2 Test series- NZ v Pakistan

[Tommy Smith]

I have no problem digging in. But what was it, 31 off 178 odd?? There's no need for it. You almost have to be not trying to not tick the strike over at the very least. He allowed them to settle on a length without any risk. 60 off 178, fair play, 31 is so defensive it created a lot of problems

Spot on. 31 off 178 is way too slow as NZ are always in the ascendancy.

You don't have to flail away like Davey Dumb Dumb. Nor do you have to crawl along at a snails pace, which in this type of situation won't regain the initiative.

There is a happy medium between the two.

 

[JJ]

There's a balance between Warner's shit at Hobart and 31 off 178 balls. Neither are ideal (though obviously Warner is a lot better than his shot at Hobart, and Ali's innings is useful in a situation saving a match).

Yep, exactly, Raval on debut showed something like that

Boult gets another

 

[Tommy Smith]

There's a balance between Warner's shit at Hobart and 31 off 178 balls. Neither are ideal (though obviously Warner is a lot better than his shot at Hobart, and Ali's innings is useful in a situation saving a match).

What he said.

It's all situational.

If you're saving a match then by all means do an AB de Villiers and score 30 off 220 balls like he did in Adelaide once.

But if at some point you need to put the pressure back on the opposition after erasing a deficit in an attempt to build a defendable total; then yes, at some point you have to increase the pace.

 

[JJ]

Kiwi's got Dis!!

Probably but we've learned not to count our chickens, especially against this lot

 

[vvvrulz]

Yeah if Pakistan manage to nudge their way to at least 100 and get a couple of early breaks, it's serious squeaky bum time

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Far too conservative from Ali. The risk you take when you play like that is if you get out there is not a lot to show for a lot of hard work and it puts pressure on everyone else.

 

[undertaker]

Azhar Ali was channelling former Pakistan top-order batsman Shoaib Mohammad with that painfully slow innings:

http://howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerOverview.asp?PlayerID=1201

Don't know how many of you remember Mohammad, but he had a very low strike rate of 50.92 in ODIs (even for that era, that was very low, making the likes of Mark Taylor/Geoff Marsh look like Adam Gilchrist).

As I said, it's one thing to bat like that when you are trying to save a test match (e.g. AB De Villiers), but it's a completely different scenario when you're batting like that on only day 2 of a test match.

 

[Iafeta]

Why on earth have NZ not selected Jeet Raval before?? He's consistently been a dominant first class opener. Some of the nuffies who have had elongated runs ahead of him is a pure selectorial farce.

He looks a genuinely well organised compact and composed test bat. I liked when the Pakistanis tried bowling short at him, he was completely in control and unfazed.

 

[JJ]

I guess at one stage they picked Rutherford and Fulton, who have similarish records - they might have been better then, then they have a lot invested in Guppy and persevered against a mountain of evidence

Raval had a good test, no question, but dominant is a strong word, hopefully he continues to go well

 

[KeepingTheFaith]

Yeah, a strong debut doesn't always mean much in NZ cricket. Rutherford, Vincent, Cummings, Sinclair etc

 

[JJ]

Very good win that though

 

[Iafeta]

I guess at one stage they picked Rutherford and Fulton, who have similarish records - they might have been better then, then they have a lot invested in Guppy and persevered against a mountain of evidence

Raval had a good test, no question, but dominant is a strong word, hopefully he continues to go well

Didn't say he was dominant in the match. Said he has had a dominant run at first class level. It's been very clear for sometime that Fulton, Rutherford and Guptill have glaring technical deficiencies.

 

[hineyrulz]

Raval showed more in 2 digs then Derptill has his whole career. Two dependable openers will go a long way to making the Kiwis a very competitive side again.

 

[JJ]

Didn't say he was dominant in the match. Said he has had a dominant run at first class level. It's been very clear for sometime that Fulton, Rutherford and Guptill have glaring technical deficiencies.

Yeah, I know, and I was saying he's hardly been dominant at first class level - no more than the rest, and a lot of runs on a flat deck on small Eden Park #2

He had an excellent debut, but lets not get carried away, he can potentially be serviceable, sure

 

[JJ]

So Misbah and possibly Taylor out of second test, talk of Guptill batting 5 and Nicholls 4 - say it ain't so

 

[hineyrulz]

Surely the selectors can see Derptill just isn't a test players arsehole??

 

[JJ]

Thankfully Dean Brownlie is on standby for Taylor (ironically he should have been the one to replace Guptill a while back)

Santner replaces Neesham too

 

[Iafeta]

Dean Brownlie is in the squad. A bit shaky on the front foot. Tends to get crease bound.

 

[Meth]

I like Brownlie. I'd probably like to see him at 4 for this match.

Raval
Latham
Williamson
Brownie
Nicholls
de Granhomme
Waitling
Santner

Still short a world class batsmen (or 2), but not as bad as a side that includes Guptill.

Otherwise, does Latham shift down to 4 or 5?

 

[Meth]

Taylor cleared to play, but will miss the ODI series v Australia

I was looking forward to seeing Brownlie.