***Official*** West Indies in New Zealand 2013/14

[hendrix]

Yeah I've given up trying to look too far ahead on that one. He's not a factor for me until the day I hear he's fit and available for selection.

If Ryder was available then I would drop Anderson. I just think that, while he is in the side and while whoever he's keeping out isn't as good as Watling, if he's performing to the standards of a #7 and a fourth seamer then he's doing a good job for the side.

agreed.

 

[straw man]

When McCullum's back goes snap I'd expect 5-11 to be

Ryder
Watling
Anderson
Spinner
Three Pacers

Have been thinking about that 5-7 middle order and in particular the cash-in vs recovery type batsmen. McCullum is great at cashing in if given a platform. Anderson also relishes that role, though should be aiming to be better than that of course. Ryder in recent years wants to score at a run a ball. Ronchi could do a similar job. And Watling, for all that he doesn't seem to be of the cash-in type, didn't manage to put a stop to any of the collapses when we toured England, owing to his weakness against a hard moving ball, but is good at accumulating against the older ball. I'm not being derogatory; someone in the lower-middle order that will reliably ski downhill is very useful as it turns strong positions into winning positions. However it's also good to have someone that will put a stop to a collapse when we're 25/3 or 40/4 or 60/5. Vettori was the man for this in the last few years, but I can't see who will do this job for us in the near future.

Agree with PEWS that, given our reserve batsmen options have been pretty uninspiring for this match, there's nothing lost from having Anderson at 6. That may change if Ryder returns or Latham kicks on.

 

[hendrix]

Happy with that session. Got ourselves into a strong position and a daddy hundred for Taylor there for the taking.

 

[hendrix]

haha that was awesome from Sky

 

[Prince EWS]

Have been thinking about that 5-7 middle order and in particular the cash-in vs recovery type batsmen. McCullum is great at cashing in if given a platform. Anderson also relishes that role, though should be aiming to be better than that of course. Ryder in recent years wants to score at a run a ball. Ronchi could do a similar job. And Watling, for all that he doesn't seem to be of the cash-in type, didn't manage to put a stop to any of the collapses when we toured England, owing to his weakness against a hard moving ball, but is good at accumulating against the older ball. I'm not being derogatory; someone in the lower-middle order that will reliably ski downhill is very useful as it turns strong positions into winning positions. However it's also good to have someone that will put a stop to a collapse when we're 25/3 or 40/4 or 60/5. Vettori was the man for this in the last few years, but I can't see who will do this job for us in the near future.

Yeah, it's Watling IMO. Given he missed the second Test in England with injury and it was only a two-game series, then we're talking about one game when we say he failed in England. I think making too much of one match is harsh really, especially since he actually did stop the right to some extent in the first innings even though he didn't score much by hanging around for 50 odd deliveries. He certainly did a good job of the role you described in South Africa, which is a bigger Test than England really (Swann aside, but he didn't get out to Swann).

 

[Langeveldt]

Who is covering this game on the radio? Tuned into Radio Sport and they're talking about Farmer Suicides and Sleep Drops

 

[Immenso]

I actually like this team more and more because what Anderson lacks as a number 6 (which he may have fixed in a couple of years) Neesham makes up for by being a very strong 8. And with Neesham being the better bowler, it strengthens the 3rd seamer position and we have a well rounded 5 bowler attack.

Lol

So, between 12:07 when you posted that team and 12:12 when you quoted yourself, you managed to like your own selection more and more?

 

[BeeGee]

I'm not being derogatory; someone in the lower-middle order that will reliably ski downhill is very useful as it turns strong positions into winning positions. However it's also good to have someone that will put a stop to a collapse when we're 25/3 or 40/4 or 60/5.

The "stop the collapse" requirement comes up a hell of a lot more often than the "downhill skier" requirement, tbh.

 

[hendrix]

Lol

So, between 12:07 when you posted that team and 12:12 when you quoted yourself, you managed to like your own selection more and more?

I find it hard not to like myself sometimes.

