Black Caps v England
-
@Crucial said in Black Caps v England:
@Chris said in Black Caps v England:
@Crucial said in Black Caps v England:
@Chris said in Black Caps v England:
@junior said in Black Caps v England:
@Chris said in Black Caps v England:
@kiwi_expat said in Black Caps v England:
@Chris said in Black Caps v England:
@kiwi_expat said in Black Caps v England:
@Chris said in Black Caps v England:
no use slamming Stead if he has not got the cattle to pick from, he still as coach has to try and win games.
poor Gary cattle less Stead - he has 3 of the 6 test batsmen averaging 50+, a keeper averaging 45 and an opener averaging 40+ we are like 3x worse than when Hesson was coach, yet NZ's top order have crazy good averages.
We have a top order averaging 55, 42, 54, 40, 58, 45, Mike Hesson would've given his right arm for a batting unit of that strength...
They are hardly living up to their averages are they,Pathetic batting.
That was a batting clown show I see better batting here in 2nd grade club.Adding to that Hesson actually won nothing no titles as Black Cap Coach and he had Williamson and Taylor 2 of the best batsmen we have ever produced.
At least Stead can retire as the only Black Caps Coach to win a World Title.
And if you believe people he did it with Nicholls who is shit and Latham who cant score runs against the big teams.Chris, I know you will never have a bad word to say about Stead as he's from Canterbury.
This is the most poorly coached Blackcaps side I've seen.
I believe previous coaches Hesson, Wright, Bracewell, Moles, Trist, Aberhart, etc.. when considering context (not just purely results) did comparatively better with worse teams than Stead.
Even when we had a team of literal nobodies except Taylor we at least did things tactically to gain an advantage, we could often play above ourselves due to resourceful tactics - Fleming used to make chicken salad out of chicken shit. We still managed to be competitive despite very limited resources. Under Stead we had close to world-class batting and bowling unit for the 1st time & we don't even compete with top sides unless literally everything is lined-up in our favor.
Stead is the worst coach we've had, and I stand by that.
You are allowed to have an opinion and some I don’t disagree with,I believe it is time for a change and a new voice,
But the players need to take responsibility for their performances on the field or no matter who the coach is we will get the same results.
As a coach the first players you drop are the ones who deflect from their own performances as they will never learn and ruin the team culture.
I want to see players stand up and own their bad performances not blame others for their poor judgement, lack of fight and it seems bad preparation leading to the bad performances.
Cricket is different from other team sports it is individual performances within a team enviroment.
Players need to stand up and deliver for what they are paid for.
Not treat cricket like a joke, I was embarrassed by that result and I want to see the players own it.
And looking at the talent coming through after watching the domestic scene in NZ this season it is in a terrible state with a lot of pain to come.Chris from the "Blacks v England" thread should introduce himself to Chris from the "Foster, Robertson, etc" thread
And if you knew anything about cricket you would know the players have more responsibility to perform as individuals than in a team collective.
So it is chalk and cheese comparing Rugby to Cricket as far as coaching goes.I get the point but isn't that underestimating the individual performance side of rugby? Sure you are playing to team patterns and have responsibilities to keep to those but individual attitude, fitness and skills all come into play. Many a rugby coach has had the whole team effort derailed by a lck of individual performance.
Not really as coaching sessions in Cricket have a big focus on individual training one on ones, as a group you may have a 1 hour training session a week as team during a fielding session.
As a batsmen for instance you do not have 14 players on the field with you to cover for you if you make a very bad decision and get out you are off the field and don't contribute to that innings anymore.
Where in Rugby if you miss a tackle 14 other players can cover your mistake and make that tackle.And you can play on to redeem yourself.
In Cricket you are batting to your individual pattern and technique not a team pattern set by a coach, you might have a goal in mind but you go about getting there yourself with your individual decision making with each ball you face,With no cover from another team member.
Individuals prepare themselves to play more as individuals than Rugby players.
Yes many a coach as been derailed in Rugby by an indivdual performance,But less so because 14 other players can cover that individual performance,In Cricket a lot less.
one mistake in Cricket and it can be more costly than a Rugby game not always but more times than not.I'm not disputing any of your points but do think that when the discussion was around player responsibility there are clear parallels between the sports. All athletes, no matter the game, rely on themselves to perform.
To a certain point yes,But we are talking about how much responsibility falls on a player due to which sport he plays due to the dynamics of that sport.
Coaches yes have a responsibility in Both sports,
But what I saw in the last test v England I believe was due to poor individual decision making and performance as far as the batting goes, And that is what I was originally talking about. -
NZ win the toss and are bowling
England
1 Zak Crawley, 2 Ben Duckett, 3 Ollie Pope, 4 Joe Root, 5 Harry Brook, 6 Ben Stokes (capt), 7 Ben Foakes (wk), 8 Ollie Robinson, 9 Stuart Broad, 10 Jack Leach, 11 James Anderson.
