**Official** New Zealand Domestic Season 2013/2014

[hendrix]

I normally agree with Bahnz on these things but I strongly disagree here.

If we take the example of pre-good England, there's just as much if not plenty more talent in this NZ player pool. Southee is at least as good as Anderson was before he became the most consistent bowler in the world.

And that's bull**** about the conditions; whether our conditions or coaching are good or not, we've still produced Southee and Boult who are clearly not the classical NZ medium pace seam bowlers. . Already we are in the top 3 new ball attacks in the world - that hasn't happened for over 10 years. There are no Daryl Tuffeys and Brent Arnels even in contention for selection in the test side. Wagner is perhaps not of genuine class, but you could probably have said the same about Tim Bresnan and even Pete Siddle a while ago. Moreover, the guys behind him in the pecking order are massively talented - and this is coming from someone who doesn't even rate Bracewell. Milne has far more potential than plenty of other bowlers that are already being tried out in test teams around the world.

Yes, we lack the real class batsmen like Pujara and Kohli, and lack the opening batsmen that have made South Africa and England strong, but it will still be a massive underachievement if the NZ test side isn't significantly stronger in 2 years time. Two good batsmen in Taylor and Williamson plus a tail that is far stronger than it has been in recent times has proven enough to win a game in SL and really push England hard.

It is fair to say that our openers will always be a weak point and thus make us still prone to the 100 all out scores, but that too has also happened to England in the UAE and Australia in South Africa. We should at least be confident that we will be beating those mid table sides as often as we lose to them.

Facing teams like SL and India in our back yard are series that we should be consistently winning as well.

 

[Bahnz]

I normally agree with Bahnz on these things but I strongly disagree here.

And that's bull**** about the conditions; whether our conditions or coaching are good or not, we've still produced Southee and Boult who are clearly not the classical NZ medium pace seam bowlers. . Already we are in the top 3 new ball attacks in the world - that hasn't happened for over 10 years.

Um, no...

You could maybe argue that New Zealand are number 4. But we're not better than SA, AUS or ENG. Pakistan also has a very good newball attack, as shown by the difficulties it routinely caused SA in very friendly batting conditions. And the WI openers are no joke either - they were at least able to bowl at Bangladesh when given the chance last year.

I do think that New Zealand has benefited from the example of Shane Bond, in that he may have encouraged a generation of young quicks to use seam and speed rather than just relying on horribly under prepared tracks. Having said that, Southee and Boult are very classical NZ medium fast seam bowlers - it wasn't like no New Zealand bowler ever swung it before 2008. Just go back and look at the footage of Simon Doull against India in 1998. They just happen to be very good ones, and in that respect we're quite fortunate - and I agree that we should be looking to win test series at home against some of the mid-table sides (Sri Lanka definitely, Pakistan maybe, India...I'd probably settle for a draw at this point).

 

[hendrix]

Um, no...

You could maybe argue that New Zealand are number 4. But we're not better than SA, AUS or ENG. Pakistan also has a very good newball attack, as shown by the difficulties it routinely caused SA in very friendly batting conditions. And the WI openers are no joke either - they were at least able to bowl at Bangladesh when given the chance last year.

Statistically, Pakistan have had worse new ball bowlers than SL over the past 2 years. NZ, Aus and England are all very tight together in averages. NZ has been a touch better than Australia, and very marginally behind England.

 

[hendrix]

Also, as much as we like the look of Roach, the WI bowlers haven't performed anywhere near to the level that Southee and Boult have. They've actually been terrible. Averaging over 100 in the first 10 overs. WI's improved performances in recent times have been due to their batting and their third seamer in Tino Best.

 

[Bahnz]

Statistically, Pakistan have had worse new ball bowlers than SL over the past 2 years. NZ, Aus and England are all very tight together in averages. NZ has been a touch better than Australia, and very marginally behind England.

Ugh, lets not chain ourselves to statistics and make ourselves blind to all else. As much as we foam at the mouth over Adam Milne, the likes of Patterson, Cummins and Starc have all shown far more than he ever has. Wagner is just not in the same galaxy as a bowler like Siddle. And as hard as Boult tries, I tend to think that only Southee would make it into a combined Aus/NZ bowling attack (Southee, Harris, Siddle, Lyon, with Patto first in line if fit and Boult looming at second).

