***Official New Zealand in India Nov-Dec 2021 Thread***

[straw man]

Congrats India, better by a long long way on what I think of as a more typical Indian wicket.

It's no coincidence our two worst performers this series - Taylor and Somerville - have had no cricket in months. You'd think we would have learned from previous tours that have gone horribly wrong that we need proper preparation, but instead we had no warmup games combined with no domestic cricket (in those two cases), and half the team having only finished the T20 World Cup a week beforehand. It's an uphill battle to start with playing India in their home conditions and that stuff makes it that much harder.

NZC would've earned some sweet sweet moolah from that completely meaningless three match T20 series at the start of this tour; I hope it was worth it. I have no doubt that if there was ever a thought from the BCCI of instead scheduling a warmup 3 or 4-dayer or of playing a third test, NZC took less than a nanosecond to choose the T20 option.

In truth although I'd still enjoy a third test right now, there's only a handful of NZ batsmen that are capable of making runs in these conditions and two of them are missing, so it would be a wipeout again.

 

[straw man]

Nah, no way. Will Young, Glenn Phillips, Rachin Ravindra, Daryl Mitchell, Dane Cleaver, Mark Chapman, Cam Fletcher and Tim Seifert is pretty damn impressive bench strength. Admittedly none of them are likely to average 45 plus in test cricket (I’m still holding out hope for Phillips) but that is a decent amount of talent right there.

Behind our main four seamers who do we really have? The fact Matt Henry is still an option says a bloody lot. Ferguson has probably proven in the last two years his body probably just won’t hold up to test cricket. Duffy meh, he’d probably have a worse record than Matt Henry if he managed any game time. Ben Sears is probably a good 2-3 years away from being a proper test eligible bowler and Nathan Smith needs to add at least another 5km on average to his bowling, he’s still a bit of a trundler.

Agree that the batting forecast looks better than bowling. Batting will actually benefit from Taylor retiring and the remaining top 6-8 batsmen have five years left at least (with some injury risk on Williamson). Whereas we don't know who the next gen of fast bowlers will be aside from Jamieson - Wagner is 35 while Southee & Boult 32 so fitness becomes less guaranteed.

I'm probably kidding myself but I would still love Ferguson to get a run in the test side and stay fit.

Only disagreement is that I think Duffy would probably be an adequate stopgap for a couple of seasons while we wait for someone better to come along; might average 32-35 depending on who he plays in that time. A better bet than Henry except for tours of England.

 

[nzfan]

We truly competed in the first test and even had a chance of pushing for win couple of times in the first test. I guess we would have been better in the second test if our selection was better and used our resources better. The biggest disappointment is the use of the resources. Overbowled Ajaz and Southee, under bowled Sommerville, Kyle and Rachin despite same bowlers picked in both the tests. We wasted Rachin at no.7, barring the first test when he came in at a reasonably good time to bat (even there we lost few wickets back to back) I don't think he was ever able to express himself. There were glimpse in the 2nd inning of the 2nd test he can score rather quickly if he goes for it rather than block it out for long periods of time. I just hope they don't turn him into another Santner, neither here nor there.

Don't know what's going on with Tom Blundell, never seen him this passive. I get it the first inning he was circumspect but he just played the same way all the time producing the same result. Why wouldn't he change it up? I guess he was mentally beaten. His technique was adequate. He needs some runs pronto, Cleaver and Fletcher are nudging slowly but surely.

Selecting Sommerville for the first test was fair but not replacing him with Wagner in the second was very poor. Everyone could see what was coming. The Indians were untroubled by Sommerville in the first test. Despite that if you select a player, you got to give him a reasonable run. Ajaz, take a bow but he still had to bowl lots of overs to pick up wickets. The same applies to every bowler particularly non-Indian spin bowlers. In the second test we bowled Southee for long spells and one could see he wasn't going to pick a wicket. Jamieson was under bowled. 125 runs off fast bowlers were scored in the second test without a wicket. I guess Southee was drained. Maybe he could have been rested considering he was coming on the back of world cup, 2 t20s in India and a test match. I guess that was a hard decision to make but they could have always brought Wagner for Sommerville. That could have kept Southee fresh. Or we could have used Sommerville better such as when a wicket falls or when there was some pressure on India.

