England tour of New Zealand 2023

[Bevab]

New Zealand’s test side is the embodiment of CSK in international cricket. You’re only considered as an option if you’re 30 and above.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Crazy stat about Brook

 

[Aislabie]

Now we're talking. If I was restricted to just the squad that NZ had available for the test I'd replace Kuggeleijn with Duffy and Nicholls with Young. That alone should improve the side as Duffy's the second highest wicket taker in the Plunket Shield this season with 22 wickets whilst Kuggeleijn has 4 wickets so far with half the overs bowled. Also helps to not have a rapist playing in the side. Nicholls has been marginally better than Young domestically this season but he's been horrible internationally while Young's own international form suffered because he was playing as an opener. I believe he'd be far better in at three or four with some backing and confidence boosters.

I think a lot of New Zealand's issues stem from an obsession with their number eight being able to contribute significant runs. I think a lot of this stems back all the way to when New Zealand's opening batters were essentially just sacrificial players who weren't particularly expected to do anything more than average 20 and block a bit of shine off the ball. Of the 41 players who have batted five or more times at number eight for New Zealand, 20 average over 20 and a further 11 average over 15; this isn't world-beating by any means, but it does demonstrate an unwillingness on New Zealand's part to simply go all-in on picking their four best bowlers. Even in Tests where they have had all three of Southee, Wagner and Boult, number eight has often gone to players like Mark Craig, Mitchell Santner, Todd Astle or Michael Bracewell: the fourth bowler picked in no small part due to their ability to bat a bit.

It's an understandable trend, but one that does lead to selections like Scott Kuggelijn over Jacob Duffy because Kuggelijn bats a bit.

But where's the fun in that when NZC is a conservative organisation on the whole? If it were truly up to me this would be the XI I'd pick after selecting a squad with better options...

1. Latham
2. Conway
3. Young
4. Williamson
5. Mitchell
6. Phillips
7. Blundell
8. Sodhi
9. Ferguson/Shipley
10. Southee
11. Boult

I do broadly like this team, although I do also have some points of difference with it:

• I would pick Tom Bruce at number three. He's been one of the best performing Kiwi domestic batters for a sustained period of time, and the fact that it still hasn't led to a single Test cap is mind-blowing. In home conditions, his part-time off-breaks could even be of use if it was decided to select an all-seam attack. Brad Schmulian would be a similar option, although frankly I can't believe I've just suggested another 31 and 32 year old.
• Ish Sodhi is an interesting one; I'd certainly not be opposed to him being picked. I'd also like to see Ajaz Patel get a run in the side, and a chance to dispel the stat that he's not got a single Test wicket at home.
• I don't especially rate Shipley, but I do want him to go well because every time someone turns up with a Caddick-esque bowling action the world becomes a better place.
• While Trent Boult would obviously be the first bowler on the teamsheet, I get the impression that he does not want to punish his body playing Tests anymore. I do really rate Matt Henry despite his oddly mediocre Test record, and he'd be my second choice; beyond that the choices are really quite limited. Ben Lister is probably the next best left-armer available.

Also I would have probably made Daryl Mitchell captain rather than Tim Southee, but that's just based off the fact he looks a bit like Jason Statham.

I've always been surprised at Kane being the only one of the Fab 4 to not bat at four. Made sense when Roscoe was around but with his retirement and Kane's own decline in batting form it's time to move him down the order so that he can still be effective.

So of course I ended up having a look on Statsguru.

	Record at 3	Record at 4
Virat Kohli	97 runs @ 19.40 (best 41) in 6 innings	6,650 runs @ 52.36 (23 centuries, best 254*) in 134 innings
Joe Root	2,222 runs @ 39.67 (4 centuries, best 254) in 59 innings	6,034 runs @ 52.01 (18 centuries, best 228) in 125 innings
Steve Smith	1,744 runs @ 67.07 (8 centuries, best 215) in 29 innings	5,170 runs @ 66.28 (17 centuries, best 239) in 90 innings
Kane Williamson	7,033 runs @ 56.26 (23 centuries, best 251) in 139 innings	126 runs @ 63.00 (1 century, best 102*) in 3 innings

Honestly the biggest thing this tells me is that Steve Smith is just head and shoulders above the competition. As for why Kane Williamson has always batted at three? I suspect it's because in 2011 the Kiwi top order looked like this:

Ross Taylor was the man in possession, and thus Williamson slotted in at three - and that became his position for the next 12 years. At a similar point in time, the Indian top order looked like this:

And thus, Virat Kohli became a number four.

