I'm super excited about the first test between New Zealand and India starting tomorrow. I love test cricket - even the games where my team has little to no chance of winning. Seeing as I've already written off any chance of a Black Caps victory, I have compiled a short personal wish list for this series.It reads something like this:
1. Kane Williamson to make his debut, and perhaps Hamish Bennett
2. Centuries to Ross Taylor, Jesse Ryder and Williamson (if he debuts)
3. Brendon McCullum to open the batting and play a few innings in the Sehwag mold
4. To run India close in at least one match
If a few of those wishes are fulfilled I'll be reasonably happy with how the series has gone.
Over the course of the series, I'm going to attempt to update this blog daily.We'll see how we go.
Showing posts with label New Zealand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Zealand. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
Ever the optimist..
Last week a workmate posed me a challenge: to pick New Zealand Cricket’s all-time worst XI. At first I thought this an impossible task. I mean, how could you possibly pinpoint the Black Cap’s least reliable batsman EVER? And even if you managed to sift through all the Rutherfords and the Sinclairs, how to approach the seemingly endless junkyard of discarded seamers; the Su’as, the Drums, the Masons, the Kuggeleijns. Then what of the mediocre mediums? The terrible twirlers? The abysmal openers? Or the thoroughly average all-rounders? Being faced with such an extensive pool of wasted potential and forcing oneself to whittle it down to just eleven is an uphill battle, to say the least.
Last week’s 4-0 drubbing by Bangladesh has surely gone some way to settling the issue. You want to know our worst side ever? Just take a look at the team sheet for the fifth one dayer.
A bit of an exaggeration perhaps but, all jokes aside, New Zealand were woeful in this series.
As a Black Caps supporter you get used to the idea of humility and good sportsmanship. Very rarely, however, am I embarrassed – nay, ashamed – by their efforts. Given that these are the eleven best players in New Zealand at this point in time (and I would mostly agree with the selectors that they are), you have to ask yourself, what went wrong?
Much of the blame must go to the top order batsmen. We failed on three occasions to chase small-ish totals against (and I mean no disrespect to the Bangladeshis) fairly benign bowling. Narrowing it down a little further, I think that Brendon McCullum in particular needs to do some serious soul-searching. On all but one occasion (when he was out caught behind off his fourth ball), he fell looking to play super-aggressively, when all that was needed was patience and someone to rotate the strike. As our senior-most batsmen, he needs to take more responsibility for New Zealand’s fortunes with the bat and play according to the situation at hand. Also, he needs to make a conscious effort to eliminate these brain explosions he seems to experience at the crease. His dismissal in the first game against Bangladesh offers a fairly vivid insight into his mindset. He was well-set, having reached his fifty off 35 balls, when he chose to shimmy down the track to Shakib Al Hasan (far and away their best bowler), was beaten in the flight and ended up with his off stump flattened. This left the Black Caps in serious trouble and we eventually came up short in our chase by 28 runs. He needs to realize that there is a time for aggression and a time to play sensibly. It concerns me a little that he wants to play higher up the order in tests, now that he has relinquished the keeping duties. Hopefully, he can temper his aggression and play some meaningful innings in test cricket in the near future.
The other main contributor to our dismal showing is the fact that two of our key batsmen have recently recovered from injuries and been propelled straight back into the national side. Jesse Ryder and Grant Elliot, two of our top performers of 2009, have been out injured for some time and were short on match time coming into this series. It’s fair to say that this showed in their performances against Bangladesh.
Three bright points came out of our ill-fated expedition to Dhaka. The most obvious of which was Kane Williamson’s maiden international hundred in the fourth ODI. After his first three outings ended in failures, it was reassuring to see him play with the poise and level-headedness that has marked him out as a future star for several years now. Perhaps more remarkably though is that he made his runs while the Black Caps’ backs were firmly up against the wall and with his more experienced team mates falling like ten pins at the other end. I have to say I’m pleased to see him in the squad for the test series in India, and I certainly hope he makes his five-day debut at some point during the tour. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve day-dreamed of a New Zealand middle-order comprised of Taylor (3 – he is our best and most reliable batsman and should rightly be coming in first drop), Ryder (4), and Williamson (5) steering our test team to momentous victories. Based on potential I think these three could function as a batting triumvirate in the Indian mould of Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman – perhaps I am overly optimistic.
The other big plus was the emergence of Hamish Bennett, the left-arm fast bowler from Canterbury. I was reasonably impressed with his showing in his first couple of games. He seems as though he could be genuinely quick, though in my very humble opinion, his action needs some attention. The exciting thing is that, despite his rawness, there is something of Shane Bond about him, and if he could match even half of Bond’s success it would bode very well for the future of New Zealand cricket.