Overs bowled by each bowler

Ajaz 120
Southee 84.4 (3rd highest number of overs behind Ajaz and Ashwin)
Sommerville 69
Kyle 60.2
Rachin 33 (13 of these overs came in the 2nd inning of 2nd test match)
Mitchell 5

That's 200 overs between 2 bowlers. Obviously you can't expect Southee to be bowling at 100% bowling 85 overs.

As for batting the top 3 batters facing most balls in the series

Latham 457
Young 270
Ravindra 179 (at no.7)

Shows the middle order didn't do much at all whether spending time in the middle or putting pressure by scoring runs. Change of mindset with the bat is required going forward. Just because it turns doesn't mean you have to block it out particularly when your defense is probably not good enough to keep you at the crease. Conway would have definitely made a massive difference to the line up. When under fire he plays more aggressively. Aggressive but not reckless.

Come home summer I expect to have a line up of

Conway, Latham, Kane, Rosco, Nicholls, Mitchell, Blundell and 3 fast bowlers + Ajaz (hoping Ajaz doesn't bowl token 2-3 overs a game)

Once Ross retires

Young, Latham, Kane (Rachin or Phillips to open if Kane is unavailable and Young slots in at no.4), Conway, Nicholls, Mitchell, Blundell and 3 fast bowlers + Ajaz (hoping Ajaz doesn't bowl token 2-3 overs a game)

Meanwhile we need to start getting Rachin, Cole, Rippon, Phillips to start bowling lots more for their provinces. Cole is bowling less and less for Canterbury. He has shifted his focus to batting lots more now. I don't think he can break into the side as a batsman that can bowl at the moment. He needs to keep working on his bowling and force his way into the side as a bowling all rounder.

As for Rachin, I hear there are couple or three county offers on the card already. Also there is high chance he will change province to either CD or ND. That'll be very weird for us firebirds supporters. That will do him good as for developing bowling is concerned. He is not going to bowl much for firebirds that's for sure.

 

[Bahnz]

Tbh, I'd probably only give Ajaz an 8 for the series, as crazy as that sounds. He was pretty poor in the first test, and even in the second test I'd say his bowling was more of a 9/10 performance with 0 support from the other end, rather than the once in a generation statistical anomaly that it is in the scorebook. Let's be honest, if he's bowling with Ashwin and Siraj in support, he probably finishes with something like 3/40.

 

[Bahnz]

Don't know what's going on with Tom Blundell, never seen him this passive. I get it the first inning he was circumspect but he just played the same way all the time producing the same result. Why wouldn't he change it up? I guess he was mentally beaten. His technique was adequate. He needs some runs pronto, Cleaver and Fletcher are nudging slowly but surely.

Blundell, probably was too passive, but I don't think there's too much cause for alarm yet. His dismissals in the 1st test were cruel and beyond his control, and his run out in his final innings was maybe a sign of the pressure getting to him, but not that he can't necessarily hack it in internationals.

Of bigger concern for me was his keeping. He really struggled to glove the ball cleanly and missed several important chances. Keeping in the sub-continent is a tough assignment for a kiwi, but it was probably only a 4/10 effort with the gloves and leaves me a bit concerned about how he'll go against Pakistan in a more winnable series next year.

 

[centurymaker]

Yeah it was not like he rolled India over for 160 taking 10/70

It was just that others completely failed to take a wicket and so Ajaz ended up taking those wickets ...in due course ...after bowling so many overs.

On a pitch where 250 was probably par in the first innings, India was allowed to get 325. Its not an once in a generation performance in real value, only statistically it might be.

 

[NZTailender]

Yeah it was not like he rolled India over for 160 taking 10/70

It was just that others completely failed to take a wicket and so Ajaz ended up taking those wickets ...in due course ...after bowling so many overs.

On a pitch where 250 was probably par in the first innings, India was allowed to get 325. Its not an once in a generation performance in real value, only statistically it might be.

Even so, taking 10 is still special as usually 1 bowler can at least jag a wicket even if they were slogging, which India were towards the end.

 

[centurymaker]

Steven O'Keefe taking two 6-fers and rolling India over for 105 and 107. This is the kind of thing that comes to mind when you talk about epic performances by a visiting spinner.

 

[centurymaker]

Even so, taking 10 is still special as usually 1 bowler can at least jag a wicket even if they were slogging, which India were towards the end.

Yeah its special performance but more of a statistical miracle. There have been 3000+ test cricketers and around 2500 test matches and it's only happened thrice.