For what it's worth, I do think there's a lot to be said for putting your best batter at number four or even five; if you've got a guy who's able to take advantage of an opportunity more often than the other batters, then why wouldn't you give that batter the most good opportunities possible.

Only one team currently is applying that logic to setting its red-ball batting order, and that team is Hampshire. They essentially use their top three batters as new ball watchmen, and usually two of them have secondary skills (such as Ian Holland and Felix Organ, or previously Liam Dawson) and then at four, five and six they have Nick Gubbins, James Vince and Ben Brown. Conventional wisdom would probably have Gubbins opening, Vince at three and Brown at four, but that probably wouldn't get the best out of them in the same way.

I've gone off on a bit of a tangent haven't I.

Phillips scored a fifty on debut coming in cold against a rampant Australian side whilst playing for a mentally shot NZ team at that point. I'm shocked that he hasn't played since then. He's got the mentality to play well when the chips are down as he's already proved and that is sorely lacking in the current team. He's also the perfect player to fill the modern role of 'counter-attacking' middle-order batter that every side seems to want increasingly these days. His supposed lack of shot versatility will be less exposed in tests when he's extremely good with the shots that he does play.

I think Glenn Phillips and Heinrich Klaasen are both very similar players who have found themselves earmarked as white ball specialists despite really good fundamentals and a red ball record to match.

Harry Brook's staggering success could serve those kinds of players well.

Sodhi over Bracewell because he's a much better spinner and I don't think Bracewell adds anything of value to the side in tests. He isn't that reliable with the bat and his bowling still has a long way to go before it becomes reliable. Sodhi on the other hand has visibly improved over the last year and Ajaz hasn't been in great form and has been the victim of mismanagement. In an ideal world Ajaz would have been the clear number one spinner in the side long before Sodhi re-emerged and would have been my pick but I'll roll with the circumstance provided here.

New Zealand's management of spinners has long been an embarrassment, especially at home. And well, it's been a thing for a long long time. My heart really goes out to David O'Sullivan.

Ferguson should be a stopgap in tests until Sears and/or Fisher get back to fitness. At least he should be playing the important ones and they could have still got him playing the practice game and a domestic match if possible to get him up to speed. If he did fail in his fitness I'd have gone with Shipley who's been decent this season. He lacks Ferguson's pace but does have Jamieson's height if not the pace to cause some trouble with the angle.

One thing that has been quite sad is that express pace bowlers have been lost to Test cricket in many countries. In New Zealand that has been further complicated by the presence of Boult, Southee and Wagner for a long time essentially blocking access to the team.

In an ideal world, this could be a bowling attack that features both Lockie Ferguson and Adam Milne, on spicy green tracks.

Boult's not contracted but with the absence of Jamieson and Henry and injuries to other younger bowlers this would have been the perfect situation to bring him back into the fold for a game or two. NZC failing to bring back one of their greatest bowlers who happened to live a few blocks away from the stadium for the first game in the middle of an injury crisis is absolutely stupid. I don't buy the whole 'central contract' nonsense as they're obviously going to select Boult in the ODI World Cup despite him missing several ODIs in the run-up to it, where's the preference there?

I can only assume that they did ask him and he said no, because surely nobody would fail to consider picking up the phone to Trent Boult.

Surely?

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Well, doesn't matter if I fall asleep now.

