Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
Seven wickets fall for 59 runs, it's 133-7.
Cairns is still there. Could it happen? Dare I believe?
Cairns is still there. Could it happen? Dare I believe?
-
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
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
Aftab didn't bowl a ball on the Bangladesh U19 tour of England last summer. He's got 5 FC wickets @ 31 off 57 overs in 8 games, and has 2-76 from 14 overs spread over 10 List A one-dayers.
Magrat Garlick
Global Moderator
15 dot balls...and then a massive six. Another loss.
Dar
School Boy/Girl Captain
I can see some hope for Bangladesh in the bowling department but as for batting i don't see any hope at all, i've said it before and i'll say it again there is no point in Bangladesh playing cricket at this level when they are clearly nowhere near good enough. Its a waste of both their time and the the oppositions' time who have to travel all the way to Dhaka to play a joke side. They need to be stripped of test status, the next Natwest series is going to be England, Australia and you know who that means six game will be wasted, one sided affairs
Tim
Cricketer Of The Year
Bracewell said before this match that he wanted at least an 8/10 from every batsman. Well he probably only got an 8 out of Sinclair, the rest were all 3 or 4.
I went to sleep before Aftab started bowling so im not sure whether NZ self-destructed or what. The pitch was still ok to bat on. It was keeping low but nothing extremely difficult.
I went to sleep before Aftab started bowling so im not sure whether NZ self-destructed or what. The pitch was still ok to bat on. It was keeping low but nothing extremely difficult.
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
Cairns deserves a bit more than that!Tim said:
Pretty dismal effort by the NZ batsman, except Sinclair (who didn't look too bad). Sinclair does act a little differently on field from most. He shows his emotions more. Sinclair looks disgusted at himself whenever he plays a bad shot and shakes his head a lot - he does the same when he is fielding/keeping.
Richardson is our best batsman. He has given NZ a lot of cinsistancy at the top of the order, which is something NZ has lacked for some time. He gives players like Fleming/Styris etc a chance to build upon a decent start. He has been more consistant throughout his entire career than Fleming has his, Fleming has averaged more the last 2 years - I will give you that, however what Richardson gives to the team is more important in my view. Considering the amount of cricket Fleming has played he should be performing. Richardon however doesn't get as many chances to perform at that level and yet he has been far more consistant than Fleming. Fleming has performed the last 2 years while Richardon has been for the last 5.
To anzac:
1 - It seems clear to me that Marshall will play in the tests against Australia. He is someone that, given time, can possibly move up the order. However given he is new to the team and NZ will be playing a far better team, I think the more experienced batsman in the team should take responsibility at bat higher. Maybe he is a possibility to bat above Astle?
2- I disagree with you to an extent. What NZ lacks is top order batsman, top order batsman should be able to bat anywhere, however what NZ has in many middle order batsman. Who else would you have selected? I'm pretty happy with the selection this time around. The only other possibilites were McMillan, who is out of form; Vincent, given his (limited) success against the Aussies; Papps (no match practise), who in my view isn't quite up to standard yet; and Fulton, who has real potential.
3 - Styris has done very well since batting at 4. To be honest I see little difference in playing Astle or Styris at 4, they both have questionable techniques at times. Since Styris has played well at 4 recently I don't see any reason for Astle to bat at 4. And Astle does prefer to open in ODIs
.
4 - Yup, looks like Sinclair will open. Pity. I just think if we had some top order batsman Sinclair would be good batting at 4.
5 - I just don't think we have the players to 'advance the game'. I think that is why we have gone downhill recently in test matches. Our players, while mostly aggressive, simply are not good enough to be scoring like the Aussies do. We need to grind matches out, and to be honest, I don't see us winning against the Aussies. That is why I think we should play 6 'specialist' batsman.
Astle is under a lot of pressure for his place in the side. McMillan should go back and work on his game, he should be dropped altogether from the NZ team.
As for that batting lastnight - pathetic. We should have knocked those runs off in 25 overs. This tour is really no practise for playing Australia.
Richardson is our best batsman. He has given NZ a lot of cinsistancy at the top of the order, which is something NZ has lacked for some time. He gives players like Fleming/Styris etc a chance to build upon a decent start. He has been more consistant throughout his entire career than Fleming has his, Fleming has averaged more the last 2 years - I will give you that, however what Richardson gives to the team is more important in my view. Considering the amount of cricket Fleming has played he should be performing. Richardon however doesn't get as many chances to perform at that level and yet he has been far more consistant than Fleming. Fleming has performed the last 2 years while Richardon has been for the last 5.
To anzac:
1 - It seems clear to me that Marshall will play in the tests against Australia. He is someone that, given time, can possibly move up the order. However given he is new to the team and NZ will be playing a far better team, I think the more experienced batsman in the team should take responsibility at bat higher. Maybe he is a possibility to bat above Astle?
2- I disagree with you to an extent. What NZ lacks is top order batsman, top order batsman should be able to bat anywhere, however what NZ has in many middle order batsman. Who else would you have selected? I'm pretty happy with the selection this time around. The only other possibilites were McMillan, who is out of form; Vincent, given his (limited) success against the Aussies; Papps (no match practise), who in my view isn't quite up to standard yet; and Fulton, who has real potential.
3 - Styris has done very well since batting at 4. To be honest I see little difference in playing Astle or Styris at 4, they both have questionable techniques at times. Since Styris has played well at 4 recently I don't see any reason for Astle to bat at 4. And Astle does prefer to open in ODIs
.4 - Yup, looks like Sinclair will open. Pity. I just think if we had some top order batsman Sinclair would be good batting at 4.
