***Official*** New Zealand Domestic Season 2015/16

[NZTailender]

Looks so much like Franklin in that footage (physically, not bowling action).

 

[straw man]

Just wish he was getting his seam orbit so good, he'd started beating players for underestimating the swing, rather than overestimating it.

Don't know, depends if his stock ball was moving away or not. Think he's always taken a lot of his wickets with the straighter ball attacking the stumps.

Wouldn't be surprised though if he's not really swinging it and only getting the seam movement when bowling the shorter length - most international players will just leave that length rather than edging it behind like the third wicket shown there.

I see Dougeh still wants to be an all-rounder: Doug Bracewell focusing on batting with eyes on all-rounder tag for Black Caps | Stuff.co.nz. Hmm.

 

[Meridio]

Don't know, depends if his stock ball was moving away or not. Think he's always taken a lot of his wickets with the straighter ball attacking the stumps.

Wouldn't be surprised though if he's not really swinging it and only getting the seam movement when bowling the shorter length - most international players will just leave that length rather than edging it behind like the third wicket shown there.

I see Dougeh still wants to be an all-rounder: Doug Bracewell focusing on batting with eyes on all-rounder tag for Black Caps | Stuff.co.nz. Hmm.

Yeah Henry's stock ball has looked likes it's been swinging away. There's plenty of handy little highlights clips on the ECB youtube channel, e.g.

In unrelated news, not sure where to put this so will chuck it in here: New Zealand Cricket 'big supporter' of two-tier Test system, says CEO David White | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo. Seems that after a brief period of not appearing entirely terrible, David White has reverted back to full punchability. I really don't see how two tier Test cricket benefits NZ in any way, and I also don't see the benefit in cutting Tests to four days.

 

[hendrix]

i kinda agree with him here.

 

[Meridio]

i kinda agree with him here.

Why?

I understand people want to give Test cricket 'more context', which is fine, but I don't see how splitting it up into two divisions achieves that.

 

[hendrix]

Why?

I understand people want to give Test cricket 'more context', which is fine, but I don't see how splitting it up into two divisions achieves that.

top 7, 2nd division is 5. Gives a chance for Afghanistan and Ireland.

Another aim is to prevent endless Ashes and Australia-India series.

 

[Bahnz]

There are several problems with it from my point of view. First the gulf between 8-9 and 10-12 is still pretty enormous (and that might be being generous to the Bangerz, we still haven't seen them play test cricket outside the sub-continent at any point since the late Cretaceous). Afghanistan look like they have some potential and some attractive players, but Zimbabwe are a sad joke these days, and Ireland are kinda like a poor man's Zimbabwe circa 2004 - desperately clinging on to their one or two remaining classy players to help keep them marginally competitive. I struggle to see them keeping public interest in the sport even if it's only for 2 years at a time.

The second problem is finance. I know the ICC says they'll look to distribute income for the good of the sport, but given their actions over the past few years, I think that's about as likely as tumtum making an insightful and considered post in the American Politics thread. More likely you'd see (either immediately or in the medium term) a growing segregation of the haves and have nots, until either the 2-tier scheme gets canned, or cricket in the have nots dies.

The third problem is the fluidity of ability in international cricket. You get a couple of top-class players coming onto the scene, and overnight a team can transform from whipping boys into a competitive outfit overnight. Two recent examples: in 2012 NZ were dreadful until all of a sudden Kane and Soult all blossomed almost simultaneously, and by the end of that season NZ were giving England (the then #1 side in the world) a run for their money. Moving in the opposite direction, Sri Lanka were a wonderful side in 2014, when they won a test series in England. But by a year later, following a couple of retirements, they'd become a shadow of their former selves. So unless promotion/relegation is on a yearly basis I could see it causing some extremely uncompetitive cricket. Admittedly this is a problem with the FTP now, with team schedules being agreed years in advance, and no flexibility to adapt it to changes in form and ranking. But at best I see the promotion/relegation system making only a very limited improvement on the status quo in this regard.

Overall, I'd much rather just see Afghanistan given provisional test status, with 4-day tests against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh and WIA and SLA. Depending on how they do, the ICC could then promote them.

 

[Zinzan]

Moving in the opposite direction, Sri Lanka were a wonderful side in 2014, when they won a test series in England. .

That's stretching it. They hung on by the skin of their teeth (9 down) for a draw in the first and then achieved that famous victory in the 2nd off the penultimate delivery if my memory serves. Don't get me wrong, they've definitely declined greatly with the retirements of Sanga-Jaya, but suggesting they were a wonderful side in 2014 is overstating it IMO.

