*Official* West Indies in New Zealand - Nov/Dec 2020

[Beamer]

So impressed by Da Silva. I know it's only 25 and that Campbell and Brooks had worn down the bowlers a bit, but his footwork was the best I've seen from a west Indian batsman in these conditions for a long time. After a very depressing series that really cheered me up.

Also this partnership shows that if we got some top order batsman even mildly worthy of the name, they can tire out attacks and our lower can definitely take advantage. Their averages over the last 3 years do indicate that as well.

 

[JOJOXI]

Dowrich has kept really poorly as well though

I do feel his keeping isn't as bad as is sometimes made out but he certainly hasn't kept well over the last 2 series. At what point does a rut become an extended poor run of form? Even if the view is he should never keep again for the West Indies - he averages 35.25 since 2018 - batting at 7 is a nice play to bat compared to up against the new ball but given the struggles in the batting I'd be surprised to see him binned as a keeper but especially completely as whilst I don't think he is a great keeper I don't think I view him as being as bad as many do.

Also I think Dowrich would be playing this test if he was available, da Silva has looked good but has scored 3 and 25* - if he goes on to score 70/80 it asks a serious question of the selectors but if he's out for say 37, I'm not sure 40 runs across 2 innings despite looking very capable in this innings will change their mind - noteworthy too they put Da Silva at 8 - if they saw this as his audition I'd presume they would put him at 7 or 6 where they would want their keeper to bat longer term.

 

[Binkley]

Da Silva does look solid. But the New Zealanders are bowling far too short in conditions that look ideal for pitching it up.

 

[straw man]

By always. You mean since about 2012? Hesson years and since .

Becsuse T Mac, Cumming, etc would not be giving your post a 'like'.

Yeah I'm talking about this era and a little earlier. Certainly not the John Bracewell era when selection was a total ****show. Cumming was unlucky but agree with Moss that McIntosh, as much as he worked hard and was amusingly rocks-or-diamonds, had to be let go after a while.

 

[Flem274*]

can't believe people were getting specialist batsman gigs ahead of this guy.

got anyone else with technique this solid hidden away?

 

[England First]

How solid in defence is da silva

 

[England First]

Now he’s out lol

 

[Flem274*]

awww gone

his face looks like graeme smith

 

[Flem274*]

mitchell is no lord colin with the ball

 

[Flem274*]

gabriel submitting a second photo for his own meme.

"there's nothing i could have done"

 

[Beamer]

Well what an absolute thrashing.

Good batting by us in the second innings though. Hopefully we look back at this as the moment we stopped just selecting the same batsmen over and over again and progressed as a side as a result.

This is a seriously solid NZ side though, so was always going to be difficult.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

c

got anyone else with technique this solid hidden away?

Tage

 

[Starfighter]

That's a proper whacking.

 

[Pup Clarke]

For those who remember Scaly Piscine, he was by in large a complete troll, but the one opinion he had which I'm starting to value was that 'experience' is overrated and rather meaningless. I kind of feel that the average cricket viewer (and selector/coach) is quite insular and not predisposed to thinking in abstract terms about a player. You can tell alot about a player from his body language and demeanour, and use this to gauge his potential at succeeding in international cricket. These are obvs intangibles and hard to directly observe or scrutinise (as we only see the players on match day)
Just a theory I'm coming round to. Picking a player on experience should be no more supposedly benefical than picking a FC rookie who's played a handful of games

 

[Beamer]

For those who remember Scaly Piscine, he was by in large a complete troll, but the one opinion he had which I'm starting to value was that 'experience' is overrated and rather meaningless. I kind of feel that the average cricket viewer (and selector/coach) is quite insular and not predisposed to thinking in abstract terms about a player. You can tell alot about a player from his body language and demeanour, and use this to gauge his potential at succeeding in international cricket. These are obvs intangibles and hard to directly observe or scrutinise (as we only see the players on match day)
Just a theory I'm coming round to. Picking a player on experience should be no more supposedly benefical than picking a FC rookie who's played a handful of games

I completely agree with this. For example, I watched Da Silva last FC season and in the list A, as well as video highlights of his century in the warm up match in England. He is calm and had sound fundamental technique. There is no way someone like that should be sitting in the reserves whilst chase stands there in the crease getting out lbw and bowled every innings. Similarly, why should Pooran have to play loads of FC matches to earn a spot? In these circumstances when the incumbents are so bad it is madness. All you have to do is watch Pooran for 5 minutes to know he has amazing talent and technique.

