***Official*** Sri Lanka in New Zealand 2015

[Bahnz]

Wagner was good in Dunedin, was very expensive in Hamilton.

He also got 4 wickets and helped to turn the tide. Very petty to complain about his rpo.

 

[Moss]

I rarely put up any KW-centric posts because there's always quite a bit of them around here (ha), but here goes. I think the 108*, if not his best test innings to date, is certainly up there (with the 242* early in the year, 161* against the Windies in Bridgetown(?), and the 102* against the Saffers at the Basin). Reasons for this:

1. The Lankans had a definite plan for him in the first innings and he was suckered into it, but learned from it (and the Lankan batsmen's mistakes), put away the pull and limited the Chameera-induced damage in the second innings. Sounds simple but when you consider experienced heads like Taylor/McCullum and a supposedly patient opener in Latham fell for it, showed his maturity and discipline.

2. The match situation, while not super-difficult, was unfamiliar territory for BMac/Hesson's side. NZ in the last few years have achieved most of their success batting first and providing the bowlers enough runs to play with. I can't recall any occasions where the side has had to chase a "gettable but tricky" 4th innings total (with the exception of Lord's 2013, 68 all out chasing around 230). With the loss of two early wickets and the fact that BMac and Taylor were at best adequate in support roles, it's safe to say without Kane NZ were wrecked. Special mention of KW's handling of Herath who has been a thorn in NZ's side over the years.

3. This seems to have been a relatively chanceless innings compared to the ones I mentioned above. I remember him being dropped a few times during the 102 and the 242. The 161 against the Windies probably comes closest.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah that Windies knock was awesome. Probably my favourite.

 

[SteveNZ]

: 1. The Lankans had a definite plan for him in the first innings and he was suckered into it, but learned from it (and the Lankan batsmen's mistakes), put away the pull and limited the Chameera-induced damage in the second innings. Sounds simple but when you consider experienced heads like Taylor/McCullum and a supposedly patient opener in Latham fell for it, showed his maturity and discipline.

This, amongst so many other things obviously, is what makes Kane so great. He had the issue outside off stump nicking off, and worked feverishly at it. Australia thought they might get him that way, they never had a sniff. He got out hooking in the first innings, he thought about it, fought hard and remedied it. He's just a super intelligent guy who achieves everything he does through hard work and smarts. Wouldn't at all surprise me if he sat down before each Test, thought about how every bowler is going to try to get him out, and make sure that doesn't happen.

 

[_Ed_]

3. This seems to have been a relatively chanceless innings compared to the ones I mentioned above. I remember him being dropped a few times during the 102 and the 242. The 161 against the Windies probably comes closest.

There was one hairy shot when he was on 97 that went up in the air and had my heart briefly in my mouth, but apart from that you're absolutely right. And even if he had got out at that point, he'd already secured us the win by then anyway.

 

[Pratters]

This is the same way Tendulkar's early career progressed. He cut down his weaknesses a lot between 92-98. Given their techniques are also similar, find it quite interesting.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

This, amongst so many other things obviously, is what makes Kane so great. He had the issue outside off stump nicking off, and worked feverishly at it. Australia thought they might get him that way, they never had a sniff. He got out hooking in the first innings, he thought about it, fought hard and remedied it. He's just a super intelligent guy who achieves everything he does through hard work and smarts. Wouldn't at all surprise me if he sat down before each Test, thought about how every bowler is going to try to get him out, and make sure that doesn't happen.

Yeah he's the batting version of McGrath in that sense. Probably can instantly recall every detail about his dismissal in any of his innings.

 

[NZTailender]

If anything NZ have gone backwards since playing Australia; they can't win against them with McCullum as captain. The 'team' (Baz) plan to take on the short ball by deploying the hook willy nilly was Andrew Hillditch bad; McCullums tactics are inept, as they were in Australia. I expect the Aussies to get stuck in with the short ball when they get over here.
Taylor hasn't turned the corner form wise: Perth was a road, he prospered. It was a one-off.
Guptill is as block bash as ever and his poor dismissals in this test show he hasn't progressed.
Santner couldn't contain when the Sri Lankan's decided to take him on: the Aussies will have taken note.
Boult went backwards from Adelaide.
Wagner was good in Dunedin, was very expensive in Hamilton.
Watling was poor with the bat.
Tom was mixed as usual; should have been caught in Dunedin prior to his hundred - the ball just about hit the keepers leg on it's way past him.
Bracewell is a honest trier.
Southee / Williamson were very good; they can't do it alone.

lol

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Wouldn't at all surprise me if he sat down before each Test, thought about how every bowler is going to try to get him out, and make sure that doesn't happen.

I'd extend this - pretty sure he spends most of this time during and after each Test doing this as well.

 

[SteveNZ]

I'd extend this - pretty sure he spends most of this time during and after each Test doing this as well.

Absolutely he would. Hopefully it's 10+ years away but it'll be bloody interesting if he ever puts pen to paper with a book on how he went about it at all levels and ages.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Absolutely he would. Hopefully it's 10+ years away but it'll be bloody interesting if he ever puts pen to paper with a book on how he went about it at all levels and ages.

That would be interesting. He doesn't appear to be motivated by an egotistical desire for fame or dominance. This is why I referred to him as like a sculptor earlier. You can think of sport as war and players as warriors, but KW seems more like a craftsman.