 

[Bahnz]

That's stretching it. They hung on by the skin of their teeth (9 down) for a draw in the first and then achieved that famous victory in the 2nd off the penultimate delivery if my memory serves. Don't get me wrong, they've definitely declined greatly with the retirements of Sanga-Jaya, but suggesting they were a wonderful side in 2014 is overstating it IMO.

Yeah, that was hyperbolic. Should've said "highly competitive" or something along those lines.

 

[hendrix]

The third problem is the fluidity of ability in international cricket. You get a couple of top-class players coming onto the scene, and overnight a team can transform from whipping boys into a competitive outfit overnight. Two recent examples: in 2012 NZ were dreadful until all of a sudden Kane and Soult all blossomed almost simultaneously, and by the end of that season NZ were giving England (the then #1 side in the world) a run for their money. Moving in the opposite direction, Sri Lanka were a wonderful side in 2014, when they won a test series in England. But by a year later, following a couple of retirements, they'd become a shadow of their former selves. So unless promotion/relegation is on a yearly basis I could see it causing some extremely uncompetitive cricket. Admittedly this is a problem with the FTP now, with team schedules being agreed years in advance, and no flexibility to adapt it to changes in form and ranking. But at best I see the promotion/relegation system making only a very limited improvement on the status quo in this regard.
.

Sorry, how is this a positive point for the status quo? It was 5 years between NZ-Australia Tests.

If you want to stay in the top division you must face teams at the lower end of the division so that you can score the points necessary to stay near the top. That means more tests between rank 1 and rank 7.

Fluidity is a good thing. That's why there's promotion and relegation. Make sure you win.

 

[Slippaah]

Test Cricket is one part of the puzzle. Fundamental ICC reform is overdue. Full Members ( alone) playing Test cricket is a colonial anachronism. The classes of ICC Membership - Full/ Associate /Affiliate - must end ( save for provincial style members eg: small West Indies Island states or HK where China would be the ICC Member). As for the 7 country, 5 country Test Division split- not logical- so a compromise already. Make it 6 and 6, a 3 year cycle with two up, two down promotion/relegation. That will provide context ! Adding Afghanistan will make three Test countries where few teams will currently play on security grounds. Like Pakistan the Afghan team are more often based outside the country.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/1035019.html

Tim Wigmore's Cricinfo article on NZC CEO David White reads like an approving staff appraisal. From ramshackle NZC in 2012, dire finances, embarrassing dismissal for 45 runs v SA in 2013, humiliating NZC support for the abortive Big Three ICC hi-jack to a successful World Cup and $28 million in the black today . On the playing side White points to enhanced fitness regimes for contracted domestic players and the NZ " A" team program as crucial factors.
2016 reality - NZ U 19's finished 12th in Bangladesh in the junior World Cup in February losing to both Nepal and to Afghanistan by 8 wickets ! Is there a current NZ "A" Squad- or is it a Claytons " A " team ?

Contrast the England "A"team England Lions| Cricket News, Videos and Player Information| ECB

 

[SteveNZ]

Why?

I understand people want to give Test cricket 'more context', which is fine, but I don't see how splitting it up into two divisions achieves that.

Absolute horse **** that two divisions would achieve greater context.

Firstly, how are the ICC going to ensure sides going down to the second division don't suffer financially? Adopt a revenue-sharing agreement ie the NFL? Yeah, India et al will go for that...then whilst you're likely suffering financial barriers to lifting your game and rising up into the 1st Div, you think interest in Test cricket will remain strong for established nations dropping down to the 2nd division and facing Tests in places like Nairobi, The Hague, Dublin etc? Can't wait for the Boxing Day Test v Namibia. Of course, David White has puffed his chest out and knows (thinks) that such a scenario would never befall us. Probably not in your time David, and of course you'd probably have no problem leaving a mess for the next guy - like your predecessor did.

And how does two division address the falling in crowds outside series' with natural context, such as the Ashes? Is that addressed by the feeling of 'yay we won the series, no chance we get relegated any time soon! Pop the corks!'

Welcome back, dum dum David White. We thought for a second we'd lost you.

