Martin to get the winning runs after a half ton from Gillespie...
Permalink
Permalink
riachardson is the only nz batsmen to average over 40 since i presume crowe. he was not sh*t. by the end of his careeer he was placing pressure on the others but for most of it we were building innings around him
Oh. My. God.
Mentioning Crowe and Richardson in the same breath is blasphemous. If Richardson had played for as long as Crowe did, he'd have averaged in the low 30s. His average had consistently been dropping before he retired - he, unbelievably enough, had a test average of over 50 at one point - and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that was the reason he retired. So he could look good statistically. Yet he's a classic example of stats hiding more than they reveal.
Permalink
Permalink
We'll get them in Napier!
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
Yeah you're right, Richardson doesn't bat for both teams or completely ruin Sky's sports programming!
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
Permalink
Permalink
riachardson is the only nz batsmen to average over 40 since i presume crowe. he was not sh*t. by the end of his careeer he was placing pressure on the others but for most of it we were building innings around him
Oh. My. God.
Mentioning Crowe and Richardson in the same breath is blasphemous. If Richardson had played for as long as Crowe did, he'd have averaged in the low 30s. His average had consistently been dropping before he retired - he, unbelievably enough, had a test average of over 50 at one point - and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that was the reason he retired. So he could look good statistically. Yet he's a classic example of stats hiding more than they reveal.
Look I can't agree with you more...It must have been a terrible thing for all those strokemakers not to get an opportunity to face the new ball at 12/2. or 50/5. Coming in at 80/1 or 120/1 must have been damaging on their psyches...
There's nothing worse in cricket than a man who had so few 50s and 100s but averaged in the high forties. Can't have consistency, its not entertaining is it?
Crowe and Richardson are different players with very different jobs, but their averages suggests their influence on the teams of their era.
His average had been dropping because he had lost the will to continue playing, and hence his reason for retiring. His consistency and high average was due in parts to extreme concentration, and a rigid, effective game plan. Its hard to keep that up.
You either do not know what you are talking about or possibly you don't give a rats arse about any cricket other than 20/20. He was comfortably the most influential batsmen of this generation and allowed the strokemakers Fleming, Styris, Mcmillan, Astle, Cairns, Oram, McCullum (Vettori, Franklin...) to have a base to launch from...
Permalink
Permalink
Getting starts and not going on to a big score is even worse than not getting off the mark. He's had his chance he has to go.
I just wish Ryder hadn't f**ked up after the ODI's because if he wasn't injured he'd be in there right now ahead of gobsh*te Sinclair. Otherwise i'd go wish that Yarpie bloke who was included in the 13-man squad before the test series started, give him ago. Think the names Grant Elliott.
OMG...
you have just completely rendered me speechless.
I'll put it down to the football today.
sure when you are chasing a world record never been done before 4th innings score 37 or 39 or whatever it was seems a little sh*te. However by your logic Mark Richardson was one of our worst players.
guh. ok. well yeh. anything but the boys in blue today i guess.
Mark Richardson was one of our worst players, EG is 100% right he put pressure on others around him to score at a quicker rate. He was horrendous to watch and not once was capable of winning a match for us.
I think you and bopman give some of these guys way too much credit. The top order is crap apart from Fleming and Taylor, and Fleming's only got 1 test left so there's another gone. We constantly rely on batters such as McCullum, Oram and Vettori to bail us out, and they do it far more than they should.
As for the bowlers, once again Vettori and Oram are the consistent ones here. Mills has been unlucky with injuries which has hampered his career and stats show that, but no excuses for the rubbish that is Martin, Gillespie and O'Brien. Those three would all struggle to make another decent test side in the world. Get Patel back in and also get Southee in now, surely better than the tripe on offer now.
If it's a road in Napier, we will draw the series 1-1. Otherwise we're in for a long 5 days, if we last that long.
Three for me, and two for them.
Permalink
Permalink
Getting starts and not going on to a big score is even worse than not getting off the mark. He's had his chance he has to go.
I just wish Ryder hadn't f**ked up after the ODI's because if he wasn't injured he'd be in there right now ahead of gobsh*te Sinclair. Otherwise i'd go wish that Yarpie bloke who was included in the 13-man squad before the test series started, give him ago. Think the names Grant Elliott.
