Anderson vs. Neesham

[Dan]

Didn't really chip himself out - you don't see him making an easy twenty odd and then finding ways of getting himself out. Part of the reason his average has managed to stay near 50 has been his ability to take 15-20 into 70-100.

Well two of his four dismissals in the UAE were as soft as they came -- first innings of the first Test, with NZ 4/150 and Neesh on 11*, he mindlessly runs down at Hafeez and gets stumped. First innings of the second Test, he's on 17* before chipping one to mid wicket. He was striking in the 30s at the time; given what we've seen from him in his career so far, it's pretty obvious that he's yet to develop the patience or temperament of a top order batsman. Needs to feel bat on ball and keep the score ticking over, and struggles to see the tough periods through at this stage.

I think that's what Hurricane is saying in making the 'downhill skiier' comment; Neesham has yet to grind out a long innings when conditions are difficult. And in fairness to him, he's very rarely needed to so far in his short Test career. He's very, very good at taking an advantage and ramming it home with a 50+ score at a strike rate in the mid-80s. He's yet to prove whether or not he can create that advantage with more traditional, mature top-order knocks, or see through tough periods of play to rebuild.

 

[Blocky]

That's the composure thing and speaks to shot selection and temperament not technique. IIRC he outperformed Neesham in the UAE and his defensive technique against spin just looked better. And at least he got to 50 that day. I didn't actually see his dismissal I just came online the next day and everyone was livid with him.

He out performed Neesham solely because Neesham performed so badly there, he ended up with an average in the mid twenties during the tour - admittedly he'd have played ahead of Neesham here had he not injured himself but Neesham went out and put runs on the board.

It's the way Anderson gets himself out that pisses me off and makes me state he's not a test match bat.

His dismissals in Pakistan

Well set on 48, chops the ball onto his stumps
Set on 23, leaves the ball alone and it bowls him
On 50, has a nasty slog at a ball and gets out - somewhat forgiveable, we were already 500 on the board
Gets out for 9 at the start of a new day, trying to smash the cover off the ball on the up.
Gets out for a duck trying to throw the pad at a ball in the rough and not covering it properly.

That's his series, every single dismissal was his own doing, he wasn't bowled out - he gave his wicket away.

 

[Blocky]

Well two of his four dismissals in the UAE were as soft as they came -- first innings of the first Test, with NZ 4/150 and Neesh on 11*, he mindlessly runs down at Hafeez and gets stumped. First innings of the second Test, he's on 17* before chipping one to mid wicket. He was striking in the 30s at the time; given what we've seen from him in his career so far, it's pretty obvious that he's yet to develop the patience or temperament of a top order batsman. Needs to feel bat on ball and keep the score ticking over, and struggles to see the tough periods through at this stage.

I think that's what Hurricane is saying in making the 'downhill skiier' comment; Neesham has yet to grind out a long innings when conditions are difficult. And in fairness to him, he's very rarely needed to so far in his short Test career. He's very, very good at taking an advantage and ramming it home with a 50+ score at a strike rate in the mid-80s. He's yet to prove whether or not he can create that advantage with more traditional, mature top-order knocks, or see through tough periods of play to rebuild.

I'd argue his 100 against India where he supported BMac wasn't really skiing downhill.

 

[Hurricane]

I'd argue his 100 against India where he supported BMac wasn't really skiing downhill.

It was downhill skiing basically.

A tired attack and runs on the board and he smoked them. (And a flat pitch)

 

[Blocky]

It was downhill skiing basically.

A tired attack and runs on the board and he smoked them. (And a flat pitch)

Difference being had he gotten out at any stage early in that innings, all the work that Watling and BMac did together would've been rendered useless. He then backed it up in the West Indies. He's so far had one bad series with the bat (that saw him dropped) then came back into the side and put runs on.

He's also got the better first class record, despite being considered a tail end batsman for the first part of his career with Otago.

Anderson is the better limited overs player and at present the better bowler, but Neesham is a much better test batsman.

 

[Dan]

I'd argue his 100 against India where he supported BMac wasn't really skiing downhill.

Yeah, I was thinking about that and it's a somewhat unique case IMO. Watling + McCullum batting for 130 overs to put on 350 together was what broke the back of the Indian attack. Neesham didn't rebuild the innings, Watling and McCullum did that. Neesham was able to take advantage of the tired bowlers at a point in the match where a quick wicket could have undone all the good work and put India right back into the match. He definitely deserves credit for that; it was a very important knock for a guy on debut.

You're right, it wasn't really skiing downhill. But it wasn't really the opposite either.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

That's his series, every single dismissal was his own doing, he wasn't bowled out - he gave his wicket away.

To be fair though, if he is throwing his wicket away like you say, it rather implies that the opposition bowlers aren't able to get him out. If it's a mental thing this can be corrected far more easily than a problem with technique.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Harsh to call it downhill skiing, tbh. The game was on a knife's edge regarding the situation they were in when Watling got out. We could've still won if Neesham had got out early and we'd run through the tail.

Do agree with the overall point though... Watling and McCullum had already ground our bowlers so far into the dust that you couldn't exactly call Neesham's knock anywhere near "gritty" territory.

 

[Dan]

Certainly an innings I wouldn't have backed Anderson to play in a similar situation, ftr.

