-
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.
New Zealand Off Season 2014
- Thread starter Kippax
- Start date
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
The amount of points you get for a series win depends on the ranking of your opponent. A drawn series against Australia/SA would probably get you as many points as a win over the West Indies. The number of points you get also varies depending on whether or not you're playing at home or away (that's also why our ranking rose to number 3 after we drew the 01/02 test series with Australia).
Iirc, beating WI 2-0 at home pushed us from 78 up to about 84, and the 1-0 victory over India moved us from 84 up to 88. If we were to beat WI and Pakistan in the upcoming series, I imagine we would probably be very close to moving ahead of Pakistan in the rankings. We would probably have to beat England in England before we could push up to number 3.
Iirc, beating WI 2-0 at home pushed us from 78 up to about 84, and the 1-0 victory over India moved us from 84 up to 88. If we were to beat WI and Pakistan in the upcoming series, I imagine we would probably be very close to moving ahead of Pakistan in the rankings. We would probably have to beat England in England before we could push up to number 3.
Last edited:
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
That'll be partly it, but the bigger reason for India's dive, is that they lose the points that they gained from their 1-1 draw with South Africa in 2011. Likewise, WI will lose the points that they got from the drawn series against Sri Lanka in 2010, (which was achieved when Sri Lanka were ranked #3).
Last edited:
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Imo only a Southee injury would seriously hurt the side. As the second test against India showed, even if we lose a high quality player like Taylor there's enough quality in the rest of the top 7 to ensure that we still hold up fairly well.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Straight swap of Henry for Southee might feasibly ok. I'm not seeing any middle order batsmen though. If either Taylor or McCullum goes we're completely screwed.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
I think Henry would do OK at home as a Southee-replacement, but his performances on last years A-tour suggest he is incapable of filling Southee's shoes when away from home. There's also the detrimental effect that Southee's absence has historically had on Boult.
I agree with Dan that Williamson is the most crucial part of our batting, though I think his loss could be mitigated by moving Taylor up to number 3 on a temporary basis. If we were to lose either of Taylor or McCullum, it would definitely hurt, but it wouldn't be the crippling blow that it would've been if it happened a couple of years ago, especially given that if things got really desperate, we've still got the wild child waiting in the wings.
I agree with Dan that Williamson is the most crucial part of our batting, though I think his loss could be mitigated by moving Taylor up to number 3 on a temporary basis. If we were to lose either of Taylor or McCullum, it would definitely hurt, but it wouldn't be the crippling blow that it would've been if it happened a couple of years ago, especially given that if things got really desperate, we've still got the wild child waiting in the wings.
Last edited:
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Williamson's ODI batting has been indispensable, but I think he's not been that vital a cog in Tests unless you also include his bowling and fielding. His bowling is not so crucial now that we have Anderson.
For whatever reason, his actual performances seem to be overrated.
We don't need to mess with future ATG Latham by asking him to bat in the middle order.
For whatever reason, his actual performances seem to be overrated.
We don't need to mess with future ATG Latham by asking him to bat in the middle order.
It's just that there currently isn't a replacement batsman good enough at #3. You wouldn't want to move any of Baz, Taylor or Ryder to 3 - perhaps you could get away with Jesse. He's just bloody hard to replace when you look at the alternatives in the Plunket Shield.
I'm not saying that he's the best player in the side, by any means, just that he's harder to replace than Ross, Baz or Corey (who are covered by Ryder and, if desperate, Latham, Brownlie or, in Anderson's case, JimmyGS). None of those are Test #3s.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Exactly. Williamson isn't sensational, but he's averaged roughly 40 since being elevated to number 3 in 2012, and closer to 50 in the last year. I would say that means he averages 15-20 runs more than the next best option at 3 (not including Ryder). The relative stability he's provided at the top has also created a better environment for the lower order batsman (though coming in at 15/2 never seemed to bother Taylor too much).
I guess McCullum to 3 with (though you won't support it) Latham or Brownlie coming in is a possibility. But moving Baz or Ross messes with the winning formula - one of those guys drop out and you don't need a whole batting order reshuffle in the way you would with Williamson.
I suspect it depends on how much you value the continuity of batting position. Agree to disagee?
I suspect it depends on how much you value the continuity of batting position. Agree to disagee?
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
In an ideal world you'd probably be right. But his contract with Essex has given him an opportunity to press his case for reselection, so if there is some kind of injury crisis, and Ryder is carving up in the County Championship, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the NZ selectors buckle and bring him back in.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
I really don't think McCullum is in the same league as Taylor and Williamson in terms of value to the side. It's worth remembering that until his 200 at Eden Park, people were grumbling that he should be dropped for Ryder. IMO, the only way his absence would cause serious problems would be if it causes another captaincy-related stoush.
Perhaps not long-term, but look at the form he's now in. If that 200 + the 300 has now overcome mental barriers from him (and from all proof it has) we may get the best 2-3 years out of a guy we expected to get world class performances out of. I'd say he's going to be every bit as valuable for at least the next 12 months, and further if he chooses to go on.
We have no chance of winning a World Cup without Brendon. So to me, that is the basis for a serious problem.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
I was focussing only on test match cricket, and happily concede that McCullum is a vital part of the ODI side. However in terms of test cricket, 2 performances - no matter how sensational - is insufficient evidence that something deeper has changed in McCullum's play. He's had hot patches before - he was superb in India in 2010 - but it's never been long before he's lapsed back into inconsistency and underachievement. He has a big opportunity to break that trend this year, but for me it's a case of the proof will be in the pudding.
Last edited:
Flem274*
123/5
baz or brownlie to three if needed (though brownlie seems to be abandoned). agreed with darlingface on holding our breath regarding his consistency.
yes cribb
lord greg hay will save us
BeeGee
International Captain
I see.