While Broad and Anderson were lacklustre in New Zealand, we saw in the return series, and in the ashes their proven ability to arrest the momentum of the opposition and win matches from dicey situations. By comparison, Boult and Southee have often struggled to put the opposition away even when our batsmen provide them with runs to play with.

And as for Pakistan, I tend to think that our bowlers would probably have fairly average records too if they had to spend the majority of their careers toiling away literally in the middle of a desert.

Also, so we're not including third seamers in the definition of new ball bowlers? Then what was the point of your mentioning Wagner? Tino Best is a part of the West Indies new ball attack. I'm not saying that their's is better than ours, but you can't deny that they've produced when called upon, which can't necessarily be said for our lot.

 

[hendrix]

Ugh, lets not chain ourselves to statistics and make ourselves blind to all else. As much as we foam at the mouth over Adam Milne, the likes of Patterson, Cummins and Starc have all shown far more than he ever has. Wagner is just not in the same galaxy as a bowler like Siddle. And as hard as Boult tries, I tend to think that only Southee would make it into a combined Aus/NZ bowling attack (Southee, Harris, Siddle, Lyon, with Patto first in line if fit and Boult looming at second).

While Broad and Anderson were lacklustre in New Zealand, we saw in the return series, and in the ashes their proven ability to arrest the momentum of the opposition and win matches from dicey situations. By comparison, Boult and Southee have often struggled to put the opposition away even when our batsmen provide them with runs to play with.

And as for Pakistan, I tend to think that our bowlers would probably have fairly average records too if they had to spend the majority of their careers toiling away literally in the middle of a desert.

Also, so we're not including third seamers in the definition of new ball bowlers? Then what was the point of your mentioning Wagner? Tino Best is a part of the West Indies new ball attack. I'm not saying that their's is better than ours, but you can't deny that they've produced when called upon, which can't necessarily be said for our lot.

No, I didn't include 3rd seamers as part of the stats, I'm talking about opening bowlers. The point of mentioning Wagner was to say that he is a relative weakness that could shortly be overcome - either his effort eventually leads to consistent accomplishment in the way that Siddle's has, or he is usurped by the plethora of bowlers behind him who probably have more quality.

Fine if you don't want to be chained to statistics. Southee and Boult have taken most of their wickets on the subcontinent. I'm guessing that "putting the opposition away" is in reference to Eden Park - but let's not chain ourselves to statistics here; 2 dropped catches, edges not appealed for and bails not coming off as well as a 5th day pitch that would make the Bangladeshis proud are probably contributors here. And when has there been any other opportunity to "put the opposition away"?

Pattinson, Cummins, Starc and Siddle have probably had more opportunities to "put the opposition away" than Southee and Boult had if you watched the Ashes. They failed, consistently. Southee and Boult's figures were better in England than theirs. Pattinson's had a good start to his career but he was ****e in the second test, and there will be more matches in which he's ****e - just because we haven't seen the worst from him doesn't mean he's the finished product. The way Clarke used him in India may have been stupid but it also protected his figures. Southee and Boult haven't been afforded this protection (and frankly, that's probably a good thing, long term). I'm not sure whether Boult would make a combined attack but their selectors dropped a bowler coming off a 7-fer in India for a 19yo. Who knows wtf they think. Certainly, Boult is currently a far better test bowler than Starc who is picked relatively regularly. And Cummins? Who even knows anything about that guy? If you can say that he's good I can equally say that Milne is good. They're both predictions that could turn out to be Ishant Sharma. Whatever, the proof is in the pudding.

Siddle >>>>>>>> Wagner (and any other 3rd seamer in the world). Lyon>Sodhi. Overall, their attack is better than ours.

Our new ball attack is undoubtedly amongst the top performers in world cricket though. That's just a fact. Denying that is like denying that Herath is a good spinner (as many here do).

 

[Kippax]

ND XII - Flynn (c), Aldridge Baker JBoult Carter Hickey Kuggeleijn Mitchell Sodhi Vettori Watling Wilson

Trent Boult is being rested and Anurag Verma is unavailable due to injury.

Joe Carter, 2012 Quad Series - YouTube

 

[Prince EWS]

Three spinners in Round 1 is a.. novel idea, even if Jono is there primarily for batting. He'll probably be twelfth anyway though I suppose. Is "Carter" Joe Carter of Youth World Cup fame?

 

[Kippax]

Yes, yes it is. Check my post again for the video.