OMG...
you have just completely rendered me speechless.
I'll put it down to the football today.
sure when you are chasing a world record never been done before 4th innings score 37 or 39 or whatever it was seems a little sh*te. However by your logic Mark Richardson was one of our worst players.
guh. ok. well yeh. anything but the boys in blue today i guess.
Mark Richardson was one of our worst players, EG is 100% right he put pressure on others around him to score at a quicker rate. He was horrendous to watch and not once was capable of winning a match for us.
I think you and bopman give some of these guys way too much credit. The top order is crap apart from Fleming and Taylor, and Fleming's only got 1 test left so there's another gone. We constantly rely on batters such as McCullum, Oram and Vettori to bail us out, and they do it far more than they should.
As for the bowlers, once again Vettori and Oram are the consistent ones here. Mills has been unlucky with injuries which has hampered his career and stats show that, but no excuses for the rubbish that is Martin, Gillespie and O'Brien. Those three would all struggle to make another decent test side in the world. Get Patel back in and also get Southee in now, surely better than the tripe on offer now.
If it's a road in Napier, we will draw the series 1-1. Otherwise we're in for a long 5 days, if we last that long.
Constantly...err...considering we have played so little test cricket since the future tours program got shot is possibly a bad word to use...
So following your logic you would prefer someone who scored quickly every now and then and all the rest of the time got out...Or perhaps you were suggesting we call up Hayden and Langer? Who had the advantages of playing on hard Australian wickets in Australian conditions where there is not generally a large amount of swing or sideways movement.
you make it sound as if Bell/How and Vettori/McCullum were facing the same conditions here. It's only recently that the job of an opener has been seen to get the team off to a flier. The job of an opener is traditionally to protect the line up from the new ball and early movement, and wear down the main attack. Nothing perks up a quick bowler like getting a wicket every 1/2 hour or so...
Anyway you obviously place no value on obstinacy or consistency. I really wish I could get into cricinfo. I'm sure I remember seeing some stat on cricinfo about 50 run+ opening stands and decent scores or results with Rigor opening, but on the other hand perhaps he has to hit the winning runs himself to get any credit from you?
Its funny- the last time we had a functional top order? Was it when we had a functional and settled opening partnership? So that the rest of the order didn't feel like makeshift openers?
Permalink
Permalink
chris martin, rubbish? mate have you watched new zealand play in the last 2 or 3 years? granted we dont play much test cricket and thus he hasnt been able to show much but martin is our best quick bowler. a) because he is quick b) he moves the ball in air and off the seam and c) hasnt got injured that much which is something for our bowlers.
southee has been picked, i doubt he will play.
i havent given anyone else credit buffon if you have read what i have said. sinclair looked good yesterday, the first time he has in a long time. taylor does look test quality, how did in hamilton. bell to be fair is the best option we have. papps and cumming havnt proven themself when given the oppurtunity and all the young batsmen scoring runs this season. guptil, flynn, watling, james marhsall (not so young) are middle order players.
if your going to say players are crap at least give someone in new zealand who is better and who should be in the team
www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com
Permalink
Permalink
So following your logic you would prefer someone who scored quickly every now and then and all the rest of the time got out...Or perhaps you were suggesting we call up Hayden and Langer? Who had the advantages of playing on hard Australian wickets in Australian conditions where there is not generally a large amount of swing or sideways movement.[/QUOTE]
No, but maybe Bell and How should take that approach rather than playing defensive negative cricket thinking they can get away with it. Take the early initiative and don't let the bowlers settle.
It's only recently that the job of an opener has been seen to get the team off to a flier. The job of an opener is traditionally to protect the line up from the new ball and early movement, and wear down the main attack. .
Yeah, and it's only recently that the Wicketkeeper was required to hold a bat too. Times change so move with them.
[QUOTE=martinb] Anyway you obviously place no value on obstinacy or consistency. I really wish I could get into cricinfo. I'm sure I remember seeing some stat on cricinfo about 50 run+ opening stands and decent scores or results with Rigor opening, but on the other hand perhaps he has to hit the winning runs himself to get any credit from you?
