• 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*** South Africa in New Zealand 2012

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Meh NZ still in the game if they get South Africa out for 400-450 and get somewhere near it when they bat.

South Africa's batting lineup is chock full of rubbish and chokers. Must be irritating for Kiwis to see two NZ calibre batsmen (one previous averaged 34 the other sub-30) scoring hundreds.
 
Last edited:

Flem274*

123/5
Short piece from Richardson on openers.

Mark Richardson: Time to open up on batting - Sport - NZ Herald News

When Daniel Flynn takes guard in Wellington, he will become yet another player the New Zealand selectors hope will make a go of the opening batting role in test cricket for New Zealand - yet another player promoted from the middle order in the hope they can carry their older ball skills to the new ball.

Quite a few of the players used have actually experienced success but not consistently enough to warrant continuing in the role. So what does make for a good test match opening batsman?

You have to want to be an opening batsman.

Not want it because it could be the fastest way into the Black Caps team but really want it because going in first is what you really want to do.

If not, it will be your fastest way out of the Black Caps team.

I wanted to open the batting for Otago a long time before the Black Caps had a vacancy in the role. It was not because I had a desire to face the fast bowlers and hard new ball; it was because opening the batting gave you some certainty in an uncertain game.


You knew who you would be facing and, more often than not, when you would be facing. Psychologically, the benefits of that were huge when it came to my mental state as I began my innings. Some players like a sit down for a while to think about the job at hand and don't mind waiting to bat - but that just sent me crazy.

The situation kept changing in front of me. Maintaining my best mental state, not knowing when I was in, was impossible.

Why am I focusing on the mental side of batting? Well, because as far as I'm concerned, technically the things that will serve you well at the test level remain the same regardless of where you bat.

Strategy doesn't change much either. Openers need not be dour, defensively-oriented players - think Greenidge, Hayden, Langer, Gayle, Sehwag - they just have to attack the right way.

Hayden and Langer took teams apart but did it in a clinical and risk-free manner with both really only utilising a couple of shots.

Your initial margin for error does change, however, because of the new ball and its propensity to swing and bounce a little more. That means a good opener can attack in a similar way as a middle order player - but needs to defend just a little more selectively.

If the ball is missing the stumps, and you aren't looking to score, don't offer the bat at it. This is the area that New Zealand batsman really struggle with in defence. People always talk of protecting one's stumps when really one must protect the outside edge.

Finally (but of vital importance) is the fact an opener needs good balance at the crease. Good balance allows one to wait longer and play the second line. The second line is the line once the ball has swung.

Going hard and early at the ball is the biggest mistake an opener can make.
 

Flem274*

123/5
And a longer one from Andrew Alderson on specialisation. I don't agree with him on why the South Africans have so many test specialists (I'm sure they would play Philander in ODIs if he was good at them) but I think it is an idea.

Cricket: NZ must look for that special someone in test - Cricket - NZ Herald News

If New Zealand Cricket are serious about improving their test status and results, a key factor is surely selecting more test specialists in a team aimed exclusively at the game's longest form.

The current series against South Africa has provided a strong indication of how the rest of the world is coping with the problem of playing across tests, one day internationals and Twenty20 matches.

The Proteas brought 23 players on tour. Five of them - Mark Boucher, Alviro Peterson, Vernon Philander, Jacques Rudolph and Imran Tahir - were picked solely for tests. Faf du Plessis, Jacques Kallis, Graeme Smith and Dale Steyn also featured in one-dayers but not the T20s while Colin Ingram, Richard Levi and Justin Theron were solely for the T20s.

Likewise, Australia have split their squads over the past couple of years. Just two of the 14-strong T20 squad against India (Shaun Marsh and David Warner) were test incumbents.

The success of players like Rudolph, Philander and Boucher and now Petersen in the test series was notable, du Plessis and Levi also performed well in the shorter forms.