5 - I just don't think we have the players to 'advance the game'. I think that is why we have gone downhill recently in test matches. Our players, while mostly aggressive, simply are not good enough to be scoring like the Aussies do. We need to grind matches out, and to be honest, I don't see us winning against the Aussies. That is why I think we should play 6 'specialist' batsman.
Astle is under a lot of pressure for his place in the side. McMillan should go back and work on his game, he should be dropped altogether from the NZ team.
As for that batting lastnight - pathetic. We should have knocked those runs off in 25 overs. This tour is really no practise for playing Australia.
Mingster
State Regular
For example when fielding at first-slip:anzac said:Huh????
can you plese elaborate for those of us unable to see any of the match?????
& how do you think his technique has changed - sounds encouraging......
It shouldn't have been called a wide, but it was, and Sinclair just went mad and starting flinging his arms up and down.
And when batting, plays a bad shot, and starts talking to himself in a very strange manner and swing his head around and all sorts of weird actions. Same when he runs a quick single or something of the like, starts reacting all funny.
Mingster
State Regular
Bugger. Danny M said we should win the match by 30 overs, and we didn't. Our batting just didn't have any fluency to it, stop-start the whole time. Whether it's the pitch, I'm not sure, but we have to get rid of McMillan and Harris in our middle-order. Sure Harris did a good job at containing, but Astle could have served the same purpose as well.
too many old war horses going thru the motions & not enough hunger in the ranks?????
I recall posts prior to the WC expressing concerns about players retained past their prime & surviving on reputation rather than contribution / results.......let alone the suggestion that they did not necessarily provide the right balance in the team..........
I recall posts prior to the WC expressing concerns about players retained past their prime & surviving on reputation rather than contribution / results.......let alone the suggestion that they did not necessarily provide the right balance in the team..........
Tim
Cricketer Of The Year
Harris looked as though he had changed in the ODI's against South Africa. He came out more aggressive but since then he's quickly gone back to his old self & to be honest I can't see him playing another ODI series after this one.
Hamish Marshall also looks as though he's now in a comfort zone after playing 20+ ODI's this year.
Hamish Marshall also looks as though he's now in a comfort zone after playing 20+ ODI's this year.
bryce
International Regular
i agree with macka first of all about sinclair opening, the only real options there were was either sinclair or fleming and since the mangement wanted fleming to bat at three then sinclair was the only real other option.
i do not see any need for re-arranging the middle order either, it is better to get them suited to a single batting position instead of moving them around, heres a look at the players vying for middle order postitons (obviously marshall is too inexperienced to analyse).
Fleming in Test Matches batting at position:
3: 53 innings, 2144 runs@45.61, 5 hundreds, 7 fifties, H/S:274*
4: 66 innings, 2311 runs@36.10, 2 hundreds, 21 fifties, H/S:129
5: 21 innings, 661 runs@33.05, 0 hundreds, 4 fifties, H/S:92
6: Has never batted at Number 6.
Styris in Test Matches batting at position:
3: 3 innings, 230 runs@115.00, 2 hundreds, 0 fifties, H/S:119
4: 11 innings, 481 runs@43.72, 1 hundred, 2 fifties, H/S:170
5: 9 innings, 246 runs@27.33, 0 hundreds, 2 fifties, H/S:73
6: 5 innings, 99 runs@24.75, 0 hundreds, 1 fifty, H/S:69*
Astle in Test Matches batting at position:
3: 4 innings, 131 runs@32.75, 0 hundreds, 1 fifty, H/S:64
4: 26 innings, 850 runs@38.63, 2 hundreds, 5 fifties, H/S:125
5: 63 innings, 2307 runs@37.81, 6 hundreds, 10 fifties, H/S:222
6: 11 innings, 326 runs@32.60, 1 hundred, 1 fifty, H/S:102*
i do not see any need for re-arranging the middle order either, it is better to get them suited to a single batting position instead of moving them around, heres a look at the players vying for middle order postitons (obviously marshall is too inexperienced to analyse).
Fleming in Test Matches batting at position:
3: 53 innings, 2144 runs@45.61, 5 hundreds, 7 fifties, H/S:274*
4: 66 innings, 2311 runs@36.10, 2 hundreds, 21 fifties, H/S:129
5: 21 innings, 661 runs@33.05, 0 hundreds, 4 fifties, H/S:92
6: Has never batted at Number 6.
Styris in Test Matches batting at position:
3: 3 innings, 230 runs@115.00, 2 hundreds, 0 fifties, H/S:119
4: 11 innings, 481 runs@43.72, 1 hundred, 2 fifties, H/S:170
5: 9 innings, 246 runs@27.33, 0 hundreds, 2 fifties, H/S:73
6: 5 innings, 99 runs@24.75, 0 hundreds, 1 fifty, H/S:69*
Astle in Test Matches batting at position:
3: 4 innings, 131 runs@32.75, 0 hundreds, 1 fifty, H/S:64
4: 26 innings, 850 runs@38.63, 2 hundreds, 5 fifties, H/S:125
5: 63 innings, 2307 runs@37.81, 6 hundreds, 10 fifties, H/S:222
6: 11 innings, 326 runs@32.60, 1 hundred, 1 fifty, H/S:102*
Last edited: