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

[Flem274*]

Wouldn't be looking to drop Rutherford just yet. The other options are Raval (my personal choice for next cab off the rank), Guptill, Latham, Redmond and Papps. Is Ruds still one of the best two openers in the country? I think the gap is getting smaller but it's still a yes from me. Rutherford did bully domestic bowlers as much as Raval, Redmond and Papps are now. I think Guptill is playing with softer hands and later than he was when dropped, and he's bending his front knee rather than locking it on the front foot, but I'd feel more confident backing him if he scored some tons instead of lots of 50s. Latham has only just started opening for Canterbury so he's still a work in progress.

Raval seems pretty sound, though his shot the other day was a bit rank to throw away a good knock and he can tend to defend spinners with bat and pad together and I've always preferred the KW/Anderson bat in front of pad because I think it's safer and reduces the chance of a bat-pad catch, but it might be in the coaching manual. Not too sure on that one, but he does come down or get well back to the spinner which is good. I haven't watched much of Power Papps this season so can't comment.

edit: though if we want to debut a new guy then with all due respect to Gabriel and co., this isn't the best possible West Indies attack and there is a chance the pitch for the third test will be quite benign, so this is probably the series to do it since it's too hard to say which Indian quick bowlers will even tour let alone what their form will be like. I like Yadav and Zaheer back in nick is always a good thing but I haven't seen any of Bhuvi or Shami.

 

[Bahnz]

edit: though if we want to debut a new guy then with all due respect to Gabriel and co., this isn't the best possible West Indies attack and there is a chance the pitch for the third test will be quite benign, so this is probably the series to do it since it's too hard to say which Indian quick bowlers will even tour let alone what their form will be like. I like Yadav and Zaheer back in nick is always a good thing but I haven't seen any of Bhuvi or Shami.

I reckon Bhuvi will be a huge handful in NZ conditions. Only medium-fast, but he swings the ball both ways and made the windies batsmen look like fools at times during the India series. I found Shami to be less impressive, but he did generate sharp reverse back into the right hander, which could make him a useful 3rd seamer in NZ.

 

[Hurricane]

...I know that this is addressed at Flem, but I think you are missing the point. Turner isn't being paid to "influence change" by Radio Sport. He is being paid to give his opinion. His comments weren't made to "influence change." they were his honest answers to the questions he was asked. His comments may well influence change: but that would simply a consequence of his comments, not the intent. Turner has a duty to his employers, in this case Radio Sport, to give his opinion.

I understand your point but you are not taking on board mine. I acknowledge he is employed as a commentator. But he has multiple roles when it comes to the world of cricket and only one of them is a commentator.Another role is just being Glenn Turner. The greatest cricketer of his generation and a leader in NZ cricketing circles.
Life is complex sometimes. And in this case he is not simply one role he needs to take his multiple roles into account in everything he says and does. Lets agree to disagree (trademark Bahnz)

Do you work for the NZC, or are you just hoping for a job there?
. I'm fighting against one now, which is why this post pisses me off so much.

I would not work for NZC if you paid me one million dollars per annum. The organisation lacks integrity.
I am sorry you are facing a tough time in your office at the moment and sorry I reminded you of that (by accident as it was not my intent).
I am not going to justify my comments further as I have written enough posts explaining them already.

Cheers

 

[Hurricane]

We're on the same page for the first half of your post I think. Basically I look at it like this:

shortest term goal - win the next test/ODI/whatever
short term goal - win the series
medium term - string some series wins together, climb rankings
long term/dream - be the best in the world

I liked your post but just thought I would point out this part in particular appealed to me. Good to have a debate where we both ended up on the same page. Cheers for that.

 

[Hurricane]

So erm...about this test series!!...does the next track take spin?

It's gonna be very interesting to see how NZ handle Narine and Shillingford..it really is .

Ideally we win the toss, bat first against an already tired attack and then set NZ something decent to chase on a 5th day pitch..

Last two times I have been there it is a straw covered pitch (not literally WW) the grass was dead and yellow. I have seen spinners take wickets there but I wouldn't call it a spinners wicket. Usually it has been pace men who have done well.

Yes you are correct put us into bowl. Hopefully we win the toss. If I were the blackcaps I would be finding the nearest oxygen chamber to let our boys recover. I sincerely hope they are excused from the nets.

In terms of handling Narine and Shillingford. I don't expect Rutherford to do well. But I expect Fulton, Williamson, Taylor, and Anderson to handle them ok. Baz will be a lottery.