[QUOTE=martinb] Anyway you obviously place no value on obstinacy or consistency. I really wish I could get into cricinfo. I'm sure I remember seeing some stat on cricinfo about 50 run+ opening stands and decent scores or results with Rigor opening, but on the other hand perhaps he has to hit the winning runs himself to get any credit from you?
No, but when did he actually have a positive effect on a match? When did he single-handedly take matters into his own hands to swing the match in our favour? The only players who do this for us are Oram, McCullum and Vettori. How funny none of them are in the top order.
Buffon II2008-03-17 22:40:53Three for me, and two for them.
Permalink
Permalink
do you remember when india were here in 2002 buffon or pakistan in 2001 (?) and other series around this time, when south africa were here in 03 or 04 is another example. england in 03. we were consistenly scoring 350 in the first innings. richardson was giving us good starts which was freeing up players like fleming astle mcmillan and oram. even lou vincent looked like a better opener when he batted with richardson.
you sound like the people that ring talkback and just have a go with no substance behind an argument, give me some facts or some specific moments
batsmen at 6,7 and 8 are the ones who are single handedly supposed to change games. top orders take the shine off the ball for middle and lower orders to flourish
bopman2008-03-17 22:46:24www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com
Permalink
Permalink
southee has been picked, i doubt he will play.[/QUOTE]
That's because the selectors don't have any balls.
[QUOTE=bopman]i havent given anyone else credit buffon if you have read what i have said. sinclair looked good yesterday, the first time he has in a long time. taylor does look test quality, how did in hamilton. bell to be fair is the best option we have. papps and cumming havnt proven themself when given the oppurtunity and all the young batsmen scoring runs this season. guptil, flynn, watling, james marhsall (not so young) are middle order players.
How is getting 30 odd then throwing your wicket away looking good? I'd get Fulton in there when he's back from injury and same with Ryder.
Looking ahead to the England tour i'd replace Bell with Fulton, Sinclair with Ryder and Gillespie with Southee.
Three for me, and two for them.
Permalink
Permalink
batsmen at 6,7 and 8 are the ones who are single handedly supposed to change games. top orders take the shine off the ball for middle and lower orders to flourish
Not anymore. Why is it that successful test sides always have at least one opener who is aggresive and takes it to the opening bowlers? Because that's what works in cricket these days. At least we have a wicketkeeper who can bat so we're not completely stuck in the past.
Three for me, and two for them.
Permalink
Permalink
bell with fulton? in england in may? with a duke ball?
fulton is not an opener and has failed any time hes been tried. add to the ball will be swinging every which way in may. and any top order will struggle including hayden and langer in 05 .ryder will come in for sinclair, i dont think there is much doubt. but it wouldnt suprise me if sinclair kept his spot coming in for fleming. and buffon i said looking not looked. he was looking good and then did the dumbest things possible at which point he stopped looking good.
www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com
Permalink
Permalink
batsmen at 6,7 and 8 are the ones who are single handedly supposed to change games. top orders take the shine off the ball for middle and lower orders to flourish
Not anymore. Why is it that successful test sides always have at least one opener who is aggresive and takes it to the opening bowlers? Because that's what works in cricket these days. At least we have a wicketkeeper who can bat so we're not completely stuck in the past.
thats why richardson was paired with vincent for most of his time. vincent was attacking.
www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com
Permalink
Permalink
richardsons test record
Mat
Inns
NO
Runs
HS
Ave
BF
SR
100
50
4s
6s
Ct
St
Tests
38
65
3
2776
145
44.77
7370
37.66
4
19
344
4
26
0
23 50's in 65 innings. as an opener thats class. no matter how fast you score
www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com
Permalink
Permalink
Yeah, so how come we now have two defensive players opening? Doesn't work.
Richardson had other attacking players around him too like Astle, Cairns, McMillan, McCullum/Parore, Styris and Vettori. That's why he was allowed to be so negative in his approach and still look good. Because in the end we'd manage a par score at an ok run rate but no thanks to himself.
