*Official* New Zealand in Bangladesh Thread

[marc71178]

Sure Harris did a good job at containing, but Astle could have served the same purpose as well.

But would Astle do a good containing job against a decent batting line up?

 

[bryce]

But would Astle do a good containing job against a decent batting line up?

he would have about the same chance as harris.

 

[Mingster]

But would Astle do a good containing job against a decent batting line up?

He's done it before to good effect.

 

[anzac]

Unfortunately for NZL Harris & Astle are our only slow seam bowlers for the containment type role.........Styris is Med as is Macca.............the only other slow options being spin or part time spin as experimented with in the 'A' series in RSA - Sinclair, How, Vincent - none of whom are starters in the full team...........

there was talk at the time of his original knee injury that Astle would not bowl again - since his return he has hardly rolled his arm over. Prior to this he used to figure with the ball on a fairly regular basis to tie down an end - in both forms of the game..........

my concern now is the lack of slow bowling options available to take the pace off the ball - esp in ODIs. It is because of this that Harris has been able to extend his ODI career when his batting has failed to contribute.

As I said I was hoping Walker could be developed as a viable option........but I have no idea of any other slow options........

 

[Macka]

I'm not sure why Astle hasn't been bowling a little more, he bowled two overs in the tests and we haven't seen him since. I would like Harris to be dropped and Astle to bowl a little more. There was an interesting article on Harris on the NZHerald website, it mentioned Harris' batting and bowling were almost mutually exclusive. His bowling is suited to slow pitches and his batting to faster pitches.

It's quite interesting how well Styris has done in tests at 3 and 4 - especially for someone who hasn't really been a batsman up until about 2 years ago.

 

[anzac]

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).

my complaint re Sinclair opening is that I fail to see how this is better for the side v AUS than to have Fleming open for this 2 match series.........prior to BAN Flem faced Harmison in ENG. In comparison to the AUS attack only Lee would be quicker none of them would get the ball to lift off a length with anything like the pace he has. Finally Sinclair did not get to bat in that series at all & the BAN bowlers are hardly a decent dress rehearsal...............

plus I keep going back to Brace's comments about putting the requirements of the team ahead in individual player considerations.........

I disagree re your comments on the middle order as well as follows:
* to me the #3 is actually a Top Order position as he is at times required to come in when the ball & attack are fresh - he must have the technical abilities of the Openers but also be able to attack if you know what I mean;

* your players are the current selections in a 5-5 split & as such are not in contention for anything - a better comparisson would have been to include the contenders such as Sinclair, Macca & Vincent etc;

* my comments are based upon a 6-4 split - more to follow;

* regardless of the above NZL is using only a 2-3 man middle order - atm Fleming, Styris/Astle, Astle/Macca. IMO this has failed to succeed as a unit on a regular basis - sure individuals have usually been able to post tons in each series, but the real litmus test for me is the size/duration of batting partnerships from the middle order - your batting engine room. I may be wrong as I haven't seen any stats - but my initial reaction is that our middle fails to produce more than most, and also is one of the best/worst for semi-regular spectacular collapses.

* hence my preference for a 3-4 man middle order in a 6-4 split. This is where my theory re player positions then arises - in conjunction with batting roles in the order. I may be a bit of a dinosaur but I do not believe any batting order can succeed on any regular basis without both a gameplan & basic role for each player - obviously this changes with circumstances during the innings. My reasoning is that the roles of 6 specialist batsmen would differ from that of 5 + an allrounder, as you have that extra flexibility/solidity of a specialist. E.g. a #4's role in a 5 man batting lineup could/should differ from that in a 6 man lineup because of that extra depth - consequently the player may need to change positions in the order if he is deemed to be the best player selected for that specific role.

But hey I love intelligent debate in disagreement as opposed to flame wars......

 

[marc71178]

He's done it before to good effect.

So has Harris.

 

[anzac]

I'm not sure why Astle hasn't been bowling a little more, he bowled two overs in the tests and we haven't seen him since. I would like Harris to be dropped and Astle to bowl a little more. There was an interesting article on Harris on the NZHerald website, it mentioned Harris' batting and bowling were almost mutually exclusive. His bowling is suited to slow pitches and his batting to faster pitches.

It's quite interesting how well Styris has done in tests at 3 and 4 - especially for someone who hasn't really been a batsman up until about 2 years ago.

My main concern with Astle specifically is that he is already 32 & coming back from prolonged injury to both knees - not a good omen for longevity or regular bowling esp when he has to firstly re-establish himself in the side in his primary role as a batsmen.

Styris has also expressed he has knee problems & that's a major factor in his concentration on his batting. But as far as your point re his batting goes - quite spectacular for a converted middle order ODI bowling allrounder.

And therein lies my concern with him batting at #4 in a 5 man order - technique & hard hands combined with too many strokes too soon. Yes his contributions have been important, (none more so than his rescue act that then allowed Cairns & Oram free reign v RSA), but he is begining to remind me of what annoys me so much with Macca - an increasing number of dismissals as a result of poor shot selection early in his innings. It could be a combination that attacks are now starting to work him out re their bowling strategies, and also in combination of his role in the order. Bottom line for me is he is not yet solid/dependable enough as a #4.

 

[anzac]

So has Harris.

but neither recently with any surety.................

 

[bryce]

* your players are the current selections in a 5-5 split & as such are not in contention for anything - a better comparisson would have been to include the contenders such as Sinclair, Macca & Vincent etc;

the players i chose were purely for the aussie series where people were discussing what position they should bat and since sinclair is set on opening there and macca and vincent not even going to aussie it seemed irrelavent to include them, but we can have a look at them anyway...

