-
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.
*Official* New Zealand in Bangladesh Thread
- Thread starter southern man
- Start date
Smudge
Hall of Fame Member
Tell me about it - our crappy co-ed high school colts team lost to the Otago Boys Colts team on the last ball of the match after our coach, who was umpiring, refused to give us LBWs because ''the ball pitched outside the off stump THEN hit the batsman in line".Kent said:
He also didn't pick players because they were too short - neglecting the fact that some of the world's best batsmen have been diminutive.
Mingster
State Regular
Jeez, am I not allowed to disagree with your opinion? Isn't it the whole point of this forum?bryce said:
What "type of spin bowling" do you think would be effective at international level then? More flight? Because Martin already has a great loop on his left-armers.
I said he was the "best domestic spinner in NZ" for some time. And he has. Compare those averages with other NZ spinners and he is the best of the lot. I never said he was flash.bryce said:
Anzac, Adams was typical Adams. No swing, and no seam (not really unexpected considering the pitch). He bowled a good line, but was sometimes abit too short. Can't really read too much into that performance though, although his county games at FC level has been promising. He's a long shot for that 3rd seamer spot for the Tests, either Adams, C Martin, Mills or Butler. At this stage I'm tending towards Chris Martin.
bryce
International Regular
yes thats right you did not say he was flash, there i go playing your game.
i always end up digging up the statistics just to prove something haha...
martin was not actually rated very highly after his second first class season and was pinned a one season wonder.
in the year 1999/00 bruce martin took the new zealand domestic season by storm by being the leading wicket-taker and establishing a new new zealand record for most wickets in a debut domestic season, he was rewarded by being selected for new zealand but only making it as far as 12th man.
in the year 2000/01 apparently grant bradburn was new zealands best domestic spinner taking 24 shell trophy wickets @27.37 and he also played tests and odi's that year, in that same year paul wiseman also took 19 shell trophy wickets @36.89 and he also played test matches that year so obviously bruce martin was not considered the best domestic spinner in new zealand at that time otherwise he would of got a shot at international cricket you would think.
in the year 2001/02 brooke walker was touted new zealands best spinner taking 28 state championship wickets @24.75 aswell as playing tests and odi's, paul wiseman tooke 26 state championship wickets @32.69 but was out of favour with the national selctors in this particular year, even nathan morland(who?) took more state championship wickets than bruce martin despite playing 3 less matches than him, wouldn't say bruce martin was the best domestic spinner this year(2001/02) either.
in 2002/03 every domestic spinner averaged over 40 in the domestic season so no one deserves applause here, but for a matter of consistency the spinner with the most wickets and best average was glen sulzberger, despite poor form wiseman played tests this year anyway.
2003/04 you would have you say bruce martin was the best domestic spinner in new zealand being the leading wicket-taker amongst spinners despite wiseman being persisted with by the national selectors and sulzberger suprisingly putting up good numbers.
in conclusion i would have to say either mingster has not been following new zealand cricket for very long or has quite a short term memory.
i always end up digging up the statistics just to prove something haha...
martin was not actually rated very highly after his second first class season and was pinned a one season wonder.
in the year 1999/00 bruce martin took the new zealand domestic season by storm by being the leading wicket-taker and establishing a new new zealand record for most wickets in a debut domestic season, he was rewarded by being selected for new zealand but only making it as far as 12th man.
in the year 2000/01 apparently grant bradburn was new zealands best domestic spinner taking 24 shell trophy wickets @27.37 and he also played tests and odi's that year, in that same year paul wiseman also took 19 shell trophy wickets @36.89 and he also played test matches that year so obviously bruce martin was not considered the best domestic spinner in new zealand at that time otherwise he would of got a shot at international cricket you would think.
in the year 2001/02 brooke walker was touted new zealands best spinner taking 28 state championship wickets @24.75 aswell as playing tests and odi's, paul wiseman tooke 26 state championship wickets @32.69 but was out of favour with the national selctors in this particular year, even nathan morland(who?) took more state championship wickets than bruce martin despite playing 3 less matches than him, wouldn't say bruce martin was the best domestic spinner this year(2001/02) either.
in 2002/03 every domestic spinner averaged over 40 in the domestic season so no one deserves applause here, but for a matter of consistency the spinner with the most wickets and best average was glen sulzberger, despite poor form wiseman played tests this year anyway.
2003/04 you would have you say bruce martin was the best domestic spinner in new zealand being the leading wicket-taker amongst spinners despite wiseman being persisted with by the national selectors and sulzberger suprisingly putting up good numbers.
in conclusion i would have to say either mingster has not been following new zealand cricket for very long or has quite a short term memory.
Last edited:
Mingster
State Regular
No. Or either you can't read? Did I say Bruce Martin was the best domestic spinner for "every season"? No. Go back to your little primary school and learn how to read. He has the best average domestic record over the past few years.
Who pinned him as a one-season wonder? Was it you? Because you look like a fool for saying that, since he took 22 wickets @ 27.81 in the 2003/4 season. In 2003/4 he was the best domestic spinner in the country, did I say he had to be selected for NZ to be? No. He was the best in the State Championship.
Who pinned him as a one-season wonder? Was it you? Because you look like a fool for saying that, since he took 22 wickets @ 27.81 in the 2003/4 season. In 2003/4 he was the best domestic spinner in the country, did I say he had to be selected for NZ to be? No. He was the best in the State Championship.
bryce
International Regular
well i'm sure i wasn't the only one, it was a possibility given the contrast between his first and second season and to an extent he has been so far because he has not been able to match that form from his first season.Mingster said:
but you said he has been for 'some time' and the only time he has been recognized as new zealands best domestic spinner is in years 1999/00 and 2003/04, just because he has the best record currently does not mean he has been the best domestic spinner since his entry to the first class scene, if all you meant was that martin has the best record out of all new zealand domestic spinners over the past few years then you should of said that and i would of had no problems agreeing with you.
back to the topic, for some reason bangladesh have left out their best bowler from chittagong 17 year old nazmul hossain, it seems they have a policy to drop youngsters who perform too well.
Last edited:
As you say - typical Adams & perhaps not such an alternative to Butler if they are both still predominantly bowling back of a length most of the time...........Mingster said:
I'd agree as to C Martin based upon his intnl credentials, but I'm a bit concerned re his bowling since the RSA Home series, and lack of it in the Tests in BAN..............you'd think that if he was favoured for the 3rd seamer spot then they'd have been bowling him...........
bryce
International Regular
Ok so based upon my recent criticisms of the NZL squad on another thread, and acknowledging that they are going with the same squad from the BAN tour, then here is my preference for starting lineup at Brisbane - not that I think there is a snowball's chance of it happening ...........
Richardson
Fleming
Sinclair
Astle
Styris
Marshall
McCullum
Oram
Vettori
Franklin
C Martin
1 - I want to strengthen the batting both in depth & mix;
2 - I have a big question mark re Papps' match fitness - since the RSA Home series he has probably played LESS intnl cricket than Richardson - not the preparation I would want heading into AUS for both my openers;
3 - Fleming now opens in ODIs & averaged 42 in his 5 innings opening in the ENG Test series. The opening partnerships with Richardson averaged 72 & lasted an average of 24 overs. The innings he came in at #3 - he was in after 15 overs @ 33/1 at the fall of Richardson, and put on 169 runs with Papps for the 2nd wicket. Whilst I acknowledge that one series is inconclusive, IMO these stats would indicate he is more than capable of fulfilling the role in the short term at least as they are no worse than any other recent opening partnerships / individual returns, and the fact that the figures got better as the series progressed & he got more familiar with the role. Furthermore I also apply the same logic as to his initial decision to open in ODIs - he's been coming in early enough while the ball & attack have still been fresh so as to have had to complete seeing off the new ball & opening attack. IMO his main challenge is to curb his wanting to dominate the bowling attack - hopefully the stronger batting lineup will encourage this;
4 - Sinclair has the temperament to post big scores, but needs time to get going. I'd not bat him at #5 as he'd potentially run out of partners b4 he'd finished scoring, or would fall to a lose shot trying to up the ante batting with the tail. He's a top order batsman at State level so I'd not 'promote' anyone else in the squad above him - last time out for NZL he came in relatively early at The Basin & top scored with 70 odd from memory.
5 - IMO Styris is not a genuine Test #4 - he is very good when the ball is older & the sting has gone out of the attack, but for me he is still too free with his shots when he comes to the crease early.
6 - Astle faces the new ball attack in ODIs either as opener or #3 (prior to Marshall's selection), so IMO he should have the temperament & technique to handle the #4 position, particularly as he is our 2nd most experienced batsman behind the Captain & needs to show some seniority.
7 - Marshall comes in at #6 primarily because of his lack of experience in Tests. IMO he has the temperament required to form partnerships & hold an innings together based upon his ODI form. He has batted in ODIs with those players around him, whereas he is perhaps not so familiar with Rigger or Sinclair.
