Good RWC dress rehearsal this tour.

Replicating 1/4 final, semi-final, 3/4th playoff ....

@TSF-Bot said in NZ v Pakistan:

Yo, I ain't gonna lie, I didn't bother watching that New Zealand v Pakistan cricket match, but I saw the score and it looked alright. I ain't no cricket expert, but I like to chime in on these threads cause I'm feeling lonely

But hey, I do remember some of the players from back in the day. These guys were beasts:

• Martin Crowe: This dude had some serious skills with the bat. Classy player, always made it look easy.
• Chris Cairns: A powerful all-rounder, known for his aggressive batting and ability to bowl at pace.
• Danny Morrison: Fast bowler with a mean streak. I liked how he could make the ball move around.

That's just my 2 cents

Don't we already have MN5 for this sort of thing .... ? boom tish.

@Toddy said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@Bovidae did they name the players?

Not until Thursday.

Delguy:

Sella:

So, was Sam Whitelock sitting on the ground, offside, slapping an Irish pass forward not something we're keeping dry for next year?

Pleased about that. Small mercies.

@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - Overall:

@booboo what happened?

He engaged with this Polish chick called winger on some internet forum ....

Wagner may not be the 3rd best NZ seamer of all time, but he is by daylight the best NZ 3rd seamer all time.

I told Reiko about 2 years ago, on this very site, he'll get burned one day if he keeps grounding the ball like that.

No excuse for not reading it.

Bullshit decision, though.

@Stargazer said in 2017 New Zealand U20s:

My tip to young players. Let the opposition player get up in their own time. A try scorer under a pile up has been happening for 150 years before you fluffybunnies started ruining these moments by .... being fluffybunnies .... and yanking disappointed opposition players out of the way for your un-waitable celebration.

Dicks.

@DMX said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:

@taniwharugby

I find this one strange as well. I think we as fans ( including Mex) are fully within our rights to blast the ref and say he cost us the series. I think the players and coaches should look at themselves and figure out how to take the ref out the game and that's exactly what they are doing. Not like the ABs were terrible, Poite and SBW hurt them bad. I thought by 3rd test they figured out how to beat rush defense but execution was poor but easily fixable. The result is what is but I think things like blaming Hansen for substituting Half back which the ABs have done for at least 13years is just silly.

I'm in the "ref didn't cost us the game camp" but in no way I'm of the opinion that criticism of his 78th min decisions should be shut down. That was the worst refereeing moment I can remember.

I don't think he 'cost us the game' because I only give Beauden a 60% chance of slotting that the way he was kicking. Where as I give Julian as 100% costing us a try and I think Beauden has already blown a 95% gettable kick. Then add in the cumulative 50%ers that were blown periodically through the match.

Up until 78 mins I thought Poite was good.

But that decision (and process) was disgraceful.

I now really doubt his moral fibre. He made a correct decision in real time, it was technically harsh on the guilty party but correct. He then allowed himself to go to the TMO to check foul play so that his already made decision could be taken away from his responsibility if possible, it couldn't, but then he allowed Garces to change his mind (incorrectly). He tried really, really, really hard to not have his decision be the 'series-deciding decision'. Very weak.

I would think that would set alarm bells off in WR Refereeing HQ. This wasn't a fast real time mistake, it was a failure of courage.

However I do not currently have faith in the Referring HQ. Their treatment of Joubert was a disgrace to the sport when they hung him out to dry after he made a brave but incorrect decision in the RWC in very similar circumstances.

To be contradictory, I do find the analysising of every single refereeing decision in a game on social media etc to be pointless. It's a quick game with decisions made in real time, fans need to just get on with it. Where I think this is bad is that it was done slowly, looking for every opportunity to back out of a decision.

I'm not actually salty about the series result. Getting the penalty and Beauden flukeing it over may have been the worst result for me, if it just papers over the cracks of our obvious weakness. But I'm soft as Rocky Rockvottom says (I think) after our back to back world cups.

I'm predicting frost bite of the fingers.

Is on TVNZ

@Rapido said in NZ All Time XI:

@dogmeat said in NZ All Time XI:

@Rapido That's a lot of wins for Boult and a fair batting average for a guy batting 10 or 11. Must be padded with a lot of NO.

That guy Sobers looks pretty good.

That's interesting, I hadn't noticed him in that table.

I know at one point he was statistically the best number 11 in history, he may still be.

But what I did find interesting there was the difference in bowling wickets (and average) for Boult v Hadlee in victories.

The much lower wickets ratio would be explained by the 4 seamers balance that Boult operated in, sharing them around more.

The higher averages can be explained probably in part bu the patterns of NZ home wins in this era. Usually a cheap first innings but a real attritional grind in the second innings.

Did a query for NZ bowlers only - in victories:

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin2=50;qualval2=wickets;result=1;team=5;template=results;type=bowlingScreenshot 2023-03-23 at 10.59.32 AM

@dogmeat said in NZ All Time XI:

@Rapido That's a lot of wins for Boult and a fair batting average for a guy batting 10 or 11. Must be padded with a lot of NO.

That guy Sobers looks pretty good.

That's interesting, I hadn't noticed him in that table.

I know at one point he was statistically the best number 11 in history, he may still be.

^^ Which makes me wonder about the Kane v Hadlee (fore to unthinkable) discussion as the NZ GOAT.

So, did the same for Hadlee, but bowling.

And, well well well ....

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

Screenshot 2023-03-22 at 4.20.50 PM

Also, Allrounder ranking (still based on the bowling query conditions, so if say - you included a threshold of 100 runs, as well as the 100 wickets condition I was using, he would miss cut).
Screenshot 2023-03-22 at 4.22.37 PM

I heard a remarkable stat today on The Top Order podcast.