NZ Cricket feels to me like the Warriors NRL side from around 2006-11 (sorry for those who don't get the comparison). They're riding a wave of success under the structure of a great coach, strong leaders and on-field performance at the highest level. That's translating into bottom line buoyancy. But as Slippah said, there are major cracks underneath (for the Warriors, it was players not turning up for reserve grade away games because they were financially disadvantaged, creating an alarming lack of depth + the fact the U20s junior side's worth was inflating by beating up on smaller kids which didn't ready them for the step up). Our NZ A programme seems to be all over the place, and hasn't produced any success stories in a long time - unless you consider Nicholls one, for which I don't. Same for the U19s who were shambolic in their WC.

We might just be a 'new challenge' for Hesson and a bad appointment (for which I'm certain White is capable) away from the bad old days again.

Anyway, this was meant to be about the two-tier thing. It sucks. It's without merit. As is a Test championship. Look at Pakistan this week. Someone want to tell them there's no context to what they achieved at Lord's? And their fans? If you want sustainability to Test cricket, it'll do so in every respect apart from financial. So run it as a loss leader of sorts. Play more T20s if you have to. Operate it with the sort of foresight and leadership that keeps it as the pinnacle of our game without just throwing your hands in the air and saying 'it's all over' just because the bottom line isn't what it could be.

 

[RxGM]

My worry more so than anything else is that pitches will be more stacked in favour of the home team, to ensure they get the points to remain in the top division.

Could also see more situation like in Blacktown where warm up games are a waste of time.

 

[hendrix]

Absolute horse **** that two divisions would achieve greater context.

Firstly, how are the ICC going to ensure sides going down to the second division don't suffer financially? Adopt a revenue-sharing agreement ie the NFL? Yeah, India et al will go for that...then whilst you're likely suffering financial barriers to lifting your game and rising up into the 1st Div, you think interest in Test cricket will remain strong for established nations dropping down to the 2nd division and facing Tests in places like Nairobi, The Hague, Dublin etc? Can't wait for the Boxing Day Test v Namibia. Of course, David White has puffed his chest out and knows (thinks) that such a scenario would never befall us. Probably not in your time David, and of course you'd probably have no problem leaving a mess for the next guy - like your predecessor did.

Why do you think that NZC deserves more revenue than, say, Afghanistan? And if we're pushed into the second division by not playing as well as our competitors, why then should we deserve more matches against top opposition? And revenue?

 

[Black_Warrior]

Another aim is to prevent endless Ashes and Australia-India series.

Doubt that's going to happen. Just heard Dave Richardson on BBC and he pretty much said India, Australia and England will still continue to call the shots.

 

[Bahnz]

Sorry, how is this a positive point for the status quo? It was 5 years between NZ-Australia Tests.

If you want to stay in the top division you must face teams at the lower end of the division so that you can score the points necessary to stay near the top. That means more tests between rank 1 and rank 7.

Fluidity is a good thing. That's why there's promotion and relegation. Make sure you win.

4 years, but within that time we also had regular series (home and away) against other major teams like India, England and South Africa. I concede that we’re kinda living with an informal two-tiered structure as it is, but I’d rather it remained informal - with an agreement to refresh tour schedules every 2 years, rather than periodically isolating the weaker sides from top level competition.

 

[hendrix]

It doesn't matter how often you refresh tour schedules if Australia doesn't want to play South Africa or New Zealand or Pakistan.

There has to be some incentive to set up these tours beyond a wink wink and a nudge nudge.

 

[Bahnz]

It doesn't matter how often you refresh tour schedules if Australia doesn't want to play South Africa or New Zealand or Pakistan.

There has to be some incentive to set up these tours beyond a wink wink and a nudge nudge.

I honestly don't see the incentives really changing with a two tier system though. You'll still get teams in the top tier setting up their schedules on the basis of what is most financially remunerative - with 5 test series between Australia/England/India becoming standard, and 2-3 match series being smushed in against the rest.

 

[Prince EWS]

I honestly don't see the incentives really changing with a two tier system though. You'll still get teams in the top tier setting up their schedules on the basis of what is most financially remunerative - with 5 test series between Australia/England/India becoming standard, and 2-3 match series being smushed in against the rest.

The tier system would at least force teams to play other teams ranked close to them. The current system doesn't force anyone to play anyone. I think having it only partly based on financial incentives would be better than the status quo of having it entirely based on financial incentives.

 

[Bahnz]

The tier system would at least force teams to play other teams ranked close to them. The current system doesn't force anyone to play anyone. I think having it only partly based on financial incentives would be better than the status quo of having it entirely based on financial incentives.

Fair point, though I'm still not a fan of the proposal because of the risks it creates regarding a permanent financial stratification of the top from the bottom. Though I guess there's possibly potential for that to be mitigated by ODI tours.