New Zealand
1 Tom Latham, 2 Devon Conway, 3 Will Young, 4 Kane Williamson, 5 Henry Nicholls, 6 Daryl Mitchell, 7 Tom Blundell (wk), 8 Michael Bracewell, 9 Neil Wagner, 10 Tim Southee (capt), 11 Matt Henry
-
Given the players available, I think that's a much better balanced side. I think there are a couple of ways of looking at the bowling attack:
- Mitchell is arguably under bowled as a fourth seamer/fifth bowling option anyway. Or...
- Even if it goes badly, he'd likely do no worse than Tickner or Kuggeleijn against Bazball style batting.
-
Not a fan of bowling first, hope we can roll them with the new ball, otherwise we are behind the 8-ball from the outset.
-
@Donsteppa said in Black Caps v England:
Given the players available, I think that's a much better balanced side. I think there are a couple of ways of looking at the bowling attack:
- Mitchell is arguably under bowled as a fourth seamer/fifth bowling option anyway. Or...
- Even if it goes badly, he'd likely do no worse than Tickner or Kuggeleijn against Bazball style batting.
Same.
Although I would have gone Tickner over Wagner.
I think Mitchell is veeeery underbowled.
I don't think it's a prefect selection from what we have available. E.g. both Mitchell & Bracewell are 5th bowlers. But they (Bracewell) will be doing a 4th bowler's responisbility/workload. I like Bracewell, but longer term if this is the balance going forward then I'd phase in the specialist (Sodhi). Bracewell is going to be doing a lot of the workload usually carried by the excellent Wagner/CdG/Jamieson old-ball bowling. I doubt he has the skills for that consistently.
I prefer a more traditional 7/4 split, now that we no longer have the players suitable for the 4 seamers (plus allrounder) balance we've been going with the last 7 years. So, the (almost) balance for this game is right with me.
-
A MUCH better side on paper although it’s a bit depressing saying that about Henry, just goes to show the dearth of talent we have with injuries/unavailability’s/retirements etc. we still look a bit short on bowling options overall though.
Holding out hope that KW finds form again and Nicholls has the inevitable huge score at home to save his career.
A bunch of mates and I were hoping to pop down over the weekend with the Mrs’s to sit on the bank and drink beer but in a rookie mistake from all of us we forgot it’s not Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or the Windies. England actually have travelling fans. Completely sold out.
Lucky the couch is comfy and the beer will be better.
-
@Rapido Yep, I'd have been tempted with Sodhi as well. His batting would sit well at #8 in that lineup too.
Looking like Bazball may not be the best approach to batting on an outfield-coloured pitch when sent into bat in the first half hour.
-
@MN5 I think Matt Henry has got better - last three years he averages 30 c.f. his career average of 40. He also hasn't played many tests vs bunnies and probably often hasn't had his preferred role (I haven't checked that). I don't mind him at all.
I think the balance is a bit off for this test. We probably have a bit too much batting and a bit too little bowling. But, if we're up against Bazball cricket, where England is maybe planning to bat only 60 overs in each innings, maybe three specialist bowlers and two part-timers is enough.
Seems a bit like they're carrying Henry Nicholls at the expense of a specialist bowler - which might have been Ish Sodhi.
I like seeing Kane listed at 4!!!
-
-
@Chris-B said in Black Caps v England:
I think Matt Henry has got better
he bowled fucking well in the 2015 world cup final and i thought that would be the making of him. That was quite some time ago
-
@Donsteppa said in Black Caps v England:
It's interesting... of the two Henry's it feels like Matt's stats are a bit worse than he actually plays, but arguably the reverse for Nicholls...
I think that too.
I kind of feel Matt has often bowled without much luck, where Henry has often batted with more than his share (though not quite Marnus' level!).
-
No mention of Nicholls in this article though, so he's not a massively lucky cnut.
-
-
@Chris-B said in Black Caps v England:
@MN5 I think Matt Henry has got better - last three years he averages 30 c.f. his career average of 40. He also hasn't played many tests vs bunnies and probably often hasn't had his preferred role (I haven't checked that). I don't mind him at all.
I think the balance is a bit off for this test. We probably have a bit too much batting and a bit too little bowling. But, if we're up against Bazball cricket, where England is maybe planning to bat only 60 overs in each innings, maybe three specialist bowlers and two part-timers is enough.
Seems a bit like they're carrying Henry Nicholls at the expense of a specialist bowler - which might have been Ish Sodhi.
I like seeing Kane listed at 4!!!
I’m not sure I do. I’m so used to Rossco being there and KW at 3. Part of me thinks it should be one of the newer guys there.
Who opens with Latham ? Wouldn’t be surprised at either Young or Conway I guess.
Then again the 3/4 thing might be much of a muchness, all the true legendary batsman of years gone by and the best of today will either be 3/4.
I get your point about Henry. Better than his woeful stats suggest
-
@Chris-B said in Black Caps v England:
No mention of Nicholls in this article though, so he's not a massively lucky cnut.
Remember reading this at the time. Think it only focused on drops and missed stumpings.
I think it was just after a couple of Nicholl's innings that included teams opting not to review when he'd edged or been 'out' LBW. Or they'd run out of reviews. Plus a drop or two.There was a home season when he was very lucky, 2 season ago.