That Kane Williamson averages 81.5 in NZ test victories, in 40 test wins.

Which is second only to Bradman, who averaged 130ish in test victories.

I'm off to do some statsguruing .....

Edit. here is the query: https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=2000;qualval1=runs;result=1;template=results;type=batting

@nostrildamus said in Black Caps coach 2024?:

So is anyone wanting Stead to reapply?

Not me.

His reaction after the Bangladesh loss last summer indicates to me he isn't the man for a job that is anything above a steady hand on the tiller.

TBH, it's just time anyway for a new guy.

@Chris said in Blackcaps v Sri Lanka:

@Rapido said in Blackcaps v Sri Lanka:

@Chris said in Blackcaps v Sri Lanka:

@Rapido said in Blackcaps v Sri Lanka:

NZC, with the highest median age team in cricket history, for all nations, ever.

Have just named an A team with 7 of the 15 also over 30. Again, the did similar in September when NZ 'A" toured India.

(plus 4 late-20s, and just 4 youngsters).

Someone needs to be held accountable for the continuity planning. The current guys are storing up a huge problem for the successors.

Terrible.

There are reason why we will have quite a lot of over 30s in this particular team (the IPL, plus blackcaps white ball commitments are concurrent meaning some 'A' guys are getting elevated above this team, plus some injuries, plus the golden generation bulge being followed by the shit generation).
But there is a difference between "quite a lot", and "some".

Some young risks needed to be sprinkled among those old guys.

Not going to happen with the current thinking.
NZ are following the Australian Test team selection policies under Greg Chappell from a few years back.
That was not selecting players until they have had 5/6 years at least of First Class Cricket.
Michael Hussey era of Australian Cricket you were selected at 27 or 28 onwards with a heap First class experience under your belt,The theory being you could handle Test Cricket quicker easier with the experience.
NZ are following the same policy you can see it the players bought into the test squad ,and the real telling factor they are using this model is their A sides being selected on mostly that criteria.

Yeah. I don't think picking an old team of over 30s really matches up with the model you describe above.

It is exactly what was happening here in Australia.

I guess that depends what you mean by "27 or 28 onwards". If that mean 30 to 34 year olds in the A team ready to play test cricket at 37 to 38, then yes, that is technically 'onwards'.

But, to be less pithy, and making a serious point:
Getting players ready to be able to play test cricket at 27/28 should be the aim, except for the truely generational talents, who will be ahead of that curve.

I'm not sure if what you are describing about the Australian system under Chappell is something you see as a good thing, and to be replicated.

My opinion, is that yes, that is a good thing to replicate in theory.

But, I'm not sure if the theory and reality matched. Or if it was just plain generational quirks. But mention of Hussey ...

The Australian team reached a point from about 2008 or 2009 until 2012ish or even 2013 where Hussey was the last of the line. Both Ponting and Hussey stayed on way too long in the Australian test team. And Australia's batting was shit by their historical standards.

Was this because they had a golden generation of batting (or a generation and a half in Australia's case) and the next generation was just not very good (Fergusson, Mikkelson etc). Or had they been stifled because they had been selecting an 'A' team of 30 year old Husseys equivalents for too long? I don't know, my mastermind topic will not be "Australian 'A' teams of the late 2000s".

I see similarities with NZ's generations. And, heck, we can't be choosers, we need to take our generation when it comes along - and cherish it. But, I don't think we need to cherish so many of that that same generation's C grade players (which is what this NZ 'A' team is made up of once you strip out the 20 odd blackcaps, franchise free-agents, and the IPL players, of that same age bracket) by selecting so many of them for an 'A" squad. Some is fine, 8 to 10 is too much.

@Chris said in Blackcaps v Sri Lanka:

@Rapido said in Blackcaps v Sri Lanka:

NZC, with the highest median age team in cricket history, for all nations, ever.

Have just named an A team with 7 of the 15 also over 30. Again, the did similar in September when NZ 'A" toured India.

(plus 4 late-20s, and just 4 youngsters).

Someone needs to be held accountable for the continuity planning. The current guys are storing up a huge problem for the successors.

Terrible.

There are reason why we will have quite a lot of over 30s in this particular team (the IPL, plus blackcaps white ball commitments are concurrent meaning some 'A' guys are getting elevated above this team, plus some injuries, plus the golden generation bulge being followed by the shit generation).
But there is a difference between "quite a lot", and "some".

Some young risks needed to be sprinkled among those old guys.

Not going to happen with the current thinking.
NZ are following the Australian Test team selection policies under Greg Chappell from a few years back.
That was not selecting players until they have had 5/6 years at least of First Class Cricket.
Michael Hussey era of Australian Cricket you were selected at 27 or 28 onwards with a heap First class experience under your belt,The theory being you could handle Test Cricket quicker easier with the experience.
NZ are following the same policy you can see it the players bought into the test squad ,and the real telling factor they are using this model is their A sides being selected on mostly that criteria.

Yeah. I don't think picking an old team of over 30s really matches up with the model you describe above.

NZC, with the highest median age team in cricket history, for all nations, ever.

Have just named an A team with 7 of the 15 also over 30. Again, the did similar in September when NZ 'A" toured India.

(plus 4 late-20s, and just 4 youngsters).

Someone needs to be held accountable for the continuity planning. The current guys are storing up a huge problem for the successors.

Terrible.

There are reason why we will have quite a lot of over 30s in this particular team (the IPL, plus blackcaps white ball commitments are concurrent meaning some 'A' guys are getting elevated above this team, plus some injuries, plus the golden generation bulge being followed by the shit generation).
But there is a difference between "quite a lot", and "some".

Some young risks needed to be sprinkled among those old guys.