***Official*** West Indies in New Zealand 2013/14

[NZTailender]

Baz trying to get his tonne before Taylor. "I'm a better captain than you!"

 

[Dan]

Bracewell definitely has a much higher ceiling as a bowler by virtue of not just bowling straight pies. Well, not all the time anyway.

Yeah I agree with all of this, which is why I think Bracewell is the better bowler! Just a different perspective I suppose. Faulkner's bowling is unlikely to go beyond Watson's peak, which is good but not really ever good enough to be a third seamer.

Whereas Bracewell can be considered a third seamer. I suppose a third seamer isn't definitely better than a 4th seamer, but just the mindset in terms of selection puts him there for me.

I absolutely agree that Bracewell has been rubbish for nearly 2 years now.

My argument is basically coming down to two points:

1. Bracewell really isn't that great.
2. Faulkner inexplicably taking wickets with gun-barrel straight bowling > Bracewell swinging it sometimes and not taking wickets anyway.

And it basically rests on the premise that Faulkner could learn how to get the ball to move and become a decent bowler by combining that with his weird ability to take wickets when everything suggests he shouldn't. I definitely think Faulkner's bowling can be better than Watson's peak, and that he could be a third seamer at some stage in the future. Maybe I'm arguing 'more effective bowler' rather than 'better bowler'.

I'm by no means suggesting Forkers is the reincarnation of Wasim Akram or Alan Davidson, or even that he will become a good Test player; I just really don't rate Bracewell at all.

 

[_Ed_]

Just wanted to take a screenshot of this for posterity. We don't get to see this sort of thing very often.

 

[Dan]

Ok so while CW froze in trying to put that last post through, I've heard the commentator scream "GONE!" and swung around looking for a hilariously ridiculous McCullum dismissal.

Then I found out he was referring to the ball being smacked for six, was disappointed, and returned to trying to get CW to work again.

 

[Bahnz]

I will add the proviso that this is a bit of a road. NZ will bowl better than this attack (obviously!), but if we bat even half decently they will struggle to bowl us out twice on this surely?

Will depend if the ball swings. If it does then Southee and Boult have shown in the past they have the ability to bowl out good batting lineups , even on flat pitches.

 

[James]

Ok so while CW froze in trying to put that last post through, I've heard the commentator scream "GONE!" and swung around looking for a hilariously ridiculous McCullum dismissal.

Then I found out he was referring to the ball being smacked for six, was disappointed, and returned to trying to get CW to work again.

Should be all back to normal now

 

[Prince EWS]

My argument is basically coming down to two points:

1. Bracewell really isn't that great.
2. Faulkner inexplicably taking wickets with gun-barrel straight bowling > Bracewell swinging it sometimes and not taking wickets anyway.

And it basically rests on the premise that Faulkner could learn how to get the ball to move and become a decent bowler by combining that with his weird ability to take wickets when everything suggests he shouldn't. I definitely think Faulkner's bowling can be better than Watson's peak, and that he could be a third seamer at some stage in the future. Maybe I'm arguing 'more effective bowler' rather than 'better bowler'.

I'm by no means suggesting Forkers is the reincarnation of Wasim Akram or Alan Davidson, or even that he will become a good Test player; I just really don't rate Bracewell at all.

I personally just don't see the whole "Faulkner randomly takes wickets" thing lasting, especially not at Test level. It's been very, very largely down the pitches IMO, and as we all know the standard of Sheffield Shield batting isn't great at the moment either. He's only played one Test match so we're yet to see the phenomena transfer to that arena, and I don't think it will. I don't even think it'll last at Shield level now that the pitches are playing a lot better.

I'd much, much rather have Bracewell in my side as a frontline bowler.

 

[Beamer]

I don't think so, honestly. If the game is played 5 days I think there'll be a result. There is bounce and carry here, and that was what was missing when we failed to bowl England out - and that was with a full day washed out. This NZ attack bowled out Sri Lanka on a flatter pitch than this.

It will all depend on the new ball I think. As rubbish as this bowling attack is, all the NZ batsmen have been hitting through the line with impunity. That 'carry' you refer to is really not much tbh. Tino Best is one of the World's quickest (and dumbest) bowlers and it has hardly been slamming into Ramdin's gloves.

Also, if Shilly is hardly turning it, Sodhi certainly wont. So yeah, it will all depend on the new ball.

 

[Maximas]

Also, if Shilly is hardly turning it, Sodhi certainly wont. So yeah, it will all depend on the new ball.

Shilly is bowling reasonably quickly and it seems to me he is bowling a lot of topspinners, Sodhi may yet get some turn given he is a leggie and will probably bowl a little slower

 

[wellAlbidarned]

It will all depend on the new ball I think. As rubbish as this bowling attack is, all the NZ batsmen have been hitting through the line with impunity. That 'carry' you refer to is really not much tbh. Tino Best is one of the World's quickest (and dumbest) bowlers and it has hardly been slamming into Ramdin's gloves.

Also, if Shilly is hardly turning it, Sodhi certainly wont. So yeah, it will all depend on the new ball.

The answer to all of this is "we'll see". Don't quite get the logic that shilllingford is more likely to turn the ball than sodhi, isn't he famous for being a bit of a dustbowl bully?

 

[Bahnz]

Interesting that Sammy isn't bothering with the new ball. Maybe he's writing tonight off and planning on trying to catch BMc and Taylor cold tomorrow morning?

 

[hendrix]

It will all depend on the new ball I think. As rubbish as this bowling attack is, all the NZ batsmen have been hitting through the line with impunity. That 'carry' you refer to is really not much tbh.

I've just been watching a test series in Bangladesh so my calibration may be a bit off.

It should be enough for edges to carry, which they weren't against England. But yeah, new ball critical.

 

[Beamer]

Shilly is bowling reasonably quickly and it seems to me he is bowling a lot of topspinners, Sodhi may yet get some turn given he is a leggie and will probably bowl a little slower

I don't know how much of Shilly you have seen, but he is a very large spinner of the ball, always has been since Under 19 days. In India he was turning it a long long way, considerably more than Ashwin and Ohja.

 

[Bahnz]

Don't like how Taylor is walking across his stumps. Got out lbw in Bangladesh doing that.

 

[Prince EWS]

You're all missing the real point - not even Deonarine isn't getting any turn; no other spinner should even bother trying.

 

[_Ed_]

Not wanting to tempt fate, but the last time these guys scored hundreds:

Taylor: 142 v SL, November 2012
McCullum: 225 v India, November 2010

 

[Dan]

You're all missing the real point - not even Deonarine isn't getting any turn; no other spinner should even bother trying.

See what you mean about liking to watch him bowl, tbh.


As a side note, would the commentators shut up about 'oh should he or shouldn't he play a reverse sweep?' If it's a shot that he practices in the nets and he's comfortable playing, there is no reason why he shouldn't use it. The fact it initially derived from limited overs cricket doesn't mean it's a party trick that can't be used against a red ball; it's now every bit as legitimate a shot as the regular sweep - and no riskier.

 

[NZTailender]

That Taylor century and the whole captaincy debacle seems like yesterday in some respects. McCullums double feels like a decade ago.

It's absolutely beaming with hardly a cloud in the sky. They could play through until 8, player tiredness ignored.

 

[BeeGee]

Well done McCullum.

 

[Bahnz]

Well batted Brendon.