Black Caps tour of India
-
@MN5 said in Black Caps tour of India:
@Chris said in Black Caps tour of India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps tour of India:
Here’s one for the stats nerds…….
I’m fairly sure during our darkest days just before Ross Taylor made his debut that we fielded a top order with ZERO test centuries between them at one stage ? The only hundreds in the team belonged to McCullum and Vettori at 7 and 8.
Is that true or did I imagine it ?
Names like Papps, How, Fulton ( he did go on and get some ),
I don't think so. I reckon you're probably imagining it.
Taylor scored ton in his 3rd test iirc , and he overlapped with Fleming. Plus Ryder tonning up on test debut at that time. Plus Guptill getting his early.
I'd be surprised if we ever had a top 6 in that era minus any century maker.
-
@Rapido said in Black Caps tour of India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps tour of India:
@Chris said in Black Caps tour of India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps tour of India:
Here’s one for the stats nerds…….
I’m fairly sure during our darkest days just before Ross Taylor made his debut that we fielded a top order with ZERO test centuries between them at one stage ? The only hundreds in the team belonged to McCullum and Vettori at 7 and 8.
Is that true or did I imagine it ?
Names like Papps, How, Fulton ( he did go on and get some ),
I don't think so. I reckon you're probably imagining it.
Taylor scored ton in his 3rd test iirc , and he overlapped with Fleming. Plus Ryder tonning up on test debut at that time. Plus Guptill getting his early.
I'd be surprised if we ever had a top 6 in that era minus any century maker.
Hmmmm I mentioned Papps, Fulton, How……add in Flynn, Redmond….did they ever all play together ?
Maybe I am imagining it, it was definitely when Ryder and Taylor emerged and Fleming retired.
-
There was that series in Bangladesh where Vettori essentially had to bat at #5(?). That might have been close to that stat, but also technically ruled out by having to promote Dan.
There was a phase around where the top six had very view tons, but it'd probably take a lot of scorecard scanning.
-
It never happened. NZ hasn't played all that many tests. If you bring up a list of every Test we have played and similar lists for Fleming and Taylor you don't need to check scorecards. One was ever present right through till the rise of Kane and the golden age
-
@Donsteppa said in Black Caps tour of India:
There was that series in Bangladesh where Vettori essentially had to bat at #5(?). That might have been close to that stat, but also technically ruled out by having to promote Dan.
There was a phase around where the top six had very view tons, but it'd probably take a lot of scorecard scanning.
That match had 3 century makers in top 6 in first innings and 4 in second innings (where Vettori promoted himself to 4 and 4,5,6 dropped down a spot each meaning Flynn dropped to 7).
Baz was batting at 5 that series as well as keeping. The other 2 being Taylor and Ryder.
-
I do have memories of that as well, either Dan was the only one with a test ton, or he had more test tons than anyone else in the team. It was most likely the latter but he was our best batsmen for a time. Best bowler, best batsmen, captain and coach all at once, what a man.
-
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps tour of India:
I do have memories of that as well, either Dan was the only one with a test ton, or he had more test tons than anyone else in the team. It was most likely the latter but he was our best batsmen for a time. Best bowler, best batsmen, captain and coach all at once, what a man.
Ah yeah maybe that was it !
I know lots of the guys I mentioned had high scores around 80 or 90
-
I’d vote for the three seamers personally. Big workload for Phillips and Patel but Mitchell and Ravindra can offer support too.
Also they’re underrating Henrys batting a bit, he’s proven pretty capable. Averages 22 to Santners 24 and he has proven he can actually take wickets.
The article talks up Ashwin and Jadeja, it’s unfair that a single country has BOTH of them playing at the same time.
-
The only thing that really sticks in that article. Surely not even the current Black Caps brains trust would ever bat Southee at #8 in a Test line-up ever again...
Can't see his bowling being remotely threatening to guys who train with the Indian attack, either.
-
@MN5 said in Black Caps tour of India:
I’d vote for the three seamers personally. Big workload for Phillips and Patel but Mitchell and Ravindra can offer support too.
