The Heavy Roller

I’ve been enjoying following this years IPL. Unfortunately I was s**t at the fantasy game and gave up a few rounds ago! It’s tough when there are games every day, and when the first match starts at 7:30am (EST) I’m screwed if I forget to change my team before going to bed the night before! Anyway, I’m sure I’ll do better next year…

I have been impressed with some of the performances throughout the tournament, and have been pleased that the bat hasn’t dominated the ball quite as drastically as in previous years. Anyway, it got me thinking about who would be in my World XI if I was to pick one right now. Obviously it’s difficult picking players from outside of the IPL currently, although I have included both Saeed Ajmal and Brendon McCullum as we know what each of them is capable of, and they are right up there in the individual world rankings.

The one selection that may have you thinking WTF or ROFL is Rajat Bhatia. I for the life of me can’t work out how this guy has never played for India in the shorter formats?! And in a team that is having a bad year as defending champions he is being under utilised with both bat and ball! He is a very heady cricketer with an array of well disguised slower deliveries, and can be very destructive with the bat.

Anyway, feel free to rubbish me for my selections or post a team of your own…

1. Chris Gayle.

2. Brendon McCullum

3. Michael Hussey

4. Shane Watson

5. AB Devilliers

6 MS Dhoni

7. Dwayne Bravo

8. Rajat Bhatia

9. Dale Steyn

10. Sunil Narine

11. Saeed Ajmal

To many NZ rugby fans the word ‘rotation’ became tantamount to treason during the reign of All Blacks coach Graeme Henry. ‘King Henry’ was vilified by a large portion of the public and media for his policy of consistently rotating the starting lineup of the greatest rugby team on the planet. Those in opposition said it cheapened the jersey and destroyed team cohesiveness, and many feel that it lead to the All Blacks premature exit from the 2007 World Cup in the Quarter Final against France. Supporters of Henry claim that he was a visionary, and that his ‘rest & rotation’ scheme produced tremendous depth within the squad, and helped prevent injuries and manage player workloads. These same people also point to the 2011 triumph as being a direct result of ‘rotation’.

Regardless of which side of the fence you sit it is hard to argue with the All Blacks dominance of world rugby over the last few decades, and Henry’s time in charge saw an unprecedented 88 victories from 108 games – a staggering 85.4% winning record! It is little wonder then that in an article on CricInfo in June of 2012, Cricket Australia’s Pat Howard revealed that…  “Australia’s blueprint for sustained supremacy in world cricket is being informed and inspired by the New Zealand All Blacks’ enduring domination of international rugby.”

The article does not specifically mention the ‘R’ word, but it would certainly seem that Graeme Henry’s policy has made a cross code leap, with at least 10 different fast bowlers being used by Australia in Test Matches alone over the past 12 months. The reaction from the Cricketing public has been similar to that of the Kiwi Rugby fans, with vehement protest being offset by whole-hearted support. One thing is quite clear however – Australia all of a sudden has an army of decent quicks to call upon, whereas 15 months ago when Ryan Harris was injured in South Africa the cupboard was seemingly very bare!

So as much as it grates, was Henry on to something? And does his policy translate well to Cricket? The early evidence would suggest so. As a New Zealand Cricket fan I would like to see rotation employed across all three formats. The top 30-35 domestic players should feature throughout the summer in the hopes of unearthing some players that actually have what it takes to make the step up to International play. We have believed in error for too long that the best players domestically automatically equate to our best players internationally. This is simply not the case! Look at Andrew Jones and Mark Richardson as examples. Average domestically – great internationally.

We should also use every member of the squad in international fixtures, not just ‘carry’ guys in the squad to ‘experience the culture’. Guys like Jeetan Patel for the last decade, and Tarun Nethula more recently have had their careers hampered by ridiculous selection policies which has seen them go on tours, or be selected for home series, only to be mostly used as net bowlers. Jeetan is finally getting a decent run now, but one cant help but feel his best cricket is behind him? For too long the test team especially has been sacrosanct, and it has seemingly been harder to get dropped than it has been to get in the side (see Vettori, Franklin, Martin, Guptill etc.). It’s not like the current side is setting the world alight with its performances either!? If any team in world cricket needs to have a long-term view to developing a wider squad of international-ready players, then NZ is it! If ever there was a time that they had nothing to lose by trying a revolutionary new tactic, then surely that time is now?! If ever there was a team with a record to emulate then surely the All Blacks are it!? Yet again the Aussies beat us to the punch :(

Despite the way it has played out, I for one am glad Brendon McCullum is captain of the New Zealand cricket side. He has a more aggressive style of captaincy than his predecessors Taylor, Vettori, and even Fleming - more in the mould of Dion Nash (who I also would have liked to see lead NZ more). With the Black Caps currently 207 runs in arrears at the end of day one of the first test at Newlands, one could be forgiven for thinking McCullums decision to bat first was a major mistake. I don’t think so. Firstly it showed intent. And secondly it was not the decision to bat first which caused NZ to get rolled for 45 inside 20 overs. It was a combination of superb bowling (Philander superb!), a couple of errors of judgement, and some technical deficiency.

