-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** New Zealand in Bangladesh & Sri Lanka 2013
- Thread starter Kippax
- Start date
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
He got absolutely belted anyway though didn't he?
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I do wonder how he'd feel about bowling a lot more overs. Apparently he pretty much refuses to bat higher than #6 which at the very least is "interesting", but as you say he's a greater wicket taking-taking threat than Razzak (and their seamers) anyway.
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yea I don't really mind who Bangladesh pick, as long as they're not picking a limited overs specialist bowling flat, medium-slow ****e because he can bowl most of the day and stay at around 3 an over.
If you can find odds somewhere for Dan to have already played his last Test, take them
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
didn't he play a club game the other day?
wellAlbidarned
International Coach
got hit for six by a guy I've bowled out in the nets. Clearly over the hill.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Razzak actually bowled pretty slowly during the first Test - originally anyway, much slower than Shakib - and apparently he's been doing a lot more of that in domestic four day cricket recently as well. What he obviously doesn't realise is that bowling more slowly doesn't help you if you put no work on the ball anyway.
I think the big different between Razzak and Shakib is the trajectory. Because Shakib is more roundarm he can bowl a much better arm ball and create doubt about his angle and the natural variation of his turn. Razzak comes right over the top with that weird 50/50 action that means the ball starts just outside off, continues on the line of just outside off and then holds its line outside off. He'd almost be better off not turning it as it'd least give him some angle; everything is just oh so straight.
Last edited:
The Battlers Prince
International Vice-Captain
Yeah, bloody pansy, who needs a foot anyway. Actually Achilles injuries can be terrible so it's awesome he's even coming back.
WindieWeathers
International Regular
Well yes Narine had a tough time but Permaul caused problems along with the seamers!!..the point remains though!!..if you have a good attack you should be able to beat the likes of Bangledash even on a good batting track.
Mike5181
International Captain
Vettori's a batting allrounder, and has been for a number of years now.
Throw in a long-term injury, and his main goal atm should be to get fit enough to play ODIs, and eventually play a part in the world cup. It's time to back Sodhi or just run with four quicks + Williamson until he's got a bit more experience behind him.
Throw in a long-term injury, and his main goal atm should be to get fit enough to play ODIs, and eventually play a part in the world cup. It's time to back Sodhi or just run with four quicks + Williamson until he's got a bit more experience behind him.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
35 overs lost,
plus there might not be much play tomorrow judging by the forecast and the presumably poor drainage system.
plus there might not be much play tomorrow judging by the forecast and the presumably poor drainage system.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
So it's looking like 0-0 then, barring a dreadful collapse by either side. That's probably not quite as disappointing as it looks on paper (given the weather and the flatness of the wickets), but it's still poor. That'll probably make us the first true top 8 side (not counting the WI 5th XI that played the Bangerz back in 2010) to fail to win a series against Bangladesh. Urgh, that is not a good feeling.
Despite all the rubbish served up today, I think we saw that this is definitely the right way to go, team-balance wise. You need Wagner in the side because of his ability to bowl long spells and take bull-**** wickets against the run of play, and you need at least one proper spinner, because Kane is still prone to bowling a lot of juicy pies and can't be too exhausted when his time comes to bat. The selectors got the balance badly wrong in the first test, and we paid for it by being thoroughly outbowled.
I also think that we're seeing how crucial Southee is to the bowling attack. I've always felt that he's a more critical factor than Boult, due to his wonderful control, and his proven ability to trigger collapses and change the direction of a match. As a good a player as I think Boult is, he's too loose and too often struggles to take wickets in bunches. So yeah, I'm officially for Team Timmeh in the Southee v Boult discussion.
Despite all the rubbish served up today, I think we saw that this is definitely the right way to go, team-balance wise. You need Wagner in the side because of his ability to bowl long spells and take bull-**** wickets against the run of play, and you need at least one proper spinner, because Kane is still prone to bowling a lot of juicy pies and can't be too exhausted when his time comes to bat. The selectors got the balance badly wrong in the first test, and we paid for it by being thoroughly outbowled.
I also think that we're seeing how crucial Southee is to the bowling attack. I've always felt that he's a more critical factor than Boult, due to his wonderful control, and his proven ability to trigger collapses and change the direction of a match. As a good a player as I think Boult is, he's too loose and too often struggles to take wickets in bunches. So yeah, I'm officially for Team Timmeh in the Southee v Boult discussion.
Last edited:
Flem274*
123/5
The only proper spinner in the country got smashed by Albert's mate.
And the only reason Southee appears more crucial than Boult is because Southee has been the one getting injured. Put Southee up against South Africa at home or on these pitches with no Boult and I suspect it would be a similar picture to this. It's very easy to look the lesser bowler when you're the one who has to drag Bracewell, Wagner and one or two barely FC standard spinners along behind you kicking and screaming to some sort of decency.