List any stats you wish, they aren't the be all and end all of cricket as some would like you to believe. If that was the case then Murali would be the greatest bowler of all time and there wouldn't be any place in the greatest players of all time for someone like Waqar Younis or Malcolm Marshall.
Three for me, and two for them.
Permalink
Permalink
richardsons test record
Mat
Inns
NO
Runs
HS
Ave
BF
SR
100
50
4s
6s
Ct
St
Tests
38
65
3
2776
145
44.77
7370
37.66
4
19
344
4
26
0
23 50's in 65 innings. as an opener thats class. no matter how fast you score
So how come his conversion rate was so poor? Anyway like i said stats only tell half the story.
Three for me, and two for them.
Permalink
Permalink
An average of 44 isn't too bad for an opener either, especially when you consider the bowlers are fresh as and the batter is taking a lot of punishment. Further down the order when the bowlers are a bit worm out makes it easier to score.
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
Permalink
Permalink
It's all a set-up, they knew I was going to Napier so they wanted to set it up nicely for me!
Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.
"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003
Permalink
Permalink
Face it Buffon there is noone else who can open who is actually scoring any runs in NZ at the moment. And besides whejn Bell is in form he is an attacking opener......Papps is defensive, and not scoring, Fulton not an opener and not scoring, cumming defensive and not scoring.......
The should be as follows........
How, Bell, Flem, Simclair, Taylor, Oram, McCullum, Vettori, Mills/Elliot/Southee, Patel, Martin.
If Mills is still injured or sore, then I'd rather see Elliot play - extra batsman will be good, but don't think they'll throw the new ball to Oram...
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
When has Bell ever been in form? 100 against Bangladesh isn't in form. I mean that's like saying, Jeremy Christie's a great defender when he actually tackles.
I too would rather see Elloitt play, surely he deserves a chance no one else in the top order apart from Taylor is performing. Also am glad you included Patel in your side i think he's class and deserves to get far more game time, especially ahead of the incompetent Gillespie or O'Brien.
Three for me, and two for them.
Permalink
Permalink
do you remember when india were here in 2002 buffon or pakistan in 2001 (?) and other series around this time, when south africa were here in 03 or 04 is another example. england in 03. we were consistenly scoring 350 in the first innings. richardson was giving us good starts which was freeing up players like fleming astle mcmillan and oram. even lou vincent looked like a better opener when he batted with richardson.
you sound like the people that ring talkback and just have a go with no substance behind an argument, give me some facts or some specific moments
�
batsmen at 6,7 and 8 are the ones who are single handedly supposed to change games. top orders take the shine off the ball for middle and lower orders to flourish
This post just shows how little you know. Citing the series against South Africa which we drew 1-1 is a classic example. Our top order, with Richardson included, was pretty brittle. The test we won in Auckland we were 12/2 before big hundreds from Styris and Cairns got us to a very big score. In the previous match in Hamilton, which was a high-scoring draw, the runs came from Oram, he was 119 not out I believe.
In the away series in India, which was a 0-0 draw, Richardson did get a hundred - conincidentally his highest in tests, 143 - but Vincent, Styris and McMillan also all got hundreds in the same innings. Richardson's obstinancy set back NZ cricket for years - he wasted so much time getting to 40 that even if we were 120/1, we need to speed up the scoring rate to have a chance of winning the game, and this often meant we ended up being bowled out for 300 rather than getting 450 or more as such a start should warrant and consequently losing even though we were supposedly in a good position. The day he announced his retirement from international cricket the whole of NZ should've cracked open a bottle of champagne.el grapadura2008-03-18 09:27:18
Permalink
Permalink
When has Bell ever been in form? 100 against Bangladesh isn't in form. I mean that's like saying, Jeremy Christie's a great defender when he actually tackles.
I too would rather see Elloitt play, surely he deserves a chance no one else in the top order apart from Taylor is performing. Also am glad you included Patel in your side i think he's class and deserves to get far more game time, especially ahead of the incompetent Gillespie or O'Brien.
Bell has vbeen in blinding form with the bat for Wellington over the last few years......its been a bit of a gry spell internationally though. I reckon he's still one of the best openers we have - doesn't say much for our batting stocks but you deal with what you have.
