*Official* Quarter Final 3 - New Zealand v South Africa

[pup11]

Just because as soon as "Taylor's wicket falls the writing is pretty much on the wall for New Zealand" has occurred for a few games doesn't mean it's always going to happen.

Before Akmal's birthday gifts, Taylor was doing nothing at all and it was the guys below him that were actually bring the game back for NZ.

Actually......
"at present the moment Taylor's wicket falls the writing is pretty much on the wall"
refers to what? I don't get it.
- He didn't even bat against Kenya and Zimbabwe.
- The Australia game was before his century when he was still horribly out of nick. The higher scores actually came from below him
- The Pakistan match, he finished not out
- The Canada match he got 74 and, once he got out, Williamson, Styris, and Franklin finished off the innings.

Oh, I see, you were talking about the single, solitary Sri Lanka match where Murali ran through the whole side...




Nathan McCullum
James Franklin
Jacob Oram

There are plenty of guys who can do what you think McCullum can do down the order. Any one of them can do a decent job down the order in case things go wrong at the top. If Brendon shifted down the order then NZ would just be adding a another lower order hitter whilst removing someone who can have an impact up the top.

So McCullum drops down and you open with Ryder? Taylor at 3 and Styris at 4? Franklin at 5?

I'd rather Ryder didn't open.
Taylor at 3 and Styris at 4 is OK with me, although a Ryder-Taylor 3-4 is the best.
Franklin at 5. Hell no!

Basically what you are saying is we should bat one of our better batsman down at 6 so he can finish off games. By batting him at 6 you are basically preparing for failure. If he has time to bat, the top order must have already failed. If he is there to finish of the order then he is doing a job that 3-4 other guys can do themselves (or share between them). It's like taking somebody from a position of weakness it the NZ set up and putting them down to where there is reasonable strength.

People seem to think McCullum was an amazing finisher, but something tells me thats more rose-tinted glasses than anything else.

Cue Howsie to remark on how poor McCullum has been opening the innings, remove minnows etc.

Haha... so now we are gonna count games against the minnows as well..!!

Seriously mate... New Zealand have been getting drubbed in the last 12 months and the lower order heroics or McCullum's efforts at the top of the order have done nothing to stop that.

The fact of the matter is the Black Caps look a much better side when0„2Taylor is scoring runs but at present there is too much pressure on him, he is the one who needs to stabilize the innings and then also finish the innings and that's asking a bit too much out of him.

The problem is likes of Franklin, Styris, Oram, N.McCullum barely turn-up against decent oppositions, so having a proven performer like B.McCullum can help stabilize things to a large extent.

Also has McCullum really done anything of note against good oppositions at the top of the order, because AFAIC he is a much better batsman to be just scoring quickfire 20's and 30's.

 

[Days of Grace]

because AFAIC he is a much better batsman to be just scoring quickfire 20's and 30's.

Which ironically is what he will be doing doing at no.7, if the top order does its job.

Wait, the top order fails again? ****, better move McCullum back up to open.

See, this will just keep going around and around. Reckon we should cement him in a position and be done with it for the rest of his career. Sick of hearing about this issue, tbh.

He an opener, imo.

Don't want Ryder opening because he gets it into his head that he has to force the pace instead of just playing a normal innings.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Haha... so now we are gonna count games against the minnows as well..!!

They are still games, aren't they?
Shall we remove the series against Bangladesh as well?
How about England's games against Bangladesh and Ireland. They were actually figaments of our imagination.

Seriously mate... New Zealand have been getting drubbed in the last 12 months and the lower order heroics or McCullum's efforts at the top of the order have done nothing to stop that.

Getting drubbed?
So how many of those drubbings did you see?
Lets go to the Bangladesh series (or do you want me to ignore it?)
NZ fielded sides that included Redmond, Stewart, Watling, Elliott, McKay none of who were even close to making the WC XV. Also included Williamson playing most games.
1st ODI - NZ lost by 9 runs. McCullum 61 (45). The real winner was Duckworth-Lewis
2nd ODI - N/R
3rd ODI - Bowled out for 173, lost by 7 wickets. Yeah, a drubbing.
4th ODI - McCullum scored a quick 20, Williamson scored a century to nearly pull of a comeback win. Hardly a drubbing.
5th ODI - Fail start, lower order heroics, but damage done. I suppose you can call it a drubbing, even though they only lost my 3 runs.