 

[Aislabie]

 

[Bevab]

I think a lot of New Zealand's issues stem from an obsession with their number eight being able to contribute significant runs. I think a lot of this stems back all the way to when New Zealand's opening batters were essentially just sacrificial players who weren't particularly expected to do anything more than average 20 and block a bit of shine off the ball. Of the 41 players who have batted five or more times at number eight for New Zealand, 20 average over 20 and a further 11 average over 15; this isn't world-beating by any means, but it does demonstrate an unwillingness on New Zealand's part to simply go all-in on picking their four best bowlers. Even in Tests where they have had all three of Southee, Wagner and Boult, number eight has often gone to players like Mark Craig, Mitchell Santner, Todd Astle or Michael Bracewell: the fourth bowler picked in no small part due to their ability to bat a bit.

It's an understandable trend, but one that does lead to selections like Scott Kuggelijn over Jacob Duffy because Kuggelijn bats a bit.


I do broadly like this team, although I do also have some points of difference with it:

• I would pick Tom Bruce at number three. He's been one of the best performing Kiwi domestic batters for a sustained period of time, and the fact that it still hasn't led to a single Test cap is mind-blowing. In home conditions, his part-time off-breaks could even be of use if it was decided to select an all-seam attack. Brad Schmulian would be a similar option, although frankly I can't believe I've just suggested another 31 and 32 year old.
• Ish Sodhi is an interesting one; I'd certainly not be opposed to him being picked. I'd also like to see Ajaz Patel get a run in the side, and a chance to dispel the stat that he's not got a single Test wicket at home.
• I don't especially rate Shipley, but I do want him to go well because every time someone turns up with a Caddick-esque bowling action the world becomes a better place.
• While Trent Boult would obviously be the first bowler on the teamsheet, I get the impression that he does not want to punish his body playing Tests anymore. I do really rate Matt Henry despite his oddly mediocre Test record, and he'd be my second choice; beyond that the choices are really quite limited. Ben Lister is probably the next best left-armer available.

Also I would have probably made Daryl Mitchell captain rather than Tim Southee, but that's just based off the fact he looks a bit like Jason Statham.


So of course I ended up having a look on Statsguru.

	Record at 3	Record at 4
Virat Kohli	97 runs @ 19.40 (best 41) in 6 innings	6,650 runs @ 52.36 (23 centuries, best 254*) in 134 innings
Joe Root	2,222 runs @ 39.67 (4 centuries, best 254) in 59 innings	6,034 runs @ 52.01 (18 centuries, best 228) in 125 innings
Steve Smith	1,744 runs @ 67.07 (8 centuries, best 215) in 29 innings	5,170 runs @ 66.28 (17 centuries, best 239) in 90 innings
Kane Williamson	7,033 runs @ 56.26 (23 centuries, best 251) in 139 innings	126 runs @ 63.00 (1 century, best 102*) in 3 innings

Honestly the biggest thing this tells me is that Steve Smith is just head and shoulders above the competition. As for why Kane Williamson has always batted at three? I suspect it's because in 2011 the Kiwi top order looked like this:
View attachment 276356
Ross Taylor was the man in possession, and thus Williamson slotted in at three - and that became his position for the next 12 years. At a similar point in time, the Indian top order looked like this:
View attachment 276357
And thus, Virat Kohli became a number four.

For what it's worth, I do think there's a lot to be said for putting your best batter at number four or even five; if you've got a guy who's able to take advantage of an opportunity more often than the other batters, then why wouldn't you give that batter the most good opportunities possible.

Only one team currently is applying that logic to setting its red-ball batting order, and that team is Hampshire. They essentially use their top three batters as new ball watchmen, and usually two of them have secondary skills (such as Ian Holland and Felix Organ, or previously Liam Dawson) and then at four, five and six they have Nick Gubbins, James Vince and Ben Brown. Conventional wisdom would probably have Gubbins opening, Vince at three and Brown at four, but that probably wouldn't get the best out of them in the same way.

I've gone off on a bit of a tangent haven't I.


I think Glenn Phillips and Heinrich Klaasen are both very similar players who have found themselves earmarked as white ball specialists despite really good fundamentals and a red ball record to match.

Harry Brook's staggering success could serve those kinds of players well.


New Zealand's management of spinners has long been an embarrassment, especially at home. And well, it's been a thing for a long long time. My heart really goes out to David O'Sullivan.