 

[banquetbear]

I understand your point but you are not taking on board mine. I acknowledge he is employed as a commentator. But he has multiple roles when it comes to the world of cricket and only one of them is a commentator.Another role is just being Glenn Turner. The greatest cricketer of his generation and a leader in NZ cricketing circles.
Life is complex sometimes. And in this case he is not simply one role he needs to take his multiple roles into account in everything he says and does. However I am pretty sure I have already said all of this. Lets agree to disagree (trademark Bahnz)

...I'm not taking on board your point because your point is really bad. You agree with everything Turner said, but you don't want him to say it, even though he is being paid to express his opinion, because he is the greatest cricketer of his generation and a leader in NZ cricketing circles. How does that make any sense?

I think your position is rubbish. It makes no sense and you've made a very poor attempt at justifying your position. Turner is being paid to give his opinion on matters cricket, he was asked for his opinion and he gave it. While he indeed wears many hats: when he is wearing the hat of the commentator he is obliged to do that to the best of his abilities: and giving honest answers to questions is part of that. You are arguing that "the greater good" is more important than telling the truth, but I don't think that the greater good is served by keeping silent. We don't want to be like this:

The Greater Good - YouTube

 

[Hurricane]

...I'm not taking on board your point because your point is really bad. You agree with everything Turner said, but you don't want him to say it, even though he is being paid to express his opinion, because he is the greatest cricketer of his generation and a leader in NZ cricketing circles. How does that make any sense?

I think your position is rubbish. It makes no sense and you've made a very poor attempt at justifying your position. Turner is being paid to give his opinion on matters cricket, he was asked for his opinion and he gave it. While he indeed wears many hats: when he is wearing the hat of the commentator he is obliged to do that to the best of his abilities: and giving honest answers to questions is part of that. You are arguing that "the greater good" is more important than telling the truth, but I don't think that the greater good is served by keeping silent. We don't want to be like this:

The Greater Good - YouTube

Did you take some angry pills today or something.

 

[SteveNZ]

Case closed.

Cmon chaps, we're better than simply 'win=good decision, loss=bad decision' aren't we? Leave that up to our friend Scaly who reads scorecards and all of a sudden becomes a grumpy oracle on exactly how it played out.

When you elect to bat again, you leave yourself open to final day rain which is what was forecast. It wasn't like University Oval was going to turn into a mindfield midway through day 4 and into 5.

If they take their catches, they win. Fairly simple.

 

[banquetbear]

Did you take some angry pills today or something.

...there was nothing angry about my post?!?!

I simply don't see your point. You think Turner should self-censor/lie because of who he is. For the life of me I can't see why and you have done a poor job of pointing out why he should.

 

[straw man]

Cmon chaps, we're better than simply 'win=good decision, loss=bad decision' aren't we? Leave that up to our friend Scaly who reads scorecards and all of a sudden becomes a grumpy oracle on exactly how it played out.

When you elect to bat again, you leave yourself open to final day rain which is what was forecast. It wasn't like University Oval was going to turn into a mindfield midway through day 4 and into 5.

If they take their catches, they win. Fairly simple.

Heh, I was expecting your post to be anti-follow-on and pro-bowlers-have-a-rest, but am pleased to see you are on the side of Good instead

On that note, I find it hard to believe McCullum would have made the decision to enforce the follow-on without consulting Southee and Boult first... and I imagine they probably said **** yeah, feeling good, give me the ball.

 

[hendrix]

I'm just pissed off that Bahnz et al. are making reasonable and logical arguments for not enforcing the follow on. It's almost as if we're allowed to have different opinions on things.

 

[Bahnz]

...there was nothing angry about my post?!?!

I simply don't see your point. You think Turner should self-censor/lie because of who he is. For the life of me I can't see why and you have done a poor job of pointing out why he should.

You do realise that all the ?!?! makes you sound really angry right?

 

[banquetbear]

You do realise that all the ?!?! make you sound really angry right?

...I think my words were pretty clear. ?! Simply denotes my confusion. Anger on the internet is normally expressed by SPEAKING IN CAPS.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

...I think my words were pretty clear. ?! Simply denotes my confusion. Anger on the internet is normally expressed by SPEAKING IN CAPS.

Excessive use of "?!" denotes

to most people

 

[Bahnz]

Yes you are correct put us into bowl. Hopefully we win the toss. If I were the blackcaps I would be finding the nearest oxygen chamber to let our boys recover. I sincerely hope they are excused from the nets.

