-
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.
NZ Test summer - Marks out of 10
- Thread starter Blocky
- Start date
Agent Nationaux
International Coach
Taylor is a bit too high.
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Fulton - 2
Rutherford - 3
Williamson - 7
McCullum - 9.5
Anderson - 6
Watling - 7
Sodhi - 1
Wagner - 7
Taylor - 9.5
Southee - 9
Boult - 8
Latham - 5
Neesham - 9
Fixed for you, AN.
Anyway, I don't think Neesham should be a 9. Maybe an 8. He was in as 4th bowler and really didn't do much but obviously his batting was epic and neither was his bowling a disaster. Fulton and Rutherford lucky to score as high as Blocky has given 'em. Sodhi probably contributed more with the bat - or not much less anyway.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Based on all 5 tests McCullum is too high. Hit an excellent hundred at Dunedin, but followed it up with a ghastly dismissal in the 2nd innings that meant that New Zealand had to consolidate for an hour instead of pushing for victory. Didn't do much of note in the rest of the WI series, and as I mentioned in the India tour thread, even his performances in the last two tests haven't been flawless. 8.5 out of 10.
Blocky
Banned
The innings he played pretty much in all instances lead to an NZ victory - I felt even the 40 odd he scored in the second innings (after running Baz out) at least gave us a target that was daunting for the Indians. I also like how he re-integrated himself into the side after the captaincy saga from last year, he looked happy to be out there, his slip fielding improved out of sight and he played some amazing test innings.
You could put Neesham at an eight on the basis that his bowling perhaps didn't lack penetration but I think the job he was brought in to do was to shore up the batting and ensure the game would be hard for India to win. His first innings was a showing of what he could potentially be at test cricket, his second innings reinforced that he's comfortable at the level and has a lot to offer with the bat.
Sodhi I ranked lowly because he was there to offer us a weapon in the third and fourth innings of the match, he was horrible against India and only took the tail against the Windies.
Fulton got a two solely because he did manage to dry up the new ball in a fair few of his innings - his biggest issue seems to be a lack of confidence and footwork drama, he was racing to 12 from 12 and then figuring "Oh ****, I better be more defensive", stagnated himself and the innings and eventually got nipped out.
Rutherford got starts in most innings, still averaged somewhere near the 25-30 mark. Too loose outside the off stump and doesn't know how to play test cricket yet.
Blocky
Banned
Assess him as a full package though - he was without doubt the best fielder on the park for New Zealand and set the mood for the side, chasing every ball and pulling in some amazing dives to stop boundaries, even when his body was playing up. As a captain he got the team firing, got players like Taylor feeling comfortable in the team setup, found the best out of guys like Southee who had threatened to be world class but never proved it and drove home the advantages NZ had in three of the four tests.
As a batsman, I think you're being harsh on him - a lot of people already pointed out that making the most out of your innings after getting early chances is just part of test cricket. In two tests, he went close to setting the NZ record in a single test series with his aggregate against India. You've really got to have something against Baz to mark him any lower than 9 - I almost gave him a 10.
Blocky
Banned
Best catcher, not best fielder and he had stiff challenge from Trent Boult with a couple of outstanding chances - but I can't be bothered debating things with you, I don't agree with the way you view cricket and it leads to you getting sensitive when I call you on it.
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I don't think anyone can dispute McCullum's efforts in the field. Chasing after everything, not hiding himself away and all on an infirm and aging body (for professional sport at least). Kudos to him for that.
EDIT: And didn't Kane drop an absolute goober at point in one of the ODIs? That was much more shocking and unexpected than McCullum's drop.
EDIT: And didn't Kane drop an absolute goober at point in one of the ODIs? That was much more shocking and unexpected than McCullum's drop.
Blocky
Banned
Problem is, you've still got this issue that a lot of people have around McCullum where they begrudge him any success - he's just come off a world record generating series where he (and Watling) flat out refused to let India win a game to ensure our golden summer was complete and you've still got guys trying to say "Oh, but he gave chances in his innings..." - 500+ runs in two matches plus expert captaincy and great heart in the field should at least keep those types of people silent until his next failure, at which point they'll go back to the "OMG, specialist captain, why is he in the side" spiel.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
I would give McCullum a 9. Normally if you have as many failures as he did, there's no way you'd make it to 9, but you have to give him at least a bonus mark for two ATG innings. He pretty much won us the series.
To me, Taylor's series against the West Indies was a perfect 10 - was never dismissed for less that a hundred and took all his catches in the slips. But he didn't carry that on into the Eden Park test, and although as you point out his 41 was crucial, he could have and perhaps should have done more. He also gets a 9.
To me, Taylor's series against the West Indies was a perfect 10 - was never dismissed for less that a hundred and took all his catches in the slips. But he didn't carry that on into the Eden Park test, and although as you point out his 41 was crucial, he could have and perhaps should have done more. He also gets a 9.
Is this across the whole summer? If so, as much as I am a big fan of his, Jimmy is too high at 9 and I'm sure he would tell you the same.
Here's a good one - batting wise, Ish averaged more than Fulton, averaged the same as Rutherford (with the same amount of half centuries as both) outdid Latham - and obviously took more wickets than all, but scored considerably lower. Play the facts, not the man.
Here's a good one - batting wise, Ish averaged more than Fulton, averaged the same as Rutherford (with the same amount of half centuries as both) outdid Latham - and obviously took more wickets than all, but scored considerably lower. Play the facts, not the man.