One thing that has been quite sad is that express pace bowlers have been lost to Test cricket in many countries. In New Zealand that has been further complicated by the presence of Boult, Southee and Wagner for a long time essentially blocking access to the team.

In an ideal world, this could be a bowling attack that features both Lockie Ferguson and Adam Milne, on spicy green tracks.


I can only assume that they did ask him and he said no, because surely nobody would fail to consider picking up the phone to Trent Boult.

Surely?

Haven’t been treated to a high quality post from you in a while! I can’t do the quality formatting that you’ve done so well so you’ll have to bear with my monotonous paragraphs.

I don’t think their obsession with wanting the number eight to be a decent batsman results from their lack of good opening batters. It may have well been due to them having a surfeit of all-rounders in their top six and/or batters who could roll their arms over adequately. Between Astle, McMillan, Oram, Cairns, Harris and Styris you have players all capable of chipping in with the ball to varying degrees of success. Even in the past they’ve had someone capable of such a role like Congdon, Reid and Coney at varying points in time. Even their star batsman in recent times was a very handy offie before he was called for chucking.

The other reason is them wanting a spinner in their team even if said spinner would barely bowl sometimes, it’s not a coincidence that all four examples you listed are spinners and one of their best players in this century was someone who was at a point their best batsman and bowler whilst batting at eight and bowling spin. They’ve been partly trying to re-capture the genie in the bottle they had with Vettori and it hasn’t quite worked out at all. In any case I don’t think they picked Kuggeleijn for his batting, it just reeks of ’old boys club’ energy with his dad being mates with the coach and them wanting someone who can bowl slightly quicker in comparison.

As for your selection suggestions…

• I’ve only gone with Sodhi becauee he out-bowled Ajaz in their last overseas series. I still consider Ajaz to be the superior test bowler and would gladly pick him if the slate was clean but Sodhi seems to have caught some second wind this late into his career and is clearly on a good run. I’d want to take advantage of that.
  
  
• I don’t rate Bruce at all sadly. I think he’s failed on almost every occasion when he’s been given chances at higher levels (albeit in other formats and NZ A cricket) and his age profile really doesn’t help when NZ have selected two of their three oldest lineups in their test history in these last two games. I believe he’s a domestic bully who will always come up short when he’s picked like Marcus Harris for the Aussies. Haven’t really heard any suggestion from NZ fans about wanting him in either which doesn’t sound good either. Haven’t heard of the other guy before either.
  
  
• Shipley’s pace isn’t the most threatening but I think he’ll be fine on certain NZ pitches and if he can get it up like Jamieson did then there’s a really exciting talent to work with all of a sudden. Even without any significant rise in his pace I’d reckon he’s a good call if only because he’s been in form, has recently played international cricket for the first time and can bat if required. Another one of those selections where you just run with it.
  
  
• Henry’s poor record comes from him playing the sporadic game over the years without being properly backed for a first team role and without really refining his game. I think he’s really developed as a pacer over the last few years particularly with the Duke’s ball (the county stint really did wonders for him) and what was previously a harmless ODI line and length from him has now transitioned into a more threatening line in the corridor of uncertainty. Without a doubt he makes it into the current side on merit. Having said that…
  
  
• …Boult wasn’t even asked. That’s what is maddening about the entire saga here, Stead and Larsen admitted as much that they didn’t even bother asking him because they wanted to prefer centrally contracted players first. Makes no sense when they’re still considering him an important figure for the WC this year. I don’t think Boult would have minded playing one test, maybe even two against quality opposition at home in a stadium that’s just a few blocks from his residence. He isn’t up to anything else at the moment either and it earns him a lot of goodwill and some money on the side. He doesn’t strike me as the sort of figure who’d turn his back in a time of need especially when a lot of the bowling attack is crocked and one of the blokes playing was doing so whilst his house and neighbourhood was wrecked by a cyclone.
  
