Where are the best New Zealand players?

 

There's been a couple of Twenty20s going on in the States in the last 48 hours as West Indies took on New Zealand.   Not everyone was bothered - Michael Holding was asked if he'd watched his country playing cricket yesterday replied "Is that cricket?" reiterating his distaste for the shortest form of the game.

Surely though someone in New Zealand was bothered, or otherwise what's the point of agreeing to play the match?   The World Twenty20 is less than three months away and presumably all Twenty20 matches between now and then are practice for that tournament.   So why New Zealand are playing without Brendon McCullum, Daniel Vettori (who has said he'll be coming out of retirement for the World Twenty20) and James Franklin is a question I can't answer.

The two huge losses suffered by New Zealand won't have helped them - perhaps they might play their proper side next time?

New Zealand's batting struggles again

It was tortuous watching New Zealand batting against Pakistan on day 3 - after the first couple of wickets fell it really was a procession. There is some talent there with the likes of Guptill, Ryder and Williamson but the side's ability to compete still comes down to the big 3 of McCullum, Taylor and Vettori. In the 2nd innings McCullum was given out caught off thigh pad (evening up another wrong decision in the first innings when he was given not out having gloved one), Taylor was run out by his partner Williamson, and Vettori went cheaply having looked in poor health in the field on day 2. New Zealand need to find a way to prosper even when the big 3 fail.

They're unlikely to challenge India for the number 1 slot but New Zealand really can (and need to) improve the consistency of their batting given the decent players at their disposal, and no doubt is one of John Wright's top priorities....

New Zealand moving in the right direction

New Zealand Cricket Chief Exec Justin Vaughan seems to have made some sensible decisions to move New Zealand cricket forwards. Many will say it's a bit late, but perhaps better late than never! They have a proper coach now in John Wright, and Daniel Vettori's responsibilities have been reduced a little.

Interesting to see that Wright has talked about youngsters/surprises in his first squad. The Kiwis desperately need to stick with the young players they identify and allow them to grow into international cricket. Getting that right will be a huge step in the right direction.

New Zealand woes

Having lost two series in a row against Bangladesh and India without winning a game, New Zealand seem to be really struggling. And the worry for them is that the World Cup coming up will be in similar spin-friendly conditions. However, anyone who saw the final ODI against India will appreciate that the amount of spin that the slow bowlers got was rediculous, and even spin friendly wickets shouldn't play like that. In retrospect, both sides would have played spinners only if they could have, and that means the wicket was at fault to some degree.

As with any struggling side they need to retain their best team, successful or not, and ensure that they give themselves the best possible chance of turning things around. They've started by enlisting the services of Duncan Fletcher, who has reportedly suggested a reduction in Daniel Vettori's responsibilities. I'm glad that's all he's suggested - Vettori is the stand out player in New Zealand and there were a few reports that the captaincy would get taken off him. If that's what he wants, fair enough, but to sack him would be catastrophic for new Zealand cricket in my opinion.

It will be interesting to see if New Zealand can rally, given that their coach Mark Greatbach seems to want to push all blame to the players rather than taking any responsibility himself.

More Duckworth-Lewis agony for England

We've been here before in Twenty20 haven't we? As if the game isn't a lottery enough when played over the full 20 overs, when the D/L is brought into play it seems to massively favour the side batting second. West Indies will be very happy with the result, but even Chris Gayle said afterwards that they need to look into how the calculations are made such was the advantage it gave his side, and this is the second time they have benefited against England in the World Twenty20.

Recently Daniel Vettori also raised the fact that the D/L method stuggles to take into account powerplays, and that's a further issue. It's difficult to know what the solution is, but what I can say is that England's over scores were: 5, 16, 9, 11, 10, 9, 11, 4, 5, 8, 3, 6, 8, 4, 6, 16, 14, 27, 10, 9.

If you were to take their top 3 overs and bottom 3 overs that would equal 70: 27, 16, 16, 3, 4, 4.
If you took their top 6 overs that would equal 95: 27, 16, 16, 14, 11, 11.
Somehow West Indies were asked to chase 60.

We all understand that the D/L method takes into account historical data but in a format with virtually no historical data to go on, an alternative needs to be considered until there is a sufficient body of games to go from, you would think wouldn't you? Presumably the ICC are praying that England beat Ireland now (no guarantee at all given the lottery of Twenty20), but somehow I don't think they're that fussed about the best team winning if their slow and poor adoption of technology to help umpires is anything to go by...

D/L method struggling to keep up with powerplays?

I couldn't agree with Daniel Vettori more. How can New Zealand lose 5 overs, including 2 Powerplay overs, in their chase against Australia, and only get 8 runs knocked off their target? Australia scored 41 in their 5 batting powerplay overs (9, 9, 6, 8, 9) so I find it difficult to see how that was worked out. Anyone clever/mathematical wish to explain? Thought not!!

The future of cricket?

Daniel Vettori shows how it's done. Play match in NZ, fly in to Sydney....help win game for your team...fly back no NZ, play another game.

Easy!

Franklin at least 2 positions too high for NZ

We've burbled about New Zealand's batting order many times because to outside observers it seems so absurd that Vettori should bat at 8. And I'm afraid it's even more absurd that James Franklin should bat at 6. Why is it everyone other than the New Zealand coach and skipper who can see that, if they want Taylor and Ryder to bat 4 and 5, then the following players should be McCullum, Vettori and then Franklin, in that order?

