Cricket: NZ vs England
-
Watling gets rated at 693 for his 205 against England attack while Stokes gets a rating of 704 for his 91. I guess strength of opposing attack and home ground really is a huge factor there
@SynicBast said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
Watling gets rated at 693 for his 205 against England attack while Stokes gets a rating of 704 for his 91. I guess strength of opposing attack and home ground really is a huge factor there
The ratings are based on more than just the last innings. So his 91 presumably boosted his rating less than Watling's 205 boosted his.
-
Looking at the rankings has made me realise that despite our CWC performances, short form cricket is actually our weaker suit by a fair margin. Outside of Kane and Ross, none of our batsmen rank particularly highly, whereas in tests we have Latham, Nicholls and Watling all in the top twenty. And at this point Kane and Ross are both much stronger performers in the longer format (more so Ross than Kane, who is world class in both).
Our bowling is relatively even, where the loss of Wagner is offset by the presence of Ferguson.
-
Looking at the rankings has made me realise that despite our CWC performances, short form cricket is actually our weaker suit by a fair margin. Outside of Kane and Ross, none of our batsmen rank particularly highly, whereas in tests we have Latham, Nicholls and Watling all in the top twenty. And at this point Kane and Ross are both much stronger performers in the longer format (more so Ross than Kane, who is world class in both).
Our bowling is relatively even, where the loss of Wagner is offset by the presence of Ferguson.
@Cyclops agree, particularly at opener and 5. Raval and Nicholls are both solid test players, but we've really struggled to find an opener to replace BMac and a decent #5 in ODIs. That said, the quality of Williamson and Taylor has masked that a bit and our middle order hitters can win ODIs with a quick 100 between them, which is usually less useful in tests.
-
-
@Machpants I almost went there ... never gets old.
Anyway, the team is as Daryl Mitchell and Matt Henry coming in for TB and CDG.
I'd still have taken Lockie
@nzzp said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Machpants I almost went there ... never gets old.
Anyway, the team is as Daryl Mitchell and Matt Henry coming in for TB and CDG.
I'd still have taken Lockie
Sames
-
England drop Leach for Chris Woakes, they now have 5 seamers. Strengthens their batting too. Pope will keep. This is his fifth first class game keeping wicket.
I probably would have preferred Ferg over Henry, but I get why Henry is preferred. Ferg has never lead a black caps attack and he's best eased in to test cricket as a 3/4 option. That said, Ferg is likely to be very effective in Aus.
-
Kane better step up a bit, or he'll be carrying the drinks in Australia. We're too good to just be carrying people these days
-
@Donsteppa said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
Kumar is the sort of umpire DRS was made for.
Absolutely. I would love to see his getting it right/wrong ratio