  
• Southee was apparently made the captain because he also threatened to relinquish his central contract like Boult prior to being placated with it. This is a rumour and there’s no concrete evidence for it but it does stick if you read between the lines with what’s currently happening in NZ cricket.
  
  
• Roscoe’s presence did mean that Kane had to bat at three for long but since his retirement they’ve not found a good number three/four barring Conway who makes sense as the opener anyway. We might see Young bat at three in the current test as per Cricinfo and maybe that‘ll be the start of something new.
  
  
• The new selection panel and coach over in SA seem to agree with you which is why they’ve gone to the extent of dropping Verreynne who was perhaps their second best batter on the disastrous Aussie tour to back Klaasen completely. I also think there’s a handy number five/six in Klaasen waiting to be unleashed and Phillips is arguably even better as a prospect. Brook IMO surpasses both of them given his younger age and more complete game (barring the short ball weakness) but I find it shocking that NZ cricket haven’t gone back to Phillips when he fixes so many issues both on and off the field with his mere presence. I also think having a really aggressive number five is the way to go in the current bowler friendly era, they’ll mostly manage to get you very valuable runs at a rapid pace to swing the momentum before being dismissed and on the slightly more flatter decks we’ve been slowly seeing since the pandemic they become near essential to remain competitive. Not surprising that we’re seeing more sides try to incorporate one after West Indies were flying the flag for years with an erratic Blackwood.
  
  
• NZ’s management of spinners is definitely shambolic, yes. It’s telling that out of the three best spin options they’ve had in recent times, one retired right after he looked like he had won a place, the other only played in tough places and predictably fizzled out and the best of them with a good county season under him has been mismanaged to the point that he wasn’t even considered second choice in their most recent overseas tour. Their next best bet has meanwhile not played for them after looking not too shabby on the toughest country to tour in despite being a generational talent that can open, bowl spin and bat competently with good technique. Yet again another bloke like Phillips who’d solve so many issues on and off the field and they’ve just kept him away from the side whilst Nicholls is still a thing in 2023.
  
  
• Milne was unlikely to ever have a productive test career with that fragile body of his but I feel Lockie could have definitely had a reasonably successful test career if managed properly. Wagner’s presence as an enforcer and his ability to bowl very long spells mimicking the role of a spinner on most pitches allied with Boult, Southee and CdG not looking out of place on dry and dusty pitches has meant that neither Lockie nor a competent spinner was needed for years. It’s not a coincidence that their entire side has fallen flat ever since Wagner has declined noticeably. It’s the biggest risk when you’ve played a dual role cricketer for years, if they go away and you haven’t planned properly you’re looking to plug in multiple holes at the same time and it feels like NZ will struggle to deal with it like SA have since Kallis retired.
  

 

[Bevab]

In any case though, there won’t be much changes until the current management is axed. And I doubt the media/general public care enough about the sport to apply the external pressure needed to bring about changes while the current establishment is too entrenched with connections and nepotism. It isn’t for a lack of alternatives either, the current Ireland coach for instance was a domestic coach in NZ and was the one who really took Jamieson’s game to another level (no coincidence that ever since he’s left Jamieson has slowly regressed). Must be frustrating as a Kiwi fan.

 

[Aislabie]

I don’t think their obsession with wanting the number eight to be a decent batsman results from their lack of good opening batters. It may have well been due to them having a surfeit of all-rounders in their top six and/or batters who could roll their arms over adequately. Between Astle, McMillan, Oram, Cairns, Harris and Styris you have players all capable of chipping in with the ball to varying degrees of success. Even in the past they’ve had someone capable of such a role like Congdon, Reid and Coney at varying points in time. Even their star batsman in recent times was a very handy offie before he was called for chucking.

I do think it's a bit of column A and a bit of column B.

After all, if your openers are Blair Hartland and Bryan Young (even if the latter did go on to score a Crawleyesque 267 not out) - and they had Ken Rutherford at three as well - then you're going to pick Gavin Larsen over someone like Willie Watson with a similar bowling skillset but less batting ability. Although I do agree that it is also a curiosity of Kiwi cricket that a lot of their best bowlers have also tended to have the ability to average about 20 in first-class cricket.

