New Zealands big problem and a possible solution

[Richard]

Well... maybe. But I don't think most Test-class sides would genuinely profit from it, whereas I think New Zealand just might do.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I agree with slugger. I have heard stories that schools in NZ are now not awarding wins to 5 and 6 year-old rugby teams, because of this 'everyone's a winner' philosophy, so as not to discourage people who are useless at sport.

Contrary to popular opinion, this is NOT a new thing. I remember when I was 11 and our school was just about to enter into the regional school cricket tournament, our headmistress withdrew our team from the tournament because "we'd won it for 3 years in a row and we should give other schools a chance!"

As a born competitor, I was absolutely livid at this craven act perpetuated by a namby-pamby, airy-fairy harlot. What right did she have to deprive US of our RIGHT to play in the regional tournament. ****ing bitch.

Maybe if we'd played that season, I would have ironed out the wides and no-balls at an early age and would still have been playing at this 20:20 world cup, eh?

You know my age; this was a long time ago.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

If that's the core of a team in the future you're screwed....

Blah blah blah. Neither you nor most of my fellow countrymen watch enough domestic cricket it seems to judge on who's coming through. I agree, if that's the core of our team that we probably are screwed, but this is the 'current' generation you're looking at; and not the next generation. Players are coming through, though maybe we don't make such a song and dance about them as other countries.

 

[Flem274*]

If that's the core of a team in the future you're screwed. A couple of average batsmen, a very good keeper but who is a below average bat, two often expensive bowlers with some other strings to their bow who only play part of the time and a wily old pro finger spinner who can keep it tight but isn't a wicket-taker. That's not much to base a team around.

Fleming doesn't sound like he'll be playing much longer, Oram only seems to perform in one discipline in any given format, apart from being injured most of the time, which will probably lead to his bowling declining further. Styris might hang around for a few year (or might not) but he's only really effective on certain pitches. McMillan, Vincent and Gillespie are liable to be useless for long periods.

I don't really see the younger players improving a great deal either, if you look at players like Cook and Bell for England - there's a strong foundation (defense and technique etc.) there to improve on and they're young. You look at Taylor... he doesn't have a really good technique to build on, he's not solid defensively and he has to rely on slogs and heaves to score at a decent rate. Fulton is 28 already, I could see him become an above average solid international batsman if he works hard - but as I've said before no world beater.

Taylor is not, cpntrary to public opinion, our best talent. Jesse Ryder, Greg Hay, Rob Nicol and Matthew Sinclair IMO are all better players than he. All are consistent bar Sinclair, and all are very talented.

Mark Gillespie and James Franklin are going to have no choice but play exceptionally well if they want to keep thier spots. I'm sure I've mentioned the bowlers coming through the ranks to you.

And how would you know anything at all about our guys coming through anyway? What players of ours have you watched in domestic NZ cricket?

EDIT: Heaths beaten me to it

 

[Flem274*]

So, should have put this in my previous post, what does everyone think about sending them on a mental training camp which was in the original post? I'd also like to see more intelligent squad selections from the selectors.

 

[slugger]

nothing wrong with a boot camp idea.. or what ever is you have in mind... i think the black caps will really enjoy it.. its not all about net practise... making the team... i've always thought the selection panel made a mistake with the marshall boys.. and i read recently they have left nz to play in england and they both hold a irish passport... ? hamish turned down the nz contract and they have had to reward it to sinclair.. who honestly couldnt believe his luck..you guys have probably already spoke about that issue here i suspect.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I had a party at my house when Hamish decided to take up a contract with County Cricket. Good Riddance.

Everyone had to come wearing silly hair in one way or another. No one managed to out Hamish the man himself.

 

[Perm]

Since you're not keen on Test cricket, maybe NZ should try and enter the Pura Cup for a couple of years as a way of hardening up.

I'd give my left testicle to see that happened. That would help New Zealand cricket in such a big way, even though I think we'd generally struggle. By being part of such a competition it would help develop our players to another level IMO, a level at which they might just become good Test cricketers. Unfortunately t'would never happen, and having a domestic side play in the Pura Cup would be far too weak to compete.

 

[Perm]

Contrary to popular opinion, this is NOT a new thing. I remember when I was 11 and our school was just about to enter into the regional school cricket tournament, our headmistress withdrew our team from the tournament because "we'd won it for 3 years in a row and we should give other schools a chance!"

As a born competitor, I was absolutely livid at this craven act perpetuated by a namby-pamby, airy-fairy harlot. What right did she have to deprive US of our RIGHT to play in the regional tournament. ****ing bitch.

This kind of behaviour and attitude is exactly why I hate New Zealand sometimes, and admire Australia so much. You play sport to win, not to compete or to have fun. If you're part of a competitive team and have more fun if your team is losing than if it's winning, then you've got a screw loose.

 

[Perm]

If that's the core of a team in the future you're screwed. A couple of average batsmen, a very good keeper but who is a below average bat, two often expensive bowlers with some other strings to their bow who only play part of the time and a wily old pro finger spinner who can keep it tight but isn't a wicket-taker. That's not much to base a team around.

Fleming doesn't sound like he'll be playing much longer, Oram only seems to perform in one discipline in any given format, apart from being injured most of the time, which will probably lead to his bowling declining further. Styris might hang around for a few year (or might not) but he's only really effective on certain pitches. McMillan, Vincent and Gillespie are liable to be useless for long periods.