As hilarious as this will sound given my rants today, the Black Caps should have no hesitation to put the Windies into bat if the conditions demand it. They'll have had the better part of 4 days recovery. That's plenty of time, and while they'll be disappointed that they didn't win, they'll all go into the second test with plenty of confidence after they dismantled the windies batting so easily in the first innings (you know, before that whole following-on debacle).

 

[banquetbear]

Excessive use of "?!" denotes

to most people

...denotes angry cat lady?

I think not.

Getting back on point: Turner should be allowed to speak his mind: and I think it is important that he does. I don't want to listen to cheerleaders or muzzled commentators and I don't think the NZ public want to either. I've already stopped listening to the TV commentary: if you muzzle the radio commentators I might as well give up following cricket all together.

 

[Hurricane]

...there was nothing angry about my post?!?!

I simply don't see your point. You think Turner should self-censor/lie because of who he is. For the life of me I can't see why and you have done a poor job of pointing out why he should.

Only people who are mad at the person tell the other person their post is rubbish usually. Hence my comment. I thought that one liner was OTT I had no issue with any of your other posts last night. And I thought you were verbally skilled and I enjoyed the debate fwiw.

I accept that you can't see my point
I don't think I can explain it any better than I already have. I am not saying I have done a great job of explaining it. I am just not sure I know how to say it any other way. A fundamental disconnect we are having is that I think he should be an agent for change and you have stated earlier that he should just be a commentator.

If he just wants to be a commentator then yes I concede he did the right thing by giving a colourful quote to boost the ratings.

I guess I just see Glenn Turner as being in a position of influence and I would like to see him do something about the pathetic organisation that NZC is and bring about change. And the best way of him doing that is lobbying with people behind closed doors and being statesmanlike in public.

You could argue that he could bring about change through his voice in the media. I kind of think that one off swipes at NZC will just make them defensive and close their ears however.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

New Zealand Cricket like many many other professional organizations cannot admit to making mistakes or being wrong. This means that any public airing of complaints results in them going on the defensive to try and maintain that they were right all along, instead of losing face by admitting to their mistakes. This possibly has a lot due to the high standards the public and the media hold them, simply put we expect our national sports teams to not make any mistakes.

Remember that NZ Cricket are a clique, any critizism of them will be taken personally by David White and McHesson. Coney and co, by airing criticism forces NZ cricket to defend itself, because we all know they wont admit they are wrong (assuming coney and co are in the right). As part of this act of defending itself, any suggestions and improvements suggest by Coney and co will be dismissed, as NZ cricket cannot admit they are right. As Hurricane was alluding to, this will see the black caps continue down the wrong path, where as if Turner had talked privately behind the eyes of the media, improvements could be worked in, as NZ cricket would not be forced to defend itself.

It has nothing to do with muzzling commentators and all to do with what is ultimately best for the game in New Zealand.

Edit: Beaten by Hurricane

 

[banquetbear]

I guess I just see Glenn Turner as being in a position of influence and I would like to see him do something about the pathetic organisation that NZC is and bring about change. And the best way of him doing that is lobbying with people behind closed doors and being statesmanlike in public.

You could argue that he could bring about change through his voice in the media. I kind of think that one off swipes at NZC will just make them defensive and close their ears however.

...what evidence do you have that NZ Cricket will stop being defensive and open their ears?

Look at what happened last year. Even when Hesson was caught blatantly lying his actions were defended by NZ Cricket. I have no doubt that Turner and Coney have tried to do stuff behind the scenes. But do you think they are just going to "click their fingers" and people will start listening to them?

This is bigger than Turner and Coney. Mark Reason posted an article earlier last week pointing out several economic conflicts of interest that certain people have. I've posted before about NZ Cricket's involvement in the US 20/20 looming disaster and the vested interest of several of the same parties in that boondoogle as well. With hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line do you think that Coney and Turner suggesting "pretty please can we try something different" will make any difference?

I'm sure they have done all they can behind the scenes, and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so. But I don't see why compromising his role as a cricket commentator, effectively muzzling himself and lying to the public would be a good thing for him to do. He has a duty first and foremost to his employers. You have yet to explain why you think it would be right for him to not do the job he is paid to do.

 

[Prince EWS]

At the end of the day though, the point is that Glenn Turner absolutely does not have a responsibility to do what's best for NZC. He has a responsibility to his employers to generate ratings as a commentator and a responsibility to his listeners and readers to supply a truthful and accurate representation of his opinions.