I don’t think they picked Kuggeleijn for his batting, it just reeks of ’old boys club’ energy with his dad being mates with the coach

That is of course depressingly plausible. I'm just going to choose not to attribute to malice what can also be explained by incompetence.

I don’t rate Bruce at all sadly. I think he’s failed on almost every occasion when he’s been given chances at higher levels (albeit in other formats and NZ A cricket) and his age profile really doesn’t help when NZ have selected two of their three oldest lineups in their test history in these last two games. I believe he’s a domestic bully who will always come up short when he’s picked like Marcus Harris for the Aussies. Haven’t really heard any suggestion from NZ fans about wanting him in either which doesn’t sound good either. Haven’t heard of the other guy before either.

I suspect that part of Bruce's problem is that I seem to be one of maybe a dozen people on the entire internet who actively pay attention to the Plunket Shield. Of course, his failure to capitalise in international cricket does certainly count against him, but even if that is how things paid out then he's not a notable downgrade on Will Young or 2023-spec Henry Nicholls.

Henry’s poor record comes from him playing the sporadic game over the years without being properly backed for a first team role and without really refining his game. I think he’s really developed as a pacer over the last few years particularly with the Duke’s ball (the county stint really did wonders for him) and what was previously a harmless ODI line and length from him has now transitioned into a more threatening line in the corridor of uncertainty. Without a doubt he makes it into the current side on merit. Having said that…

Yes, his county season certainly seemed transformative for him. He's also one of my absolute favourite bowlers to watch, which most definitely earns him an effective -10 to how I think about his bowling average! Of course he's 31 years old now, so he's likely to have around one more WTC cycle at the peak of his powers. Therefore he needs to be shown complete backing and confidence by the team management in this time.

Boult wasn’t even asked.

Southee was apparently made the captain because he also threatened to relinquish his central contract like Boult prior to being placated with it. This is a rumour and there’s no concrete evidence for it but it does stick if you read between the lines with what’s currently happening in NZ cricket.

Roscoe’s presence did mean that Kane had to bat at three for long but since his retirement they’ve not found a good number three/four barring Conway who makes sense as the opener anyway. We might see Young bat at three in the current test as per Cricinfo and maybe that‘ll be the start of something new.

Traditionally, once a player has made "their position", they do not tend to move even if the player who had occupied another position leaves the side. For example, when Jonathan Trott left the England Test team in 2013, his number three position was taken by Ian Bell who had previously been the number five. Kevin Pietersen, who had made number four "his own", was not considered for either the open number three position (where he could take more responsibility) or the open number five position (where he could play with more freedom). Instead, he stayed at number four for four more Tests until they kicked him out of the team for being Kevin Pietersen.

I'm by no means saying that it's wrong that players keep "their" positions, just that which position becomes "theirs" is often pretty arbitrary as opposed to being based on any sort of actual thinking or analysis.

Not surprising that we’re seeing more sides try to incorporate one after West Indies were flying the flag for years with an erratic Blackwood.

Oh it looks like you just asked for some #BlackwoodStats.

1. Jermaine Blackwood has played 52 Test matches. That's the same number of Tests as Don Bradman!
2. In those 52 Test matches, he has made only eight scores of 70 or more - one every 11.75 innings.
3. However, five of those eight scores came against England - one every 4.60 innings against England.
4. Seriously, he has 869 runs @ 43.45 against England and 1,844 runs @ 26.72 against everyone else. I don't get it.
5. It's not like England were fielding second-string bowlers either.
6. He also doesn't score very fast. His overall strike rate of 54.06 is a bit slower than Upul Tharanga's career number.

Thank you for joining me for some #BlackwoodStats.

NZ’s management of spinners is definitely shambolic, yes. It’s telling that out of the three best spin options they’ve had in recent times, one retired right after he looked like he had won a place, the other only played in tough places and predictably fizzled out and the best of them with a good county season under him has been mismanaged to the point that he wasn’t even considered second choice in their most recent overseas tour. Their next best bet has meanwhile not played for them after looking not too shabby on the toughest country to tour in despite being a generational talent that can open, bowl spin and bat competently with good technique.

