. Hell even KW was striking at <50 early on in his innings and failed to capitalise his 90 into a big 150-180.

Perhaps we could criticise the whole team for seeming a bit complacent for not expecting an improving Zimbabwe side to outclass us in the end. Credit to them.

Your reply to CG's post implied he was exclusively blaming Taylor for the loss & that just wasn't the case. He did in fact raise a perfectly legitimate point about Taylor's SR in the middle, which was a paltry 60 between overs 15-35 (when both batsmen were set). So I didn't need a lot of imagination tbf.

 

[Zinzan]

I don't think you can compare this match to what happened in the UK and say that scores should now be around 400 as of right. Totally different pitches - massive factor, less all-round batting and bowling firepower on both sides, ICC changed one significant rule since England.

Not sure anyone suggested 400 is the new universal par tbf, but that wicket last night was at least a 320-330 par for mine. Even if it was a touch slow, it was flat deck and the outfield was incredibly fast. And that's saying nothing about the bowling attack we were facing on it.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Hurricane, with all due respect, on cricket scoring rates, I find your approach to be anachronistic. 50 off 86 balls is flawed. Its further flawed for 2 wickets down for most of the innings then three wickets down. Its flawed for that pitch. 300 was sub par on that pitch. NZ bowlers contained Zimbabwe sub par. You can have bad 100's batting first. You can score 300 batting first and be sub - par. Its a new era. Ross's concern is not "his bowlers" but hoping to ensure he does his part so that NZ score as many runs as possible within 50 overs and score above par to help his bowlers ensure victory in the second innings. Kane should not have outscored him 89 to 46. That is a quite some margin. Then Elliot outscores him as well.

As Smithy, Botham, Hussain and the Sky commentators observed in England this year "400 is the new 300". If there is to be a New England, there could well in time be a New Hurricane.

I fear it is you who is being anachronistic due to the fact the rule changes brought in between the England series and this Zimbabwe series were specifically designed to rebalance the pivot between bat and ball. You might think the tweaks to the playing regulations are relatively minor, but 400 is not going to be the par score under the revisions. The new playing regulations became effective on the 5th July.

In a move which will aid bowlers who are increasingly under fire from raising run rates, the ICC board has decided to get rid of the batting powerplay, and allow five fielders outside the 30-yard circle in the last ten overs of an ODI innings. Additionally, the rule changes will see no catching fielders in the first ten overs of an innings.

The other notable change will see free hits awarded for all no balls in ODI and T20 internationals, not just when bowlers overstep - a logical move that will see dangerous waist-high full-tosses also result in the same penalty as a simple front-foot no-ball.

"What we tried to do is make the game simpler for the fan and at the same time try and at least claw back a little bit of balance in favour of the bowlers especially in the last ten overs of the innings," said ICC Chief Executive Dave Richardson.

Since then, how many scores >300 have there been? India won scoring only 255 at the same Harare ground (1st ODI: Zimbabwe v India at Harare, Jul 10, 2015 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo)
And 271: 2nd ODI: Zimbabwe v India at Harare, Jul 12, 2015 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
And 276: 3rd ODI: Zimbabwe v India at Harare, Jul 14, 2015 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Out of 24 innings since the rule changes, only 4 innings have exceeded 300 runs.

This wicket was not a belter for batting. It was slow and low. Hard to dismiss batsmen, but difficult to time the ball. This was demonstrated by even Kane Williamson who really struggled early on, but every NZ batsman struggled for timing. Taylor's timing was awful until he passed 60. Even when set he tried to play an expansive pull shot and got both nowhere near it and completely out of sync with the pace of the ball off the wicket.

You're dreaming if you think a par score was over 350. Par was 300 and unfortunately par was beaten because the Zimbabwe batsmen played well and were more used to the wicket. As the India scores demonstrate, in a 3-match single venue series, the batsmen will become more used to the pace of the wicket as the series progresses and I wouldn't be surprised to see slightly improved scores if selection remains consistent throughout.

Taylor knew if he got out that the rest of the order would also struggle to time the ball (though Elliott certainly found his timing much sooner than Taylor did) and thus he needed to stick around to make best use of the deliveries available.

 

[Flem274*]

I think some of us are getting a little bit pissed off because...

Introducing the Ross Taylor Performance Guide

Situation A: Gone for single digits

Did we win?

Yes - we won in spite of Ross Taylor
No - it's Ross Taylor's fault

Situation B: Gone for a 20-49 score

Did we win?

Yes - we won in spite of Ross Taylor
No - it's Ross Taylor's fault because he didn't convert his start

Situation C: Ross Taylor makes 50-99

Did we win?

Yes - we won in spite of Ross Taylor throwing away a ton
No - It's Ross Taylor's fault. He should have been there at the end.

