NZ v Bangladesh Test #1
-
@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.
-
@dogmeat said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@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".
Pretty rough. We've got three very good quick bowlers and they're playing all at once. Wagner's first innings efforts in particular were magnificent.
-
@dogmeat I caught a bit of that mouthiness, and I guess it was flirting with our NZ brand of the line. I don't mind a bit of sting in the banter although he kept at it for a bit. But part of it was definitely calling out some poor technique to the bouncing ball so...
-
@Chris-B said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@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.
To be fair most bowling attacks are toothless if the ball doesn’t swing (see Broad and Anderson)
Unless you have out and out pace or can bowl a precise 4th wicket line at the right length your not going to tear through sides.
A flat pitch never favours any team. The bangles had a spinner with a decent record but he got nothing.
If it doesn’t swing spin or seam your kinda fucked. -
@Virgil said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@Chris-B said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@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.
To be fair most bowling attacks are toothless if the ball doesn’t swing (see Broad and Anderson)
Unless you have out and out pace or can bowl a precise 4th wicket line at the right length your bit going to tear through sides.
A flat pitch never favours any team. The bangles had a spinner with a decent record but he got nothing.
If it doesn’t swing spin or seam your kinda fucked.Good comparison. I'm in two minds about those two Poms and their standing in the game. Off the top of my head about 1000 wickets between them but is that cos they're great or cos they've played for fucken donkeys years?
Actually to be fair they're both pretty fucken decent....
-
@MN5 said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@Virgil said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@Chris-B said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@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.
To be fair most bowling attacks are toothless if the ball doesn’t swing (see Broad and Anderson)
Unless you have out and out pace or can bowl a precise 4th wicket line at the right length your bit going to tear through sides.
A flat pitch never favours any team. The bangles had a spinner with a decent record but he got nothing.
If it doesn’t swing spin or seam your kinda fucked.Good comparison. I'm in two minds about those two Poms and their standing in the game. Off the top of my head about 1000 wickets between them but is that cos they're great or cos they've played for fucken donkeys years?
Actually to be fair they're both pretty fucken decent....
Anderson was pretty average at the start of his career (i feel like the only team he got wickets against was us) but he developed in to a genuinely great swing bowler. His seam position; release; and accuracy has been brilliant for a long time. Yes, he'll battle when it's not swinging, but as noted just below, at his pace (which he needs to be as a swing bowler) in the modern game he can easily become very hittable.
-
@Virgil said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@Chris-B said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@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.
To be fair most bowling attacks are toothless if the ball doesn’t swing (see Broad and Anderson)
Unless you have out and out pace or can bowl a precise 4th wicket line at the right length your not going to tear through sides.
A flat pitch never favours any team. The bangles had a spinner with a decent record but he got nothing.
If it doesn’t swing spin or seam your kinda fucked.Which was pretty much where Jerry went with his conclusion - that maybe we should pick someone like Ferguson or Milne instead of de Grandhomme and that instead of a holding spinner, Santner or Astle, we should pick an attacking spinner e.g. Sodhi (though I don't think Jerry named him). But someone who is a genuine spinner as opposed to a "slow bowler".
-
Astle isn't a holding spinner.
It is a golden opportunity to play Ferguson with our current bowling balance options. As either Wagner or CdG can take up that old ball workhorse role and spare him too many overs in a day. Ideally Fergusson would be in a bowling group that also includes a more defensive spinner, Santner IMO, to dry up runs, take up workload and also extend the batting (if it is CdG to miss out).
But that would probably involve resting (or dropping) either Southee or CdG.
I'd give it a go v Bangladesh. Employ some rotation. But it won't happen as Matt Henry is in the 13 man squad.
-
@Rapido said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
As either Wagner or CdG can take up that old ball workhorse role and spare him too many overs in a day.
Functionally Wagner is the holding spinner. He can bowl long spells, he can dry up runs, his wickets largely rely on attrition and repetitive accuracy.
It's hardly going to be Fire in Babylon but I'd pick four quicks except on the sub-continent.
-
@rotated said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@Rapido said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
As either Wagner or CdG can take up that old ball workhorse role and spare him too many overs in a day.
Functionally Wagner is the holding spinner. He can bowl long spells, he can dry up runs, his wickets largely rely on attrition and repetitive accuracy.
It's hardly going to be Fire in Babylon but I'd pick four quicks except on the sub-continent.
Pretty much. Kane can roll the arm over if we need it, he's as good an option for a 5 over spell to give the bowlers as breather as anyone we have.
-
@Godder said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@rotated said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@Rapido said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
As either Wagner or CdG can take up that old ball workhorse role and spare him too many overs in a day.
Functionally Wagner is the holding spinner. He can bowl long spells, he can dry up runs, his wickets largely rely on attrition and repetitive accuracy.
It's hardly going to be Fire in Babylon but I'd pick four quicks except on the sub-continent.
Pretty much. Kane can roll the arm over if we need it, he's as good an option for a 5 over spell to give the bowlers as breather as anyone we have.
Indeed. Not sure why the little master doesn't use himself more. He just about spun us to victory in 2012 against England...he's no mug.
Edit: just googled him for his bowling record and see his batting is a sensational 53.20.....brilliant stuff.
-
@rotated said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
@Rapido said in NZ v Bangladesh Test #1:
As either Wagner or CdG can take up that old ball workhorse role and spare him too many overs in a day.
Functionally Wagner is the holding spinner. He can bowl long spells, he can dry up runs, his wickets largely rely on attrition and repetitive accuracy.
It's hardly going to be Fire in Babylon but I'd pick four quicks except on the sub-continent.
I don't think Wagner can dry up runs. He has the highest RPO of any of our seamers, and almost half a run more than Santner, and well over half a run more than CDG.
He is prone to cop a hiding, but will generally pick up wickets too. His cheaper spells come when batsmen are looking to bat time and can just get out of the line or duck under him or day long, and he ceases to be a wicket taking threat.
He's definitely the workhorse of the attack though but needs someone at the other end building pressure. CDG is quite a good foil for him because he's quite tight.
-
Williamson's bowling.
Pre-chucking ban: 40 matches, 29 wickets at 40.10
Since return to bowling after action remediated: 37 matches, 5 wickets at 37.40
He just doesn't bowl himself much anymore. Whether that's because he doesn't trust his action, doesn't rate his own bowling anymore, or he just has too much on his plate as captain. Or the seamers are getting the job done. I don't know. Often his specialist spinner is underbowled, let alone bowling himself.
His post chucking stats aren't bad. But they are sparse. He bowled just 7 overs in 2018, and 7 in 2017.