It is a selection strategy New Zealand could well adopt if they are to improve the aspect that has let them down so much in this series against South Africa - their batting.

The bowlers, notably first-class veterans Chris Martin and Mark Gillespie, have excelled in restricting South Africa to first innings totals of 238 and 253 in the first two tests. However, before the third test, the batsmen had failed to ignite beyond a back-to-the-wall Kane Williamson 77 in Hamilton and a Brendon McCullum half century in each test (58 and 61). The South Africans made three centuries and five half-centuries over the same two tests.

It is important to reiterate New Zealand are facing arguably the world's finest test attack but that can't fully explain a regular lack of application.

In eight tests under coach John Wright, New Zealand have exceeded 300 runs on the first innings just three times (once vs Pakistan, twice vs Zimbabwe). In the three test losses during that period, New Zealand have never gone beyond the fourth day. McCullum made the country's last second innings century with 225 against India at Hyderabad in November 2010. A tendency to crumble endures.

On the domestic front, a 76-day gap between four-day matches from December 3 until February 17 has not helped. December and January remain the key revenue-earning periods for NZC through limited overs matches but the Plunket Shield is the country's test cricket nursery. Having the country's top players going for weeks without first-class matches presents a problem.

Many have come from an almost complete diet of T20 and one-dayers into the test series with South Africa. The three-day test vs Zimbabwe and (for a handful) the three-day New Zealand XI match in Gisborne hardly made for adequate preparation. Rhetoric about wanting a better test team may be impossible to action if four-day cricket merely bookends the season.

Overseas examples reinforce why focusing on the shorter form damages the test game. India was No 1 in tests but their recent form has been woeful, losing to Australia 4-0 (and England 4-0 last year). It is surely no coincidence this coincided with their World Cup win and the obsession with the Indian Premier League.

In contrast, England are the best test side in the world. England have always had a strong first-class competition relative to other countries but these days they would take some beating. Last English season, the maximum gap between four-day matches was 17 days. Generally it was two or three days. That discipline of turning up day-in, day-out over a mixture of formats has paid dividends at the longer and shorter ends of the play scale because England are also T20 world champions. NZC could do worse than emulate that structure.

Numerous examples have surfaced this summer to suggest New Zealand test players might benefit from consuming a diet of more first-class cricket rather than shorter forms.

Daniel Vettori has led the way solely as a test player; he has 13 tests scheduled for New Zealand over the next 12 months. Arguments can be made for Gillespie, Martin, Doug Bracewell, B-J Watling, Kruger van Wyk, Dean Brownlie and Daniel Flynn to specialise as test players as well.

Gillespie is the prime example. He had bowled consistently in four straight Plunket Shield matches since mid-February, taking 25 wickets at 20.88. After a bold Wright selection gambit, Gillespie steamed in at Hamilton and South Africa reeled - 88 for six at one stage - to be all out for 253. Martin is another who has focused on the longer form to a point where he is now New Zealand's third leading wicket-taker with 224 at 33.27 in 67 tests.

Wright might also consider asking Bracewell to specialise in tests. He was pivotal in two New Zealand victories this summer, taking 28 wickets at 19 in six tests but has been nowhere near the same force in the shorter forms .

Tim Southee is another who might be vulnerable to slipping off his length target when he changes formats. Likewise left-armer Trent Boult is useful in the longer forms with his ability to pitch the ball full for swing.

Batsmen like McCullum, Ross Taylor, Martin Guptill and Williamson seem more capable of adapting between formats. However, there is an argument Brownlie might best stick to the longer forms. He averages 44.66 from four tests yet in four limited overs matches has never reached 20. Flynn, with three centuries in his last three first-class matches, could also prove a sound acquisition at test level in his latest reincarnation. In addition, Watling and Van Wyk are candidates for the test wicketkeeper-batsman role if McCullum continues to keep in the shorter forms.