I don't really see the younger players improving a great deal either, if you look at players like Cook and Bell for England - there's a strong foundation (defense and technique etc.) there to improve on and they're young. You look at Taylor... he doesn't have a really good technique to build on, he's not solid defensively and he has to rely on slogs and heaves to score at a decent rate. Fulton is 28 already, I could see him become an above average solid international batsman if he works hard - but as I've said before no world beater.

I agree with you largely, a lot of the players that New Zealand fields are rubbish, no point denying it, and this is even before we've discussed the Hamish Marshall's and Michael Mason's of this world. However, I do think you let your bias get in the way of your judgement sometimes, which is unfortunate, because you're a smart chap and know your cricket.

Obviously our lack of class is going to be highlighted more in Test cricket, especially now that we've lost Astle and Fleming, two of our best Test batsman. However, in ODI and Twenty20 cricket, we can compete more often than not, and make up for our short-comings, with team-work, a concept I think you fail to grasp sometimes. Cricket is about a team full of individuals, in a sense, but where New Zealand can alway beat the opponents is by playing smart cricket, using our strengths and advantages and maximising them, without having to rely on natural talent or star players.

Take fielding for example, in an ODI match, if you've got a good fielding outfit, you can save 20-30 runs per game, which can be of great help. We've got to make sure that our ground-fielding is quick, catching solid and throwing accurate. If we can do this, then we'll be maximising output from a particular discipline and partially covering up our lack of class in another discipline. By cutting down and eliminating wides and no-balls, something every bowler can do, we will make ourselves a better bowling attack. By running hard between the wickets and challenging the opposition fielders we will lift our batting line-up to another notch.

There will always, I repeat, always, be concerns over the class and quality of our players and that's perfectly understandable, given how small our population is, particularly of those who play competitive cricket. We will always rely on guys like Shane Bond and Stephen Fleming, who are world-beaters and easily the two best players we have, because they are a class above the rest of our team. I guess in a sense what we have to do, and Vettori as the new captain is largely responsible for this, is to get the best out of our players, because when we play as a team, we can knock over the bigger nations who have more star players.

 

[Julian87]

If that's the core of a team in the future you're screwed. A couple of average batsmen,

I don't really see the younger players improving a great deal either, if you look at players like Bell for England - there's a strong foundation (defense and technique etc.) there to improve on and they're young.

You look at Taylor... he doesn't have a really good technique to build on, he's not solid defensively and he has to rely on slogs and heaves to score at a decent rate.

You've got both hands on it if you think Bell is by far and away the better batsman of the two.

 

[Perm]

You've got both hands on it if you think Bell is by far and away the better batsman of the two.

No, he's exactly right. You are wrong.

 

[Prince EWS]

You've got both hands on it if you think Bell is by far and away the better batsman of the two.

Bell is easily better.

 

[Raghav]

Reason for getting beaten in Semi finals is : They enter semifinals by defeating semi-decent sides.. they get beaten in semis by decent sides . As everyone said in this thread, Nz needs a great player. Accepted they play as a unit, but we also need a player who can single handedly win the game for us. NewZealand need a good technically perfect batsman at the top of the order.. That would solve the problem

 

[Days of Grace]

Bond used to win games for us single-handedly, but I'm not sure if he can do that now. Can he actually bowl at 145 km/h anymore?

 

[Raghav]

Bond used to win games for us single-handedly, but I'm not sure if he can do that now. Can he actually bowl at 145 km/h anymore?

Bond has done before but I am a bit surprised about his performances these days...

 

[Woodster]

I think if you look at the last 3 appearances in semi-finals for NZ, you have to say on all occasions they were beaten by a better side.
In the Twenty20, Pakistan deserve to be in the final, the middle order has been very impressive, and the bowlers have regularly kept it tight (in twenty20 terms).
The last World Cup NZ were beaten by an exceptional Sri Lanka one-day side, who set an imposing 289, a total that puts any side under pressure to knock off.
The Champions Trophy, Australia beat them, and to be fair they beat everybody when it's important (barring this Twenty20 blip).
You Kiwis will not more than me about whether its down to mental strength, looking on from the outside, I would suggest that they have been beaten by better teams, who will perhaps beat New Zealand more often than not.

 

[Richard]

Contrary to popular opinion, this is NOT a new thing. I remember when I was 11 and our school was just about to enter into the regional school cricket tournament, our headmistress withdrew our team from the tournament because "we'd won it for 3 years in a row and we should give other schools a chance!"

As a born competitor, I was absolutely livid at this craven act perpetuated by a namby-pamby, airy-fairy harlot. What right did she have to deprive US of our RIGHT to play in the regional tournament. ****ing bitch.

Maybe if we'd played that season, I would have ironed out the wides and no-balls at an early age and would still have been playing at this 20:20 world cup, eh?

You know my age; this was a long time ago.

1981\82 season right? Yep, sure was.

 

[pup11]

I think as i said before in a big game like a semi-final or a final a team needs impact players who can intimidate and dominate the opponent.
A team needs to step-up for a big game and give it their best shot, but New Zealand hardly seem to be doing that.
At the end of the day.. lets be honest New Zealand is not the most talented or skilled team in the world but still atleast they make it to the semi-finals of most of the tournaments, there are a lot more talented and skillfull sides around who even struggle to reach Super 8's.

 

[Richard]

I had a party at my house when Hamish decided to take up a contract with County Cricket. Good Riddance.