James Franklin has some talent with the bat, no doubt - he has a test hundred to his name and Andy Moles clearly has high hopes of turning him into an all-rounder. But a Test average of 20 and a first-class average of 31.5 mean that shoving him at number six in international cricket is asking for trouble. Franklin is not out overnight against India with NZ needing to bat out the last day, and even if he scores a match-saving hundred, he still shouldn't bat above 8 I'm afraid.

England and NZ ODI batting stats

Interesting analysis of how England, apart from Pietersen, can't get the ball off the square during the middle overs of an ODI innings. And equally interesting, the article goes on to show how New Zealand's opening partnership is their 8th worst on average - not a good reflection on their openers. It also helps to back up Dave Marshall's view that Vettori should be batting much higher as their middle order fares a lot better.

Basic skill will always be the most important thing(!), but it's interesting how the weight tactics carry seems to be every-increasing. Even in victory in the second Twenty20, this reports suggests that there is much for South Africa to improve on as they allowed Australia to bowl 50 dot balls. That's over 41% of balls they faced without a run. They have proved they can make the big hits - if they can continue to do that while also rotating the strike and reducing the number of dot balls, they will be even tougher to beat.

O'Brien admits stupidity

You no doubt read about how Ian O'Brien got himself out stumped when Jesse Ryder was on 98 and closing in on a century. I always think it's interesting the way these things are reported - it's always with a huge focus on the guy who is looking to make a hundred. What about his team mates? After all, they're in the middle of a Test match and looking to get over the 300 mark - the last thing they want is their number 10 wandering down the pitch and getting stumped, whoever he is batting with for the 9th wicket and whatever score they're on. And that still stands even though everyone other than Vettori and Ryder failed themselves!

Anyway, these days some players have blogs themselves and Ian O'Brien has been the first to admit to his mistake on his blog. He describes it as "the dumbest thing I've done on a cricket field". Fortunately, Martin hung around for Ryder to get his hundred so all's well that ends well. Although for New Zealand, with India poised to go well past their first innings score, it may still end in a loss. And that has to be more important than a personal milestone - even if it is a first Test century.

A special over from Vettori

OK, so it is only Bangladesh, but it looks like Daniel Vettori bowled a pretty special over at the end of the 4th day (but the 1st one where they've been able to play due to the weather) of the 2nd Test. Here's the scorecard.

England batsman played Vettori well

In my post yesterday I was worried that Vettori would win the game for NZ, but also said that England had superior batsman to New Zealand. That, along with the fact that the heavy roller was requested to deaden the surface, helped England pull off what was a good victory considering the position they'd put themselves in.

Should the team be changed? It seems that Bell and Collingwood are considered under pressure, and deservedly so. But personally I'd keep them both for the next Test. Bell was one of the Wisden players of the year in 2008 and averaged 50 (real average 48) in the series against NZ away, so he's hardly out of form. And while I'm the first to jump on his back as he seems to go missing whenever we really need him, he shouldn't be dropped at the moment.

Collingwood is struggling right now but I'd like to see him retain his place for the next Test. Bopara is snapping at his heels given that he's also a part-time bowler and a good fielder and I'm a big fan of Bopara's, but again it's the wrong time to consider dropping Collingwood. He's going to captain England in the ODIs after the Tests and it would destabalise that team to drop him now. I also think he'll come good - nothing can be guaranteed, but if England back him in the way they have Strauss in the past during a bad run, then there's no chance of him getting dropped just yet.

Not a confident England cricket fan

I refer you to my previous post, "Vettori could win it for NZ". Panesar took 6 for 37 but Vettori is the better bowler of the two so there should really only be one winner in this game if the weather holds. Having said that, England's batsman are - whatever doubting England "supporters" think - better than New Zealand's batsman. It only needs two half centuries by the top order to get us into a winning position. Surely two calamitous capitulations isn't even possible for England's middle and lower order?

If I had to bet my house (I don't own one!) on it, I'd bet it on a New Zealand victory with at least 7 wickets for Vettori. But I have this lingering thought that Vaughan and Pietersen can do it. Bell has never, ever, scored runs under real pressure so maybe this could be his moment? (I think I read that every one of his 7 Test centuries has come when a colleague of his has also made a century.) And Collingwood has hardly scored a run all season, but is one of those players I'd always back in a crisis. From 7 down, we only have Broad - Ambrose isn't going to worry the scorers much, so it's down to the batsman to do the job. (Incidentally, Ambrose's only chance of a continued run in the side is if Flintoff comes back and bats 7 as there's no way he's capable of batting 7 in Test cricket, despite his debut century.)

I for one will be tuning into TMS at 11 tomorrow hoping that the weather doesn't spoil an absorbing day of cricket. What a pity it's not on terrestrial television....

Vettori states the obvious

Good to see that Daniel Vettori agrees with Cricket Burble's view on England dropping Hoggard:

"You have to look at the way Anderson bowled," said Vettori. "For us to be bowled out for 198 in the first innings was purely down to him. He hit the right lengths early on and did a really good job. I suggest Hoggard would have done a similar job but to have fresh legs to do some very good work can only lift a team. New players coming in bring in enthusiasm and it lifts a team."

Well it might lift them in the short-term, but it's not going to bring consistent good performances over a long period. Here's hoping England put their best team out before too long.