Black Caps vs Bangles
-
@Crucial said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@hydro11 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
A batting average higher than your bowling average speaks for itself. Not many New Zealanders can lay claim to that.
Ross Taylor can
This made me wonder just how many players with a decent test career have actually come out of it with this claim. A quick stats search gives me
Steve Waugh (51 batting and 37 bowling)
Kallis (55/32)
Dravid (52/39)
Border (50/39)
Dev (31/29)
M Waugh (41.8/41.2)
Miandad (52/40)
M Clarke (49/38)
Jayasuriya (40/34)
Pollock (32/23)
Hadlee (27/22)
Cairns (33/29)Obviously some of those guys are very good batsmen with long careers that were only part time bowlers but racked up a few overs.
Of the true allrounders Hadlee's figures are just Bradman like in their dominance of the stats. Pollock's figure are exceptional as well. Cairns stands up pretty well.
Best batting allrounder has to be Kallis. Best bowling allrounder Hadlee.Hmmmm I guess I just imagined the careers of Sobers, Imran Khan and Beefy Botham. Where are they?
Imran definitely takes Hadlees spot as a bowling all rounder and Sobers possibly takes Kallis's as a batting one. As you say most of the rest are batsman who were ok bowlers every now and again. Tellingly to me the overrated Andrew Flintoff isn't on here. ( 8 centuries and five fors in 79 tests vs Cairns 18 in 62 )
-
-
@Crucial said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Yes, you're right. I missed Botham (33/28), Sobers (57,34) and Khan (37/22).
Sobers over Kallis. Khan over Paddles. Freddie doesn't make the list.Kallis and Sobers are about even for me. A bloke who probably batted as well as Lara/Tendulkar with the added bonus of being about as good as Chris Martin with the ball! Fucken amazing player.
-
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@hydro11 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Yeah, he's in the "not quite a good enough batsmen, not quite a good enough bowler" category at the moment. I think you really need to command your place in at least one of those disciplines to be an asset to the team. Otherwise the 6 batsmen / keeper / 4 bowlers would be my preference.
He has undoubted talent though, so I can see why they are persevering with him. IMO he needs to command the number 6 spot in the lineup if he wants to be in the team long-term, as I don't think he will ever be a big wicket taker.
There's no persevering. He's nailing his bowling role.
With Vettori we could pick a team like this: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/518947.html. Of course we got smashed but we only needed 4 bowlers partly that was because Vettori could bowl so many overs. We got away with just 4 quicks the next week in Hobart but i don't think that would have worked long term. Then when South Africa came (http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/520603.html) we could play Vettori at 6 and pick 4 bowlers.
If Santner doesn't improve then you are limiting your options into how you configure your team. Having a genuine all rounder means you can do different things.
Your example of how, with vetorri, we could pick 4 bowlers. Is a scorecard where we used Brownlie and Guptill to bowl some part time overs. Because we ran out of bowlers and couldn't get them out.
If a Neesham or Anderson were around in 2011, or earlier during the Vettori era - they would have been picked (like Franklin at 6 that was tried at that time).
I'm really puzzled by almost everyone, except chrisb, on this thread.
I'm not saying that was necessarily our best team. However, that team wouldn't have even been possible with Santner because he simply isn't good enough. That team is definitely our best batting line up we have fielded this century. As you point out, we paid for that a bit in the bowling (as you always do with four bowlers). However, it 's not like teams haven't gone with the 6 batsmen, 4 bowlers model and been successful at it.
Let's not forget the great Indian team which was Sehwag, Gambhir/Jaffer/some other bloke, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly, Dhoni and then four bowlers. India could have picked an all rounder instead of Ganguly and they did at times flirt with Yuvraj and Ifran Pathan. Mostly they decided that an all rounder was not worth it when Ganguly was averaging 42. Of course, this meant that their fifth bowling options were Sehwag and Ganguly. Both of whom ended up taking a fair few wickets but they both ended up averaging about 50 with the ball.