And yes I rate Patel, he is class.... its just a shame he has to be behind Vettori, and thqat our selectors seem to be hesitant to play two spinners.
Gillespie and O'Brien have been very dissapointing.
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
to say o'brien has been dissapointing is pretty tough because he hasnt played. he got smoked in that odi in napier but so did everyone and hasnt got a chance in this series. was alright against the bangys but youll all howl its just bangladesh. did he play in south afria? i was out of the country during that series and didnt see any of it.
we have to pick players who do well in domestic cricket because thats all we have. obrien has been with adams the best bowler in domestic cricket for the last couple of years. more than once ive seen him bowl with real venom for wellington at the basin
www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com
Permalink
Permalink
Bell has vbeen in blinding form with the bat for Wellington over the last few years......its been a bit of a gry spell internationally though. I reckon he's still one of the best openers we have - doesn't say much for our batting stocks but you deal with what you have.
This really is a sad indictement on the state of NZ cricket. Our first-class competition simply isn't good enough to prepare our players for test cricket, Bell and Papps, excellent scorers in FC cricket in NZ but crap internationally, are prime examples of that.
Permalink
Permalink
I just don't feel that O'Brien has enough to cut it internationally, he doesn't really do enough with the ball to worry top class batsmen, neither does Dizzy Gillespie - he bowls like he's hitting 150+ but really only ever hits 140 when he's in hitting his straps. I'd take Adams over O'Brien any day, but as he's gone off to the big money in India, that wont happen anytime soon. So that leaves us with Martin, Mills and Southee, and of course the backup who takes all the wickets Oram, then the two spinners.........
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
id like to see o'brien given more of a chance before i write him off. gillespie is a strange bowler 5 out of 6 will be pies then he will send down the unplayable snorter at 145. rumour is he wasnt fully fit for the basin. i think in english conditions he will bowl well
www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com
Permalink
Permalink
i can see your point with O'Brien, I just don't think we can really afford to be chancing him in the third test, maybe in Engalnd in the warmup games, same with Gillespie. Your right though, Dizzy is an odd bowler, pies then killer ball, he lulls you into a sense of security then rips the blanket away with one good ball. i suspect they'll both go to england, may not get a lot of play time in the tests though, thats if mills and Martin are both fit.
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
Exactly where were the Beige Brigade? I was there on Sunday and England had the run of the place. It was like a home game.
Permalink
Permalink
So following your logic you would prefer someone who scored quickly every now and then and all the rest of the time got out...Or perhaps you were suggesting we call up Hayden and Langer? Who had the advantages of playing on hard Australian wickets in Australian conditions where there is not generally a large amount of swing or sideways movement.[/QUOTE]
No, but maybe Bell and How should take that approach rather than playing defensive negative cricket thinking they can get away with it. Take the early initiative and don't let the bowlers settle.
It's only recently that the job of an opener has been seen to get the team off to a flier. The job of an opener is traditionally to protect the line up from the new ball and early movement, and wear down the main attack. .
Yeah, and it's only recently that the Wicketkeeper was required to hold a bat too. Times change so move with them.
[QUOTE=martinb] Anyway you obviously place no value on obstinacy or consistency. I really wish I could get into cricinfo. I'm sure I remember seeing some stat on cricinfo about 50 run+ opening stands and decent scores or results with Rigor opening, but on the other hand perhaps he has to hit the winning runs himself to get any credit from you?
[QUOTE=martinb] Anyway you obviously place no value on obstinacy or consistency. I really wish I could get into cricinfo. I'm sure I remember seeing some stat on cricinfo about 50 run+ opening stands and decent scores or results with Rigor opening, but on the other hand perhaps he has to hit the winning runs himself to get any credit from you?
No, but when did he actually have a positive effect on a match? When did he single-handedly take matters into his own hands to swing the match in our favour? The only players who do this for us are Oram, McCullum and Vettori. How funny none of them are in the top order.
and in other news Buffon was dropped from the Italian world cup squad for scoring to few goals...Ricki has also dropped Glenn Moss for similar reasons...
When asked both coaches said that they had made some fine saves and distributions, but that they weren't actually having a positive effect on a match.