I honestly had a moment trying to piece together exactly who you meant here. I'm guessing:

• Jeetan Patel who retired straight after winning a place (aged only 34 at the time; decided to stick with Warwickshire and getting paid).
• Will Somerville ponly played in tough places? I feel a bit weird listing him with these other two but he did start well against Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
• Ajaz Patel played county cricket and did just fine.
• And then of course Rachin Ravindra is the opener-spinner, although frankly calling him a generational talent or even a spin option is super generous as there's nothing to suggest he's even a competent bowler outside of T20s. I'd rather pick Cole McConchie as my spinner, or Mitch Santner who has a sneaky good record at home.

[...] and CdG not looking out of place on dry and dusty pitches has meant that neither Lockie nor a competent spinner was needed for years. It’s not a coincidence that their entire side has fallen flat ever since Wagner has declined noticeably. It’s the biggest risk when you’ve played a dual role cricketer for years, if they go away and you haven’t planned properly you’re looking to plug in multiple holes at the same time and it feels like NZ will struggle to deal with it like SA have since Kallis retired.

Yep, I felt at the time that the significance of Colin the Bigman's retirement was being severely underplayed. A batting average of 38.70 and a bowling average of 32.95 are each better on their own than they'll find from 90% of the players they could try. And Colin provided both at once.

Inevitably, I feel convinced that this will lead them down the road marked simply "Try Mitch Santner again lol", which while uninspired isn't the worst option in the world - although it might mean batting Phillips at four to keep the strength of Mitchell and Blundell at five and six.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

I see we've served NZ some more BazBowl

 

[Bevab]

I do think it's a bit of column A and a bit of column B.

After all, if your openers are Blair Hartland and Bryan Young (even if the latter did go on to score a Crawleyesque 267 not out) - and they had Ken Rutherford at three as well - then you're going to pick Gavin Larsen over someone like Willie Watson with a similar bowling skillset but less batting ability. Although I do agree that it is also a curiosity of Kiwi cricket that a lot of their best bowlers have also tended to have the ability to average about 20 in first-class cricket.


That is of course depressingly plausible. I'm just going to choose not to attribute to malice what can also be explained by incompetence.


I suspect that part of Bruce's problem is that I seem to be one of maybe a dozen people on the entire internet who actively pay attention to the Plunket Shield. Of course, his failure to capitalise in international cricket does certainly count against him, but even if that is how things paid out then he's not a notable downgrade on Will Young or 2023-spec Henry Nicholls.


Yes, his county season certainly seemed transformative for him. He's also one of my absolute favourite bowlers to watch, which most definitely earns him an effective -10 to how I think about his bowling average! Of course he's 31 years old now, so he's likely to have around one more WTC cycle at the peak of his powers. Therefore he needs to be shown complete backing and confidence by the team management in this time.

Traditionally, once a player has made "their position", they do not tend to move even if the player who had occupied another position leaves the side. For example, when Jonathan Trott left the England Test team in 2013, his number three position was taken by Ian Bell who had previously been the number five. Kevin Pietersen, who had made number four "his own", was not considered for either the open number three position (where he could take more responsibility) or the open number five position (where he could play with more freedom). Instead, he stayed at number four for four more Tests until they kicked him out of the team for being Kevin Pietersen.

I'm by no means saying that it's wrong that players keep "their" positions, just that which position becomes "theirs" is often pretty arbitrary as opposed to being based on any sort of actual thinking or analysis.


Oh it looks like you just asked for some #BlackwoodStats.

1. Jermaine Blackwood has played 52 Test matches. That's the same number of Tests as Don Bradman!
2. In those 52 Test matches, he has made only eight scores of 70 or more - one every 11.75 innings.
3. However, five of those eight scores came against England - one every 4.60 innings against England.
4. Seriously, he has 869 runs @ 43.45 against England and 1,844 runs @ 26.72 against everyone else. I don't get it.
5. It's not like England were fielding second-string bowlers either.
6. He also doesn't score very fast. His overall strike rate of 54.06 is a bit slower than Upul Tharanga's career number.

