Cricket: NZ vs England
-
At the risk of the jinx, Latham is a bloody special player. He's almost certain to be our best ever test opener by the end of his career (excluding Dempster) , and is possibly there already.
But what really stands out to me is that about two or three years ago when the South Africans were here, he was in a real deep trough form wise, and I can remember watching him gradually pulling back, filing off his edges and getting back into form, particularly around reducing the balls he was flashing at outside off stump.
It was a fantastic display of self awareness and discipline and convinced me that he had what it would take to excel as a test cricketer.
-
@Virgil said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
100 #11 for Latham!
5 tons in 10 successive innings as well.
First kiwi to achieve that.
-
At the risk of the jinx, Latham is a bloody special player. He's almost certain to be our best ever test opener by the end of his career (excluding Dempster) , and is possibly there already.
But what really stands out to me is that about two or three years ago when the South Africans were here, he was in a real deep trough form wise, and I can remember watching him gradually pulling back, filing off his edges and getting back into form, particularly around reducing the balls he was flashing at outside off stump.
It was a fantastic display of self awareness and discipline and convinced me that he had what it would take to excel as a test cricketer.
@Cyclops Yeah - the good thing is that he's putting to bed the idea that Rigor should be in an all time NZ XI.
And I've got nothing at all against Rigor who had a very good and consistent record - based around an excellent average - but 4 test hundreds and a highest score of 145 is a bit embarrassing for us as a country if it's the best we can muster.
So, Tommy with 11 hundreds and a top- score of 264* is a lot more credible - and his average has just scraped past MR's as well.
-
@Cyclops Yeah - the good thing is that he's putting to bed the idea that Rigor should be in an all time NZ XI.
And I've got nothing at all against Rigor who had a very good and consistent record - based around an excellent average - but 4 test hundreds and a highest score of 145 is a bit embarrassing for us as a country if it's the best we can muster.
So, Tommy with 11 hundreds and a top- score of 264* is a lot more credible - and his average has just scraped past MR's as well.
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
And I've got nothing at all against Rigor who had a very good and consistent record - based around an excellent average - but 4 test hundreds and a highest score of 145 is a bit embarrassing for us as a country if it's the best we can muster.
SA would still have Barry Richards in their all time XI on 4 tests - but obviously different circumstances. Many would have Bond still just on peak - however is record is two tests on a greentop against India and mauling the Windies and Zimbabwe.
Going strictly on record if Rig had have performed on the 01/02 or 04/05 Australian tours against 'the best' I think there would still be a good case for him over Latham. On 'feel' I always had a bit more faith that Rig wasn't going to nick out to the new ball, but Latham is close!
-
Latham's innings has been pretty canny so far. Lots of cut shots, just picking off the bowlers, Low risk stuff, but bloody effective. Shame Roscoe fell just after his 50, looked to have a good partnership developing with Latham.
England's bowlers - Woakes apart - seem to have lost much of their bite.. Still puzzled as to why they went with 5 seamers especially if they knew Stokes was carrying an injury. Say what you like about Stokes, but he is still a cock -
@Cyclops Yeah - the good thing is that he's putting to bed the idea that Rigor should be in an all time NZ XI.
And I've got nothing at all against Rigor who had a very good and consistent record - based around an excellent average - but 4 test hundreds and a highest score of 145 is a bit embarrassing for us as a country if it's the best we can muster.
So, Tommy with 11 hundreds and a top- score of 264* is a lot more credible - and his average has just scraped past MR's as well.
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Cyclops Yeah - the good thing is that he's putting to bed the idea that Rigor should be in an all time NZ XI.
Even Richardson himself said Latham would make the best NZ XI when they showed the top 10 test run scorers, which Latham has now joined. Outside of Crowe, Latham has the best conversion rate from 50s to 100s.
-
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
And I've got nothing at all against Rigor who had a very good and consistent record - based around an excellent average - but 4 test hundreds and a highest score of 145 is a bit embarrassing for us as a country if it's the best we can muster.
SA would still have Barry Richards in their all time XI on 4 tests - but obviously different circumstances. Many would have Bond still just on peak - however is record is two tests on a greentop against India and mauling the Windies and Zimbabwe.