Sinclair in Test Matches batting at position:

3: 27 innings, 990 runs@41.25, 3 hundreds, 1 fifty, H/S:214
4: 6 innings, 125 runs@20.83, 0 hundreds, 1 fifty, H/S:74
5: Has never batted at number 5.
6: 1 innings, 19 runs, H/S:19*

McMillan in Test Matches batting at position:

3: Has never batted at number 3.
4: 5 innings, 154 runs@30.80, 0 hundreds, 1 fifty, H/S:98
5: 22 innings, 755 runs@39.73, 1 hundred, 5 fifties, H/S:142
6: 47 innings, 1849 runs@44.02, 5 hundreds, 11 fifties, H/S:142

Vincent in Test Matches batting at position:

3: 6 innings, 229 runs@38.16, 0 hundreds, 3 fifties, H/S:71
4: 1 innings, 12 runs@12.00, 0 hundreds, 0 fifties, H/S:12
5: Has never batted at number 5.
6: Has never batted at number 6.


Sinclair opening in Test Matches:
4 innings, 160 runs@53.33, 0 hundreds, 1 fifty, H/S:76

Vincent Opening in Test Matches:
19 innings, 503 runs@27.94, 2 hundreds, 3 fifties, H/S:106

Fleming opening in Test Matches:
6 innings, 280 runs@56.00, 1 hundred, 1 fifty, H/S:117

 

[anzac]

 

[Mingster]

So has Harris.

Bah. You don't understand do you? Go back to why I suggested we use Astle and Styris as our medium pacers in the first place, it's because Harris is being selected as a "batsman who can bowl" instead of being the other way round. Currently he has added nothing to the team as a batsman at 7 or 8. Better to use utilise Astle's and Styris' ability in the middle of the innings as bowlers, and play another specialist batsman either in Fulton or whoever in the middle order.

Bryce, statistics don't tell the whole story.

 

[Macka]

My main concern with Astle specifically is that he is already 32 & coming back from prolonged injury to both knees - not a good omen for longevity or regular bowling esp when he has to firstly re-establish himself in the side in his primary role as a batsmen.

Styris has also expressed he has knee problems & that's a major factor in his concentration on his batting. But as far as your point re his batting goes - quite spectacular for a converted middle order ODI bowling allrounder.

And therein lies my concern with him batting at #4 in a 5 man order - technique & hard hands combined with too many strokes too soon. Yes his contributions have been important, (none more so than his rescue act that then allowed Cairns & Oram free reign v RSA), but he is begining to remind me of what annoys me so much with Macca - an increasing number of dismissals as a result of poor shot selection early in his innings. It could be a combination that attacks are now starting to work him out re their bowling strategies, and also in combination of his role in the order. Bottom line for me is he is not yet solid/dependable enough as a #4.

Yeah that is true about Astle. My main point was that I think it is time NZ lets Harris go and lets McMillan go sort of his game. If NZ is wanting to emulate Australia so much (that whole 'advance the game' strategy) we should start dropping players once they stop performing. I know NZ doesn't have the resources player wise that Australia does, however there are replacements for those two players in my view.

Styris has also been practising off-spin a little. I don't think he has bowled off-spin yet, the only time I have seen it was while he was practising before the Queenstown game earilier this year. I agree that Styris at 4 isn't ideal, I would much rather see him at at 5 and Sinclair at 4. Lately Styris has played some more subdued innings - which is something he would of been working hard at. One thing I like about Styris is his convertion rate of 50s to 100s and that is something the entire NZ struggles with, Styris is easily the most consistant (even over his short test career to date). Given what Bracewell and co. seem to be thinking I think he is the best choice for batting at 4 against Australia. Although I definitely don't agree with their batting positions.

I've given it a little thought (between studying) and I this is what I would *like* to see against Sri Lanka:

Richardson
Fleming
Marshall
Sinclair
Styris
Astle
...

I very much doubt it'll happen.

 

[bryce]

Bryce, statistics don't tell the whole story.

thats true, but they don't lie either.

 

[Mingster]

Does Pat Symcox not know much about NZ Cricket?

He said regarding no changes to the NZ Team for the 3rd ODI, "I'm suprised there's no changes, I think there are too many batsmen in there"

What Pat? We already have 7 bowling options in that team, and only 5 specialist batsmen inc Styris.

 

[Tim]

NZ really look dis-interested in this match...Sinclair & Astle are searching for anything to smash but so far the Bangladeshi bowlers have been good.

Did anyone see Mark Richardson's article in the Herald today? I wouldn't be surprised if the NZC docked some of his pay..it was a bizarre piece of writing.

 

[_Ed_]

Yes that was quite a weird article. Not as weird as Chris Harris coming in at 3 though...didn't expect that!

 

[Tim]

102/3...Marshall just gifted his wicket. Harris got a bit of a shocker LBW decision though.

Im not really sure what's going on to be honest. I rather get the feeling with what Cairns, Richardson etc are saying in the media & with the attitude of the players on the field that they think way too highly of themselves at the moment.

 

[Tim]

105/4...Sinclair also gifts his wicket.

The more I watch the more I fear we're going to be absolutely done in Australia.

 

[bryce]

i have a feeling that the thinking behind harris batting at 3 was to give him a good amount of time to put together a big innings and since he didn't(even though it was a bad lbw decision) i have a feeling he may not be taking much part in australia if any at all.
very weird 50 overs that was when new zealand were batting, sinclair wasn't too bad but still showed he has more than a few technical flaws, marshall looks another person to the one who was playing in his first 20 ODI's for new zealand, mcmillan's innings was horrible and he really needs to learn to be patient more like styris who i thought played quite well by playing risk-free shots for most of his innings while keeping the scoreboard ticking over, bangladesh will be lucky to get more than 150 even though i hope they do.