What does disappoint me though was the makeup of the starting XI. Presumably it’s Hesson and McCullum who choose the starting XI whilst on tour, and in this case they have been far too conservative. Jeetan Patel is a good off-spinner, but he is never going to run through a side. He is not a sufficiently or significantly better bowler than Kane Williamson or Martin Guptill to justify a position in this current Black Caps team. It is a conservative selection that only powerful test lineups can afford. In this case we would have been better served to pick the more attacking spin option of Bruce Martin, or one of the other seam options.

I’ve also been a big Chris Martin fan for many years. However it’s time that he was put out to pasture once and for all. He continues to bowl really well, but at 125km an hour you aren’t going to trouble the best batting lineup in world cricket. To say he has a good record against South Africa is a meaningless justification. You should pick the team that is the best right now. With his performance in the t20s I thought Mitchell McGlenaghan was worth a punt?! I have also been a James Franklin fan despite his many detractors, but there must have been a pretty strong case for including Colin Munro ahead of him in the middle order. Munro’s form in the Plunkett Shield in NZ has been outstanding, and he currently offers more with the ball than Franklin’s medium paced trundlers!

On a slightly different matter I’m also increasingly concerned with Doug Bracewells bowling. He had a fantastic start to his career but has gone downhill fast! He is bowling erratically and slower than he did a year ago, and with the return of Southee and Milne, and the rise of McClenaghan may struggle to keep his place.

At least they got the batting order almost right (see my posting about that here)

So on one hand McCullum has shown a lot of intent by opting to bat first and it has gone horribly pear-shaped, and on the other had he has shown himself to be extremely conservative with his team selections, and unfortunately this too means NZ are really going to struggle to claw their way back into this match! For the second test I would go in with this eleven…

1. Martin Guptill

2. Brendon McCullum

3. Kane Williamson

4. Daniel Flynn

5. Colin Munro

6. Doug Brownlie

7. BJ Watling

8. Doug Bracewell

9. Bruce Martin

10. Trent Boult

11. Mitchell McCleneghan

NZ Cricket has been in the media a lot recently, and mostly for all the wrong reasons. But putting all of the management issues, captaincy debacle, and world ranking slides to one side for a moment - I have decided to delve deeper into our batsman’s stats, and come up with batting lineups which I think will give us the best chance at success moving forward.

This process began with me looking at Brendon McCullums stats. There has been a lot of talk about where his best position is in the order, his suitability to test match batting, and whether he still commands a pace in the side given that he now only keeps wicket in the t20’s. I looked closely at his averages in the different positions that he has batted across all three formats. The results were very interesting. So I decided to repeat the process with all of the batsmen currently in the Black Caps frame. There are a few things which leaped out at me straight away…

1. We need Taylor and Ryder back ASAP!

2. McCullum definitely commands a place as a specialist opening batsman

3. Most batsman are definitely better at 1 particular position in the batting lineup.

TEST MATCHES:

If we start with the lineup in test matches first, the stats reinforce that Ryder and Taylor are our two heaviest scorers and most consistent. They need to be re-established in the middle order as soon as possible! Taylor averages 47.87 at no. 4 in the lineup, whilst Big Jessie averages 50.62 at 5.

It will be surprising to many that Brendon McCullums best spot is actually at number 2 in the lineup. He should be an opening batsman for NZ - in fact I will go on to show that he should be an opener in all three formats - however, he must never face first up! He has a much better record when he starts at the non-strikers end. I wonder if the team management, or the players themselves look into these kind of stats? Regardless, it’s pretty clear to me that BMac should bat no. 2 in test matches where he is averaging a fairly healthy 40.88.

Now the interesting one is his opening partner. The encumbant across all three formats is Martin Guptill, and although I still think he should be our test, ODI, and t20 no.1 in the batting order, his stats in tests leave a lot to be desired! He only averages 29.82 at no.1, and a few points lower again at no.2. His highest test score of 189 came in one of his 3 test innings batting at no.5, and as such this has boosted his overall average somewhat. With his obvious talent there is no question that he belongs in our top order mix, and despite this relatively low average, is still the best option of those available at no.1. He simply must do better!

The last position in the top 5 goes to the young gun Kane Williamson. Kane finds himself in a similar position to Guptill in that he is the obvious solution for the future, but must lift his average at least 5-10 points. He currently averages 32.35 at number 3, which is statistically his best position, and where he should stay in test matches for NZ for the next decade!

Numbers 6 and 7 in the lineup need to be filled by the wicketkeeper/batsman and another specialist middle order player. Watling currently has the inside running for the keepers job, and currently averages 102 from no.7, so until he plays himself out of the position, or Luke Ronchi demands inclusion, then number 7 is his. For me our number 6 needs to be Dean Brownlie. He averages 49.20 in that position and should be given an extended period without been shifted about in the order.

Waiting in the wings are Peter Fulton, James Franklin, and Daniel Flynn - however statistically they don’t demand a spot in the top 7 currently. If Guptill and Williamson continue to underperform then one or two of these names could come into consideration.