Going strictly on record if Rig had have performed on the 01/02 or 04/05 Australian tours against 'the best' I think there would still be a good case for him over Latham. On 'feel' I always had a bit more faith that Rig wasn't going to nick out to the new ball, but Latham is close!
@rotated The nice thing about this current generation of Black Caps is that they're providing a lot of credible options for the all time NZ XI - Latham, Kane, Rossco, Watling, Boult.
Not all of them are necessarily going to get in, but it makes a change from 15 years ago, when we were scratching around basically picking anyone who averaged more than 40 with the bat and a guy like Chats who could (and this is very harsh and unfair) block up an end while Sir Paddles went to work was at least in the conversation.
-
@rotated The nice thing about this current generation of Black Caps is that they're providing a lot of credible options for the all time NZ XI - Latham, Kane, Rossco, Watling, Boult.
Not all of them are necessarily going to get in, but it makes a change from 15 years ago, when we were scratching around basically picking anyone who averaged more than 40 with the bat and a guy like Chats who could (and this is very harsh and unfair) block up an end while Sir Paddles went to work was at least in the conversation.
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@rotated The nice thing about this current generation of Black Caps is that they're providing a lot of credible options for the all time NZ XI - Latham, Kane, Rossco, Watling, Boult.
Not all of them are necessarily going to get in, but it makes a change from 15 years ago, when we were scratching around basically picking anyone who averaged more than 40 with the bat and a guy like Chats who could (and this is very harsh and unfair) block up an end while Sir Paddles went to work was at least in the conversation.
I think you may be underestimating your age there Christopher. Paddles's last test was nearly 30 years ago.
-
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@rotated The nice thing about this current generation of Black Caps is that they're providing a lot of credible options for the all time NZ XI - Latham, Kane, Rossco, Watling, Boult.
Not all of them are necessarily going to get in, but it makes a change from 15 years ago, when we were scratching around basically picking anyone who averaged more than 40 with the bat and a guy like Chats who could (and this is very harsh and unfair) block up an end while Sir Paddles went to work was at least in the conversation.
I think you may be underestimating your age there Christopher. Paddles's last test was nearly 30 years ago.
-
@booboo I meant that 15 years ago, we were considering people like Rigor, Fleming, Cairns, Andrew Jones, Chats, John Reid Jr. as potential players for the all time XI (along with Sir Paddles et al).
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@booboo I meant that 15 years ago, we were considering people like Rigor, Fleming, Cairns, Andrew Jones, Chats, John Reid Jr. as potential players for the all time XI (along with Sir Paddles et al).
Aah. Gotcha. I have a habit of remembering stuff as being more recent than they were and getting a surprise when I have to add 10 ... or 15 ... years to how long ago it actually was...
-
This England team resembles the black caps of old. Good enough to get into strong positions, but not good enough to shut the door so let us off the hook.
Still lots of work for us to do, as @Chris-B says. And England are yet to bat on this pitch so we might find that whatever we end up with is not enough.
-
This England team resembles the black caps of old. Good enough to get into strong positions, but not good enough to shut the door so let us off the hook.
Still lots of work for us to do, as @Chris-B says. And England are yet to bat on this pitch so we might find that whatever we end up with is not enough.
@Cyclops said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
Still lots of work for us to do, as @Chris-B says. And England are yet to bat on this pitch so we might find that whatever we end up with is not enough.
Bat two days, there is no way you should lose from there. Would take a miracle
-
Being one up in the series is such a luxury. We have no qualms about time.
-
I would have preferred it if we had got past 400 before we started swinging at everything. Especially Santner if he wants to claim allrounder status.
Will be an interesting little period here. Hopefully we can nab a couple of wickets before stumps. They were looking pretty flat in the field so a couple of wickets could trigger a proper collapse.
-
Two lives for Burns already. Both tough but very catchable.
Raval is having a miserable summer. Funny how when you're out of form nothing goes quite right.
@Cyclops Yeah - pretty much both of them got two hands to each catch, so you'd hope to catch both and expect to catch one.
Jeet starting to test the armchair selectors'patience - though in recent times the NZ selectors have proved to generally have more patience, but once you gone you stay gone (Marcellus Wallis).