On a slightly smug I-told-you-so note, it was great to see BJ Watling operating as McCullum’s understudy with the gloves. A couple of months ago I wrote a piece (29.08.10 - He's a keeper..) where I said that I hoped the New Zealand selectors would use Watling as a potential keeping option over the likes of Gareth Hopkins. It is nice to see that I am at least on a similar wavelength to the powers that be.
Despite the hiding we received in Bangladesh, I remain optimistic about the Indian tour, if only to see some key individuals perform. I think New Zealand cricket is at an interesting juncture right now and I look forward to seeing how they shape up in the near future.
Monday, September 6, 2010
He's a keeper..
I just thought I’d weigh in on the McCullum keeping debate. Personally, I think it’s the wrong decision. While I find the prospect of Hurricane Brendon opening in Tests incredibly exciting, I think that a promotion to the top of the order will disrupt the overall balance of the team. The problem does not, perhaps, stem from McCullum himself but from the lack of quality wicketkeeper-batsmen in New Zealand domestic cricket. Let us consider the options then if McCullum were to give up the gloves across all formats – or at least the two longer forms.
Gareth Hopkins and Peter McGlashan are the two keepers used by the Black Caps in the recent past as back up to McCullum. Hopkins has had an extended run in ODI’s over the last few months with limited success (a highest score of 45 in nine innings), while McGlashan managed a not out fifty against India in his only series to date. To my mind McGlashan is the better wicketkeeper and is a handy, if unorthodox, batsman. He could perhaps suffice as a stop-gap solution in one-dayers (he is already 31.) My feeling, however, is that this would be short-sighted, especially seeing as – based on their modest domestic records – neither McGlashan, nor Hopkins have the skill or temperament to foot it as test batsmen.
I know that in the past it was the norm to pick a specialist wicketkeeper, but the game has moved on and it is no longer practical to carry a ‘spectator’ in your Test batting line up. Especially, given the fragility of the current Black Caps top order. Also, New Zealand is without a genuine all-rounder, which makes batting ability in the lower middle order all the more vital.
For me, the best solution is probably for one of the side’s existing batsmen to step up and take the gloves. The leading candidate to do this is, BJ Watling, who recently made his ODI debut in the Sri Lanka Tri Series. Already a member of the Test team, Watling also happens to be McGlashan’s keeping understudy at Northern Districts. This way the team is equipped with a decent wicketkeeper – I imagine he would learn on the job fairly quickly – without compromising any of the team’s batting strength.
The question is, will the selectors agree with me or stick with the status quo of Hopkins and McGlashan?
Gareth Hopkins and Peter McGlashan are the two keepers used by the Black Caps in the recent past as back up to McCullum. Hopkins has had an extended run in ODI’s over the last few months with limited success (a highest score of 45 in nine innings), while McGlashan managed a not out fifty against India in his only series to date. To my mind McGlashan is the better wicketkeeper and is a handy, if unorthodox, batsman. He could perhaps suffice as a stop-gap solution in one-dayers (he is already 31.) My feeling, however, is that this would be short-sighted, especially seeing as – based on their modest domestic records – neither McGlashan, nor Hopkins have the skill or temperament to foot it as test batsmen.
I know that in the past it was the norm to pick a specialist wicketkeeper, but the game has moved on and it is no longer practical to carry a ‘spectator’ in your Test batting line up. Especially, given the fragility of the current Black Caps top order. Also, New Zealand is without a genuine all-rounder, which makes batting ability in the lower middle order all the more vital.
For me, the best solution is probably for one of the side’s existing batsmen to step up and take the gloves. The leading candidate to do this is, BJ Watling, who recently made his ODI debut in the Sri Lanka Tri Series. Already a member of the Test team, Watling also happens to be McGlashan’s keeping understudy at Northern Districts. This way the team is equipped with a decent wicketkeeper – I imagine he would learn on the job fairly quickly – without compromising any of the team’s batting strength.
The question is, will the selectors agree with me or stick with the status quo of Hopkins and McGlashan?
An inauspicious debut..
11.08.10
So good to see the Black Caps win last night. Full credit to Ross Taylor (who is now two from two as captain) for playing an absolutely pitch perfect ODI innings. He took his time getting set, picked off the ones and twos and never tried too hard to force the pace (no ugly cross-batted hoicks to the onside here.) His record partnership of 190 with Scotty Styris rescued New Zealand from an ominous looking 28 for 3 and took them (us) to an incredibly respectable total of 288 – though it should’ve been a fair bit more, as they lost wickets in quick succession towards the end.
