NZ v Bangladesh Test #1
-
-
@Chris-B said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@Cyclops Not many overseas players on that list who weren't at least minor greats of the game.
Where are the people like Graeme Swann, Nathan Lyon, Ravi Ashwin etc? They simply don't play enough matches here.
Yeah, there a lot of guys who only ever played one series in NZ and its hard to design qualifiers that include them without letting in part timers who bowled a couple of overs a game (Sachin Tendulkar, looking at you).
One example is Anil Kumble who only played 3 tests here and averaged over 40.
-
@Virgil said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
Looking at our most successful spin bowler of the last 20 years, Daniel Vettori.
362 wickets @ 34.36Home he took 159 wickets @ 37.11
Away he took 203 wickets @ 32.16I'll always have a lot of love for Dan the man as much for his gutsy batting and captaincy as for his bowling. Interesting reading, so the consensus is Bracewell was better than he was ? @Cyclops are you saying we've never had a test class spinner?
-
@MN5 said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@Virgil said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
Looking at our most successful spin bowler of the last 20 years, Daniel Vettori.
362 wickets @ 34.36Home he took 159 wickets @ 37.11
Away he took 203 wickets @ 32.16I'll always have a lot of love for Dan the man as much for his gutsy batting and captaincy as for his bowling. Interesting reading, so the consensus is Bracewell was better than he was ? @Cyclops are you saying we've never had a test class spinner?
Might have been a bit harsh on that one. There's Vettori and Bracewell who would be in the lower half of the test class spinners group.
-
@Cyclops said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@MN5 said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@Virgil said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
Looking at our most successful spin bowler of the last 20 years, Daniel Vettori.
362 wickets @ 34.36Home he took 159 wickets @ 37.11
Away he took 203 wickets @ 32.16I'll always have a lot of love for Dan the man as much for his gutsy batting and captaincy as for his bowling. Interesting reading, so the consensus is Bracewell was better than he was ? @Cyclops are you saying we've never had a test class spinner?
Might have been a bit harsh on that one. There's Vettori and Bracewell who would be in the lower half of the test class spinners group.
'test' class or 'world' class ?
off the top of my head only Warne and Murali of recent spinners fit into the latter category.
Ya have to go back many years to get anyone approaching their level.
-
'test'. My initial comment was based on the stats guru list I posted, which is not good reading for NZ cricket, but as @Chris-B pointed out, most of the international guys on that list would be in or close to the 'great' tier.
A test quality spinner should be able to tie down an end in unfriendly conditions, be a genuine wicket taking threat in friendly ones (and still keep it tight) and be able to mop up the tail fairly regularly.
Our bowlers generally either offer wicket taking threat or keep it tight but not both.
-
@Cyclops said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
'test'. My initial comment was based on the stats guru list I posted, which is not good reading for NZ cricket, but as @Chris-B pointed out, most of the international guys on that list would be in or close to the 'great' tier.
A test quality spinner should be able to tie down an end in unfriendly conditions, be a genuine wicket taking threat in friendly ones (and still keep it tight) and be able to mop up the tail fairly regularly.
Our bowlers generally either offer wicket taking threat or keep it tight but not both.
Fair call. Not for a second suggesting DV was world class but he was definitely test class especially for NZ. Not for nothing is he second on the all time list and, two legends I mentioned aside, I think he would have had a shot at making most other test teams of his era. ( Actually not India, Kumble and Harvhajan were better, or England, Swann......)
Ok maybe half of test teams.....
-
-
@Chris-B said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@MN5 Dan was world class at his peak. He played for the World XI vs Oz.
I hoped he'd play forever, he carried the team for awhile there all on his own including the embarrassing time before Taylor came in that he and BMac had about 10 hundreds between them and the top six had none.
But I think 'World class' is probably pushing it.
-
-
@Virgil said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
Take that out to 2008 and it’s even better
2004 - 2008
21 tests 84 wickets @ 26.16That’s including the 1 test for the World XI where he took 1/111
For just NZ in that period he had 83 wickets @ 25.14Nothing wrong that at all
considering that for a huge amount of that he was expected to:
take wickets;
stem the run flow; and
score all the runsDan fucking carried us. I'll not hear a bad word against him.
As good a limited overs bowler as you would see as well.
-
@Virgil said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
Take that out to 2008 and it’s even better
2004 - 2008
21 tests 84 wickets @ 26.16That’s including the 1 test for the World XI where he took 1/111
For just NZ in that period he had 83 wickets @ 25.14Nothing wrong that at all
as his bowling suffered his batting improved though, perhaps out of necessity with some of the donkeys we had in the top order at times.
-
His batting wasn’t that great during that period, still averaged 31 but only the 1 test 100.
Scary stat I found (slow day at work)
His test batting record in NZ is virtually identical with Stephen Fleming.
Both averaged 33 and scored similar number of runs. DV was helped with more not outs
Though he did outscore Flem 4 centuries to 2 -
@MN5 said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@Chris-B said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@MN5 Dan was world class at his peak. He played for the World XI vs Oz.
I hoped he'd play forever, he carried the team for awhile there all on his own including the embarrassing time before Taylor came in that he and BMac had about 10 hundreds between them and the top six had none.
But I think 'World class' is probably pushing it.
I reckon that by definition - if you get picked for the World XI, you're World Class (assuming it's a genuine World XI).
In the ODI series that followed Dan was the best bowler for the World XI - just shading Murali!
-
@Chris-B said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@MN5 said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@Chris-B said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@MN5 Dan was world class at his peak. He played for the World XI vs Oz.
I hoped he'd play forever, he carried the team for awhile there all on his own including the embarrassing time before Taylor came in that he and BMac had about 10 hundreds between them and the top six had none.
But I think 'World class' is probably pushing it.
I reckon that by definition - if you get picked for the World XI, you're World Class (assuming it's a genuine World XI).
In the ODI series that followed Dan was the best bowler for the World XI - just shading Murali!
True, that batting line up is one for the ages.
But then again Steve Harmison made it.
-
for a period Steve Harmison was fucking good. He completely fell off a cliff though.
-
@Paekakboyz I really like Wags but he was a bit of a tool with his gabbiness on Saturday afternoon.
If there is a "line" you don't want to cross I reckon suggesting Iqbal would be hospital before the next test if it clouded over went there. I get he's a fiery character and all that but the issue was NZ's bowling and mouthing off did nothing to address that. Good effort with the bat against poor opposition but a decent side would have murdered our bowling "attack".
-
@dogmeat I'd hate Wagner if he was playing for anyone else.
Heard Jeremy Coney giving a reasonable summary of our attack after the game.
Plan A - the ball swings and Boult, Southee and de Grandhomme knock over the opposition.
Plan B - Wagner bounces them out
Plan C - Our spinner buys some time until we can revert to Plan A or B.
Jerry thought the spinners we are using don't spin the ball enough to be proper attacking weapons if the pace attack fails.
And if the ball doesn't swing we only really have Wagner to fall back on. Against the top teams - and especially those used to a bit of bounce, we're a bit limited.