Situation D: Ross Taylor scores a hundred

Did we win?

Yes - Ross Taylor cut it fine but it was a good innings. BUT if Kane Williamson or Brendon McCullum make 50+ in the same game, it's their victory
No - It's Ross Taylor's fault. He should have scored a bigger/faster hundred

Then there's the how did he bat and get out bonus level

Did Ross Taylor bat slowly?

Yes.

Should have batted faster

Did Ross Taylor bat fast?

Yes

Shouldn't have been so irresponsible. He could have batted through the innings and set the game up with a hundred.

Did Ross Taylor get out to an onside shot?

Yes

He should stop slogging

Did Ross Taylor get out to an offside shot?

Yes

His test game is affecting his ODI batting. He needs to slog more.

You can then take this basic model and give it context like

Did New Zealand score a lot of runs?

Yes

Did Ross Taylor score a lot of runs?

Yes

Did New Zealand take any wickets?

No.

Did we win?

No.

It's Ross Taylor's fault.

Did the batsmen score any runs?

No.

Did Taylor?

Some, but he holed out going for it

Did we win?

No.

It's Ross Taylor's fault. He should have batted long.

Moral of the story? It's always Ross Taylor's fault.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I fear it is you who is being anachronistic due to the fact the rule changes brought in between the England series and this Zimbabwe series were specifically designed to rebalance the pivot between bat and ball. You might think the tweaks to the playing regulations are relatively minor, but 400 is not going to be the par score under the revisions. The new playing regulations became effective on the 5th July.

Where did I or anyone else complain about the scoring in overs 41-50? That was 115 runs from those ten overs. That speaks volumes for how below par the batting was before that. 4 wickets lost, one of them a run out, and 115 scored in the last ten overs, sounds like a 350+ innings to me.

You may think that Ross's 53 off 92 balls at the end of 40 overs is a result of removing the 35-40 over powerplay. I do not.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I think some of us are getting a little bit pissed off because...

Introducing the Ross Taylor Performance Guide

Situation A: Gone for single digits

Did we win?

Yes - we won in spite of Ross Taylor
No - it's Ross Taylor's fault

Situation B: Gone for a 20-49 score

Did we win?

Yes - we won in spite of Ross Taylor
No - it's Ross Taylor's fault because he didn't convert his start

Situation C: Ross Taylor makes 50-99

Did we win?

Yes - we won in spite of Ross Taylor throwing away a ton
No - It's Ross Taylor's fault. He should have been there at the end.

Situation D: Ross Taylor scores a hundred

Did we win?

Yes - Ross Taylor cut it fine but it was a good innings. BUT if Kane Williamson or Brendon McCullum make 50+ in the same game, it's their victory
No - It's Ross Taylor's fault. He should have scored a bigger/faster hundred

Then there's the how did he bat and get out bonus level

Did Ross Taylor bat slowly?

Yes.

Should have batted faster

Did Ross Taylor bat fast?

Yes

Shouldn't have been so irresponsible. He could have batted through the innings and set the game up with a hundred.

Did Ross Taylor get out to an onside shot?

Yes

He should stop slogging

Did Ross Taylor get out to an offside shot?

Yes

His test game is affecting his ODI batting. He needs to slog more.

You can then take this basic model and give it context like

Did New Zealand score a lot of runs?

Yes

Did Ross Taylor score a lot of runs?

Yes

Did New Zealand take any wickets?

No.

Did we win?

No.

It's Ross Taylor's fault.

Did the batsmen score any runs?

No.

Did Taylor?

Some, but he holed out going for it

Did we win?

No.

It's Ross Taylor's fault. He should have batted long.

Moral of the story? It's always Ross Taylor's fault.

While I disagree with the sentiment aimed at those critical of some of the NZ batting last night, I appreciate the humor and effort that went into this post. Good job Flem.

 

[Zinzan]

This is just hyperbole city Flem.

You're arguing against a straw-man. For the 50th time, nobody is exclusively blaming Taylor for the loss.

It just so happens that as part of the after match analysis, a few have suggested that a SR of 60 for an 'in' batsman between the 15th-35th over when your side is 2-down is not good enough.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Where did I or anyone else complain about the scoring in overs 41-50? You may think that Ross's 53 off 92 balls at the end of 40 overs is a result of removing the 35-40 over powerplay. I do not.

Ah, selective reading - always welcome.

 

[Zinzan]

You're dreaming if you think a par score was over 350. Par was 300 and unfortunately par was beaten because the Zimbabwe batsmen played well and were more used to the wicket.

Disagree, from what I saw I honestly think par was somewhere between 300 than 350 on that wicket. 320-330. I can't comment on the Indian game played on the same wicket, only the one I saw last night.