Your New Zealand World Cup Squad if selected today...

[Flem274*]

we're not going to lose to bangladesh and sri lanka aren't going to beat australia by a huge margin so who cares

 

[Moss]

McCleneghan for Milne, anyone?

Milne hasn't done much wrong so far (in fact he was a real asset in the UAE) and will be a regular in the side if he keeps fit. However I suspect teams will be on their guard against Southee and Boult (who aren't going to find the same swing every game), and I'd back Mitch to be more of a wicket-taking threat as first change. Plus his experience - I'm a bit wary of Milne having to bowl under pressure in the knockout games. Making this change would be an un-McHesson thing to do, but then so was the selection of Elliott over Neesham.

 

[marc71178]

In fact Hurricane, just to give you an idea of just how impossible it is, I just did a hypothetical calculation based on SL restricting Aust to 200 and then chasing them in the 30th over...

In this scenario, SL's NRR would move from the current +0.12 to about +0.67 (vs. NZ +3.58).

The NRR boost NZ got from that 1 wicket win exposed a flaw in the NRR IMO.

 

[hendrix]

McCleneghan for Milne, anyone?

Milne hasn't done much wrong so far (in fact he was a real asset in the UAE) and will be a regular in the side if he keeps fit. However I suspect teams will be on their guard against Southee and Boult (who aren't going to find the same swing every game), and I'd back Mitch to be more of a wicket-taking threat as first change. Plus his experience - I'm a bit wary of Milne having to bowl under pressure in the knockout games. Making this change would be an un-McHesson thing to do, but then so was the selection of Elliott over Neesham.

Neesham failed at his primary role, scoring runs.

Milne's job has been to keep up the intensity and be bloody hard to hit after Southee and Boult take wickets. That role does not suit McCleneghan at all, who although he takes wickets tends to spray it around and wouldn't be a good middle overs bowler. Milne failed against Scotland but otherwise he's been good in that regard. Southee and Boult have been too good to allow him much of a role but I don't think McHesson will be upset at his performance so far.

 

[Moss]

Neesham failed at his primary role, scoring runs.

Milne's job has been to keep up the intensity and be bloody hard to hit after Southee and Boult take wickets. That role does not suit McCleneghan at all, who although he takes wickets tends to spray it around and wouldn't be a good middle overs bowler. Milne failed against Scotland but otherwise he's been good in that regard. Southee and Boult have been too good to allow him much of a role but I don't think McHesson will be upset at his performance so far.

Elliott over Neesham was always justified, used it more as an example of how McHesson can occasionally go against the grain and break continuity. Difficult for me to overlook Mitch's record and the fact he's used to bowling at the death. Fair point, anyway.

 

[Hurricane]

we're not going to lose to bangladesh and sri lanka aren't going to beat australia by a huge margin so who cares

Unlike

 

[Zinzan]

The NRR boost NZ got from that 1 wicket win exposed a flaw in the NRR IMO.

Fair point, but what other methodology could they use to also factor number of wickets lost?

 

[NZTailender]

Neesham failed at his primary role, scoring runs.

Milne's job has been to keep up the intensity and be bloody hard to hit after Southee and Boult take wickets. That role does not suit McCleneghan at all, who although he takes wickets tends to spray it around and wouldn't be a good middle overs bowler. Milne failed against Scotland but otherwise he's been good in that regard. Southee and Boult have been too good to allow him much of a role but I don't think McHesson will be upset at his performance so far.

He's being doing his job perfectly. Southee & Boult are the leading wicket takers (at last check) so it's not like he's hurting us by not taking wickets. He's keeping up the intensity. You just know that after batsmen survive a tough opening spell from So-Bo they'll want to relieve pressure...and then comes Daniel Vettori. ****! Oh Mitch is bowling other end. Four.

 

[Greenlite]

He's being doing his job perfectly. Southee & Boult are the leading wicket takers (at least check) so it's not like he's hurting us by not taking wickets. He's keeping up the intensity. You just know that after batsmen survive a tough opening spell from So-Bo they'll want to relieve pressure...and then comes Daniel Vettori. ****! Oh Mitch is bowling other end. Four.

Imagine how awesome it would be if Henry is bowling first change. Batsmen =

 

[hendrix]

He's being doing his job perfectly. Southee & Boult are the leading wicket takers (at last check) so it's not like he's hurting us by not taking wickets. He's keeping up the intensity. You just know that after batsmen survive a tough opening spell from So-Bo they'll want to relieve pressure...and then comes Daniel Vettori. ****! Oh Mitch is bowling other end. Four.

Yeah. I don't want to discredit McCleneghan or even over-credit Milne, but I do think that he's who we want in that bowling slot.

 

[marc71178]

Fair point, but what other methodology could they use to also factor number of wickets lost?

I'm not sure to be honest. I don't think it'll have that big an effect this time anyway just a bit of an anomaly really.

 

[Zinzan]

I'm not sure to be honest. I don't think it'll have that big an effect this time anyway just a bit of an anomaly really.

Depends how you look at it, I mean it is NRR afterall, so even had NZ lost that last wicket & missed the 2 points, it still would have had a similar positive effect on their overall NRR.

But it could lead to a farcical situation in which one team might be 2 points ahead of their opponents (with around the same NRR) going into the last game of qualifying.

And even if they lose the game if they chase at a fast enough RR , they could still move ahead on the NRR in spite of their opponents picking up the two points.

Unless there is a condition stipulating that if a side is bowled out, their RR is calculated on the full 50 overs, but don't believe this is the case.

 

[NZTailender]

Anyone else catch that Taylor attended a funeral the other day; an apparent family bereavement. Could explain why he's out of sorts so far in the cup.

 

[GGG]

Yeah something has gotten into his head, but it has been for a while now, could also be Crowe's illness.

 

[marc71178]

Unless there is a condition stipulating that if a side is bowled out, their RR is calculated on the full 50 overs, but don't believe this is the case.

There is that clause so Australia got a batting rate of about 3 and bowling of 6.5 from that game. It is of course cumulative but seems a huge swing for such a close one.

 

[Zinzan]

There is that clause so Australia got a batting rate of about 3 and bowling of 6.5 from that game. It is of course cumulative but seems a huge swing for such a close one.

I don't believe there is such a clause at all. It's purely a cumulative running total for both batting and bowling, Case in point, even if NZ lost that last wicket vs. Aust and lost the game, they still would have improved their overall NRR...

 

[marc71178]

Nope, see 21.10.5

 

[Athlai]

It's also why "against" is 200 overs for us.

 

[Zinzan]

Nope, see 21.10.5

Ah right you are..cheers.

 

[Greenlite]

Supporters | BLACKCAPS - Official Online Store

Does Tim Southee look like he's flirting in the ad picture or is it just me?