Encouraging test specialists could also help address the perennial problem of player workloads. For many there will be almost non-stop touring until next February after the South African series. April-May's IPL is followed by tours to the West Indies, India, Sri Lanka and South Africa before New Zealand returns home to play England. It might add to the expense bill but players could stay more refreshed.

Possible formations

All formats (4): Martin Guptill, Brendon McCullum, Ross Taylor, Kane Williamson, Jesse Ryder (if in form).

Test specialists (12): Trent Boult, Doug Bracewell, Dean Brownlie, Daniel Flynn, Mark Gillespie, Chris Martin, Tarun Nethula, Tim Southee, Kruger van Wyk, Daniel Vettori, B-J Watling, Sam Wells.

Limited overs specialists (11): Michael Bates, Colin de Grandhomme, Andrew Ellis, Roneel Hira, James Franklin, Tom Latham, Kyle Mills, Nathan McCullum, Andy McKay, Rob Nicol, Jacob Oram.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I know, it's hard to envisage New Zealand scoring 300+. South Africa are just as liable to get skittled for under 200 in a pressure situation as they are to get well on top and bully a side.

Vettori's series bowling average into 3 figures.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I know, it's hard to envisage New Zealand scoring 300+. South Africa are just as liable to get skittled for under 200 in a pressure situation as they are to get well on top and bully a side. .
Yes but in order to choke they need to be under at least some semblance of pressure & at 3/330 and 1-0 up in the series, there's none

Vettori's series bowling average into 3 figures
And worse when you think of the freakishly lucky fashion in which he dismissed de Villiers in Hamilton
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yes but in order to choke they need to be under at least some semblance of pressure & at 3/330 and 1-0 up in the series, there's none



And worse when you think of the freakishly lucky fashion in which he dismissed de Villiers in Hamilton
Yes the chance of the 400-450 part is dwindling, but there will be a kinda perverse pressure if things get to the sort of situation such as where South Africa are 50 ahead at the start of the final day. They couldn't push for a win realistically but they could certainly lose and NZ could just go for it... and not bowl Vettori so much.
 

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
And a longer one from Andrew Alderson on specialisation. I don't agree with him on why the South Africans have so many test specialists (I'm sure they would play Philander in ODIs if he was good at them) but I think it is an idea.

Cricket: NZ must look for that special someone in test - Cricket - NZ Herald News
I agree with a lot of that opinion piece. Partly this reflects my growing lack of care about ODIs though.

In an ideal world I think Williamson and Southee would be test-only too, however as they're already fixtures in our ODI/T20 sides I guess we just stick with that.

However I would be more than happy for the current crop of promising test players like Brownlie, Bracewell, Boult and Flynn to be test-only. They probably wouldn't like that idea though, especially with the T20 World Cup coming up.
 

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
A thought for the Windies tour. Why not put Bracewell at 6? Sure he's been dominated by SA's bowling attack and also struggled in Australia on those seaming pitches, but it's been a tough gig. He has some batting talent and I'd back him to score at least a 50 in four innings vs the Windies much weaker bowling attack. Tell him that's his long-term position in the side - he seems the sort of guy who thrives the more responsibility you give him. Then all of you who want Vettori to bat at 7 can have that too.

McCullum
Guptill/Flynn
Brownlie
Taylor
Williamson
Bracewell
Vettori
Van Wyk
Boult/Nethula (depends on Windies pitches)
Gillespie/Wagner
Martin

That's the XI plus first three backups. Add Watling assuming it's a 15 man squad.
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
A thought for the Windies tour. Why not put Bracewell at 6? Sure he's been dominated by SA's bowling attack and also struggled in Australia on those seaming pitches, but it's been a tough gig. He has some batting talent and I'd back him to score at least a 50 in four innings vs the Windies much weaker bowling attack. Tell him that's his long-term position in the side - he seems the sort of guy who thrives the more responsibility you give him. Then all of you who want Vettori to bat at 7 can have that too.

