Richard Rash
U19 Cricketer
Matt Hart also got a century. What ever happened to him? He made is NZ debut almost 10 years ago and seemed decent enough... he even went to the 1999 world cup from memory.
-
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* NZ Domestic Season
- Thread starter chris.hinton
- Start date
Well, Zane's argued that Rigor has been such a timid opener that it conceded a psychological advantage. It gives opposing bowlers' confidence to know there's no risk of NZ going to lunch at 100+/0, the opposing captain can set more attacking fields, and therefore every Kiwi batsmen coming in after Rigor feels pressured to try and wrest the initiative from the opposition.anzac said:
What Zane conveniently forgets are the number of new balls and fresh bowlers Rigor saw off. He comes up with every excuse in the world for the likes of Astle, McMillan and Styris to p*ss away foundations, as if there needs to be some kind of reason for why players with such faultless temperaments and techniques as those three would ever fail.
Despite his hobby-horse about Rigor, I've never really heard Zane come up with realistic alternatives. The news of J How's century before lunch the other day will probably make Zane a huge fan of his.
Last edited:
Yeah I agree. If even I was able to semi-predict Marshall's 100, I'd refrain from saying his innings showed us much that we didn't already know.anzac said:
Not that I think Marshall can't improve his skills or doesn't work hard at his game - apparently he's one of the hardest workers in the nets of all in the BCs.Kent said:
hadn't thought of it quite that way - I wouldn't have called him timid, just defensive as in rock of gibraltar type - reminded me of Boycott but without the scores to match..............Kent said:Well, Zane's argued that Rigor has been such a timid opener that it conceded a psychological advantage. It gives opposing bowlers' confidence to know there's no risk of NZ going to lunch at 100+/0, the opposing captain can set more attacking fields, and therefore every Kiwi batsmen coming in after Rigor feels pressured to try and wrest the initiative from the opposition.
What Zane conveniently forgets are the number of new balls and fresh bowlers Rigor saw off. He comes up with every excuse in the world for the likes of Astle, McMillan and Styris to p*ss away foundations, as if there needs to be some kind of reason for why players with such faultless temperaments and techniques as those three would ever fail.
Despite his hobby-horse about Rigor, I've never really heard Zane come up with realistic alternatives. The news of J How's century before lunch the other day will probably make Zane a huge fan of his.
I'd agree to a certain extent regarding incoming players - not so much as wresting the advantage, but even to up the pace to the team's batting targets & gameplan - I'm certain that at least some dismissals in the middle order would have been as a result of players trying to force the pace too early b4 they had got a good look at either the pitch or bowling.............that is in combination of when they were trying to 'advance the game'.....
my main concern was that he would have been such a difficult player to bat with - being so defensive he was always likely to face 4/5 off the over & then take a single.............very hard to keep any sort of rythmn with your own batting let alone a partnership IMO....................
*Official*NZ Domestic Season
I have heard of him come up with alternatives. Last week he promoted the idea of Ross Taylor opening the batting. He's some way off yet, and opening though?...LOL. Mind you over the years i've heard him promote Astle, Fleming, Vincent and now it seems taylor.
Where he misses the point is he wants batsmen to go out there and look to hammer everything, and if you get out, and lose that does not matter, you still played very aggressively. In reality no side can play the way that consistently, and win consistently. obviously you need to have positive intent, but sometimes a single is just as valuable as a boundary, and thats the point that he misses.
But the most important point is he is so passionate about the game, even if he does miss the point.
Kent said:Well, Zane's argued that Rigor has been such a timid opener that it conceded a psychological advantage. It gives opposing bowlers' confidence to know there's no risk of NZ going to lunch at 100+/0, the opposing captain can set more attacking fields, and therefore every Kiwi batsmen coming in after Rigor feels pressured to try and wrest the initiative from the opposition.
What Zane conveniently forgets are the number of new balls and fresh bowlers Rigor saw off. He comes up with every excuse in the world for the likes of Astle, McMillan and Styris to p*ss away foundations, as if there needs to be some kind of reason for why players with such faultless temperaments and techniques as those three would ever fail.