Blocky
Banned
Considering he ran out his partner stupidly during that innings, he gets a subtraction there - I think if you looked across all formats and included his ODI form, then yeah, I'd have no doubt putting Taylor at a 10 - but in tests alone? 9.5 to me indicates that he made same mistakes, the same as McCullum, in an otherwise golden series.
No, just tests - and what was Sodhi's role in the side? Finding scrappy runs down the order at nine? or bowling well enough to A: Rest the pace bowlers, B: Be a threat later in the game. He didn't perform the thing he was supposed to be performing in the side and I'd argue that his bowling against India in the first game was what made the game as close as it got because he leaked runs, wasn't a threat at the crease and had to be bowled, largely because Anderson wasn't bowling well either.
And be honest, being lower than 5 - you can argue where they may fit, but ultimately none of the guys ranked lower than 5 deserve to play the next test, ultimately I mark based on "how much did this player contribute to the victory or ensure we didn't get beat" - I can't say that Sodhi did anything in any of the tests that actively contributed to victory.
Last edited:
Okay, then Jimmy would hover around 8.5/9 I guess. I didn't see him bowl, so I'm not well placed.
I'm not at all saying that Ish justified his spot. But I'd certainly argue he offered very similar if not equal as a cricketing package than the three who outperformed him in your ratings. Rutherford refuses to play/is not capable of playing as a Test opener, while Fulton technique wise is the latter and Latham, as much as he may have scrapped in the second innings, showed outside off stump that he's as vulnerable as either of them. How he got 5, I'm not certain. His 2nd innings dismissal was very poor, and his first wasn't exactly a snorter. He doesn't tickle me as anything but the next opener to average 25
I'm not at all saying that Ish justified his spot. But I'd certainly argue he offered very similar if not equal as a cricketing package than the three who outperformed him in your ratings. Rutherford refuses to play/is not capable of playing as a Test opener, while Fulton technique wise is the latter and Latham, as much as he may have scrapped in the second innings, showed outside off stump that he's as vulnerable as either of them. How he got 5, I'm not certain. His 2nd innings dismissal was very poor, and his first wasn't exactly a snorter. He doesn't tickle me as anything but the next opener to average 25
Blocky
Banned
I thought Jimmy bowled OK - I think he can bowl better, but I'd say he's a much better bowler at this point in his career than Anderson is. He's got a touch more pace and seems to be a little more accurate, I also like that he's a hit the deck bowler which we've been missing a bit so if he develops more in that area, he's got more chance of being a Chris Cairns style of player than Anderson - I see Anderson's future being a guy who can bat Top 5 and contribute handy overs, where as I think Neesham is our next Cairns/Oram as a guy who can do an effective job with bat and ball.
Latham got a pretty decent ball in his first innings I thought, in the second innings he played his entire innings under pressure and seemed to be OK out there until his pretty average dismissal - five is a middling performance, didn't really contribute to a win/draw but didn't really do anything absolutely bad to ensure a loss. You can argue for Ish based on his merits as a late order batsman and bump his rating up a point or two, but the game he played in against India, when we needed runs from him (second innings) - he got a duck.
It's not his fault that he's been selected too early for NZ Cricket (and probably ND Cricket, in my view) but youth isn't a reason to mark him favorably.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Saving runs here and there in the outfield does not make up for putting down multiple chances as McCullum has done this summer. In terms of a safe pair of hands, Taylor remains the best in the side. In terms of athleticism, Kane wins. No one questions McCullum's commitment, but there are now several players in the side who are better fielders than him. A part of that is down to his body no longer being capable of doing the same athleticism that characterised his youth, and it's also partly down to the fact that - without the wicket keeping gloves - he's never been the safest pair of hands anyway.
Blocky
Banned
"Multiple chances" - I can remember one, with maybe one that dropped short of him and shouldn't be considered a chance in the test series. I can also remember him lifting the fielding performance solely through refusing to let the ball get to the fence on many occasions. No one can say that the NZ fielding performance hasn't improved out of sight in the last few tests and I put a lot of that down to people seeing him chase everything desperately and refuse to give up on any option.
Taylor and Williamson have both put down chances this season and Taylor hasn't been the safest pair of hands in NZ for quite some time - I'd actually say Fulton is far more likely to grab a catch than he is. Taylor still has the potential of dropping sitters beyond belief.
No question Jimmy is a better bowler than Corey. I'm perfectly happy with Jimmy as a fourth seam option, in fact I'd say there's no better suited cricketer in the world. Obviously if we're playing four seamers, there must be a bit in the deck which he's well placed to exploit. And coming in at 8, again he's very well placed if we're 100-6, whatever it is, on an improving track and have the confidence to wrest initiative back to us. I don't think he's a one-paced batsman either, I'd back him to mix defence and attack as required. Corey I'm not as happy with as a fourth seamer, but yeah his future is at 5 - I'd compare him to someone like a Paul Collingwood, good enough to bowl but not necessarily your bonafide fourth seamer if conditions suit.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Taylor dropped sitters regularly when van Wyk was keeping because van Wyk is an awful keeper who won't go for chances on the inside of first slip. Taylor had to consistently go for chances that were well and truly keeper catches and this forced him to move both ways in the slips, which is not good slip catching technique and resulted in multiple drops. Since Watling's come into the side he's been pretty good.
Stop flirting with me.