Let's not forget the great Australian team which was Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Hussey, Martyn, Clarke, Gilchrist and 4 bowlers. To be fair those four bowlers were bloody brilliant but they still had to get through a lot of overs
Or let's not forget the first English team which won a series in Australia for years. Their team was Strauss, Cook, Trott, KP, Bell, Collingwood, a keeper and 4 bowlers. That team was a lot more mediocre than the two aforementioned ones. They had Collingwood as their 5th bowling option who ended his career averaging 60 with the ball.
So I think you are wrong to be so dismissive of the idea of playing six batsmen. Brownlie was a far better option than Franklin at 6. Franklin was nowhere near good enough to bat there at test level. As for the 5th bowling option, Williamson was far better than Collingwood, Ganguly and Sehwag. Guptill was probably at their level. It seems in New Zealand we have always had all rounders but other teams have only used them when they had one who was good enough.
The team versus South Africa, they obviously decided that they did want 5 bowlers which was probably fair enough. The pace attack was successful in Hobart so they chose to stick with it. I actually think the team which played Australia in Brisbane was a better team, however. Obviously right now Neesham just about makes the team as a batsman anyway but that may not always be the case.
The very simple point is that picking a player who averages 26 with the bat and 38 with the ball may be necessary but it is nowhere near nailing your role and we should be constantly looking for someone better. I think Todd Astle right now would probably do better and perhaps Sodhi would also do better in the future. Personally, I think Santner has more to offer than what he has shown.
-
Sobers' bowling stats are probably a bit misleading in that he would open the bowling with some fast medium and return later on to bowl both left arm orthodox and wrist spin. So you've got two spinners' bowling figures mixed in with a seamer.
Overall, I think Sobers takes the greatest all-rounder mantle comfortably. That bowling versatility, far more wickets per game, 365*, six sixes in an over. Second biggest name in cricket after Bradman, where Kallis wasn't even the biggest name in his era.
-
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@hydro11 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Yeah, he's in the "not quite a good enough batsmen, not quite a good enough bowler" category at the moment. I think you really need to command your place in at least one of those disciplines to be an asset to the team. Otherwise the 6 batsmen / keeper / 4 bowlers would be my preference.
He has undoubted talent though, so I can see why they are persevering with him. IMO he needs to command the number 6 spot in the lineup if he wants to be in the team long-term, as I don't think he will ever be a big wicket taker.
There's no persevering. He's nailing his bowling role.
In his 5 tests at home he is only bowling about 20 overs per game. If your team is bowling 200 overs in a test then that isn't good enough. Vettori averaged 40 overs per game at home over his career. That's not nailing your role.
With Vettori we could pick a team like this: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/518947.html. Of course we got smashed but we only needed 4 bowlers partly that was because Vettori could bowl so many overs. We got away with just 4 quicks the next week in Hobart but i don't think that would have worked long term. Then when South Africa came (http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/520603.html) we could play Vettori at 6 and pick 4 bowlers.
If Santner doesn't improve then you are limiting your options into how you configure your team. Having a genuine all rounder means you can do different things.
With respect. This is a poor use of stats.
Off the top of my head / Of his 5 tests at home, 4 have been this year v Pak and Bang where NZC have produce 4 green bowl first pitches.
Of course his workload was light in that sample. Those teams got rolled , with notable exception of Bang first test first innings.
Hagley, Basin and Seddon Park (where we play 80% of our tests) are bowl first wickets more often than not.
My point is that you are saying he is nailing his role, when I just don't see it. How can you be nailing your role if you have a low workload. He only played one game against Pakistan and in it he bowled less than the three pace bowlers on a day five pitch.
-
@Chris-B. said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Sobers' bowling stats are probably a bit misleading in that he would open the bowling with some fast medium and return later on to bowl both left arm orthodox and wrist spin. So you've got two spinners' bowling figures mixed in with a seamer.
Overall, I think Sobers takes the greatest all-rounder mantle comfortably. That bowling versatility, far more wickets per game, 365*, six sixes in an over. Second biggest name in cricket after Bradman, where Kallis wasn't even the biggest name in his era.
Kallis should have been the biggest name of our era though. There is no player I would select over him post 2000.
-
@hydro11 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Chris-B. said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Sobers' bowling stats are probably a bit misleading in that he would open the bowling with some fast medium and return later on to bowl both left arm orthodox and wrist spin. So you've got two spinners' bowling figures mixed in with a seamer.
