Black Caps vs Bangles
-
@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
-
Our problem in the past re needing a bowling 6 was we usually had only 1 strike bowler, 1 OK bowler & someone shithouse. And then a non wicket taking spinner. The Windies or Aussie got by with 4 bowlers because their 4 bowlers carried the load.
Realistically now - especially in NZ or in England, our 3 quicks are all doing their fair share of wicket taking, so we can have a more specialist batsman at 6. Somewhere like India or Sri Lanka we'd need a bowling 6, but at home we don't.
And because our batting has been shithouse we've leaned towards 8 & 9 who can bat over 8 & 9 who can only bowl.
Our batting is obv. still shithouse so we probably still need a batsman (Santner) at 8. Its worth noting the feedback from India was they were very impressed with Santner - more with his batting than his bowling tho'
-
-
@TeWaio said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@gollum Santner is a bit like Steve Smith in his early career right? Okay bat but mostly picked as a middling spinner?
Look forward to him averaging 60 by 2019
60? He should be a bit better than that dude.
Aw you mean his batting.....
-
@gollum said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Our problem in the past re needing a bowling 6 was we usually had only 1 strike bowler, 1 OK bowler & someone shithouse. And then a non wicket taking spinner. The Windies or Aussie got by with 4 bowlers because their 4 bowlers carried the load.
Realistically now - especially in NZ or in England, our 3 quicks are all doing their fair share of wicket taking, so we can have a more specialist batsman at 6. Somewhere like India or Sri Lanka we'd need a bowling 6, but at home we don't.
And because our batting has been shithouse we've leaned towards 8 & 9 who can bat over 8 & 9 who can only bowl.
Our batting is obv. still shithouse so we probably still need a batsman (Santner) at 8. Its worth noting the feedback from India was they were very impressed with Santner - more with his batting than his bowling tho'
Wouldn't quite say our batting is 'shithouse'. There's obviously our outstanding three and four, a very good opener, another opener of whom the jury is still out and a number five who just got his best score....against Bangladesh in the fearsome cauldron.....of his home ground.....and either Santner or CDGH at six.....
Okay maybe you're half right
-
He's exactly half-right. Tom, Kane and Ross are world class. Jeet, Henry and Colin are not.
Can't forget BJ though who is a world clsss keeper-batsmen.
I really want Neesh to come right and make 6 his own. He has a great temperamenet with the bat and I can see him averaging around the 40 mark. Which would mean Santner at 8, and hopefully taking a few more wickets.
We have the makings of a very solid team. Just need to uncover another batsmen really. Nicholls deserves a decent shot in the short term.
-
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
He's exactly half-right. Tom, Kane and Ross are world class. Jeet, Henry and Colin are not.
Can't forget BJ though who is a world clsss keeper-batsmen.
I really want Neesh to come right and make 6 his own. He has a great temperamenet with the bat and I can see him averaging around the 40 mark. Which would mean Santner at 8, and hopefully taking a few more wickets.
We have the makings of a very solid team. Just need to uncover another batsmen really. Nicholls deserves a decent shot in the short term.
Santner needs to be just like Mark Craig then with the added bonus of actually being good at what he is picked in the team for.
Easy.