McCullum
Guptill/Flynn
Brownlie
Taylor
Williamson
Bracewell
Vettori
Van Wyk
Boult/Nethula (depends on Windies pitches)
Gillespie/Wagner
Martin

That's the XI plus first three backups. Add Watling assuming it's a 15 man squad.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
A thought for the Windies tour. Why not put Bracewell at 6? Sure he's been dominated by SA's bowling attack and also struggled in Australia on those seaming pitches, but it's been a tough gig. He has some batting talent and I'd back him to score at least a 50 in four innings vs the Windies much weaker bowling attack. Tell him that's his long-term position in the side - he seems the sort of guy who thrives the more responsibility you give him. Then all of you who want Vettori to bat at 7 can have that too.

McCullum
Guptill/Flynn
Brownlie
Taylor
Williamson
Bracewell
Vettori
Van Wyk
Boult/Nethula (depends on Windies pitches)
Gillespie/Wagner
Martin

That's the XI plus first three backups. Add Watling assuming it's a 15 man squad.
You want to promote someone who currently has a Test batting average of 6 to bat at 6?
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
wow nice post - you obviously put a lot of thought into that one
Ok, how about this. Bracewell has the record of a number 11. A bad number 11. He's shown little strong form with the bat in any form of international cricket. One day, he might make a decent number 9 or even number 8. Right now, he's nowhere near either. Suggesting he bat at number 6 is on par with Stephen Fleming's magnifcent brainstorm to bat Kyle Mills at number 3 back in 2006. It'd be like if we'd asked Daniel Vettori to permanently bat at number 6 back in 1997 after that one 90 he scored against Zimbabwe. It's almost too bizarre to be a real suggestion, which was why I reread your post 3 times before I was confident that you weren't just taking the piss.

And to be perfectly honest I think that we should be asking him to focus on his bowling, given that y'know, he's actually shown a bit of promise with that.
 
Last edited:

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
It's all hypothetical but I was at least vaguely serious. It's really just appeasement of the 'Vettori must bat 7 or lower' crowd, and whether Bracewell bats 6 or 8 or 9 it makes bugger-all difference because NZ will score the same total number or runs in the innings anyway - just the partnership for the 5th wicket might be very short :ph34r:.

He's a 10 at present, though I stand by my comment that he should score a 50 vs the Windies and I think he'll average something like 20 in the series against them.

And yes, of course he should be focusing primarily on his bowling at present. Unfortunately given we are NZ wherever he bats he will be expected to score some runs too.

My first choice would be that he bats at 8 (or 9 if we want to put Wagner/Nethula above him), but I'd far prefer my bizarre suggestion to going back to Vettori at 8.
 

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
Anyway I think we've done the 'where does Vettori bat?' and 'four seamers vs three seamers' debates to death and I have been more guilty than most. Sorry for any repetition and I'm not going to post on that any more.

On this test match, it's not looking great and the remaining thing I'm looking forward to is seeing how Flynn goes opening. Should be fun.
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
Anyway I think we've done the 'where does Vettori bat?' and 'four seamers vs three seamers' debates to death and I have been more guilty than most. Sorry for any repetition and I'm not going to post on that any more.

On this test match, it's not looking great and the remaining thing I'm looking forward to is seeing how Flynn goes opening. Should be fun.
I always liked Flynn as a middle order batsman. Really ****s me that they're going to ruin him by forcing him up the top of the order again.
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
20 wickets in 4 and a half games, Gillespie does take plenty of wickets, for all the rubbish he bowls...
 

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
Yep Gillespie on track for his third 5-for v South Africa, though this one has more in common with his first one as we are getting a toweling.
 
Last edited:

TT Boy

Hall of Fame Member
Wicket seems to have quicken up. Looks a much better bowling wicket with the sun out, bit more movement for the quicks. If NZ want to progress this game more quickly, then I don't know why they are bowling Vettori. Presumably they want to bat?
 

Top