• 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 v India T20s & ODIs

Athlai

Not Terrible
His SR of 128 from 7 and lower isn't that bad. For the regulars since he debuted he's a fine option imo.

By no means is he anywhere near as good as Shadab (who now bat's higher than 7) but who is
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Fair point about our fragile 1-6 though in T20Is, which is why I think having Macewell at 7 & Santner at 8 give us enough batting depth for them all to feel a bit more freed up.
 

SteveNZ

International Captain
Fair point about our fragile 1-6 though in T20Is, which is why I think having Macewell at 7 & Santner at 8 give us enough batting depth for them all to feel a bit more freed up.
I feel as if the fragile 1-6 is based a lot around their own games, but also it's hard to commit fully to the cause when Santner is at 7 when he's an 8 probably at best, and 8-11 can collapse in a heap as they did on Tuesday. Part of human nature would be knowing if you go hard too early, there's a long tail exposed. England, for example, don't have that issue - hence they won the World Cup. Giving Mitchell the #3 spot and having an extra batsman at seven, which you can achieve by having Macewell there and contributing a bowling option, would go some way to fix that. Plus quite possibly dropping Neesham and having a more well-rounded finisher, or again someone who bowls, or something other than the one-dimension approach Jimmy currently brings.
 

straw man

International Coach
Fair point about our fragile 1-6 though in T20Is, which is why I think having Macewell at 7 & Santner at 8 give us enough batting depth for them all to feel a bit more freed up.
We end up talking a lot about the batting shortcomings and a lot of it does stem from this choice of five bowlers (with Santner a little high at 7) vs four bowlers plus allrounders. I don't have a general preference either way in T20s - it depends on the makeup of the players available for each particular side. It's just notable that NZ have made the choice to go with five bowlers, which we accept weakens the batting, and yet it was still the bowlers that let us down vs Pakistan. Certainly the difference between Pakistan's bowling and ours was very large.

Part of this is just form/randomness - Boult is a gun but wasn't great that match and Ferguson, as much as I love him, hasn't achieved results for a little while.

Macewell replacing another bowler should improve balance a little, though he has been poor with the bat down at 6/7 so far. I was gunning for Sodhi to be left out leading into the WC but tbf he exceeded expectations (i.e. he didn't single handedly lose us a close match, so wag?). Southee was also expected to be a weakness but was adequate, and our reserves like Milne would probably have delivered a very similar level of performance. So all up we have a whole lot of middling-ness in the bowling ranks despite selecting five of them. Shifting focus to ODIs and then tests for a while should be beneficial imo.
 
Last edited:

Fuller Pilch

International Coach
Really intrigued about the XI they pick:

I'd say that a top 5 of
Allen
Conway
Williamson
Latham (wk)
Mitchell

is likely, followed by 2 from Phillips, Neesham, and Bracewell (which 2?)

Santner at 8

Henry will (SHOULD) be one of the seamers, with 2 out of 3 from Milne, Southee, and Ferguson joining him.
 

Top