NZ v OZ 3rd ODI

[Baron Silas Greenback]

Southee never really looked much of a batsman to be honest. He has a good eye but not the temperament for international batting.

Why not? We pick openers with that skill set.....

Also his test debut was a bit of a blessing in disguise. It showed has power and a good eye and raised expectations on him (probably a lot from himself as well) to be able to score big runs. If he had got a more sedately made 45* that day he probably wouldn't have the same weight on his shoulders.

I think you need to saunter over to the off topic forum and check out the thread about getting phrases wrong.

[Crucial]

We still get in a real tangle with the poerplay don't we? At one point yesterday Ponting was running a field with only 3 outside the circle anyway so if you wanted to have a crack you could do so then.
What's wrong with taking the batting powerplay as soon as it's available.? That would really fuck up the bowling plan as the top bowlers would have only just finished their first spell; you'd have your best equipped batsman at the crease to take advantage as well. We seem to think that the PP is a time to play stupidly rather than just use the advantage of less men in the outer on balls that can be realistically hit there.

[Chiefy]

I think you need to saunter over to the off topic forum and check out the thread about getting phrases wrong.

Fixed now. Unless I am having an Allstar moment

I did have an Allstar moment. I missed the 'blessing in disguise' bit both times haha. What a great start to the day...

[Razbra]

If Ponting wins another toss we're fucked. We haven't looked like bowling them out and he's cracked on to the fact we can't set a total we can defend.

[Munter]

We still get in a real tangle with the poerplay don't we? At one point yesterday Ponting was running a field with only 3 outside the circle anyway so if you wanted to have a crack you could do so then.
What's wrong with taking the batting powerplay as soon as it's available.? That would really fuck up the bowling plan as the top bowlers would have only just finished their first spell; you'd have your best equipped batsman at the crease to take advantage as well. We seem to think that the PP is a time to play stupidly rather than just use the advantage of less men in the outer on balls that can be realistically hit there.

I guess, in theory, the batting team has a much better idea of what conditions are like and who will be bowling to them after 40 overs than after 10. I think we took the powerplay at the right time last night, it's just we executed it badly - Styris played a dumb shot and Vettori ran himself out shortly afterwards. The one positive about last night's game was the way that Taylor and Broom and then Styris and Hopkins were able to keep the runs flowing without taking too many risks. All we needed was for one of them to kick on and make a big score and 300 would have been easy.

[HB]

She has "history" and given that Pup is clearly batting above his average in that department (so to speak) I think it's understandable that he'd be heading home to "comfort her"*




* i.e. keep an eye on the loopy bitch

Can't be much of an average then.

[Cyclops]

We still get in a real tangle with the poerplay don't we? At one point yesterday Ponting was running a field with only 3 outside the circle anyway so if you wanted to have a crack you could do so then.
What's wrong with taking the batting powerplay as soon as it's available.? That would really fuck up the bowling plan as the top bowlers would have only just finished their first spell; you'd have your best equipped batsman at the crease to take advantage as well. We seem to think that the PP is a time to play stupidly rather than just use the advantage of less men in the outer on balls that can be realistically hit there.

I saw a suggestion elsewhere yesterday that we should hold back Brendon McCullum until around the 25-35 over mark and send him in then, immediately take the batting powerplay and say 'go for it baz, you're opening in a T20.

[Voltman]

That makes no sense, because he'd have a maximum of five overs to wreak havoc, rather than the 10 he has at his disposal at the moment at the top of the order (although that's mitigated by the potential movement of the new ball).

[KiwiPie]

I think it is the mindset of the batting powerplay that is wrong, not necessarily the time it is taken. Batsmen seem to put pressure on themselves to play big shots off every ball - when in fact all they have to do is pierce the in-field where the fielding side cannot protect the boundary. Trying to hit sixes over the boundary fielders is particularly dumb in a powerplay as you can go for that shot at any time.

I would like to see them throw in the powerplay around 25-30 overs when the fielding captain is trying to contain with his dobblers and spinners. And then just go for cricket shots, not for slogs.

[Baron Silas Greenback]

Styris was a class ic example of that.... tried for a straight 6, and there was a long on and long off. So no different to a non power play period!

[Hooroo]

I think it is the mindset of the batting powerplay that is wrong, not necessarily the time it is taken. Batsmen seem to put pressure on themselves to play big shots off every ball - when in fact all they have to do is pierce the in-field where the fielding side cannot protect the boundary. Trying to hit sixes over the boundary fielders is particularly dumb in a powerplay as you can go for that shot at any time.

I would like to see them throw in the powerplay around 25-30 overs when the fielding captain is trying to contain with his dobblers and spinners. And then just go for cricket shots, not for slogs.

