***Official*** West Indies in New Zealand 2013/14

[Bahnz]

Cricket | Basin Reserve Perfect For Pacemen | Stuff.co.nz

Curator says the basin pitch will be like the one from this match: 2nd Test: New Zealand v Pakistan at Wellington, Dec 3-6, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

If he's right, this should be fun...

 

[hendrix]

Cricket | Basin Reserve Perfect For Pacemen | Stuff.co.nz

Curator says the basin pitch will be like the one from this match: 2nd Test: New Zealand v Pakistan at Wellington, Dec 3-6, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Mohammed Asif SMH. What a waste.

Suffice to say there's not a single bowler even close to being on the level of Asif and Amir in either of these teams.

 

[straw man]

Suffice to say there's not a single bowler even close to being on the level of Asif and Amir in either of these teams.

... and Asif and Amir are singularly not even close to being on the level.

 

[_Ed_]

I completely agree with him.

There wasn't much we did wrong in this test. Wagner was poor I suppose. That couldn't have been predicted after Bangladesh.

Really, we just have to give credit to the opposition.

Actually I think his comments are very mature.

How could you go about beating up the team after that performance? It was a good performance. Darren Bravo played one of the best innings I've ever seen.

I just think the coach should always be striving to raise standards and get more out of his players, and I don't think saying a performance is close to perfect is a good way of doing that. There's always things they can improve on. As much as I hate the rugby comparisons, you never hear the All Black coach say a performance is close to perfect. He was never satisfied at any point during their unbeaten 2013.

And I do think "close to perfect" is a stretch here. Our performance was pretty good, absolutely. And, yeah, Bravo played an absolutely amazing innings. But we had chances to get him out before he really got going, and we didn't take them. Wagner was very poor throughout the match, and so was a lot of our batting - openers throwing away starts in the first innings, and some truly appalling stuff in the fourth. There were lapses in our fielding. And Sammy benefited from some lacklustre bowling en route to his 80.

Good performance, yes. Close to perfect? IMO, not by a long shot. I believe we can do better, and I'd like to hear the same sort of thing from the coach.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

"Do I doubt the decision to enforce? Absolutely not, it was the right decision at the right time," McCullum said.

That's pretty explanatory.

 

[hendrix]

I just think the coach should always be striving to raise standards and get more out of his players, and I don't think saying a performance is close to perfect is a good way of doing that. There's always things they can improve on. As much as I hate the rugby comparisons, you never hear the All Black coach say a performance is close to perfect. He was never satisfied at any point during their unbeaten 2013.

And I do think "close to perfect" is a stretch here. Our performance was pretty good, absolutely. And, yeah, Bravo played an absolutely amazing innings. But we had chances to get him out before he really got going, and we didn't take them. Wagner was very poor throughout the match, and so was a lot of our batting - openers throwing away starts in the first innings, and some truly appalling stuff in the fourth. There were lapses in our fielding. And Sammy benefited from some lacklustre bowling en route to his 80.

Good performance, yes. Close to perfect? IMO, not by a long shot. I believe we can do better, and I'd like to hear the same sort of thing from the coach.

No, you need to read what he actually said.

"The outcome's frustrating, but to be fair, it was pretty close to the perfect Test, really,"

I.E. A day 5 finish, chasing a small target with a spinner reeking havoc. I think that that is close to the perfect test. There were good moments for the bowlers, good moments for the batsmen etc etc. If we had won it would have been a perfect, hard fought victory - from a spectator's standpoint.

And it was absolutely the right decision to enforce the follow on. Just because the bowlers had to work harder doesn't make it wrong.

 

[Immenso]

I'm going to predict a 0 - 0 series.

I would like to be wrong, maybe thee will be bounce in Wellington and swing in Hsmilton. But, I there this often in lead up and it ends up being a flat road.

Even in Dunedin, game advsnced 'artificially' with half Windies team still in transit lounge, and the gift of about 100 odd bonus runs on day 1 by an out of sync bowling unit, and an awful first up batting effort, and a glorious streak of fine weather ....... We get a draw.

Got to stop playing first test in Dunedin, thus isn't 1985 anymore, get the tourists first up and rusty at a venue that swings .... Like Hamilton etc.

 

[_Ed_]

No, I still think he's too easily satisfied. This bit, for example:

"To get 600 on the board, get a big lead and get a chance to knock it off in the fourth innings ... we played very well.

"We probably needed another 20 minutes and unfortunately, we didn't get it. It will go down as a draw, but we know that we played very well."