Despite his hobby-horse about Rigor, I've never really heard Zane come up with realistic alternatives. The news of J How's century before lunch the other day will probably make Zane a huge fan of his.
I have heard of him come up with alternatives. Last week he promoted the idea of Ross Taylor opening the batting. He's some way off yet, and opening though?...LOL. Mind you over the years i've heard him promote Astle, Fleming, Vincent and now it seems taylor.
Where he misses the point is he wants batsmen to go out there and look to hammer everything, and if you get out, and lose that does not matter, you still played very aggressively. In reality no side can play the way that consistently, and win consistently. obviously you need to have positive intent, but sometimes a single is just as valuable as a boundary, and thats the point that he misses.
But the most important point is he is so passionate about the game, even if he does miss the point.
a point I was trying to make regarding an earlier thread I started regarding batting orders & position roles..............along with the concern of a 5-5 split & promoting lower order bowling allrounders into specialist batting middle order positions...........Tim said:
hence = batting collapse for mind
yet I would also say that if you have a top order batsman with genuine talent & technique, then they can play 'out of position'
AUS seem to pick the best batsmen available & then work out the order - not neccessarily who is the best in that position...........Langer & Lehmann are both out of their 'normal' position in the State sides.............
perhaps this is something that NZL should look at - although on the other hand it could be part of the reasoning behind the promotion of such players as Astle, Styris & Co from lower order & ODI allrounders into Test middle order batsmen...............
atm with the oncoming top order batting talent I can see no reason to persist in the promote from lower order / ODI mentality...............
IMO we must pick 'proper' test batsmen for the top & middle orders - at least as far down as #5..................if this means we have a State #1-3 playing Tests at #5 then so be it - provided he has the talent & technique for the role & we do not end up with a top order of the same type of player - same as we can not afford a seam attack of the same type..........
this team will have to be rebuilt b4 the WC - may as well start sooner rather than later - we have to start at the openers now, but there is no reason at least 1 other middle order batsman can not be looked at b4 the end of the season, and then a another couple of players for the ZIM / RSA tour...........
atm with the oncoming top order batting talent I can see no reason to persist in the promote from lower order / ODI mentality...............
IMO we must pick 'proper' test batsmen for the top & middle orders - at least as far down as #5..................if this means we have a State #1-3 playing Tests at #5 then so be it - provided he has the talent & technique for the role & we do not end up with a top order of the same type of player - same as we can not afford a seam attack of the same type..........
this team will have to be rebuilt b4 the WC - may as well start sooner rather than later - we have to start at the openers now, but there is no reason at least 1 other middle order batsman can not be looked at b4 the end of the season, and then a another couple of players for the ZIM / RSA tour...........
my preference is to have at least 1 part time bowling option from your batsmen esp if having a 6-4 split (obviously no need of you are going with a 5-5 split)................atm this means Styris as IMO Astle will not be bowling again..........Craig said:
this means I do not have a spot for Astle in my lineup........
How, Papps/Cumming, Fleming, Sinclair, Fulton, Styris, McCullum, Oram, Vettori, Tuffey & ??????
if the next couple of seasons see the emergence of viable slow bowling alternatives then Styris may struggle to hold his spot - Vincent is bowling at club level & I think Nichol does a little bit at State level, not sure who else is about..............
We cant not afford to drop astle as astle is one of our top players. He is not in great form but he is a player i look to to score when the chips are down. Something that he has down consistently. Regarding your openers there was an interesting article in the local paper in canterbury stating "we must pick specialist openers" and get away from "mackshift openers". With this in mind i agree with your openers.anzac said:
I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments Tim. The aussies select far better than us, as an example, Ricky Ponting spent a long time at number 6 serving an 'apprenticeship' and then found his way up the order. We picked Mccullum and then opened the batting with him in his first few ODI'S. See the difference? See also one reason why we don't progress as far as we should? Because i don't believe for one moment that we are that poor-a-side than what our records suggests. We just need to get things like selection working for us rather than the scatter gun approach that we have adopted in the past. We have talented players it just needs to be harnessed well and rightly.Tim said: