Black Caps vs Bangles
-
@Hooroo said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@shark said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Comparisons to Vettori are hardly aiming for the stars though.I agree but neither are the other options IMO. I just think he can settled and worthwhile if they stick with him
Yeah, I'm happy for them to stick with him for now. But if Neesh shows good form for the number 6 spot, or Ish shows good form for the number 8 spot, I wouldn't want them missing out while we try and get Santner up to speed. Stantner is unproven at both domestic and test level so shouldn't command a spot.
-
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Hooroo said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@shark said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Comparisons to Vettori are hardly aiming for the stars though.I agree but neither are the other options IMO. I just think he can settled and worthwhile if they stick with him
Yeah, I'm happy for them to stick with him for now. But if Neesh shows good form for the number 6 spot, or Ish shows good form for the number 8 spot, I wouldn't want them missing out while we try and get Santner up to speed. Stantner is unproven at both domestic and test level so shouldn't command a spot.
I agree but neither was Vetorri. It's true though, I don't like making those comparisons
-
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Yeah, I'm happy for them to stick with him for now. But if Neesh shows good form for the number 6 spot, or Ish shows good form for the number 8 spot, I wouldn't want them missing out while we try and get Santner up to speed. Stantner is unproven at both domestic and test level so shouldn't command a spot.
Wouldn't Neesham's return put more pressure on de Grandhomme? Santner could then slide down the order
Or is CDG safe because of that 6 wicket haul?
-
cricinfo - love it
Vettori's bowling average basically hovered around 33/34 his whole career but man did his batting take off.
As for strike rate after 60 tests he'd taken 194 wickets. After 61 Chris Martin had 199 and after 58 Chris Cairns had 202 so comparable
Tests Batting Av Wickets Last 10 tests Bowling Av
10 17.69 34 34 33.50
20 16.59 61 27 34.96
30 17.18 105 44 32.18
40 16.32 131 26 34.29
50 20.47 150 19 35.78
60 20.94 194 44 34.80
70 24.69 219 25 34.91
80 27.38 245 26 34.80
90 28.02 288 43 33.17
100 30.71 325 37 33.85
113 30.00 362 37 34.36 -
@shark said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@MN5 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Chris-B. said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Not much love for Santner.
I'm in the opposite camp - I think he's an outstanding prospect and I'm delighted we've got him and that he's being picked. I'd pick Santner instead of Munro in Shark's line-up for the 1st Chappell-Hadlee.
Agree on picking Latham with the gloves though - not as a permanent solution, but for this series.
Where do you see him slotting in long-term? Personally I think 6, but his batting doesn't warrant it at the moment. If he is at 8 then he needs to take a lot more wickets, otherwise it puts a lot of pressure on our other 3 front line bowlers to take 20 wickets.
Problem at the moment is we have a bunch of spinners that average around 40 in first class. Santner and Ish are the youngest at 24, so are probably worth investing the most into. Santner has more potential to score runs (though Ish is no mug), and Ish has more potential to take wickets given he gets a lot more turn (though his record to date suggests otherwise).
The other alternative is to not play a spinner, but unless the wicket is a real seamer and the game is unlikely to go 5 days I don't see that as a viable option.
That's what I've argued. Why play a spinner if he isn't test class at the expense of a seamer who is ? ( please note I say 'test class'....'world class' is an extremely rare commodity in a New Zealand cricketer )
Agreed MN5. In tests I'd much rather play Neesham as a batting all-rounder and fourth seamer who might pick up a couple of wickets, than fart about with Santner who can't justify a position as a batting all-rounder or wicket taking spinner. Unless it was a real turner. And in ODIs I think it's ball-tearingly obvious that Sodhi is the man based on performances against Australia last summer and more recently his outstanding BBL cameo.
Neesham isn't really competing with Santner though. The Black Caps always seem to want 5 bowling options so plenty of room for four quicks and a spinner. You could pick Anderson + Neesham ahead of Santner but I don't think that is needed.
-
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Chris-B. said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Not much love for Santner.
I'm in the opposite camp - I think he's an outstanding prospect and I'm delighted we've got him and that he's being picked. I'd pick Santner instead of Munro in Shark's line-up for the 1st Chappell-Hadlee.
Agree on picking Latham with the gloves though - not as a permanent solution, but for this series.
Where do you see him slotting in long-term? Personally I think 6, but his batting doesn't warrant it at the moment. If he is at 8 then he needs to take a lot more wickets, otherwise it puts a lot of pressure on our other 3 front line bowlers to take 20 wickets.
Problem at the moment is we have a bunch of spinners that average around 40 in first class. Santner and Ish are the youngest at 24, so are probably worth investing the most into. Santner has more potential to score runs (though Ish is no mug), and Ish has more potential to take wickets given he gets a lot more turn (though his record to date suggests otherwise).
The other alternative is to not play a spinner, but unless the wicket is a real seamer and the game is unlikely to go 5 days I don't see that as a viable option.
Todd Astle averages 32 in FC cricket.
-
@Duluth said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Yeah, I'm happy for them to stick with him for now. But if Neesh shows good form for the number 6 spot, or Ish shows good form for the number 8 spot, I wouldn't want them missing out while we try and get Santner up to speed. Stantner is unproven at both domestic and test level so shouldn't command a spot.
Wouldn't Neesham's return put more pressure on de Grandhomme? Santner could then slide down the order
Or is CDG safe because of that 6 wicket haul?
We have a few options at the moment to try and get the best out of our "not quite good enough" players.
Santner was at 6 in the last two tests, which is where Neesh would bat. Yes we can drop Santner down the order, but then we put a fair amount of pressure on our other three bowlers to take the bulk of the wickets. Either way I don't think we have room for CDGH.
-
@hydro11 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Neesham isn't really competing with Santner though. The Black Caps always seem to want 5 bowling options so plenty of room for four quicks and a spinner. You could pick Anderson + Neesham ahead of Santner but I don't think that is needed.
Exactly.
Santner is competing with Sodhi, Mark Craig and Jeetan (and the rare occasion where we might want to play four specialist seamers) and in bowling terms he's beating them all - well, just maybe not Jeetan; and in batting terms he's beating them all except Craig.
He's also got a genuine batsman's technique so it's possible he'll eventually be able to genuinely bat in the top 6 - which would be an advance on Chris Cairns - but he's already useful enough to bat at seven and a very good eight. I don't agree at all that he's not done much while batting in tests - he's not played that many innings and he's already got a couple of seventies and equally important he's proved that he's a capable batsman by making lots of starts. For a young guy, not yet 25, learning both disciplines - that's more than good enough.
In looking at his first class etc averages, it's important to remember that these also include international matches, so he hasn't actually played a lot of non-international cricket compared to e.g. Todd Astle - and especially not much in the last couple of years.
-
Neesham to me could develop into our own Ben Stokes if he could just get a bit more authority with the ball. There's still time for him to do that. What we'd give for a Chris Cairns right about now, imagine him in this lineup at six and bowling first or second change?
I can see both sides of the Santner argument but if a decent spinner emerged ( ie better than the ones mentioned ) I wouldn't care if he was a worse batsman than Chris Martin. He should be in. Trying a 'fight fire with fire' approach in India by trying to shoehorn two spinners into the team was just embarassing.
In saying all that as @mariner4life alludes to after Boult, Southee and Wagner ( all automatic picks when fit ) the pickings are a bit bare in terms of quicker bowlers. Milne and Henry have issues and Bracewells Hobart heroics were a fucken lifetime ago.
-
-
@Chris-B. said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Cairns was never really good enough to bat in the top 6 - he averaged 25 when he was tried there and he was tried there quite a lot.
Not sure how much stock I put in the whole 'batting position' argument. A career average of 33 ( bear in mind much of this was in a far less batting friendly era ) indicates someone who was more than capable.
-
@MN5 Yeah - But, Cairnsie was sort of there for a good time, not a long time. Which was fine - especially in the era in which he played - if you were part of the tail, but at six you were expected to occupy the crease.
He didn't ever prove himself capable of that role.
-
@Chris-B. said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@MN5 Yeah - But, Cairnsie was sort of there for a good time, not a long time. Which was fine - especially in the era in which he played - if you were part of the tail, but at six you were expected to occupy the crease.
He didn't ever prove himself capable of that role.
I know it's the done thing to bag Cairnsy a bit on here in light of the accusations he got but he was a natural stroke player for better or worse. Again, his overall record is outstanding.
-
look at you, white-knighting your ass off
-
@mariner4life said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
look at you, white-knighting your ass off
Trust you to jump on the Cairns bagging bandwagon. Don't you have talentless spinners to pump ?
I'm really unsure why one of our best ever gets so much shit.
-
@MN5 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
look at you, white-knighting your ass off
Trust you to jump on the Cairns bagging bandwagon. Don't you have talentless spinners to pump ?
I'm really unsure why one of our best ever gets a much shit.
Cairns was a Grade A, 100% cock. Stats aren't everything though
- bowled us to victory a few times, not least of which on an English tour for our first ever test series win (With Nash I think - at Lords?)
- Scored some critical runs, including winning us a Champions Trophy (still our only piece of silverware)
- Also decided to entertain me at Lancaster Park with a 75 ball ton in his hundreth ODI. At the time the fifth fastest ever. That, kids, was when a strike rate of 100 was considered outstanding, boundaries were at the rope, and yuor bat would double as a tool to hammer in fence posts. Time was tough back then, you couldn't taste hops in the beer, computers were for nerds and if you were out on it no one had a cellphone to contact you with.
So yeah, Cairns was great, but statistically not always there. Kind of like Jake Oram out-statting Freddie Flintoff... the stats can be deceiving. His ceiling was immense when he could be bothered (and allegedly wasn't being paid to fix)
-
@nzzp said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@MN5 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
look at you, white-knighting your ass off
Trust you to jump on the Cairns bagging bandwagon. Don't you have talentless spinners to pump ?
I'm really unsure why one of our best ever gets a much shit.
Cairns was a Grade A, 100% cock. Stats aren't everything though
- bowled us to victory a few times, not least of which on an English tour for our first ever test series win (With Nash I think - at Lords?)
- Scored some critical runs, including winning us a Champions Trophy (still our only piece of silverware)
- Also decided to entertain me at Lancaster Park with a 75 ball ton in his hundreth ODI. At the time the fifth fastest ever. That, kids, was when a strike rate of 100 was considered outstanding, boundaries were at the rope, and yuor bat would double as a tool to hammer in fence posts. Time was tough back then, you couldn't taste hops in the beer, computers were for nerds and if you were out on it no one had a cellphone to contact you with.
So yeah, Cairns was great, but statistically not always there. Kind of like Jake Oram out-statting Freddie Flintoff... the stats can be deceiving. His ceiling was immense when he could be bothered (and allegedly wasn't being paid to fix)
Personality shouldn't come into it though should it? Our greatest ever was a stats driven, selfish prima donna by many accounts. If a 5 for and a century are worth the same in the general scheme of things then Cairns did this no less than 18 times in 62 tests. ( So one or the other in every 3.4 tests ) That's fucken brilliant by any measure.
-
Cricket: Cairns blasts century in 75 balls