Taylor’s captaincy too seemed on the money. He cleverly chose to take the batting powerplay when both he and Styris were well set after 30 overs and promoted Jacob Oram up the order as a pinch hitter when Styris departed. Taylor’s only blemish was getting out within spitting distance of a well-deserved hundred. One of my main criticisms of the New Zealand team is that they too often fail to convert fifties (Taylor in particular has been guilty of this over the last couple of seasons.)
Now, the inevitable talking point: Kane Williamson. A rather inauspicious debut given the hype (this is a comment leveled at myself more than anything. I’ve been raving about this guy for close to a year.) Picture this: He walks in on debut with the team struggling at two down for not much. He has been touted as New Zealand’s Boy Wonder, the Next Martin Crowe. Anticipation is palpable. He faces eight balls of pretty impressive bowling in useful conditions before receiving the death knell: a full ball on middle which moves wildly through the air before beating him all ends up and careening into his off-stump. In some ways it is the absolute antithesis of Martin Guptill’s international entrance, a year and a half earlier. Guptill was brought into the team to cover an absent Jesse Ryder. No one, barring a handful of die-hard domestic followers, had ever heard of him. He came in as a total unknown and left with the second highest score for an ODI debutant EVER, 122 not out. Back to Williamson though. I don’t think his first international innings is any indication of the sort of player he is likely to be. In fact, I’m still picking him to score big runs at some point in this series.
Two more points before I finish.
I was really impressed with both Guptill and Oram during their brief stays at the crease last night. Guptill batted with more confidence than he has in quite awhile and unfurled a couple of very attractive shots, a sure sign he’s in good form. Runs are not far away. Equally, Oram looked in great touch, timing it well from ball one and using his wrists really well.
My last point is a question: Why is Peter Ingram playing ahead of BJ Watling? Ingram (the concrete-footed one) has done nothing in the lead up and has a technique suited only to french cricket. That he was eventually dismissed caught-behind after playing an awful waft outside off-stump was largely inevitable. It’s a wonder he makes runs even in domestic cricket. Watling, on the other hand, has made three fifties in five innings and looks more than ready to make the step up.
So good to see the Black Caps win last night. Full credit to Ross Taylor (who is now two from two as captain) for playing an absolutely pitch perfect ODI innings. He took his time getting set, picked off the ones and twos and never tried too hard to force the pace (no ugly cross-batted hoicks to the onside here.) His record partnership of 190 with Scotty Styris rescued New Zealand from an ominous looking 28 for 3 and took them (us) to an incredibly respectable total of 288 – though it should’ve been a fair bit more, as they lost wickets in quick succession towards the end.
Taylor’s captaincy too seemed on the money. He cleverly chose to take the batting powerplay when both he and Styris were well set after 30 overs and promoted Jacob Oram up the order as a pinch hitter when Styris departed. Taylor’s only blemish was getting out within spitting distance of a well-deserved hundred. One of my main criticisms of the New Zealand team is that they too often fail to convert fifties (Taylor in particular has been guilty of this over the last couple of seasons.)
Now, the inevitable talking point: Kane Williamson. A rather inauspicious debut given the hype (this is a comment leveled at myself more than anything. I’ve been raving about this guy for close to a year.) Picture this: He walks in on debut with the team struggling at two down for not much. He has been touted as New Zealand’s Boy Wonder, the Next Martin Crowe. Anticipation is palpable. He faces eight balls of pretty impressive bowling in useful conditions before receiving the death knell: a full ball on middle which moves wildly through the air before beating him all ends up and careening into his off-stump. In some ways it is the absolute antithesis of Martin Guptill’s international entrance, a year and a half earlier. Guptill was brought into the team to cover an absent Jesse Ryder. No one, barring a handful of die-hard domestic followers, had ever heard of him. He came in as a total unknown and left with the second highest score for an ODI debutant EVER, 122 not out. Back to Williamson though. I don’t think his first international innings is any indication of the sort of player he is likely to be. In fact, I’m still picking him to score big runs at some point in this series.
Two more points before I finish.
I was really impressed with both Guptill and Oram during their brief stays at the crease last night. Guptill batted with more confidence than he has in quite awhile and unfurled a couple of very attractive shots, a sure sign he’s in good form. Runs are not far away. Equally, Oram looked in great touch, timing it well from ball one and using his wrists really well.
My last point is a question: Why is Peter Ingram playing ahead of BJ Watling? Ingram (the concrete-footed one) has done nothing in the lead up and has a technique suited only to french cricket. That he was eventually dismissed caught-behind after playing an awful waft outside off-stump was largely inevitable. It’s a wonder he makes runs even in domestic cricket. Watling, on the other hand, has made three fifties in five innings and looks more than ready to make the step up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)