 

[Flem274*]

Bahnz, you know I think you're gun, but your entire posting history is the acceptance part of the culture of mediocrity I am talking about.

Nothing you said changes the fact New Zealander's fail for reasons that don't require extra player numbers or whatever to correct, If you're consistently getting out lbw or your action falls away as you get tired, it's on you to sort it out and it's very sortable. In spite of all these supposed obstructions, we consistenly produce bowlers with ability who immediately break down due to terrible applications of sports science and as beautifully as a McCullum or the like can time or muscle a ball, they get out to the same stupid flaws again and again and again. I'm even going to include Skippy Sinclair in this, because as much as I love him a legside game and getting his back foot moving would have made him much harder to bowl to at test level and he might have more to show.

Cummins, Starc et al have shown more than Mine because they've had more opportunities at higher levels to take wickets. If Milne bowling at least 140+ and swinging it both ways doesn't get into your top 3 bowlers on potential alone since Hadlee I would love to see who you rate higher. The kid is a gem and if he averages 30 I'll be gutted. The best thing about Bond working with our bowlers isn't his technical know how; it's his champion attitude.

If you never aim high you will never get high. New Zealand and New Zealand fans have an inbuilt passive inferiority complex. Mediocrity is good enough, and overseas fans, players and media patronising us is ok because we don't speak up we work hard with a good team spirit (lawl, present team spirit has been sooo amazing) and pick up a win on our day. Where is the New Zealand eventer-esque deep lying and slow burning passion and hatred to shove it up these ****s arses? New Zealand cricket needs an inspirer, someone who really believes number one and dominance is achievable. Cairns and Bond could have been but were injured too often. Hadlee was a champion but he is too modest and possibly a bit negative. He took immense pride in his stats but he wasn't really the follow me boys lets go kill some ****s type. We need an Imran or a Border who will say we're going that way boys, who's coming with me?" but the NZC and wider NZ mindset kills that quickly because blind optimists and those who aren't seemingly modest get pulled down quickly. Realists achieve realistic goals, optimists fail horribly until they summit Everest and become the best.

 

[Bahnz]

Excuses. Every team droped catches and bad decisions go against them. That's why the Bad-luck-Boult myth has really come to annoy me. People just seem to accept that he's a world-beating bowler born under an unlucky star. Maybe he just isn't as consistent as we like to think?

The "putting the opposition away" comment was not a reference to Eden Park exclusively - the 1st test vs South Africa, 2nd test vs the West Indies, 2nd test vs India, 1st test in NZ vs England. All occasions when the Southee-Boult-whoever trifecta had a real opportunity to stand up, and all occassions when they didn't make it count (the Bangalore test was especially frustrating, given that we offered up about 80 free runs with the new ball in a 260 chase).

And the fact that you're blithely equating bowling in England in May to bowling in England in August doesn't convince me that you're putting much thought past a bare reading of the scorecards. As does your assertion that Pattinson isn't awesome because he bowled badly in one match. Boult's bowled badly in a host of test matches. How come his bad days can be put down to bad luck, while Pattinson's are due to an underlying deficit in his capabilities? I don't argue that Boult has the edge on Starc, but that's like arguing that Harris has the edge on Bracewell. Of course he does, but neither Bracewell nor Starc are in the top 3 bowlers in their respective countries, so why bother comparing them to somebody like Boult?

As for Cummins, he's ripped through good international batting lineups in both T20 and test cricket. Milne has only managed one acceptable performance on the international stage, and the rest of the time he's served up pies. Your "Who cares, I've never even heard of him" attitude might get you a job on the Channel 9 commentary team, but it doesn't change the fact that Cummins has done a lot more than Milne to generate excitement, or that Milne remains very much an unproven quantity at the highest level.

Southee and Boult are good bowlers, I don't deny that. But just because we finally have an international new ball pairing worthy of the name doesn't make them automatically better than all the other promising young new ball bowlers that are cropping up around the world.

 

[Flem274*]

We're not talking about how good Milne is right now we're talking about how good he will be if he does justice to his ability, which is a level very few bowlers running around at present anywhere in the world can reach. Dale Steyn, Vernon Philander, Ryan Harris, James Pattinson, Junaid Khan and Pat Cummins are the other true gems who spring to mind. There will be several others who I'm not aware of. Not all of them will reach the Steyn level, but you would bloody hope a few of them do or we're going to have another era of every other **** averaging 50 with the bat.