So 4-0 to Bangladesh. 3 of the times NZ lost chasing. No big surprise on spinning pitches. And when the top did fail, the recoveries were left to inexperienced guys.

Indian series.
1st ODI - no McCullum. Chasing 277, all out for 236. Were actually on target.
How opened, Williamson batted 3 and our 6-8 was Elliott-Tuffey-Hopkins. Exciting.
2nd ODI - no McCullum. India chased down NZ's total comfortably. Drubbing
3rd ODI - McCullum got a golden duck on return from injury. Late heroics, but the target set was always going to be too easy. Drubbing
4th ODI - McCullum 42 (42). Looking as close to full strength side for the first time in a while. Set 315, and a Pathan blinder stole the show. Hardly a drubbing
5th ODI - I'd like to pretend it never happened.

Pakistan series
1st ODI - McCullum batting down the order. NZ win by 9 wickets. A drubbing, but by NZ.
2nd ODI - N/R
3rd ODI - McCullum 12 (13) down the order. Added real value there, huh. NZ lose by 43 runs. McCullum was down the order yet no lower order heroics. I thought he was a magician?
4th ODI - I was actually at the ground. McCullum down at 7, 37 (39), well below par. Pakistan made it look hard, but made it in the end. Not a drubbing.
5th ODI - McCullum at 5. Fails. NZ turn a good start to a chase into a loss.Hardly a drubbing.
6th ODI - McCullum back to opening 11 (12). Ryder century. Lower order heroics. NZ win

So lots of drubbings? There's only about 4-5 out of those 14 ODI's that could be called drubbings. Unless just losing a match against Bangladesh is considered a drubbing?
Most of the time when they were drubbed it was batting letting the bowling down.

The fact of the matter is the Black Caps look a much better side when0„2Taylor is scoring runs but at present there is too much pressure on him, he is the one who needs to stabilize the innings and then also finish the innings and that's asking a bit too much out of him.

No, just no. He has been out of form for ages now, but the pressure is not just on him. Guptil, McCullum, Ryder, Styris, Franklin.
Yeah, they lost a lot of games in a row, but meh.

The problem is likes of Franklin, Styris, Oram, N.McCullum barely turn-up against decent oppositions, so having a proven performer like B.McCullum can help stabilize things to a large extent.

Yeah, Franklin never turned up against India.
McCullum never turned up against Pakistan.
Oram only just came back into the side at the start of the WC.

Oh, and McCullum never was one to stabilize an innings anyways. He finished off innings pretty well, but he is more likely to get out cheaply than start a recovery.

Also has McCullum really done anything of note against good oppositions at the top of the order, because AFAIC he is a much better batsman to be just scoring quickfire 20's and 30's.

Nah, he's not really better than that. That's what you would get out of him down the order. But at least at the top of the order he has a chance to actually score a quickfire 60+
No point in a 50* (40) down at 7 once every 10 games when you don't have a platform at the start.

 

[Flem274*]

I'm quite surprised Styris supposedly never turns up when he's been our second best ODI batsman of the 2000s behind Astle?

FMD, we're rubbish at, but lets not say things that aren't true please. Just over a year ago, or whenever the champions trophy was, a full strength NZ ODI line up was;

Ryder
McCullum
Guptill
Taylor
Elliott
Styris
Oram
McCullum
Vettori
Mills
Bond

We have had much the same side going into the Bangladesh debacle. That team above was awesome, but lost form as a collective unit.

Playing Hopkins, Watling etc hardly helped.

I'm not sure what I'm ranting about, but I'll finish with Taylor's worth to the ODI side is overrated and Mills is awesome and if he was Australian he'd get the recognition he deserves.

My finish may not have been on topic either.

 

[_Ed_]

I may even bust out a replica NZ ODI shirt on Friday. Desperate measures.

 

[BeeGee]

Some world class posting by KiWiNiNjA, here. Well played sir.

 

[Quaggas]

I may even bust out a replica NZ ODI shirt on Friday. Desperate measures.

