*Official* New Zealand in Sri Lanka 2012

[Spikey]

any opinions about the new fielding restrictions? i quite like the theory of them because the single is the worst scoring shot, but how have they played out so far

[Migara]

Originally Posted by Spikey

any opinions about the new fielding restrictions? i quite like the theory of them because the single is the worst scoring shot, but how have they played out so far

They just suck

[Hurricane]

Shame rain intervened seemed like a well balanced game.

[Kippax]

Originally Posted by Mike5181

Not as hard as Latham made it look. Still a 240ish pitch though.

Seems discouraging to me that Hesson, the details man, blithely said "he had good results against India A".

Everyone on CW knows that he didn't look particularly flash, and let's remember Paul Wiseman and Bruce Martin had a 200 partnership for NZ A once. Pointless to pay for such extensive video surveillance if it's all just vanity or player-based, and the wonks and top brass don't bother.

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by vandem

Agree. Coming in at 1-17 from 6.3, he had a consolidation job to do. And did well.

Why would you consolidate after such a slow start against a team like Sri Lanka?

1 wicket after 6 and a half overs isn't a disaster. Typically you'd expect to be 1 down after 10. You need to bat aggressively or bat long.

Their seamers are pretty weak up front. Malinga is most effective at the death so you don't want to leave yourself too many to score at end. Sri Lanka are also a strong batting side, so you need to give them a tougher target and put the pressure on their bowling.

The slow run-rate should have a greater impact than the one wicket down.

That was the difference in the game just gone. Sri Lanka kept ticking along regardless of the odd wicket falling. They won comfortably on D-L despite being 3 down at a stage when NZ were 1 down.

[SteveNZ]

250 would have been a winning score if the rain had stayed away and Jayawardene didn't go on too much further. It was a par score if not better.

When you are a very average batting side like us, consolidation is necessary.

[straw man]

Sad reflection on our recent ODI record that I looked at the score this morning and although we'd lost thought 'looks a decent effort'.

Do feel a little aggrieved that the rain came just after the 20 over mark to make it a match, while still a long way from the finish. SL were favourites from that position but we still had a good chance.

Think the go-slow at the top of the order is symptomatic of the wider problem, which is that the top order know we can't afford to lose too many wickets because the batting is generally weak and ends at 6 (with NcCullum the only reliable bat-thrower). And of course batsmen like Nicol are pretty limited as well.

I'm really starting to hate the way Williamson is floated around the order too, used either as an insurance policy or not at all. Sure he's not a great hitter but he's not as one-dimensional as they make out either. Absolutely no reason he couldn't have come in at 3 yesterday, especially given the success Watling had at 6 v West Indies. Williamson is never going to learn how to play limited-over cricket if this keeps up. It's also just a generally crap tactic - a waste of resources. If they really rate him this little then just pick someone else. Otherwise, captain should back his players.

I would also like to see Southee bat a little more often in limited-overs.

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by SteveNZ

250 would have been a winning score if the rain had stayed away and Jayawardene didn't go on too much further. It was a par score if not better.

When you are a very average batting side like us, consolidation is necessary.

If you're weak and want to surrender meekly then consolidation is necessary. If you have batsman with a bit of quality who they get in and make it count. Sri Lanka have those sorts of batsmen. New Zealand's batting is full of plodders and sloggers. Guys like Nicol need to be scoring quickly or they're a complete waste of space. New Zealand need to use what they've got and take calculated gambles to make up for their mediocrity. You can catch up runs in ODIs by taking risks.

[SteveNZ]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

If you're weak and want to surrender meekly then consolidation is necessary. If you have batsman with a bit of quality who they get in and make it count. Sri Lanka have those sorts of batsmen. New Zealand's batting is full of plodders and sloggers. Guys like Nicol need to be scoring quickly or they're a complete waste of space. New Zealand need to use what they've got and take calculated gambles to make up for their mediocrity. You can catch up runs in ODIs by taking risks.

We are weak. Eighth in all forms of the game confirms that.

We have plodders and sloggers, exactly. So with that mix, isn't plodding at the start mixed with slogging at the end the best fit? I'd suggest it is, given we made 250. I don't see the point of calculated gambles when we didn't take any and made that score, which could well have been a winning one. I don't think our total represented 'surrendering meekly'.

But hey don't worry, with the benefit of experience we'll get better.

[straw man]

Also, this is the ****est weather for any series since West Indies last toured NZ.

[Howsie]

Originally Posted by straw man

I'm really starting to hate the way Williamson is floated around the order too, used either as an insurance policy or not at all. Sure he's not a great hitter but he's not as one-dimensional as they make out either. Absolutely no reason he couldn't have come in at 3 yesterday, especially given the success Watling had at 6 v West Indies. Williamson is never going to learn how to play limited-over cricket if this keeps up. It's also just a generally crap tactic - a waste of resources. If they really rate him this little then just pick someone else. Otherwise, captain should back his players.

Yep, he can bat at three in the test team but he can't do it in the ODI team. Massive WTF as far as I'm concerned. He averages mid 40's in one day cricket domestically, with a superb record at three, why the **** not bat him there?

Perhaps if he played and missed every third ball, charged down the wicket every sixth ball and wogged the occasional six he'd get a decent run.

[Bahnz]

Yeah, I reckon it's time Kane was given a go in the top 3. His batting style better suits it than number 5 anyway.

Dream top 5

Ryder
Guptill
Williamson
Taylor
McCullum

Actually looks like a top order that could win some games.

[Prince EWS]

Personally I don't think I'll ever be convinced that opening the batting with Ryder in one day cricket is actually a good idea. When Ryder's available again I'd be going with a top five of Guptill-McCullum-Williamson-Taylor-Ryder in both Tests and ODIs. Having Ryder there near the end of the innings would be gold IMO, and I think there'd be advantages to having the same top five in the same order in both formats too, especially when they're all project players to some extent other than Taylor.

[Hurricane]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Personally I don't think I'll ever be convinced that opening the batting with Ryder in one day cricket is actually a good idea. When Ryder's available again I'd be going with a top five of Guptill-McCullum-Williamson-Taylor-Ryder in both Tests and ODIs. Having Ryder there near the end of the innings would be gold IMO, and I think there'd be advantages to having the same top five in the same order in both formats too, especially when they'll all project players to some extent other than Taylor.

*they're

struggled with what u meant

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Hurricane

*they're

struggled with what u meant

Haha, project being a homograph definitely would've made it more difficult to spot my typo.