I would be quite happy for you to be coach of the Black caps!! Or maybe a new role as strategist

[mariner4life]

Yea, the use of the powerplay seems strange to me. In the past it was not unheard of for teams to score 80-100 off the last 10 overs, as that was go time. To me, the batting powerplay has extended this opportunity by 5 overs, meaning you can really start the escalation att the 35 over mark. 150 off the last 15 doesn't sound too bad to me. But the conventional thinking now appears to be leaving it late and overlapping when you would be mooning the ball anyway. What am i missing?

[Cyclops]

That makes no sense, because he'd have a maximum of five overs to wreak havoc, rather than the 10 he has at his disposal at the moment at the top of the order (although that's mitigated by the potential movement of the new ball).

He only has 6 in T20. Plus theoretically we have Ryder at the top of the order, and Guptill and Taylor can score quickly too. We have a batting powerplay to use, we need to find a way that a) gives us the best chance of utilising it well (so get a guy who specialises in coming out and right away batting under fielding restrictions) and b) maximises the disruption to the opposition bowling attack. Typically, your strike bowlers are used at the death, by taking the batting powerplay at 30ish and sending out a psuedo-opener, you mix things up. Do they bowl strike bowlers and look to stem the flow? That means that at the death your 4/5th bowlers have to be used. Or do they let McCullum tuck into the part-timers? Obviously, it won't work every time but I think the pay off would be spectacular. His stats as an opener since the 2007 world cup are gilchristesque, and that is typically using 20-30 overs, so why not start him late?

Yes, he could do much better batting at the start of the innings because he has longer to do damage, but we don't want to put all our eggs in one basket, having McCullum as a 'third opener' means we have a trick up our sleeve if we lose momentum. And yes, this is all premised on a top order of Ryder/Guptill/Taylor being almost as effective as McCullum/Ryder/Guptill.

[Baron Silas Greenback]

Ryder
Guptill
Williamson
Taylor
Styris
McCullum

Now thats a good top 6.....

[Cyclops]

Ryder
Guptill
Williamson
Taylor
Styris
McCullum

Now thats a good top 6.....

Elliot is there too, who has proved his worth at the highest level, although I think he and Styris are fighting for the same slot, unless Styris is regarded as the 'closer' at number 7. Williamson is still a couple of years off making the black caps though I suspect, so I'd be tempted to have Styris and Elliot in at 4/5/6 (depending on where you put McCullum). Neither of them have done much wrong, so it'd be harsh to drop them for a kid who's doing well against the pie chuckers in domestic cricket - Michael Mason was second only to Ewan Thompson in MVP.

[Dodge]

I think it is the mindset of the batting powerplay that is wrong, not necessarily the time it is taken. Batsmen seem to put pressure on themselves to play big shots off every ball - when in fact all they have to do is pierce the in-field where the fielding side cannot protect the boundary. Trying to hit sixes over the boundary fielders is particularly dumb in a powerplay as you can go for that shot at any time.

I would like to see them throw in the powerplay around 25-30 overs when the fielding captain is trying to contain with his dobblers and spinners. And then just go for cricket shots, not for slogs.

hmmm, I'm not sure about that. It makes sense to hit over the top when the field is in as if you don't quite get it is is more likely to fall safe than if fielders are running in from the boundary - I agree that that doesn't mean slogging though.

The stats show that teams lose wickets in powerplay in exchange for more runs, I think farming the middle overs whilst protecting wickets and then taking the powerplay towards the end and hitting over the top probably makes sense as it means that you can swing away with less people on the boundary safe in the knowledge that you already have a defendable total on the board and you're going for bonus runs. If you lose wickets in the middle overs because you've tried to score more quickly then you rely on your tail enders to farm runs to get you somewhere respectable.

[Chiefy]

If they are going to take it a bit earlier, I wouldn't mind seeing them take it around the 35th over like M4L suggested. Still earlier then what the opposition expect, hopefully by that stage we have one of the top four batting and between 80-100 runs and set to launch. 150 off the last 15 if everything goes smoothly sounds good. I don't like the idea of McCullum moving down the order. I think his stats have proved he belongs at the top. If the top four have performed one of Ryder, McCullum, Guptill or Taylor will be set and one of those 4 would be perfect to blast through the power play...

With Paddy suggesting their could be changes, the media are speculating Ingram will get the boot and Guptill, Taylor and Styris all move up one spot with Stewart or Broom coming in at 5 and Vettori possibly coming up to 6. With Guptill's form so far I don't think I want to see him get the extra pressure of opening the batting as well...although the way things have been, he has been essentially opening anyway I guess...