Didn't see Dan and Oram doing too well against the new ball the other morning did we? Unfortunately. McCullum managed too because is class, great hand-eye co-ordination. If we had another few McCullums, if we'd ever had a another few McCullums its unlikely we'd be having this conversation abour Richardson.
You also ignored the fact that New Zealand conditions and pitches are apalling to bat on, with a lot of movement due to overhead and pitch conditions generally.
You can not play a test match like a 20/20, nor a football match like an indoor 5 a side...
but if you don't belive me (and it's obvious you don't) perhaps the scribes at cricinfo can be considered to have an informed opinion on the game. Please peruse
or I will post it all here.
Often, the value of Richardson's contribution was much more than the sheer number of runs he scored - his presence provided the stability and allowed the strokemakers to play with abandon. On an average, New Zealand scored 99 runs while he was at the crease, and 199 after his dismissal.
S Rajesh
S Rajesh is an assistant editor of Cricinfo.
Permalink
Permalink
Well said Martin - NZ conditions do not allow for good scores for openers.......fact - Richardson was class he provided a stable influence in the team, allowing whomevert opened with him to go hard at the ball and try to lift the rate, you could almost guarantee he'd hold up his end and support the whole team.
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
Exactly where were the Beige Brigade? I was there on Sunday and England had the run of the place. It was like a home game.
You mean that wasn't an England home game?!
I must give kudos to the Barmy Army - they added a great atmosphere and their passion is admirable. I didn't see much of the Beige Brigade, but I'm sure it was just a matter of being outnumbered rather than a failure to turn up.
Permalink
Permalink
Well said Martin - NZ conditions do not allow for good scores for openers.......fact - Richardson was class he provided a stable influence in the team, allowing whomevert opened with him to go hard at the ball and try to lift the rate, you could almost guarantee he'd hold up his end and support the whole team.
Or in fact for anyone at all!
when you look at the batting averages of our batsmen, first class and test you have to consider that at least half of those innings were played in New Zealand. Though that does sound a lot like lame excuses, just ask who in the England top order has playd to their average so far this tour?
Permalink
Permalink
bell is unlikely to be dropped NZC offered him a contract yesterday
Permalink
Permalink
very true indeed, although that's not necessarily a guarantee
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
You also ignored the fact that New Zealand conditions and pitches are apalling to bat on, with a lot of movement due to overhead and pitch conditions generally.
Ok if you believe that then obviously the problem lies with our bowlers not getting the opposition out for enough or not doing enough with the new ball.
Oh, and whoever said Bell has been in great form for Welly, well that counts for nothing because NZ domestic cricket is a joke. Has he ever scored 50 in consecutive tests, let alone 100? Doubt it.
Three for me, and two for them.
Permalink
Permalink
You also ignored the fact that New Zealand conditions and pitches are apalling to bat on, with a lot of movement due to overhead and pitch conditions generally.
Ok if you believe that then obviously the problem lies with our bowlers not getting the opposition out for enough or not doing enough with the new ball.
Oh, and whoever said Bell has been in great form for Welly, well that counts for nothing because NZ domestic cricket is a joke. Has he ever scored 50 in consecutive tests, let alone 100? Doubt it.
This has certainly been the case in this series, where the pitches were requested to be prepared against type- to suit spin not pace as much as possible...It was expected that NZ would be in trouble with the English new ball bowling lineup/pace attack- hence Vettori's comments when the Basin seemed to show a bit more of a green top before the test.
Our bowling is much weaker than our batting currently (ok ok!) , and even with Franklin back it is still missing a spearhead.
As it turned out a decisive period of swing bowling made the difference from Mills and Martin.
The main point about batting on our wickets is that it is not easy to be so free scoring and consistent, as the bounce, movement and carry is not as true as say in Australia, and this will often lead to a dismissal even of an in form batsman. Hence the inconsistency of many strokemakers and lower averages compared to some other countries. It requires a different technique.
Permalink
Permalink
ive often heard australians and other cricketing scribes comment you should add 5 runs to every new zealand batsmen average because they have to bat in nz conditions. im not sure i buy that completely but i can tell you id rather be an opener in india batting on those pitches than facing a new ball in wellington/hamilton
www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com
Permalink
Permalink