Sep 29 - England v New Zealand

[SaiSrini]

With Sri Lanka having a foot in the door for the semifinal spot and England playing the last game of the Group, England will know what to do to get to the semis.

For New Zealand, they have to beat West Indies decently to boost their run rate a little bit, and hope that England lose to Sri Lanka in their last match. If that happens, New Zealand will have a chance to enter the semis even though they will just have one win. They were lucky to get into the Super over situation against SL and so their NRR is better than WI, and just slightly behind England. Sri Lanka with their NRR (after today's game) are pretty healthy enough.

 

[CG123]

Seriously, who the fearsome tweak is running this NZC show?

Williamson batting at four? Not starting slogging until the the 15th over? Southee opening the bowling? Nicol bowling the 16th over? Bracewell not bowling until the 19th over?

I don't think we're that bad a team, like on paper we should easily beat that England team, but tactically we're just abysmal. I thought Taylor was the man to take us forward, but his captaincy along with whoever else makes these calls has just been a disaster. There's no other way to put it.

I've been pretty much as passionate as you can get about this team considering the downhill side that they've been on since the Fleming era, but this is just starting to get too much.

 

[Sedition]

I didn't see this game, but had to lol at Bracewell not getting a bowl until the game was already over. Mills was very tidy in his opening spell, so wasn't too bad chucking the ball to Southee for an over I thought. Why they bothered with Nicol I have no idea though.

 

[ferg512]

Seriously, who the kerpluck is running this NZC show?

Williamson batting at four? Not starting slogging until the the 15th over? Southee opening the bowling? Nicol bowling the 16th over? Bracewell not bowling until the 19th over?

I don't think we're that bad a team, like on paper we should easily beat that England team, but tactically we're just abysmal. I thought Taylor was the man to take us forward, but his captaincy along with whoever else makes these calls has just been a disaster. There's no other way to put it.

I've been pretty much as passionate as you can get about this team considering the downhill side that they've been on since the Fleming era, but this is just starting to get too much.

Also you'd expect the decision making to be considerably better, as I thought that was one of the main reasons for appointing Hesson because hes a good analyst or something and to no surprise the decision making get worse

I'll also just chime in with a little ol McCullum bashing, he continues to be a minnow basher and nothing more (it really is making me sick the way the commentators go on about him). If he does nothing against the Windies in the last game, this tournament will be a repeat of his batting in the 2011 WC where he ended up with an average of 50 despite having a horrid tournament apart from smashing Kenya and Canada around a bit.

 

[CG123]

I'll also just chime in with a little ol McCullum bashing, he continues to be a minnow basher and nothing more (it really is making me sick the way the commentators go on about him). If he does nothing against the Windies in the last game, this tournament will be a repeat of his batting in the 2011 WC where he ended up with an average of 50 despite having a horrid tournament apart from smashing Kenya and Canada around a bit.

Guptill's worse:

McCullum

T20Is - Career 37 @ 136, Non-minnows 32 @ 127
ODIs - Career 30 @ 90, Non-minnows 27 @ 84
Tests - Career 36, Non-minnows 33

Guptill

T20Is - Career 31 @ 124, Non-minnows 24 @ 120
ODIs - Career 38 @ 81, Non-minnows 31 @ 76
Tests - Career 34, Non-minnows 28

Here's a list of T20I batting averages excluding the minnows, with a minimum qualification of 500 runs, and MuCullum comes in at 9th, so he does do alright, but he's definitely not what he's hyped up to be in big matches.

 

[Owzat]

Thankfully, England did not listen to you

The job was more than half done by the bowling, the kiwis short of a seriously challenging total. I doubt the exclusion of Wright would have meant we didn't win, he just filled his boots when a mediocre side let him - like the Afghans.

The crunch will be the next game, we'll see if you're Wright or he's Shight then eh.............. I see no problem with including more spin (options), Wright's medium pace dobbers are just asking for someone to hit them.

Do have to wonder about Kieswetter, Broad has switched his focus from getting out opposition openers (ie Gayle) to not losing an early wicket which Kieswetter has been three times out of four. I never agree with keepers opening, with the odd exception where the keeper is really a batsman who can keep well like Gilchrist, Stewart or McCullum (more ODIs, 80 inns, ave 33.07)

----------

I didn't see this game, but had to lol at Bracewell not getting a bowl until the game was already over. Mills was very tidy in his opening spell, so wasn't too bad chucking the ball to Southee for an over I thought. Why they bothered with Nicol I have no idea though.

If anyone wants to ask what Southee's impact was, 0/32 off 2 overs is pretty much the start any batting side would want a bowler to make.

Two main spinners for each side took 8-0-56-2 and 8-0-42-2, yet I get 'knocked' for daring to suggest Patel be included at the expense of normal passenger Wright.

 

[MUFC1987]

I don't think we're that bad a team, like on paper we should easily beat that England team, but tactically we're just abysmal.

New Zealand only have one quality player, in Taylor, sure Vettori's ok, but as we showed, you can just knock him about because the rest aren't the best. At least England have a few good bowlers to rely on. To suggest that NZ are stronger on paper is bizarre.

The job was more than half done by the bowling,

Two main spinners for each side took 8-0-56-2 and 8-0-42-2, yet I get 'knocked' for daring to suggest Patel be included at the expense of normal passenger Wright.

You're seriously telling me we didn't need Wright's runs? You are crazy. And how is Patel's bowling really that much better than Wright's? Sure he bowls more, but he still gets hammered and is nowhere near as good a batsman. Just admit he proved you wrong and move on, rather than trying to justify it. Besides, we finally got the XI right, so you should be happy.

 

[CG123]

New Zealand only have one quality player, in Taylor, sure Vettori's ok, but as we showed, you can just knock him about because the rest aren't the best. At least England have a few good bowlers to rely on. To suggest that NZ are stronger on paper is bizarre.

Your batting line-up is rubbish. Wright has been nothing more than an average county player for years now, and one good knock doesn't make him any good. Hales, Buttler, Bairstow, none of them have done anything at the international level. Taylor, McCullum, and Guptill all of have far more credentials than your whole batting line-up bar Morgan, that's part of the reason why I was so frustrated because none of them turned up. Morgan's a quality player, he was the only Irish English batsmen who should have been able to damage us.

Yes your pace bowling's slightly strong than ours, but Vettori and McCullum outway Swann and Briggs as a spinning duo. Broad and Bresnan were nothing special and aren't anything special in terms of T20 players. Finn the reason you won that match, because he bowled very well, but he also saved himself seven runs by knocking the stumps over.

I stand by what I said, on paper we should've dispatched of that England team.

 

[ferg512]

Your batting line-up is rubbish. Wright has been nothing more than an average county player for years now, and one good knock doesn't make him any good. Hales, Buttler, Bairstow, none of them have done anything at the international level. Taylor, McCullum, and Guptill all of have far more credentials than your whole batting line-up bar Morgan, that's part of the reason why I was so frustrated because none of them turned up. Morgan's a quality player, he was the only Irish English batsmen who should have been able to damage us.

Yes your pace bowling's slightly strong than ours, but Vettori and McCullum outway Swann and Briggs as a spinning duo. Broad and Bresnan were nothing special and aren't anything special in terms of T20 players. Finn the reason you won that match, because he bowled very well, but he also saved himself seven runs by knocking the stumps over.

I stand by what I said, on paper we should've dispatched of that England team.

I agree on Wright, I still don't really rate him at all. I mean it is only one innings, and we did bowl poorly at him especially Southee who got him going. Apart from Morgan there really isn't anyone especially threatning, although Hales seems to be doing alright at this level. I don't agree with you on Guptill however, I would probably take several of the English batsmen over him he just simply isn't as great as he is made out to be, backed up by the stats you posted above.

 

[CG123]

I agree on Wright, I still don't really rate him at all. I mean it is only one innings, and we did bowl poorly at him especially Southee who got him going. Apart from Morgan there really isn't anyone especially threatning, although Hales seems to be doing alright at this level. I don't agree with you on Guptill however, I would probably take several of the English batsmen over him he just simply isn't as great as he is made out to be, backed up by the stats you posted above.

24 @ 120 against the non-minnows is still a better T20I record than Kieswetter, Wright, Buttler, and Bairstow all have overall, and all of them have played at least 14 T20Is. Even Franklin has a better record than all of them.

I just think that we plain and simply played ----, as well as making some huge tactical blunders.

 

[ferg512]

24 @ 120 against the non-minnows is still a better T20I record than Kieswetter, Wright, Buttler, and Bairstow all have overall, and all of them have played at least 14 T20Is. Even Franklin has a better record than all of them.

I just think that we plain and simply played ----, as well as making some huge tactical blunders.

I'm usually a little unfair on Guptill because I know at this stage of his career he is one of the more experienced players in the team and needs to be doing more. I am a fan of him but he needs to take that next step which he simply hasn't done as of yet. I thought he was about to last summer but in the end it was all just hype because he was pounding Zimbabwe.

 

[MUFC1987]

Your batting line-up is rubbish. Wright has been nothing more than an average county player for years now, and one good knock doesn't make him any good. Hales, Buttler, Bairstow, none of them have done anything at the international level. Taylor, McCullum, and Guptill all of have far more credentials than your whole batting line-up bar Morgan, that's part of the reason why I was so frustrated because none of them turned up. Morgan's a quality player, he was the only Irish English batsmen who should have been able to damage us.

Yes your pace bowling's slightly strong than ours, but Vettori and McCullum outway Swann and Briggs as a spinning duo. Broad and Bresnan were nothing special and aren't anything special in terms of T20 players. Finn the reason you won that match, because he bowled very well, but he also saved himself seven runs by knocking the stumps over.

I stand by what I said, on paper we should've dispatched of that England team.

So Wright is just a County hack who is knocking your bowling attack out of the park?

To call England's bowling attack only slightly stronger is a huge understatement really. I mean who in that New Zealand side would even make the England squad in terms of pace bowlers? Because I don't see one. They're all poor with the odd decent haul against minnows or a bit of luck against a decent side keeping them in the team.

Like I said, Vettori is decent in this form of the game, but clearly in decline and I'd say it's a massive argument as to whether or not he's that much better than Swann. A few years ago, maybe, but not now, the guys been in decline since his eyes started lighting up at the IPL pay cheques.

McCullum is and always will be a flat track bully. You get a decent pace bowler at him and he doesn't stand a chance, hence why he's struggled against good bowlers at the top of the order in Test cricket. Sure, he'll get you a ton against Bangladesh, because they don't have pace bowlers and I'm sure he's excellent against the Indian domestic lads on pancakes, but against Finn? Not a chance. Like I said, Taylor is as good as any, but he's the only one. You can blow smoke up your backsides about how good you are, but you got hammered by a rubbish England side, so well done on that.

 

[CG123]

So Wright is just a County hack who is knocking your bowling attack out of the park?

Any average player can have a slog pay off. 35 ODI innings at an average of 23, and 32 T20I innings at an average of 20 speaks for itself. I already said that we bowled ----, plus Wright probably played the best innings that he's ever played at the international level. Like I said before one good innings (two including Afghanistan) doesn't make you any better a player, if he's scored runs more consistently come this time next year then I'll take back what I said.

To call England's bowling attack only slightly stronger is a huge understatement really. I mean who in that New Zealand side would even make the England squad in terms of pace bowlers? Because I don't see one. They're all poor with the odd decent haul against minnows or a bit of luck against a decent side keeping them in the team.

Mills was all over you guys at the start, his first three overs went for 11 runs. Southee's extremely hot and cold, one day he's a match winner, and then the next he's the worst bowler on show. Bracewell and Milne are both very raw. Obviously it's hard for me to put forward an argument because I know you guys have better pace bowlers, but I don't think there's a lot in it. Dernbach has been poor all tournament, while Bresnan hasn't done much. Finn's been outstanding, I said that before. Broad looked average against us, but he has played alright other than that. He's definitely more a test match bowler though, like Bracewell is as well.

Like I said, Vettori is decent in this form of the game, but clearly in decline and I'd say it's a massive argument as to whether or not he's that much better than Swann. A few years ago, maybe, but not now, the guys been in decline since his eyes started lighting up at the IPL pay cheques.

Nathan McCullum has a very good T20I record, hence why I said that Vettori and him as a combination are better than Swann and Briggs/Patel. I never said that he was better than Swann, tbh I don't think there's a lot between them.

McCullum is and always will be a flat track bully. You get a decent pace bowler at him and he doesn't stand a chance, hence why he's struggled against good bowlers at the top of the order in Test cricket. Sure, he'll get you a ton against Bangladesh, because they don't have pace bowlers and I'm sure he's excellent against the Indian domestic lads on pancakes, but against Finn? Not a chance. Like I said, Taylor is as good as any, but he's the only one. You can blow smoke up your backsides about how good you are, but you got hammered by a rubbish England side, so well done on that.

What do you have to say about your batsmen then? McCullum's T20I record against the non-minnows is 32 @ 127, while bar Morgan all of your guys struggle to hit 20. Btw McCullum has scored a T20I century against Tait, Nannes, and Harris as well.

Also have a look at this if you haven't seen it. It's not directly related to what I'm saying, but just an interesting gauge in terms of players.