Our selectors show no innovation at all. I'm not asking them to go Ed Smith on us, just to try something new with our batting lineup.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Yeah Ed Smith is the prime example of a current selector who seems quite intuitive and has a 'feel' for certain players who could prosper at the top level. It's a real balancing act and will never work out entirely in your favour (Mason Crane), but Zak Crawley and Sam Curran are probably the two prime examples of those who have certain attributes which could (?) allow them to succeed. Also Buttler's mini-renaissance with that big hundred v Pakistan shows that he has really good instincts as a coach

 

[Flem274*]

yes and no. teams who don't know how to win stand out like a sore thumb. people who have been there and done that are invaluable to a test side. the exception would be if losses have scarred those experienced players in some way. lots of kiwi performances in australia since hobart demonstrate this.

if you're retaining someone for the sake of their experience when another player has surpassed them, that is probably overrated yes.

nz have this conundrum atm with ross taylor and devon conway/will young. no one can question the boss has achieved a lot for nz but i think conway and young are better batsmen now.

the problem the west indies have is no one from 1-6 deserves their place in the side with the very recent exception of blackwood. there is no #1 batsman to build around. you almost have to treat the batting like a fledgling test nation playing their first few test matches. schedule an A tour somewhere with the top six you plan to pick for bangladesh then build them up for their "first ever" test match.

 

[SteveNZ]

For those who remember Scaly Piscine, he was by in large a complete troll, but the one opinion he had which I'm starting to value was that 'experience' is overrated and rather meaningless. I kind of feel that the average cricket viewer (and selector/coach) is quite insular and not predisposed to thinking in abstract terms about a player. You can tell alot about a player from his body language and demeanour, and use this to gauge his potential at succeeding in international cricket. These are obvs intangibles and hard to directly observe or scrutinise (as we only see the players on match day)
Just a theory I'm coming round to. Picking a player on experience should be no more supposedly benefical than picking a FC rookie who's played a handful of games

I remember him, that was a ridiculous viewpoint. Experience is not overrated, and it certainly isn't meaningless. Experience allows you to have seen situation(s) enough times, to have failed and learned from it, and become better at what you're doing.

That's very different to picking Player X who has more experience/time in the game as opposed to a rookie. They're two different people. That's very much a case by case basis. I guess I see your viewpoint in that Player X (not the ICL guy) shouldn't be automatically selected over the rookie on the basis he's had more time at the top level. It's very much a wider picture than that

 

[Moss]

Thoroughly one sided series it may have been, but I would like to see a Windies-hosted NZ vs WI test series, we get those very rarely. The last one in 2014 which NZ won 2-1 was an exciting one and though the teams are not as well-matched today, the Windies at home would be a much tougher proposition and an interesting test for both NZ’s batting and bowling.

For whatever reason NZ are invited to the Caribbean even less frequently than elsewhere (which is saying something), but one can hope.

 

[SteveNZ]

nz have this conundrum atm with ross taylor and devon conway/will young. no one can question the boss has achieved a lot for nz but i think conway and young are better batsmen now.

I completely agree with this, saw someone mentioning it earlier in the thread as well. I felt that would be the case before the summer started as well, that Ross isn't prepared to play 'Test' innings' any more. I'd be certain Conway would be a better bet at 4, but you have to allow your legends to either find a way, or potentially go someway to choosing when their own time is up.