 

[straw man]

Yeah, it's Watling IMO. Given he missed the second Test in England with injury and it was only a two-game series, then we're talking about one game when we say he failed in England. I think making too much of one match is harsh really, especially since he actually did stop the right to some extent in the first innings even though he didn't score much by hanging around for 50 odd deliveries. He certainly did a good job of the role you described in South Africa, which is a bigger Test than England really (Swann aside, who he actually negotiated really well).

Heh, forgot he missed that test in England - just glanced at his impressive recent record and misconstrued the 21 and 18 in Auckland as part of the series in England . It's true that he did the role to an extent in SA but worth noticing for his 42, 63, 63 he came in at 44.0 overs, 15.1 overs, 39.4 overs, so only once was in against a new ball. Of course he's down at 7 these days so that should be less important, though there's also the second new ball to contend with. I agree that Watling should be the one to fill this role, perhaps batting with Williamson or Taylor once our 5 and 6 roll over when conditions are difficult, so will be watching closely to see if he does in coming years.

 

[_Ed_]

a daddy hundred for Taylor there for the taking.

Definitely. For starters, I'd just like him to beat his highest score. Seeing that 154* in his stats line brings back horrendous Manchester memories that I'd like to expel.

 

[Bahnz]

Who is covering this game on the radio? Tuned into Radio Sport and they're talking about Farmer Suicides and Sleep Drops

You're at the right place. Radio Sport does a lunch time farming show, but the cricket will be back at 1:10.

 

[straw man]

The "stop the collapse" requirement comes up a hell of a lot more often than the "downhill skier" requirement, tbh.

It's true, though there's also been the criticism floating around that Vettori's batting never won us test matches, only made the losses less bad.

The cash in becomes more relevant if our openers can continue to score runs on home pitches, putting us in the position to push to win matches.

 

[Bahnz]

It would be good for Taylor to really go on with it. One of the reasons why has average has never risen above the level of the good is because he very rarely bats for looooooong periods (has only batted for 250+ balls once). The easiest way for him to push his average up to 45+ will be to start making his opponents pay once he passes the 100 mark.

 

[hendrix]

god I can't stand this talk of the Australian culture...ugh.

 

[hendrix]

It's true, though there's also been the criticism floating around that Vettori's batting never won us test matches, only made the losses less bad.

The cash in becomes more relevant if our openers can continue to score runs on home pitches, putting us in the position to push to win matches.

Vettori's batting won us a very difficult Bangladesh chase.

I think the current balance of the side in terms of blockers and bashers is fine. Taylor can go both ways these days. The return of Vettori would be a great addition though.

 

[Mike5181]

It would be good for Taylor to really go on with it. One of the reasons why has average has never risen above the level of the good is because he very rarely bats for looooooong periods (has only batted for 250+ balls once). The easiest way for him to push his average up to 45+ will be to start making his opponents pay once he passes the 100 mark.

No reason he can't go 200+ here tbh. There's enough batting left with Sodhi, Southee, Wagner, Boult etc to get him there if he plays well enough.

 

[Bahnz]

It's true, though there's also been the criticism floating around that Vettori's batting never won us test matches, only made the losses less bad.

That's ridiculous. Vettori's batting has contributed to several wins that I can think of (Pakistan at Dunedin 2009, England at Hamilton 2008 being the ones that immediately jump to mind), and would've contributed to a lot more if it hand't been for the incompetence of his team-mates with both at and ball.

 

[Prince EWS]

No reason he can't go 200+ here tbh. There's enough batting left with Sodhi, Southee, Wagner, Boult etc to get him there if he plays well enough.

There's enough batting just with Watling to get him there if he plays well enough. OPWB is getting a ton today unless McCullum declares on him first.

 

[Prince EWS]

That's ridiculous. Vettori's batting has contributed to several wins that I can think of (Pakistan at Dunedin 2009, England at Hamilton 2008 being the ones that immediately jump to mind), and would've contributed to a lot more if it hand't been for the incompetence of his team-mates with both at and ball.

Haha yeah quite. Given how rarely New Zealand actually won games when Vettori was a good batsman, his batting played a big role in any success the side had.