Cbf finding examples but I've never thought Boult has an issue with taking wickets in bunches, and Southee doesn't mind the odd pie himself, not to mention Boult's looseness is being overstated. They barely scored a run off of him in the last test, though they did get him away early here.
Boult outbowled Southee in the home series against England, couldn't get a catch to hand for the life of him in Sri Lanka and it's far too late for me to remember England, though iirc they were about the same as each other there.
And the only reason Southee appears more crucial than Boult is because Southee has been the one getting injured. Put Southee up against South Africa at home or on these pitches with no Boult and I suspect it would be a similar picture to this. It's very easy to look the lesser bowler when you're the one who has to drag Bracewell, Wagner and one or two barely FC standard spinners along behind you kicking and screaming to some sort of decency.
Cbf finding examples but I've never thought Boult has an issue with taking wickets in bunches, and Southee doesn't mind the odd pie himself, not to mention Boult's looseness is being overstated. They barely scored a run off of him in the last test, though they did get him away early here.
Boult outbowled Southee in the home series against England, couldn't get a catch to hand for the life of him in Sri Lanka and it's far too late for me to remember England, though iirc they were about the same as each other there.
Last edited:
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
No, I think Southee would've done better in similar circumstances. He just has so much more going for him:
Fantastic accuracy
Hooping swing
An off-cutter that the world's best batsmen just haven't been able to pick
A sharp bouncer from a good height
Patience
A fantastic bowling brain
The only things that Boult has over Southee are:
On his day he's a smidgen quicker
He swings it both ways.
But I'm not sure either of these are big advantages, especially the later (at least at this stage). While Boult has the outswinger in his arsenal, he's not very accurate with at this stage, and doesn't really know how to use yet it as an effective wicket-taking weapon.
Fantastic accuracy
Hooping swing
An off-cutter that the world's best batsmen just haven't been able to pick
A sharp bouncer from a good height
Patience
A fantastic bowling brain
The only things that Boult has over Southee are:
On his day he's a smidgen quicker
He swings it both ways.
But I'm not sure either of these are big advantages, especially the later (at least at this stage). While Boult has the outswinger in his arsenal, he's not very accurate with at this stage, and doesn't really know how to use yet it as an effective wicket-taking weapon.
Flem274*
123/5
You're really overstating Southee's advantages and Boult's disadvantages, especially the accuracy. They're both about the same there.
Boult is almost always quicker as well, though the pace does vary. Not that extra pace really matters. What is significant is Boult outbowls Southee as often as Southee outbowls him.
Southee's absence makes the heart grow fonder. The strength of Southee/Boult lies in the combination. One is a slightly taller but slower right armer who swings it away from the right hander as his stock ball and raps them on the pads with an offcutter as his variation, and the other is a slightly sharper but slightly shorter left arm swing bowler who swings it primarily in to the right hander but also swings it away, and left handers especially appear to really hate facing him.
They complement each other so well and form a combination greater than the individual sum of their parts, which is always the mark of an excellent duo, trio or quartet.
Boult is almost always quicker as well, though the pace does vary. Not that extra pace really matters. What is significant is Boult outbowls Southee as often as Southee outbowls him.
Southee's absence makes the heart grow fonder. The strength of Southee/Boult lies in the combination. One is a slightly taller but slower right armer who swings it away from the right hander as his stock ball and raps them on the pads with an offcutter as his variation, and the other is a slightly sharper but slightly shorter left arm swing bowler who swings it primarily in to the right hander but also swings it away, and left handers especially appear to really hate facing him.
They complement each other so well and form a combination greater than the individual sum of their parts, which is always the mark of an excellent duo, trio or quartet.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
It's also worth remembering that people see what they expect to see. I'm not sure if it's still the case in the current series, but prior to this, in the 12 months going back to the tour of WI, Southee has had more catches dropped off his bowling than Boult (yes I am actually sad enough that I went back and trolled through the cricinfo commentary sections searching for the words "drop" and "chance"). My guess as to why people haven't really commented on this, is that Southee has frequently tended to get batsmen out quickly anyway (remember that occasion in SL where McCullum dropped a sitter off his bowling and then he got the same batsmen to nick the next one to Guptill next ball), whilst Boult has frequently gone long stretches without taking wickets after being let down by his fielders.
I wouldn't really say that Boult outbowled Southee in the home series on the whole. He outbowled Southee at Eden Park, which is of course the match we all remember. But both were fairly ordinary in the first two tests (Southee was generally fairly docile looking, while Boult was spraying it all over the show, especially at the Basin).
They definitely weren't the same in England. Southee was herculean in both tests, and was desperately unlucky to only get 2 wickets in the second test (seriously the number of times he beat the bat was ridiculous). Boult was good in patches, and he did bowl a very good spell with the 2nd new ball at Headingly, but he was much more inconsistent throughout the series.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
There's no way Boult can be anything other than awesome; Howsie and I both rated him highly before he made his Test debut. That just doesn't happen. He has both God and Satan looking out for him. I'll let you'll decide which one is which but either way it's an unbelievable blessing.