NZ tour of India
-
@donsteppa said in NZ tour of India:
I hadn't expected our spinners to scythe through India. But I also hadn't expected them to be so innocuous to the point where - if both Wagner and Mitchell had played instead of the two frontliners - we might have taken more/quicker wickets...
Yeah. They've been disappointing.
Patel has actually bowled quite badly in the parts I have watched. Just been surprisingly loose. But I do rate him, I don't think this slow pitch suited his natural pace, and he doesn't have the skill and experience of the Indians to use the variations or pace more suited.
Sommerville was always the more unproven riskier selection, compounded by being Auckland locked down and getting zero cricket. At least he was tight. But with 9 RHBs in the Indian team I think he will miss out to Wagner and Ravindra will be retained.
-
Both Patel and Somerville have had no preparation as neither could play in the early rounds of the Plunket Shield. They were always going to be underdone but I assume that Stead and Williamson backed them to do what they did against Pakistan in the UAE, or something close.
-
@canefan said in NZ tour of India:
Wags would have asked more questions of the batters, we loves Wags
For all the wag love (myself included), I still think for test cricket the coaching staff and selectors really f*ked this up, which I said before a ball was bowled.
He offers way more than just a third seamer option, I could see what they were trying, but at the expense of our own match winner in many vaired conditions was just brainless in my book.
I think we lose this test outright now, if we survive a whole day I will be happy. As others have mentioned, the pitch isnt turning that badly yet, but I still expect poor shots to exceed unplayable deliveries. Happy to be proven wrong
will repost in grumpy old man lol
-
I cannot see us surviving a barrage from spinners of that calibre. I wonder if Test cricket has ever had that many playing at once of that ability ? ( bear in mind they can all bat too ) Shutting up shop and playing safe won’t cut it, they’re too dangerous.
I hope I’m wrong though.
-
@bovidae said in NZ tour of India:
Both Patel and Somerville have had no preparation as neither could play in the early rounds of the Plunket Shield. They were always going to be underdone but I assume that Stead and Williamson backed them to do what they did against Pakistan in the UAE, or something close.
Patel did get in a tour of Bangladesh, though. And a few days training in Pakistan.
-
@rapido T20 cricket isn't the same. The TV news showed Patel training by himself in the nets in Auckland while the PS was on. Taylor wasn't able to play for CD either with Hamilton in lockdown.
I'm not arguing for both spinners to be in the XI, just saying it was hardly an ideal preparation for those 3 players.
-
@bovidae said in NZ tour of India:
@rapido T20 cricket isn't the same. The TV news showed Patel training by himself in the nets in Auckland while the PS was on. Taylor wasn't able to play for CD either with Hamilton in lockdown.
I'm not arguing for both spinners to be in the XI, just saying it was hardly an ideal preparation for those 3 players.
Still totally baffling why some of those guys weren't given a run in the India T20s to at least dust the cobwebs off in a serious match. I understand the need for different squads etc but Taylor facing competitive bowling is worth more than whatever Mark Chapman got out of that dead rubber or does Todd Astle really need to play ahead of one of the test spinners? Just all around strange.
-
@rotated Good call re poor use of the T20 series. Even more strange when you consider NZC had no issue with sending a genuine 2nd XI to Bangladesh, and all the huffing and puffing over not having a warm-up in Australia almost two years ago. If we lose this test, there'll be more of the same served up, partially fairly, but this time NZC had an opportunity to do something to help and missed an opportunity.
-
@mn5 said in NZ tour of India:
I wonder if Test cricket has ever had that many playing at once of that ability ?
Indian Test Cricket has
Bishen Bedi (left armer and captain), Chandresekar (leggie) Prassana and Vengkataravan (spelling?) were around in the late 60's / early 70's - although they rarely played together. Usually one of the offies would be rested
Batting was built Gavaskar Armanath and Viswanath who would set a total. You'd get 10 overs from a couple of medium pacers before these guys would take over in front of 100,000 screaming Indians.
The first tour of India I remember was about 1976. The one where Peter Petherick took NZ's first hat trick. The 3 Indian spinners took over 50 wickets in a 3 test series.
-
@dogmeat said in NZ tour of India:
@mn5 said in NZ tour of India:
I wonder if Test cricket has ever had that many playing at once of that ability ?
