*Official* West Indies in New Zealand - Nov/Dec 2020

[Bahnz]

Nah, again if you look at where Turner ranks with his contemporaries, during his main test career (69-77, not including his late trip to Sri Lanka) he was in the top 10 batsmen during that period - and even held the #1 ranking at one point. Not of Crowe and KW's class but a clear step above Taylor.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Obviously deserves to script his own farewell (and WTC final at Lords would be amazing)

Does he? Not trying to play devil's advocate but genuinely intrigued as to why he deserves this? (or anyone for that matter) He was a quality player, has amassed over 100 tests but has been in poor form for the past 12 months. Maybe I'm the unsentimental type but say "Thank you Ross, you've been a great servant of NZ cricket, but your form doesn't warrant selection now"

He's also nearly 37. You have to take that into consideration

 

[Pup Clarke]

I remember him, that was a ridiculous viewpoint. Experience is not overrated, and it certainly isn't meaningless. Experience allows you to have seen situation(s) enough times, to have failed and learned from it, and become better at what you're doing.

I'd not totally on board with Scaly with this theory, but what about players who never 'learn' from failure? Failure is a large part of the game, and I'm am not entirely sure what it represents (i.e is it single figure scores, a batsman making 50 then getting out?) If you're repeatedly getting caught on the crease (WI batsman) as mentioned by Beamer then where do you draw the line?

Experience is absolutely relevant in knockout games towards the end of a tournament. But because cricket but it's nature is very rarely like this, (although the WTC is a big step in the right direction to giving the sport context) I'm trying to put a new perspective on what experience means and it's inherent value. Just thought I'd open up the discussion

 

[Beamer]

I'd not totally on board with Scaly with this theory, but what about players who never 'learn' from failure? Failure is a large part of the game, and I'm am not entirely sure what it represents (i.e is it single figure scores, a batsman making 50 then getting out?) If you're repeatedly getting caught on the crease (WI batsman) as mentioned by Beamer then where do you draw the line?

Experience is absolutely relevant in knockout games towards the end of a tournament. But because cricket but it's nature is very rarely like this, (although the WTC is a big step in the right direction to giving the sport context) I'm trying to put a new perspective on what experience means and it's inherent value. Just thought I'd open up the discussion

I'm definitely on the same page as you. Perhaps it depends on the country/team in question and we would think differently if we had as many batsman in the system averaging 40 plus in FC cricket after 5/6 years etc (.eg NZ).

But using our current side as a case study, I don't see the advantage in picking someone averaging 32 in FC cricket after 5/6 years over someone who has hardly played but has insane talent and a much higher ceiling (e.g us picking Pooran over Nkrumah Bonner or similar).

I also certainly don't see the advantage of continuing to pick batsman who make the same mistakes over and over again for 3 years. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by looking at the physical evidence in front of us and investing in the likes of Da Silva and Pooran.

 

[Beamer]

On a different topic, whilst I lambast our batsman and fielders, quite rightly, it is important to note that our guys, more than any other side, have been the COVID-19 tourist guinea pigs and at a time when they had their pay cut in half due to the boards financial situation. So kudos to them all for touring and not moaning about it constantly. I appreciate every single one of them touring and giving us some cricket to watch.

Jason Holder articulates this here.

 

[SteveNZ]

I'd not totally on board with Scaly with this theory, but what about players who never 'learn' from failure? Failure is a large part of the game, and I'm am not entirely sure what it represents (i.e is it single figure scores, a batsman making 50 then getting out?) If you're repeatedly getting caught on the crease (WI batsman) as mentioned by Beamer then where do you draw the line?

Experience is absolutely relevant in knockout games towards the end of a tournament. But because cricket but it's nature is very rarely like this, (although the WTC is a big step in the right direction to giving the sport context) I'm trying to put a new perspective on what experience means and it's inherent value. Just thought I'd open up the discussion

Yeah that's right, it's a case by case basis. I remember the post he made, it basically said that experience was in no case of real value. Which any sportsman will tell you is nuts. Experience, and failure, doesn't make good on all of us. But it does to some. It's knowing how you're going to react when the pressure is on. It's knowing the right way to get home in a run chase. It's feeling accustomed to a ground or a pitch and becoming better at performing on it.

Might be best to say experience can be a great contributor to success but it's not a bankable equation that more experience=better performance? It is a cool discussion, as to why certain players never get over their poor conversion rates (Stephen Fleming) or get out the same way their whole careers (Guptill, Lou Vincent)

 

[SteveNZ]

Taylor's big problem I think is he's never been an especially technically correct batsman defensively and his attacking mentality doesn't help him either (compare how often he leaves the ball to KW or Latham). He made up for that with raw hand-eye and sheer bloody hard work. Now at 36, the hand-eye is starting to leave him, and his ring-science is increasingly unable to compensate. As TH said, you can't rule out his capability to make runs - if he gets a fair slice of good fortune and makes it through that dodgy first hour at the crease, he can still make bowlers pay. But the likelihood of him doing that now feels pretty low, and if he should happen to get set relatively late in the day, he faces the problem of being back to square 1 in the morning (his 80's v SL and Aus in 2019 being good examples of this). He deserves 2 tests v Pakistan and (if we qualify) a WTC final. After that, if he's not put some real runs on the board then he really should call it a day.

I don't think it's hand-eye, remembering he had the laser surgery and I still think he sees it early enough. I think it's more his body at 36 that potentially isn't up to being in the field for 5 days and playing long innings' on top of travel, training etc. It might even be his mind that isn't so much into that either. His Test innings mentality clearly changed in the last 12-18 months.

But yeah I agree with the rest, if he can get to 30-40 with some luck there's still a contribution to be had but he's going to have to receive some Nicholls-esque 2nd Test luck to do that. He just goes too hard at it and isn't prepared to leave well anymore, and his footwork around the crease leaves him vulnerable to being pinned in front as well.

It feels like sacrilege but honestly, it feels completely logical to think Conway would offer more consistent run-making at 4 from tomorrow going forward. But I think he does deserve the rest of the WTC then I'd be saying thanks, and we still want you in the ODIs.

 

[nzfan]

yea the boss deserves every plaudit for carrying that awful team on his shoulders between 2008 - 2013 but he's a clear 3rd in the kiwi ranks.

without him though we potentially lose test status.

Let's be honest, coming third behind Kane and Crowe is not derogatory. It's a compliment

 

[Immenso]

A big thanks to the Windies tourists for coming this far and playing during all these travel and quarantine restrictions.