 

[Blocky]

To be fair though, if he is throwing his wicket away like you say, it rather implies that the opposition bowlers aren't able to get him out. If it's a mental thing this can be corrected far more easily than a problem with technique.

Sure - but then if you're throwing your wicket away, you don't need the bowler to ever get you out. For all we know, Corey was in the form of his life but gave away innings where he could've gone on to put on the centuries that have been lacking since his debut knock.

 

[Blocky]

Certainly an innings I wouldn't have backed Anderson to play in a similar situation, ftr.

Pretty easy one to validate, considering Anderson chipped a soft caught and bowled during the same innings that Neesham hit his 137* on debut.

 

[Blocky]

This thread in a way shows how weird the NZ Cricket fan is... because it's the same argument around Wagner.

Neesham and Wagner have played as much part in NZ's year of great performances as anyone else not named Williamson, Southee or McCullum. At the same time, Anderson hasn't really featured at test level but we like Anderson more for whatever reason, so lets play him ahead of the guy who has out performed him in every single match except one.

 

[Dan]

Sure - but then if you're throwing your wicket away, you don't need the bowler to ever get you out. For all we know, Corey was in the form of his life but gave away innings where he could've gone on to put on the centuries that have been lacking since his debut knock.

Yeah, so if you teach Corey some maturity he turns those starts into a Michael Clarke in 2012 like run of form. Meanwhile the dogged medium pace bowling all-rounder down in Hamilton park cricket can have all the composure, maturity and shot selection that he wants, but it's worth nothing at Test level if he can't keep a 140km/h length ball from cannoning into off peg on a regular basis.

Easier to teach the former than the latter, though the former is still a difficult proposition (see: Anton Devcich)

 

[Dan]

FTR I think Neesham's the better Test batsman right now, and is likely to come out with better stats and performances when we compare their careers in 20 years time. But FMD Anderson has a bloody high ceiling and will always be an attractive prospect if he's not playing.

As many of the calls to select Anderson are based on his bowling, I think.

 

[Teja.]

Their main draw is batting and Neesham is better, IMO.

I think Anderson fulfills his role within the NZ bowling attack better but neither of them are particularly good at it and it's fairly marginal.

 

[Athlai]

This thread in a way shows how weird the NZ Cricket fan is... because it's the same argument around Wagner.

Neesham and Wagner have played as much part in NZ's year of great performances as anyone else not named Williamson, Southee or McCullum. At the same time, Anderson hasn't really featured at test level but we like Anderson more for whatever reason, so lets play him ahead of the guy who has out performed him in every single match except one.

Generalisation - check.
Wrong - check.

10/10

Please note this post isn't to say Neesham or Wagner aren't good, just that the logic of the above argument is terrible.

Players who have participated in most Test wins playing for NZ since 2012:

Williamson, McCullum Southee, Boult, Taylor - 9 matches
Watling - 8 matches
Rutherford, Sodhi, Wagner - 5 matches
Anderson, Craig, Fulton - 4 matches
Neesham - 3 matches
Guptill, Vettori, Bracewell - 2 matches
Astle, Brownlie, Flynn, Patel, van Wyk, Martin - 1 match

But Affers! That isn't what I mean! *said in a meaner way by Blocky* What I mean is that they have performed to a higher standard than those other guys!

Top 5 batting averages
Craig 134 @ 134.00
Williamson 1028 @ 79.07
Taylor 846 @ 70.50
Neesham 341 @ 68.20 nice! Hope to see more of it.
McCullum 873 @ 67.15

Top 5 bowling averages
Martin 8 @ 3.87
Bracewell 7 @ 13.57
Southee 45 @ 16.97
Boult 47 @ 18.23
Neesham 5 @ 20.20

It is a massive overestimate to compare Neesham and Wagner's contributions to Williamson, Southee, McCullum, Boults and Taylors. They are the predominant and clear reason we have been so successful. Neesham and Wagner have both been pretty good, but so has Anderson, he's averaged 40 with the bat and 28 with the ball in those wins. Are his 4 matches worth more than Neeshams 3? Who cares.

Neesham has not yet won a match for NZ, and I look forward to the day he does. So far he has been the icing on someone elses cake.

 

[Howsie]

Anderson is/was the best pure batting talent we've seen in this country since Jesse Ryder IMO. If he doesn't end up averaging 40 or more with the bat in test cricket I'll be disappointed. That's coming from someone who wanted him in the test team two years ago though with almost nothing behind him.

I'm a Neesham fan too though, just think he'll end up being the lesser of the two.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I'd love it if we could find a way to play both of them. Perhaps the realistic option is an Anderson-Neesham 5-6 after McCullum retires in a few years.

 

[hendrix]

I won't really call any of Neesham's knocks downhill skiing. However, his defensive game is weak.

Neesh seems to have more shots than Anderson, particularly through the off side.

Anderson has been dreadfully unlucky. Copped a bad decision at Eden park vs India when he was looking imperious.

 

[Bahnz]

I would say the opposite - Anderson has a wider variety of shots than Neesham. He looks magnificent both sides of the wicket, and is probably the best practitioner of the pull shot in the country. But he leaves a gap between bat and pad big enough to drive a bus through, and as a result is very vulnerable when prodding defensively. Wouldn't say he's been dreadfully unlucky either, though it was unfortunate that the one time he was really stuffed by the umpires happened to be in a series where the DRS wasn't available to him.