Overall, I think Sobers takes the greatest all-rounder mantle comfortably. That bowling versatility, far more wickets per game, 365*, six sixes in an over. Second biggest name in cricket after Bradman, where Kallis wasn't even the biggest name in his era.
Kallis should have been the biggest name of our era though. There is no player I would select over him post 2000.
I think there was a view that Kallis padded the average with a few not outs ( he had shitloads compared to Lara for example ) and that he plundered a few minnows which is an option Sobers rarely had. for whatever reason his aura doesn't quite match the amazing stats, same could be said of Imran Khan who's figures are pretty mind blowing, basically Paddles equal with the ball but 10 runs better with the bat.
In terms of having to have a true all rounder if a team is good enough they don't need one. The Windies didn't in the 80s, Oz in the 2000's etc. The Black Caps do need one though to help the balance. We don't have the prodigies those teams of yesteryear did.
-
@hydro11 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@hydro11 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Yeah, he's in the "not quite a good enough batsmen, not quite a good enough bowler" category at the moment. I think you really need to command your place in at least one of those disciplines to be an asset to the team. Otherwise the 6 batsmen / keeper / 4 bowlers would be my preference.
He has undoubted talent though, so I can see why they are persevering with him. IMO he needs to command the number 6 spot in the lineup if he wants to be in the team long-term, as I don't think he will ever be a big wicket taker.
There's no persevering. He's nailing his bowling role.
In his 5 tests at home he is only bowling about 20 overs per game. If your team is bowling 200 overs in a test then that isn't good enough. Vettori averaged 40 overs per game at home over his career. That's not nailing your role.
With Vettori we could pick a team like this: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/518947.html. Of course we got smashed but we only needed 4 bowlers partly that was because Vettori could bowl so many overs. We got away with just 4 quicks the next week in Hobart but i don't think that would have worked long term. Then when South Africa came (http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/520603.html) we could play Vettori at 6 and pick 4 bowlers.
If Santner doesn't improve then you are limiting your options into how you configure your team. Having a genuine all rounder means you can do different things.
With respect. This is a poor use of stats.
Off the top of my head / Of his 5 tests at home, 4 have been this year v Pak and Bang where NZC have produce 4 green bowl first pitches.
Of course his workload was light in that sample. Those teams got rolled , with notable exception of Bang first test first innings.
Hagley, Basin and Seddon Park (where we play 80% of our tests) are bowl first wickets more often than not.
My point is that you are saying he is nailing his role, when I just don't see it. How can you be nailing your role if you have a low workload. He only played one game against Pakistan and in it he bowled less than the three pace bowlers on a day five pitch.
He's nailing his role because he's taking his wickets in the 30s (NZ will be happy with any spinner going at sub-40) and conceding his runs at sub-3 per over.
That's what NZ want from a spinner on more than 50% of the tracks we play on. That's his role. In a seam bowling focused unit.
Where as "persevering". Which is the term I took issue with from NQ I think. Is what you do with a promising player who isn't yet fulfilling his role. Like NZ did with Sodhi, or what we did with Craig hoping he would regain his earlier wicket taking mojo.
-
Hydro.
On your general team
Balance point. 6/4 or 5-1-4.Yes, that's a personal preference thing.
But most countries, not just NZ, want a bowling 6 if they have one good enough.
Eg Andrew Symons probably had 4 or 5 better bats than him not getting a test place like Brad Hodge etc.
On having a strongest possible top 6 and your reference to that team in 2011.
Would I prefer Brownlie at 6 to CDG? Yes.
Would I prefer Brownlie at 6 to Neesham or Anderson? No.That's where my 'line' is.
-
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@hydro11 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@hydro11 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Yeah, he's in the "not quite a good enough batsmen, not quite a good enough bowler" category at the moment. I think you really need to command your place in at least one of those disciplines to be an asset to the team. Otherwise the 6 batsmen / keeper / 4 bowlers would be my preference.
He has undoubted talent though, so I can see why they are persevering with him. IMO he needs to command the number 6 spot in the lineup if he wants to be in the team long-term, as I don't think he will ever be a big wicket taker.