Also they’re underrating Henrys batting a bit, he’s proven pretty capable. Averages 22 to Santners 24 and he has proven he can actually take wickets.
The article talks up Ashwin and Jadeja, it’s unfair that a single country has BOTH of them playing at the same time.
100% agree
-
@Donsteppa said in Black Caps tour of India:
The only thing that really sticks in that article. Surely not even the current Black Caps brains trust would ever bat Southee at #8 in a Test line-up ever again...
Can't see his bowling being remotely threatening to guys who train with the Indian attack, either.
The Indian batting line up might not be quite as strong as the days of Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman ( although there isn’t too much in it ) but that is a generational bowling attack.
Ashwin and Jadeja are just extraordinary cricketers ( ESPECIALLY at home ) and Bumrah is a very rare individual indeed, a genuinely world class Indian fast bowler ( with all due respect to Kapil Dev, Zaheer Khan, Javagal Srinath etc ) Siraj is more than handy too.
The Black Caps will be doing very well just to avoid complete and utter embarrassment I reckon. The decline from 2021 is well and truly in motion unfortunately
-
Agreed. My main hope is to avoid a batting catastrophe like the Sri Lankan series, and to at least be worthy of a three Test series.
That decline from 2021 could make this the last series for a couple of that era - Southee, Conway especially - unless a dramatic return to form & technique is found.
-
@MN5 said in Black Caps tour of India:
I’d vote for the three seamers personally. Big workload for Phillips and Patel but Mitchell and Ravindra can offer support too.
Also they’re underrating Henrys batting a bit, he’s proven pretty capable. Averages 22 to Santners 24 and he has proven he can actually take wickets.
The article talks up Ashwin and Jadeja, it’s unfair that a single country has BOTH of them playing at the same time.
I don't know why the author is considering batting Timmy at 8. In my view he shouldn't be in any equations - but, if he played he'd be 10 or 11.
My choice is between:
Henry, Ajaz, Sears, O'Rourke
OR
Santner, Henry, Ajaz, O'Rourke
I'd go with the Sears option. A bit less batting, but I doubt Satnav will take wickets except by endless persistence - i.e. if I bowled enough balls in test cricket I'd eventually get one.
-
jesus, imagine having a whole article written about how you suck.
How bad are Santner’s numbers in Tests? Way worse than you think | New Zealand tour of India, 2024
All the numbers point towards the left-arm spinner being a liability for the Kiwis in red-ball cricket
Edit: I don't rate Santner in Tests, but I don't think negative articles like this are a good idea. Relaly did you have to Cricket.com?
-
what is wrong with it. It's effectively all data driven, not "lol you're shit give it away champ"
the never ending whinge on here is that sports journalism no longer puts out interesting and factual analysis, and yet when someone does, they shouldn't because it's negative.
That article added data to the "vibe and mabo" we all have the Santner is a waste of space with the ball in tedt cricket. The last part about the 4-wicket hauls is an astounding stat.
-
I feel a bit for Santner, the only reason his numbers are that bad is because we have persisted playing him in a format that he is clearly not suited to at the top level. He's a Chris Harris type player, very effective in the shorter formats but is never going to run through teams with the ball, and his batting technique doesn't lend itself to long stays at the crease.
-
@nzzp said in Black Caps tour of India:
jesus, imagine having a whole article written about how you suck.
All the numbers point towards the left-arm spinner being a liability for the Kiwis in red-ball cricket
Edit: I don't rate Santner in Tests, but I don't think negative articles like this are a good idea. Relaly did you have to Cricket.com?
I think it's a great article and apart from doing Santner's confidence some harm (if he has any), it raises questions about the competence of NZ Cricket. Surely these dullards have access to the same facts? Why aren't they adopting a data driven team selection for each format?
-
Find it intriguing that this is even a real debate... Southee and Santner ineffective, IMO the bowlers pick themselves. Patel should bat 8 simply because he has the best defence, and is more likely to hang around with a proper batter. Henry to follow with the ability to swing for the fences.