 

[Moss]

If anything NZ have gone backwards since playing Australia; they can't win against them with McCullum as captain. The 'team' (Baz) plan to take on the short ball by deploying the hook willy nilly was Andrew Hillditch bad; McCullums tactics are inept, as they were in Australia. I expect the Aussies to get stuck in with the short ball when they get over here.
Taylor hasn't turned the corner form wise: Perth was a road, he prospered. It was a one-off.
Guptill is as block bash as ever and his poor dismissals in this test show he hasn't progressed.
Santner couldn't contain when the Sri Lankan's decided to take him on: the Aussies will have taken note.
Boult went backwards from Adelaide.
Wagner was good in Dunedin, was very expensive in Hamilton.
Watling was poor with the bat.
Tom was mixed as usual; should have been caught in Dunedin prior to his hundred - the ball just about hit the keepers leg on it's way past him.
Bracewell is a honest trier.
Southee / Williamson were very good; they can't do it alone.

Well, at least NZ proved they can win without Mark Craig.

 

[Skyliner]

Well, at least NZ proved they can win without Mark Craig.

Obviously Sri Lanka are still a name in world cricket that carries some cachet, but the reality is that the spine of their team was Sanga, Mahela and Dilshan and shorn of these greats the emperor has no clothes. Mathews didn't fire a shot in the series, the Sri Lankan bowlers are poor with the exception of a young highly promising fast bowler who watched a succession of NZ batsmen implode against his low 140 kph bowling.
Yet even given the limitations of the Sri Lankan side, they still would have put NZ under severe pressure in the second class were it not for a horrendous 2nd innings collapse, which was triggered in part by another controversial DRS decision.
It would be good to see the analysis extend past "yay, we beat mighty Sri Lanka" and actually look at the team we beat, and then honestly question whether the performances we put in would have been good enough to beat decent opposition.

 

[Bahnz]

Obviously Sri Lanka are still a name in world cricket that carries some cachet, but the reality is that the spine of their team was Sanga, Mahela and Dilshan and shorn of these greats the emperor has no clothes. Mathews didn't fire a shot in the series, the Sri Lankan bowlers are poor with the exception of a young highly promising fast bowler who watched a succession of NZ batsmen implode against his low 140 kph bowling.
Yet even given the limitations of the Sri Lankan side, they still would have put NZ under severe pressure in the second class were it not for a horrendous 2nd innings collapse, which was triggered in part by another controversial DRS decision.
It would be good to see the analysis extend past "yay, we beat mighty Sri Lanka" and actually look at the team we beat, and then honestly question whether the performances we put in would have been good enough to beat decent opposition.

What exactly do you define as decent opposition? Earlier this year, Australia showed that on seaming decks their top 7 has the structural integrity of a used kleenex, is that the kind of standard we should be judging ourselves against?

 

[kiwiviktor81]

It would be good to see the analysis extend past "yay, we beat mighty Sri Lanka" and actually look at the team we beat, and then honestly question whether the performances we put in would have been good enough to beat decent opposition.

You can only play what's in front of you. We'll find out about the stronger opposition part very soon when Aussie are here.

 

[NZTailender]

Obviously Sri Lanka are still a name in world cricket that carries some cachet, but the reality is that the spine of their team was Sanga, Mahela and Dilshan and shorn of these greats the emperor has no clothes. Mathews didn't fire a shot in the series, the Sri Lankan bowlers are poor with the exception of a young highly promising fast bowler who watched a succession of NZ batsmen implode against his low 140 kph bowling.
Yet even given the limitations of the Sri Lankan side, they still would have put NZ under severe pressure in the second class were it not for a horrendous 2nd innings collapse, which was triggered in part by another controversial DRS decision.
It would be good to see the analysis extend past "yay, we beat mighty Sri Lanka" and actually look at the team we beat, and then honestly question whether the performances we put in would have been good enough to beat decent opposition.

I don't see anyone saying we've beaten a giant of the cricketing world in Sri Lanka. If anything we were very lucky this Test, salvaged out of a hole by Kane with groundwork done by the seamers and some shameful batting by the Sri Lankans.

i swear you read a different forum to the rest of us, but then post replies here.

 

[Jono]

 

[Athlai]

Obviously Sri Lanka are still a name in world cricket that carries some cachet, but the reality is that the spine of their team was Sanga, Mahela and Dilshan and shorn of these greats the emperor has no clothes. Mathews didn't fire a shot in the series, the Sri Lankan bowlers are poor with the exception of a young highly promising fast bowler who watched a succession of NZ batsmen implode against his low 140 kph bowling.
Yet even given the limitations of the Sri Lankan side, they still would have put NZ under severe pressure in the second class were it not for a horrendous 2nd innings collapse, which was triggered in part by another controversial DRS decision.
It would be good to see the analysis extend past "yay, we beat mighty Sri Lanka" and actually look at the team we beat, and then honestly question whether the performances we put in would have been good enough to beat decent opposition.

Waaaaaah

 

[Dead Meat]

Waaaaaah

"The Waa Waa, Call the Wambulance Award"

 

[Skyliner]

I don't see anyone saying we've beaten a giant of the cricketing world in Sri Lanka. If anything we were very lucky this Test, salvaged out of a hole by Kane with groundwork done by the seamers and some shameful batting by the Sri Lankans.

i swear you read a different forum to the rest of us, but then post replies here.

I'm talking more of the NZ media, and the mythologizing about our wonderful recent record. 4 home victories against Sri Lanka, 4 victories home and away vs WI, a victory vs India here, and a victory against PAK in Dubai in the aftermath of the Phil Hughes incident, when PAK said they wanted to stop the test but were made to play on by their board, and a victory against England in England.

Strip away the wheat from the chaff and there's probably a couple of wins there you could hang your hat on.

In the Taylor era we beat a stronger Sri Lankan side in Sri Lanka, and Australia in Australia.