8 - The next 3 are no brainers.
9 - I chose Franklin because he has some form & economy coming from RSA & BAN, and LAO swing bowlers have caused the AUS batsmen some problems in recent times - Khan & Pathan for IND on their recent tour.
10 - Martin gets the start as the only genuine wicket taking seam 'strike' bowler available. Also he has a reputation for bowling well to Left handers.
It's Spring in AUS & the weather in Brisbane is likely to be humid. The Gabba pitches in recent years have been the best in AUS so far as pace & bounce goes.
The only other options I'd contemplate would be positional as opposed to player selections. One would be the option of promoting McCullum up the order to look to utilise his opening experience at State level, allbeit 1 season only, and that would depend as to the state of the pitch & how soon the wicket fell to expose Sinclair.
Richardson
Fleming
Sinclair
Astle
Styris
Marshall
McCullum
Oram
Vettori
Franklin
C Martin
1 - I want to strengthen the batting both in depth & mix;
2 - I have a big question mark re Papps' match fitness - since the RSA Home series he has probably played LESS intnl cricket than Richardson - not the preparation I would want heading into AUS for both my openers;
3 - Fleming now opens in ODIs & averaged 42 in his 5 innings opening in the ENG Test series. The opening partnerships with Richardson averaged 72 & lasted an average of 24 overs. The innings he came in at #3 - he was in after 15 overs @ 33/1 at the fall of Richardson, and put on 169 runs with Papps for the 2nd wicket. Whilst I acknowledge that one series is inconclusive, IMO these stats would indicate he is more than capable of fulfilling the role in the short term at least as they are no worse than any other recent opening partnerships / individual returns, and the fact that the figures got better as the series progressed & he got more familiar with the role. Furthermore I also apply the same logic as to his initial decision to open in ODIs - he's been coming in early enough while the ball & attack have still been fresh so as to have had to complete seeing off the new ball & opening attack. IMO his main challenge is to curb his wanting to dominate the bowling attack - hopefully the stronger batting lineup will encourage this;
4 - Sinclair has the temperament to post big scores, but needs time to get going. I'd not bat him at #5 as he'd potentially run out of partners b4 he'd finished scoring, or would fall to a lose shot trying to up the ante batting with the tail. He's a top order batsman at State level so I'd not 'promote' anyone else in the squad above him - last time out for NZL he came in relatively early at The Basin & top scored with 70 odd from memory.
5 - IMO Styris is not a genuine Test #4 - he is very good when the ball is older & the sting has gone out of the attack, but for me he is still too free with his shots when he comes to the crease early.
6 - Astle faces the new ball attack in ODIs either as opener or #3 (prior to Marshall's selection), so IMO he should have the temperament & technique to handle the #4 position, particularly as he is our 2nd most experienced batsman behind the Captain & needs to show some seniority.
7 - Marshall comes in at #6 primarily because of his lack of experience in Tests. IMO he has the temperament required to form partnerships & hold an innings together based upon his ODI form. He has batted in ODIs with those players around him, whereas he is perhaps not so familiar with Rigger or Sinclair.
8 - The next 3 are no brainers.
9 - I chose Franklin because he has some form & economy coming from RSA & BAN, and LAO swing bowlers have caused the AUS batsmen some problems in recent times - Khan & Pathan for IND on their recent tour.
10 - Martin gets the start as the only genuine wicket taking seam 'strike' bowler available. Also he has a reputation for bowling well to Left handers.
It's Spring in AUS & the weather in Brisbane is likely to be humid. The Gabba pitches in recent years have been the best in AUS so far as pace & bounce goes.
The only other options I'd contemplate would be positional as opposed to player selections. One would be the option of promoting McCullum up the order to look to utilise his opening experience at State level, allbeit 1 season only, and that would depend as to the state of the pitch & how soon the wicket fell to expose Sinclair.
Mingster
State Regular
Fleming as a Test opener? He's had a great success, but the important thing is that Fleming himself doesn't see or want to open in Tests. He is our best batsman, no doubt. And it probably is better to leave him where he is suited. If we play Fleming at the top, that leaves a bit of a gap at 3 or 4. The logic behind pushing Fleming back down to 3, was to strengthen the middle order.