Thank you for joining me for some #BlackwoodStats.


I honestly had a moment trying to piece together exactly who you meant here. I'm guessing:

• Jeetan Patel who retired straight after winning a place (aged only 34 at the time; decided to stick with Warwickshire and getting paid).
• Will Somerville ponly played in tough places? I feel a bit weird listing him with these other two but he did start well against Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
• Ajaz Patel played county cricket and did just fine.
• And then of course Rachin Ravindra is the opener-spinner, although frankly calling him a generational talent or even a spin option is super generous as there's nothing to suggest he's even a competent bowler outside of T20s. I'd rather pick Cole McConchie as my spinner, or Mitch Santner who has a sneaky good record at home.

Yep, I felt at the time that the significance of Colin the Bigman's retirement was being severely underplayed. A batting average of 38.70 and a bowling average of 32.95 are each better on their own than they'll find from 90% of the players they could try. And Colin provided both at once.

Inevitably, I feel convinced that this will lead them down the road marked simply "Try Mitch Santner again lol", which while uninspired isn't the worst option in the world - although it might mean batting Phillips at four to keep the strength of Mitchell and Blundell at five and six.

NZ domestic sides seem to be filled with a bunch of no-rounders from the middle order to the lower order. At least there’s five bowling options out of which one is frequently not used. As for Bruce yet again I’m not seeing his name be discussed among those dozen watchers of Plunket Shield on the internet. Maybe it’s because they are sick of the over thirty batters but also because he hasn‘t really been a thing in the past. Perhaps he’d be better than current Nicholls and Young indeed.

As for the spinners’ tale you’re spot on with Somerville, Ajaz and Ravindra. Somerville was the most naturally talented bloke there for a while and the record did show it but he wasn’t backed consistently and throwing him on away tours asking him to be the match winner is asking for trouble. The first one I meant Todd Astle but I see that it’s applicable to Jeetan too.

I’m honestly unsure what direction NZC will go in next. I’m not sure if the current folk will stay in place either or if they’ll be replaced by better people or more of the same. They’ve got good prospects like Ashok and Abbas in troublesome roles so the sooner they get a functional side up and running the better it’ll be to integrate those talents in and get back to being a top quality outfit.

 

[Bevab]

Absolutely hilarious that they chose to strengthen their batting by being a bowler short and they’ve still lost seven wickets for less than 150. Just hilarious.

 

[Dutch]

I think its great to see the camaraderie on the field but I think NZ also have a problem of being too nice. You need someone to be irritated and worked up and lash out to get things going and I just don't see it from NZ at all. Lots of fun and laughter in the field and comfoting pats on the back but no-one saying come on FFS. Dare I say it a bit of Aussie grit wouldnt go amiss.

 

[Bevab]

I think its great to see the camarade on the field but I think NZ also have a problem of being too nice. You need someone to be irritated and worked up and lash out to get things going and I just don't see it from NZ at all. Lots of fun and laughter in the field and comfoting pats on the back but no-one saying come on FFS. Dare I say it a bit of Aussie grit wouldnt go amiss.

They were nasty blokes during the 2000s if I remember. Before Baz was captain especially. Didn’t help them be a particularly good side but they did punch above their weight I suppose.

At present it just seems like half if not most of them don’t really buy into whatever’s being peddled by the management. The senior players seem like they’ve got the weight of the world on their shoulders and it’s showing in their performances. More than being nice they’re just being… apathetic?

 

[asprin]

Given how dominant England have been and how insipid NZ appear, I wish BCCI fast track a 2-match Test series immediately so that our long wanting dream of winning in NZ comes to fruition.

 

[Aislabie]

I think its great to see the camaraderie on the field but I think NZ also have a problem of being too nice. You need someone to be irritated and worked up and lash out to get things going and I just don't see it from NZ at all. Lots of fun and laughter in the field and comfoting pats on the back but no-one saying come on FFS. Dare I say it a bit of Aussie grit wouldnt go amiss.

27th post.