I have a 2003 WC replica shirt for SA. Want me to mail it to you?

 

[Dhoni_fan]

All depends on the NZ top order, SA should win this pretty comfortably but NZ showed against Pakistan with that superb knock from Taylor that they are not here to make up the numbers, but I am not convinced about their lower order after the way they folded against Sri Lanka.

This match has the potential to be competitive but depends on the NZ top order.

 

[Bahnz]

@ KiWiNiNjA

I think McCullum should've been left down the order for longer. He's been distinctly ordinary as an opener for the past 12 months, and 2 innings at number six weren't nearly enough to evaluate how a shift back down the order would work. In those two innings he was:

1) Unfortunately run out; and

2) Did precisely what we wanted (stabilised a New Zealand collapse and reinjected forward momentum into the innings), although he didn't last as long as would be ideal obviously. Still 37 off 39 is better than what he's on average been managing at the top in recent times.

Hardly firm evidence that he's better suited up the order.

However, for better of for worse, it's been decided that he's opening in this world cup, and to change that now would be ridiculous.

As for results against minnows, performances against Kenya and Canada don't count for jack****, they're both weaker than your average club side. Zimbabwe is more of a grey area, but given there was no run rate pressure and the track was exceedingly docile, it'd be a bit rich to trumpet that game as a sign of the virtues of McCullum as an opener.

Really McCullum's last innings of anything approaching significance was his 60 against Bangladesh. Hasn't made a telling contribution since, and I don't really expect that to change on friday.

 

[straw man]

Which ironically is what he will be doing doing at no.7, if the top order does its job.

Wait, the top order fails again? ****, better move McCullum back up to open.

See, this will just keep going around and around. Reckon we should cement him in a position and be done with it for the rest of his career. Sick of hearing about this issue, tbh.

He an opener, imo.

Don't want Ryder opening because he gets it into his head that he has to force the pace instead of just playing a normal innings.

Agree with this. For me there's not a clear winner in the McCullum at opener vs 6 or 7 debate. He's done ok at opening since he moved to that position but, like most of the rest of our batting order, has simply not scored enough runs in the last 12 months. Scoring runs against minnows but failing against the big teams in this World Cup is indicative of this problem. On the other hand, as the home Pakistan series demonstrated if we put him at 6 or 7 as a finisher he may only get to play that role with the innings set up properly once every four or five matches.

Moving McCullum back and forward in reaction to what's happening with the team is the worst of both worlds. The clincher is that McCullum wants to open, so let him. And stick with it.

 

[straw man]

The problem is likes of Franklin, Styris, Oram, N.McCullum barely turn-up against decent oppositions, so having a proven performer like B.McCullum can help stabilize things to a large extent.

Think Pup does have a couple of good points - there's no doubt that a large part of our problem has been our big players 'not turning up' against the other test playing nations.

Franklin - has been a chronic non-performer when the pressure is on (barring lower order slogging). But looked to have turned a corner with 187 runs without being dismissed in 3 innings in India. Still living on the credit from that series unfortunately.

Styris - these days is also pretty poor against anything 140+ km/h. It's a while since I remember him bailing us out when 3 or 4 down early. So between him and Franklin if Steyn and Morkel run through our top order I don't expect they'll offer much resistance.

Oram - really hasn't done much with the bat in the last 2 years. Fortunately we bat deep enough that he can be in the side primarily as a bowler.

N McCullum - one player who does not deserve to be accused of not showing up when it matters. His batting has stepped up a notch recently.

Also not convinced about Ryder in big matches like this. Would really like to see him make a statement when the pressure is on in the match against South Africa.

Our batting lineup has been structured with most of our eggs in the top 4 basket for a while now. Franklin and Styris need a platform set so they can work us through the middle overs. And that platform is just not happening.

 

[BeeGee]

Moving McCullum back and forward in reaction to what's happening with the team is the worst of both worlds. The clincher is that McCullum wants to open, so let him. And stick with it.

AWTA. He is capable of winning a game for NZ opening the innings. He just needs to find the secret to doing it more often and against the stronger teams.