I agree that Fleming is better at #3, but I'm looking at it from this same squad going to AUS, playing 6 batsmen instead of 5, and Brace's comments about putting the team requirements 1st re player positions (eg Astle back to open in ODIs)....Mingster said:
Fleming put his hand up to cover the opening slot in ENG - he's set the precedent so now he gets to follow thru'. They flew Sinclair in for that series & then didn't use him, the precedent was set in ENG afaic - you make your bed you lie in it.............atm I'd rate the ENG bowling attack 2nd behind AUS on recent form..........
As I said Fleming would make a better opener than Sinclair v AUS, and with playing 6 batsmen instead of 5 (as in ENG) then the middle order is already strengthened somewhat..........
and I'm not looking at it as a permanent move atm - unless the batting happens to put in some BIIIG strides v AUS...........& we retain a 6-4 split.......
Last edited:
Fleming is not our best batsman. He never has been. I agree that Fleming should open, he should take responsibility like he did against England. Our middle order doesn't need stregthening, it is our top order, as usual, that needs to be stronger. With the amount of cricket Fleming has played he should be scoring more than he does, the same goes for Astle. Fleming has the most experience opening albeit mainly in ODIs.
I pretty much agreed with what you wrote in the other forum anzac. I agree totally that it's very nice we bat almost all the way down the order, however he have poor top order batsman (exception Richardson) compared to most test playing nations.
My team:
Richardson
Fleming
Sinclair
Styris
Astle
Marshall
McCullum
Oram
Vettori
Franklin
C Martin
Styris has done very well batting at 3 and 4 but he should probably be batting at 5 because of his tendency to go very hard at the ball. However I wouldn't bat Astle ahead of him mainly because of Styris' success lately and that fact Astle has batted in the middle order most of his career. I think Astle looked really out of place at 3 against England, and is even worse against the new ball than Styris. Also Astle hasn't been the same player since his return.
Sinclair hasn't been given the chances he deserves - I can't for the life of me figure out why he is going to open against Australia if he has been left out of the team before because of his poor footwork. I think ideally he should be batting at 4.
The rest pretty much takes care of itself. Marshall batting at 6 because he is new to test cricket. I agree with anzac that McCullum is the only real option to be pushed up the order. NZ really needs another top order batsman to bat at 3 in my scenario.
I think the whole 'advance the game strategy' is essentially flawed. We don't have the batsman to score runs at the pace the Aussies do, I think NZ has gone backwards because of this idea. It came off against SA once and since then we have played very very poor. We have aggressive batsman but not the talent. While it looks like we don't have the bowling at the moment to win matches I think we should go with 6 'specialist' batsman, Oram and McCullum, and 3 bowlers.
I pretty much agreed with what you wrote in the other forum anzac. I agree totally that it's very nice we bat almost all the way down the order, however he have poor top order batsman (exception Richardson) compared to most test playing nations.
My team:
Richardson
Fleming
Sinclair
Styris
Astle
Marshall
McCullum
Oram
Vettori
Franklin
C Martin
Styris has done very well batting at 3 and 4 but he should probably be batting at 5 because of his tendency to go very hard at the ball. However I wouldn't bat Astle ahead of him mainly because of Styris' success lately and that fact Astle has batted in the middle order most of his career. I think Astle looked really out of place at 3 against England, and is even worse against the new ball than Styris. Also Astle hasn't been the same player since his return.
Sinclair hasn't been given the chances he deserves - I can't for the life of me figure out why he is going to open against Australia if he has been left out of the team before because of his poor footwork. I think ideally he should be batting at 4.
The rest pretty much takes care of itself. Marshall batting at 6 because he is new to test cricket. I agree with anzac that McCullum is the only real option to be pushed up the order. NZ really needs another top order batsman to bat at 3 in my scenario.
I think the whole 'advance the game strategy' is essentially flawed. We don't have the batsman to score runs at the pace the Aussies do, I think NZ has gone backwards because of this idea. It came off against SA once and since then we have played very very poor. We have aggressive batsman but not the talent. While it looks like we don't have the bowling at the moment to win matches I think we should go with 6 'specialist' batsman, Oram and McCullum, and 3 bowlers.
bryce
International Regular
fleming and richardson are quite even in the statistics department if you look at the last few years but i would lean towards fleming because of his conversion rate(who fleming?).
Fleming in Test Matches since 2001
30 matches
2411 runs@52.41, 6 hundreds 8 fifties
Richardson in Test Matches since 2001
30 matches
2303 runs@47.00, 4 hundreds 15 fifties
Fleming in Test Matches since 2001
30 matches
2411 runs@52.41, 6 hundreds 8 fifties
Richardson in Test Matches since 2001
30 matches
2303 runs@47.00, 4 hundreds 15 fifties