 

[hendrix]

Southee and Boult are good bowlers, I don't deny that. But just because we finally have an international new ball pairing worthy of the name doesn't make them automatically better than all the other promising young new ball bowlers that are cropping up around the world.

you misunderstand me. I'm saying that we finally have an international new ball pairing worthy of the name.

And that's something that we haven't had for a long, long time. Probably 15 years, really.

That fact should make us very competitive. And if we're competitive we should be aiming for the top, not the middle. Look what a couple of decent bowlers and some professionalism did for England.

 

[Flem274*]

I do think that New Zealand has benefited from the example of Shane Bond, in that he may have encouraged a generation of young quicks to use seam and speed rather than just relying on horribly under prepared tracks.

This will be interesting to watch. If so, the first lot should be coming through just now since he will have been the bloke the saw when they were 10 years old or whenever. But you could easily argue the likes of Sherlock, Bennett, Butler, young Arnel and Davis show there have always been blokes with genuine pace and movement around, but the academy (as usual) ruined them and now it's gone bowlers are coming through untouched.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yeah I think some people in this thread aren't seeing that there's a massive difference between accepting the reality of mediocrity and accepting mediocrity itself. What Bahnz is doing is column A which is a necessary precursor to improvement, far from being a defeatest attitude. You don't get better by pretending you're the best, setting stupidly high goals and expectations, ignoring anything that says otherwise then throwing a tanty when it doesn't all come right. You get better by being realistic about where you're at and what you need to work on. New Zealand cricketers simply have a lot of flaws coming out of the domestic game which are always going to get exposed at higher levels.

 

[Flem274*]

you misunderstand me. I'm saying that we finally have an international new ball pairing worthy of the name.

And that's something that we haven't had for a long, long time. Probably 15 years, really.

Marto and Franko when Franko could bowl was like 2006. Sometimes Bond played.

2008-2011 was the drought, with Marto's major slump and Vettori/O'Brien shouldering most of the real work with the occassional Bond appearance.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah I think some people in this thread aren't seeing that there's a massive difference between accepting the reality of mediocrity and accepting mediocrity itself. What Bahnz is doing is column A which is a necessary precursor to improvement, far from being a defeatest attitude. You don't get better by pretending you're the best, setting stupidly high goals and expectations, ignoring anything that says otherwise then throwing a tanty when it doesn't all come right. You get better by being realistic about where you're at and what you need to work on. New Zealand cricketers simply have a lot of flaws coming out of the domestic game which are always going to get exposed at higher levels.

I know the reality is we're ****. I said that in my first post, but if we're going to improve then while you have to be very hard and objective on yourself (which is a very hard skill to learn) you also have to be an eternal optimist so your mind can handle that self reflection without losing heart. That inability to look in the mirror is something I also mentioned in my first post, and is a big contributor to the culture of mediocrity as much as the "in ten years we will be amazing" is.

Bahnz in his initial post sounded much like we have flaws in cricket that just can't be changed, and that is a defeatist attitude. "I can't" has no place in sport, no matter what level.

I don't expect change because I have no faith in the establishment to either want or do the work to do so, but I want it to happen.

EDIT: If I've misinterpreted you Bahnzicles then my bad. Bros?

 

[hendrix]

And the fact that you're blithely equating bowling in England in May to bowling in England in August doesn't convince me that you're putting much thought past a bare reading of the scorecards.

This is a bit of a **** comment. I watched nearly every ball of both the NZ tour of England and the Ashes. It meant that I was an asshole of a boyfriend and contributed to a subsequent break up, but no I'm not blithely equating bowling in May to bowling in August.

I know how good Pattinson is. I rate him very, very highly. I also know that Boult's bowled poorly on occasion. And yes, I do rate Pattinson higher than Boult. I'm talking new ball bowling performances. Both teams have been very good. NZ's statistically slightly better. It doesn't mean they're better than Aus's, just that they're both very, very good.

 

[Flem274*]

This is a bit of a **** comment. I watched nearly every ball of both the NZ tour of England and the Ashes. It meant that I was an asshole of a boyfriend and contributed to a subsequent break up, but no I'm not blithely equating bowling in May to bowling in August.

diary of a cricket tragic entry #1244

 

[Kippax]

"ND TV" has been renewed despite very low view counts, no surprises there.

A couple of balls from Cody Andrews there at 3:10.