 

[straw man]

AWTA. He is capable of winning a game for NZ opening the innings. He just needs to find the secret to doing it more often and against the stronger teams.

Answer to all of our problems

 

[IndiaLose]

Oh common, SA will win this easily. The spinners are going to obliterate NZ batting line-up.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

@ KiWiNiNjA

I think McCullum should've been left down the order for longer. He's been distinctly ordinary as an opener for the past 12 months, and 2 innings at number six weren't nearly enough to evaluate how a shift back down the order would work. In those two innings he was:

1) Unfortunately run out; and

2) Did precisely what we wanted (stabilised a New Zealand collapse and reinjected forward momentum into the innings), although he didn't last as long as would be ideal obviously. Still 37 off 39 is better than what he's on average been managing at the top in recent times.

Hardly firm evidence that he's better suited up the order.

However, for better of for worse, it's been decided that he's opening in this world cup, and to change that now would be ridiculous.

As for results against minnows, performances against Kenya and Canada don't count for jack****, they're both weaker than your average club side. Zimbabwe is more of a grey area, but given there was no run rate pressure and the track was exceedingly docile, it'd be a bit rich to trumpet that game as a sign of the virtues of McCullum as an opener.

Really McCullum's last innings of anything approaching significance was his 60 against Bangladesh. Hasn't made a telling contribution since, and I don't really expect that to change on friday.

The problem I have is that after finding some form in the Test format (yes I know), he wasn't really given a chance to show the same sort of form in ODI's. After the 225 in India, he was injured for the first couple of matches, got a golden duck on return, got a run-a-ball 42, then failed in that 103ao debacle.

We go back to NZ. He continues to show form and some maturity in Test matches, yet when it comes to the ODI's they suddenly move him down the order. He had no chance to even show signs of that Test form and newfound maturity crossing over to his ODI game.

The 2nd innings you talk about. 37 (39). I was at the ground. It may have "stabilised" the innings but it was not what was required. That pitch at Napier required at least 320. Yeah, he pushed the ball around for a while, but iirc Franklin was doing the same job. McCullum never looked comfortable, you could tell he didn't really want to be batting there. The damage had already been done at the top of the innings, slow start on a road. He would have been so much better at the top of the order. Yeah, he could have failed, but he could have exploded too. We have guys like Styris and/or Franklin who should be playing these middle order roles of stabilising an innings.

I agree there is not much difference to Opener McCullum and Finisher McCullum. Both have underperformed. But

a) Do we really need to put him down the order for when the top order fails? Basically preparing for failure.
b) Do we really need someone like him when we have Franklin/NcCullum/Oram etc down there who can do the same job.
c) He scores a lot of quickfire 20s and 30s. But if he comes off up the top he can put up a big score. If he comes off lower down he is only ever going to get a 40-50* in a finishing role, at the most. He isn't going to do anything great in a recovery role

The whole talk about moving him down was so he can use the batting PP. That is just stupid. Why prepare for 5 overs, that a batsman isn't even guaranteed to play in, when there is usually 15 overs of PP at the top of the innings.

And finally.

The clincher is that McCullum wants to open, so let him. And stick with it.

 

[popepouri]

Oh common, SA will win this easily. The spinners are going to obliterate NZ batting line-up.

SA spinners obliterating a lineup? When last have you heard that said?

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Oh common, SA will win this easily. The spinners are going to obliterate NZ batting line-up.

Yeah, there is 0% chance for a NZ win. They shouldn't even bother.

Yeah, forfeit is the way to go bro.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Yeah, there is 0% chance for a NZ win. They shouldn't even bother.

Yeah, forfeit is the way to go bro.

Lol, you need to relax man, there are some of us here who think that NZ have a decent shot at beating the Saffers. Anyway I want you guys to win because of Southee. He is one of my favourite bowlers.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I take everything that IndiaLose says very seriously.

He only speaks the truth, you know that.

 

[BeeGee]

Yeah, there is 0% chance for a NZ win. They shouldn't even bother.

Yeah, forfeit is the way to go bro.

It would certainly be a unique strategy and one that South Africa wouldn't have planned for. It worked for us in the 2003 WC against Kenya (we made it to the super sixes).
Forfeit, ftw!