Bravo or no Bravo, IMO we should be a little disappointed in ourselves that we had to bat a second time after having a first-innings lead of 396. We had chances to close it out earlier.

 

[_Ed_]

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh on them, but I'd like to see that from the coach as well.

 

[hendrix]

Bravo or no Bravo, IMO we should be a little disappointed in ourselves that we had to bat a second time after having a first-innings lead of 396. We had chances to close it out earlier.

You can't just say that without stating specifically where we under performed. I watched or listened to most of the match, and I honestly think that most of our bowlers bowled very well on a flat deck.
There was one underperformance and that was the effort of Neil Wagner who didn't do anything until day 5. That was probably what forced us to have to bat again. There was also a very poor shot from Rutherford who failed to learn his lesson.

What else do you want to say about it? Should Southee and Boult beat themselves up? Sodhi? McCullum? Taylor? Anderson, Watling, Fulton etc?

"At 44 for four, you're not really in a position to go hard, and I thought Ross [Taylor] and Corey [Anderson] had a lot of composure at that time," says Hesson.

I think that's fair and very clearly says to Rutherford that his shot wasn't good enough. But there's really not much more you can say, is there. Do you think Rutherford doesn't already feel stupid? Fulton and Redmond were actually very unlucky to go out that way. Redmond's not even playing in the next test so it doesn't matter at all. Fulton did his job in the first innings.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

And it was absolutely the right decision to enforce the follow on. Just because the bowlers had to work harder doesn't make it wrong.

There is a good reason why pretty much no one enforces the follow on these days. Quicks just cant be expected to put in a strong performance after already bowling close to 20 overs in a day.

 

[Bahnz]

And it was absolutely the right decision to enforce the follow on. Just because the bowlers had to work harder doesn't make it wrong.

No it wasn't. I've been over the reasons why several times, so I won't bother again. But seriously, it wasn't.

 

[hendrix]

There is a good reason why pretty much no one enforces the follow on these days. Quicks just cant be expected to put in a strong performance after already bowling close to 20 overs in a day.

noone had bowled even close to 20 overs in a day on the third day.

 

[hendrix]

A grand total of 38 overs had been bowled on day 3 when the decision was made to enforce the follow on.

Southee and Boult may have bowled 10 each of those. Absolute max.

 

[Mike5181]

There is a good reason why pretty much no one enforces the follow on these days. Quicks just cant be expected to put in a strong performance after already bowling close to 20 overs in a day.

On the day the follow-on was enforced:

Boult: 10
Southee: 9

 

[hendrix]

Bowling a team out in the second innings is different from bowling a team out in the first innings.

Even if we hadn't enforced the follow on, it's still day 3/4 of a test match. Our players will be tired no matter what.

Taylor had been out in the middle EVERY SESSION bar the first and still took 2 screamers on the final day and made them look easy. THAT is what is required to win test matches. You're going to be tired. It's going to be hard. You need contributions from everyone.

You need your third seamer to stand up and take wickets when the ball and the pitch is doing nothing. We didn't quite get that from him.

But then the rain also ****ed us.

That's life. It was still a good performance.

 

[Bahnz]

Southee had started the day by bowling for nearly an hour and a half straight. And Boult had just finished a spell after lunch were he'd been bowling flat out to try and get something out of the pitch. While neither bowler was dead on their feet, both were well below optimum condition, which is what we need them in when we take the new ball (because we all know the wickets aren't coming from anywhere else). Which is why (for the last time...honestly this time) New Zealand should never enforce the follow-on. At least not until Sodhi becomes a world class leg spinner with an average of 26.54

 

[hendrix]

At the end of day 3 WI were 168/2. Sure they might've been tired but they still got new ball wickets

That's plenty good enough to have a rest and bowl them out on day 4.

 

[Bahnz]

Um, no at the end of day 3, WI were 168/2. And they got a new ball wicket. After which they proceeded to open up the buffet bar for an hour and a half, before Sodhi produced one of his one out of a hundred wicket balls to stem the tide.

I don't think either of us are shifting on this, so let's just agree to disagree. Hopefully the light rain falling outside my window today will ensure the wicket gets a bit of extra spice, eliminating any chances of a draw in the next match - regardless of whether or not any follow-ons are taken.

 

[Bahnz]

Also, it seems that there's a good chance that "'E took mah Durrr!" Bracewell will be coming in for Sodhi at Wellington.