If next month or 15 years later when NZ host Bangladesh and some Bangladeshi bowler ends up taking all 10 kiwi wickets 10 for 168 and NZ score 490 all out, wouldn't that be a very similar situation. Statistical miracle but a 8.5 or 9/10 performance. And not really a 11/10 performance it may appear. You have allowed the opposition to take the game away.

Maybe this is line of thinking they had for rewarding Agarwal with MOTM award. Hmmm

 

[Fuller Pilch]

View attachment 30031

Steven O'Keefe taking two 6-fers and rolling India over for 105 and 107. This is the kind of thing that comes to mind when you talk about epic performances by a visiting spinner.

That's true. He had the advantage of Australia batting first though.

 

[Bahnz]

Even so, taking 10 is still special as usually 1 bowler can at least jag a wicket even if they were slogging, which India were towards the end.

Also impressive was how long he remained effective despite an exhausting workload. Dude bowled 75 out of 190 overs, with only a two hour break between innings. Yet even till the very end he remained effective and threatening - of his second innings wickets, only Agarwal's has the whiff of declaration batting about it.

 

[SteveNZ]

Haha, this is utter madness. Questioning the validity of a guy taking 10-119. In the first innings, bowling first. Against India at home. Bowling 47.5 overs. If that's not 10/10, the metrics need adjusting.

 

[NZTailender]

I don't disagree with Agarwal Motm but for the statistical amazment alone it was worthy of a 11/10 rating, which was reduced due due to the other test.

IF someone scored a 400 (or 300, even) and somehow the team still lost I think they'd deserve full marks for that test.

 

[NZTailender]

Also the argument "yeah but no other bowlers took any wickets" would mean either a good batting track or good batting attack in which case Ajaz would've taken 3 or 4 for 200 (if any wickets) and India would've declared for 600.

 

[Bahnz]

Also the argument "yeah but no other bowlers took any wickets" would mean either a good batting track or good batting attack in which case Ajaz would've taken 3 or 4 for 200 (if any wickets) and India would've declared for 600.

Not necessarily. Just means NZ’s bowlers were either ill equipped to take advantage of the conditions (Southee, KJ) or that they were bowling badly (Sommerville).

 

[ashley bach]

wtf kind of formatting is that, I read like 7 lines before realizing it's not a poem.

sorry to bore the pants off you, not much into poetry either.
just thought Will deserved some decent reflection of his career, given the dreaded job he was dished out.

 

[NZTailender]

Not necessarily. Just means NZ’s bowlers were either ill equipped to take advantage of the conditions (Southee, KJ) or that they were bowling badly (Sommerville).

Yes but very rarely are 3/4 members of a bowling attack in a match so bad that one bower takes all 10. Even if wickets fall to one bowler usually them team really piles on the runs and declares.

Has happened only twice in history before now, in fact. Ajaz tooks his wickets at 11.9 a piece and he's being criticised for not taking them at 5.

if it was 10/250 in a score of 600 maybe I'd agree.

 

[SteveNZ]

Also the argument "yeah but no other bowlers took any wickets" would mean either a good batting track or good batting attack in which case Ajaz would've taken 3 or 4 for 200 (if any wickets) and India would've declared for 600.

Yeah. He took a wicket every 28 balls, which is a great strike rate. I mean yeah, Somerville bowled a load of crap and couldn't cause any mischief to RHers, and Southee/Jamieson were a bit flat too...but even if one of those guys had've contributed, Ajaz still takes 7-70 or so which still puts him in the top 10 NZ figures of all time.

 

[SteveNZ]

I don't disagree with Agarwal Motm but for the statistical amazment alone it was worthy of a 11/10 rating, which was reduced due due to the other test.

IF someone scored a 400 (or 300, even) and somehow the team still lost I think they'd deserve full marks for that test.

I guess we'd have to look at the criteria for MotM. Does it say anywhere that it's linked to contribution to team success? Because if you take it on strict terms of man of the match, a guy being the third person in 130+ years of Test cricket to take all 10 wickets + four more beats the pants off a guy scoring 150 and 60, even acknowledging that Agarwal played incredibly well and was the most influential in terms of the team that won.

So yeah, I think he was dudded, Ajaz. He won't give a **** but his was the greatest performance in that game. Comfortably.

 

[SteveNZ]

We really do spend our time talking about inconsequential ****, don't we