Indian Test Cricket has
Bishen Bedi (left armer and captain), Chandresekar (leggie) Prassana and Vengkataravan (spelling?) were around in the late 60's / early 70's - although they rarely played together. Usually one of the offies would be rested
Batting was built Gavaskar Armanath and Viswanath who would set a total. You'd get 10 overs from a couple of medium pacers before these guys would take over in front of 100,000 screaming Indians.
The first tour of India I remember was about 1976. The one where Peter Petherick took NZ's first hat trick. The 3 Indian spinners took over 50 wickets in a 3 test series.
Not sure any of them could bat……( indeed, THREE test 50s between the four of them )
Jadeja and Ashwin both average under 25, utterly exceptional for a spinner of any era ( Warnies average was over 25 as a point of comparison ).
Patel has obviously had a ridiculous start, will be interesting how he maintains it.
-
-
@mn5 said in NZ tour of India:
I wonder if Test cricket has ever had that many playing at once of that ability ? ( bear in mind they can all bat too )
Saqlain Mushtaq, Mushtaq Ahmed and Danish Kaneria all took 180+ test wickets with their careers overlapping in the early 00s.
-
Australia had the two best leg spinners in the world at the same time.
MacGill only played 44 tests but took 208 wickets at 29.
-
@dogmeat said in NZ tour of India:
@mn5 You asked if anyone had had spinners of that calibre before. Batting is a bonus. Their core skill is bowling. Anyway in those days you only expected a handful of runs from your lower order - seven down, all out.
Well no, from a NZ perspective Paddles, Bracewell, L Cairns, Collingwood etc we’re all pretty handy batsmen.
-
@mn5 said in NZ tour of India:
@dogmeat said in NZ tour of India:
@mn5 You asked if anyone had had spinners of that calibre before. Batting is a bonus. Their core skill is bowling. Anyway in those days you only expected a handful of runs from your lower order - seven down, all out.
Well no, from a NZ perspective Paddles, Bracewell, L Cairns, Collingwood etc we’re all pretty handy batsmen.
Test batting averages of 27.16 (Paddles normally came in at five down...), 20.42, 16.28, and 14.40 (Collinge) respectively. And they're the ones that stood out
Though there was that record partnership between Collinge and Hastings that stood the test of time and held the record for 40 years or so - 153 runs for the 10th wicket.
-
@donsteppa said in NZ tour of India:
@mn5 said in NZ tour of India:
@dogmeat said in NZ tour of India:
@mn5 You asked if anyone had had spinners of that calibre before. Batting is a bonus. Their core skill is bowling. Anyway in those days you only expected a handful of runs from your lower order - seven down, all out.
Well no, from a NZ perspective Paddles, Bracewell, L Cairns, Collingwood etc we’re all pretty handy batsmen.
Test batting averages of 27.16 (Paddles normally came in at five down...), 20.42, 16.28, and 14.40 (Collinge) respectively. And they're the ones that stood out
Though there was that record partnership between Collinge and Hastings that stood the test of time and held the record for 40 years or so - 153 runs for the 10th wicket.
Definitely less bunnies nowadays than back in the day, but @dogmeats statement was definitely not accurate. Your numbers 7-9 in most teams in history can generally hold a bat at the very least.
-
@mn5 said in NZ tour of India:
@donsteppa said in NZ tour of India:
@mn5 said in NZ tour of India:
@dogmeat said in NZ tour of India:
@mn5 You asked if anyone had had spinners of that calibre before. Batting is a bonus. Their core skill is bowling. Anyway in those days you only expected a handful of runs from your lower order - seven down, all out.
Well no, from a NZ perspective Paddles, Bracewell, L Cairns, Collingwood etc we’re all pretty handy batsmen.
Test batting averages of 27.16 (Paddles normally came in at five down...), 20.42, 16.28, and 14.40 (Collinge) respectively. And they're the ones that stood out
Though there was that record partnership between Collinge and Hastings that stood the test of time and held the record for 40 years or so - 153 runs for the 10th wicket.
Definitely less bunnies nowadays than back in the day, but @dogmeats statement was definitely not accurate. Your numbers 7-9 in most teams in history can generally hold a bat at the very least.
T20 means they can hit! Bunnies at the top level are super rare now, not sure Chris Martin would get a look in these days
-
I would have thought swap Wagner for a spinner next test.
I am not totally convinced that spinner should be Somerville. I would have thought Rachin Ravindra was th emost average of the spinners. Somerville is now making a reasonable fist with the bat also. He also hung around determinedly in the first innings.
I think he shows real grit and I like the cut of his jib.