There's no persevering. He's nailing his bowling role.
In his 5 tests at home he is only bowling about 20 overs per game. If your team is bowling 200 overs in a test then that isn't good enough. Vettori averaged 40 overs per game at home over his career. That's not nailing your role.
With Vettori we could pick a team like this: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/518947.html. Of course we got smashed but we only needed 4 bowlers partly that was because Vettori could bowl so many overs. We got away with just 4 quicks the next week in Hobart but i don't think that would have worked long term. Then when South Africa came (http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/520603.html) we could play Vettori at 6 and pick 4 bowlers.
If Santner doesn't improve then you are limiting your options into how you configure your team. Having a genuine all rounder means you can do different things.
With respect. This is a poor use of stats.
Off the top of my head / Of his 5 tests at home, 4 have been this year v Pak and Bang where NZC have produce 4 green bowl first pitches.
Of course his workload was light in that sample. Those teams got rolled , with notable exception of Bang first test first innings.
Hagley, Basin and Seddon Park (where we play 80% of our tests) are bowl first wickets more often than not.
My point is that you are saying he is nailing his role, when I just don't see it. How can you be nailing your role if you have a low workload. He only played one game against Pakistan and in it he bowled less than the three pace bowlers on a day five pitch.
He's nailing his role because he's taking his wickets in the 30s (NZ will be happy with any spinner going at sub-40) and conceding his runs at sub-3 per over.
That's what NZ want from a spinner on more than 50% of the tracks we play on. That's his role. In a seam bowling focused unit.
Where as "persevering". Which is the term I took issue with from NQ I think. Is what you do with a promising player who isn't yet fulfilling his role. Like NZ did with Sodhi, or what we did with Craig hoping he would regain his earlier wicket taking mojo.
Your expectations as a Black Caps fan are far too realistic. If Santner finishes a long career with those numbers while we fail to uncover anyone better then I'll be pretty disappointed. In reality that is probably what will happen, but I'd like to think if we have a spinner in our team he can take wickets at something in the low 30s. And I'd like to think our number 6 batsmen would average more than 26.
-
@MN5 another whose aura didn't seem to match his stats is Shaun Pollock. His record is nothing short of phenomenal.
-
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@MN5 another whose aura didn't seem to match his stats is Shaun Pollock. His record is nothing short of phenomenal.
Fuck yeah. The bowling alone should have him on most lists of all time greats.
An all time S.A. XI would murder the best we could ever muster. Off the top of my head....Amla, Smith, G Pollock, Richards, Kallis, ABDV, Boucher, S Pollock, Steyn, Donald ( last spot either for a spinner or V Philander )
-
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@hydro11 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@hydro11 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Yeah, he's in the "not quite a good enough batsmen, not quite a good enough bowler" category at the moment. I think you really need to command your place in at least one of those disciplines to be an asset to the team. Otherwise the 6 batsmen / keeper / 4 bowlers would be my preference.
He has undoubted talent though, so I can see why they are persevering with him. IMO he needs to command the number 6 spot in the lineup if he wants to be in the team long-term, as I don't think he will ever be a big wicket taker.
There's no persevering. He's nailing his bowling role.
In his 5 tests at home he is only bowling about 20 overs per game. If your team is bowling 200 overs in a test then that isn't good enough. Vettori averaged 40 overs per game at home over his career. That's not nailing your role.
With Vettori we could pick a team like this: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/518947.html. Of course we got smashed but we only needed 4 bowlers partly that was because Vettori could bowl so many overs. We got away with just 4 quicks the next week in Hobart but i don't think that would have worked long term. Then when South Africa came (http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/520603.html) we could play Vettori at 6 and pick 4 bowlers.
If Santner doesn't improve then you are limiting your options into how you configure your team. Having a genuine all rounder means you can do different things.
With respect. This is a poor use of stats.
Off the top of my head / Of his 5 tests at home, 4 have been this year v Pak and Bang where NZC have produce 4 green bowl first pitches.
Of course his workload was light in that sample. Those teams got rolled , with notable exception of Bang first test first innings.
Hagley, Basin and Seddon Park (where we play 80% of our tests) are bowl first wickets more often than not.
My point is that you are saying he is nailing his role, when I just don't see it. How can you be nailing your role if you have a low workload. He only played one game against Pakistan and in it he bowled less than the three pace bowlers on a day five pitch.
He's nailing his role because he's taking his wickets in the 30s (NZ will be happy with any spinner going at sub-40) and conceding his runs at sub-3 per over.
That's what NZ want from a spinner on more than 50% of the tracks we play on. That's his role. In a seam bowling focused unit.
Where as "persevering". Which is the term I took issue with from NQ I think. Is what you do with a promising player who isn't yet fulfilling his role. Like NZ did with Sodhi, or what we did with Craig hoping he would regain his earlier wicket taking mojo.
Your expectations as a Black Caps fan are far too realistic. If Santner finishes a long career with those numbers while we fail to uncover anyone better then I'll be pretty disappointed. In reality that is probably what will happen, but I'd like to think if we have a spinner in our team he can take wickets at something in the low 30s. And I'd like to think our number 6 batsmen would average more than 26.
I think his batting average will edge up. Batting at 8 is a pretty cushy gig, not much pressure, he will get the room to improve there.
I doubt his bowling will though. I wouldn't expect dramatic change there. You'd be talking an NZ all time great territory if he does.
He's nailing it now, that's why I'm puzzled at the lack of love. Not to say it won't go backwards though .....
I reckon if he maintains his current bowling standards, then he has the line spinner role sealed up. With the more attacking Sodhi or Craig contenders for second spinner roles on Asian tours.
But the world isn't static. That's just the status quo for now.
-
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@hydro11 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@hydro11 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Yeah, he's in the "not quite a good enough batsmen, not quite a good enough bowler" category at the moment. I think you really need to command your place in at least one of those disciplines to be an asset to the team. Otherwise the 6 batsmen / keeper / 4 bowlers would be my preference.
He has undoubted talent though, so I can see why they are persevering with him. IMO he needs to command the number 6 spot in the lineup if he wants to be in the team long-term, as I don't think he will ever be a big wicket taker.
There's no persevering. He's nailing his bowling role.
In his 5 tests at home he is only bowling about 20 overs per game. If your team is bowling 200 overs in a test then that isn't good enough. Vettori averaged 40 overs per game at home over his career. That's not nailing your role.
With Vettori we could pick a team like this: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/518947.html. Of course we got smashed but we only needed 4 bowlers partly that was because Vettori could bowl so many overs. We got away with just 4 quicks the next week in Hobart but i don't think that would have worked long term. Then when South Africa came (http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/520603.html) we could play Vettori at 6 and pick 4 bowlers.
If Santner doesn't improve then you are limiting your options into how you configure your team. Having a genuine all rounder means you can do different things.
With respect. This is a poor use of stats.
Off the top of my head / Of his 5 tests at home, 4 have been this year v Pak and Bang where NZC have produce 4 green bowl first pitches.
Of course his workload was light in that sample. Those teams got rolled , with notable exception of Bang first test first innings.
Hagley, Basin and Seddon Park (where we play 80% of our tests) are bowl first wickets more often than not.
My point is that you are saying he is nailing his role, when I just don't see it. How can you be nailing your role if you have a low workload. He only played one game against Pakistan and in it he bowled less than the three pace bowlers on a day five pitch.
He's nailing his role because he's taking his wickets in the 30s (NZ will be happy with any spinner going at sub-40) and conceding his runs at sub-3 per over.
That's what NZ want from a spinner on more than 50% of the tracks we play on. That's his role. In a seam bowling focused unit.
Where as "persevering". Which is the term I took issue with from NQ I think. Is what you do with a promising player who isn't yet fulfilling his role. Like NZ did with Sodhi, or what we did with Craig hoping he would regain his earlier wicket taking mojo.
Your expectations as a Black Caps fan are far too realistic. If Santner finishes a long career with those numbers while we fail to uncover anyone better then I'll be pretty disappointed. In reality that is probably what will happen, but I'd like to think if we have a spinner in our team he can take wickets at something in the low 30s. And I'd like to think our number 6 batsmen would average more than 26.
I think his batting average will edge up. Batting at 8 is a pretty cushy gig, not much pressure, he will get the room to improve there.
I doubt his bowling will though. I wouldn't expect dramatic change there. You'd be talking an NZ all time great territory if he does.
He's nailing it now, that's why I'm puzzled at the lack of love. Not to say it won't go backwards though .....
I reckon if he maintains his current bowling standards, then he has the line spinner role sealed up. With the more attacking Sodhi or Craig contenders for second spinner roles on Asian tours.
But the world isn't static. That's just the status quo for now.
The words 'second spinner' make me shudder when you consider our first is often barely adequate.
Fuck I miss Dan the man.
-
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@hydro11 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@hydro11 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Yeah, he's in the "not quite a good enough batsmen, not quite a good enough bowler" category at the moment. I think you really need to command your place in at least one of those disciplines to be an asset to the team. Otherwise the 6 batsmen / keeper / 4 bowlers would be my preference.
He has undoubted talent though, so I can see why they are persevering with him. IMO he needs to command the number 6 spot in the lineup if he wants to be in the team long-term, as I don't think he will ever be a big wicket taker.
There's no persevering. He's nailing his bowling role.
In his 5 tests at home he is only bowling about 20 overs per game. If your team is bowling 200 overs in a test then that isn't good enough. Vettori averaged 40 overs per game at home over his career. That's not nailing your role.
With Vettori we could pick a team like this: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/518947.html. Of course we got smashed but we only needed 4 bowlers partly that was because Vettori could bowl so many overs. We got away with just 4 quicks the next week in Hobart but i don't think that would have worked long term. Then when South Africa came (http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/520603.html) we could play Vettori at 6 and pick 4 bowlers.
If Santner doesn't improve then you are limiting your options into how you configure your team. Having a genuine all rounder means you can do different things.
With respect. This is a poor use of stats.
Off the top of my head / Of his 5 tests at home, 4 have been this year v Pak and Bang where NZC have produce 4 green bowl first pitches.
Of course his workload was light in that sample. Those teams got rolled , with notable exception of Bang first test first innings.
Hagley, Basin and Seddon Park (where we play 80% of our tests) are bowl first wickets more often than not.
My point is that you are saying he is nailing his role, when I just don't see it. How can you be nailing your role if you have a low workload. He only played one game against Pakistan and in it he bowled less than the three pace bowlers on a day five pitch.
He's nailing his role because he's taking his wickets in the 30s (NZ will be happy with any spinner going at sub-40) and conceding his runs at sub-3 per over.
That's what NZ want from a spinner on more than 50% of the tracks we play on. That's his role. In a seam bowling focused unit.
Where as "persevering". Which is the term I took issue with from NQ I think. Is what you do with a promising player who isn't yet fulfilling his role. Like NZ did with Sodhi, or what we did with Craig hoping he would regain his earlier wicket taking mojo.
Your expectations as a Black Caps fan are far too realistic. If Santner finishes a long career with those numbers while we fail to uncover anyone better then I'll be pretty disappointed. In reality that is probably what will happen, but I'd like to think if we have a spinner in our team he can take wickets at something in the low 30s. And I'd like to think our number 6 batsmen would average more than 26.
I think his batting average will edge up. Batting at 8 is a pretty cushy gig, not much pressure, he will get the room to improve there.
I doubt his bowling will though. I wouldn't expect dramatic change there. You'd be talking an NZ all time great territory if he does.
He's nailing it now, that's why I'm puzzled at the lack of love. Not to say it won't go backwards though .....
I reckon if he maintains his current bowling standards, then he has the lone spinner role sealed up. With the more attacking Sodhi or Craig contenders for second spinner roles on Asian tours.
But the world isn't static. That's just the status quo for now.
-
@nzzp said 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?)Damn - my poor old deluded brain had me convinced that we'd smacked the Poms in England in 1986
I was even certain I was at Trent Bridge to see a MOM performance by RJ Hadlee and a test ton by Bracewell - gravedigger version.
I even remember Gower being called for throwing when he deliberately chucked the last ball of the match
Thanks for clearing that up for me - much appreciated