So my test match batting lineup moving forward would be…

1. Martin Guptill (29.82)

2. Brendon McCullum (40.88)

3. Kane Williamson (32.35)

4. Ross Taylor (47.87)

5. Jesse Ryder (50.62)

6. Dean Brownlie (49.20)

7. BJ Watling (102)

If we extrapolate out the averages then our top 7 should score on average 352.74. This average drops markedly with players at other positions in the order. Obviously this is also inflated by Watlings current average at number 7 coming from his only innings at that position of 102. I decided to leave this intact as the hoped for increases in Guptills and Williamsons averages should offset this ;-)

Right now having said all that we need to come up with an order for the test matches against South Africa. We have no Taylor or Ryder on this tour so we need a stop-gap until they are available again. The top three should remain the same, and I would also leave Brownlie and Watling in their positions of 6 and 7 respectively, so as not to mess with the order too much. I would then give Daniel Flynn a shot at number 4, and slot James Franklin in to number 5 where he plays a lot for Wellington. Two metre Peter simply cant squeeze his way in with his woeful record at test match level. This is a golden opportunity for one of the guys on the periphery to put their hands up and stake a claim, but barring an absolute calamity I still hold that my original top 5 above should remain intact for the next 5 years (once they are all available again).

So the test top 7 lineup against South Africa should be…

1. Martin Guptill (29.82)

2. Brendon McCullum (40.88)

3. Kane Williamson (32.35)

4. Daniel Flynn (28.22*)

5. James Franklin (21.21*)

6. Dean Brownlie (49.20)

7. BJ Watling (102)

The overall top 7 average here drops to 303.68. Basically I don’t think we have any chance against South Africa unless our top 3 score heavily in every innings! 

* neither Flynn or Franklin have batted in these positions before so I went with their career averages.

ODI TEAM:

The ODI lineup was the easiest of the three to pick. It is the same as the test top 5, except Ryder and Williamson switch positions. The top 4 all average healthily in their best positions, with only Kane Williamson at number 5 needing to improve a few points from his current average of 31.90.

Number’s six and seven also pick themselves surprisingly easy! BJ Watling has been NZ’s form ODI batsman in 2012, and although he hasn’t batted at 7 before, should slot in well to the keeper/batsman role. The surprise at number 6 is Jimmy Franklin, who averages a very healthy 56.66 from that position across 11 innings to date.

So the Black Caps ODI top 7 lineup should be…

1. Martin Guptill (38.68)

2. Brendon McCullum (39.42)

3. Jesse Ryder (48.50)

4. Ross Taylor (41.80)

5. Kane Williamson (31.90)

6. James Franklin (56.66)

7. BJ Watling (36.75*)

*I used Watlings career average as he has never batted at 7.

t20 TEAM:

Although t20 is incredibly important to cricket these days, I still think it should be used to a certain extent as a nursery ground for international cricketers. We have seen this in the last week or so with NZ fielding 4 or 5 newcomers against South Africa - with 2 or 3 players (especially Mitchell McGlenegan and Colin Munro) pushing their case for involvement in other formats. However the stats, and common sense, would suggest that you shouldn’t tinker too much… and with that in mind I still think NZ’s top 4 should remain pretty standard. Only Kane Williamson drops out of the top 5, with positions 5, 6 and 7 open to exciting newcomers, or peripheral players who are pushing for re-inclusion.

My current lineup would look like this…

1. Martin Guptill (avg 78.50, stk rate 125.60)

2. Brendon McCullum (avg 39.83, stk rate 129.19)

3. Jesse Ryder (avg 82, stk rate 127.69)

4. Ross Taylor (avg 24, stk rate 116.70)

5. James Franklin

6. Colin Munro

7. Jimmy Neesham

I have watched with frustration for many years the NZ Cricket team bowling opposition batsman into form, and gifting opposition bowlers their career best figures. It has often got me thinking about how averages don’t take into account the quality of the opposition, and therefore aren’t as accurate a reflection of a players ability as their face value would have you believe.

For example… If Ross Taylor or Martin Guptill were able to play against NZ (they are both bullies against poor opposition), then their career batting averages and number of centuries scored would surely be significantly higher? And Zimbabwe’s bowlers would have better career records if they got to bowl at their own batsman.

If I extend this line of thinking a little further I could suggest that Viv Richards wasn’t as great a batsman as his record would suggest because he never had to face up against the might of the Windies quicks from his era!? Or perhaps those Windies quicks were even better than their records suggest given that they had to share the wickets around?

I’d suggest that Shane Warne was a significantly better bowler than even his amazing record suggests as he had the likes of McGrath, Lee and Gillespie taking wickets at the other end. Whereas you could argue that Hadlee and Murali weren’t as good as the figures suggest when you consider that they took the bulk of their teams wickets throughout their careers? 

Anyway… Just something to think about ;-)

I’ve been in the America’s for over 6 months now, and have gotten myself involved with cricket on a number of levels. Overall what I have seen and heard is encouraging. If the administrators of the game do things right over the next few years, then I think the sport is set to explode in this part of the world!

In large part the game is played and run by ex-pats from the subcontinent and Caribbean. Without exaggeration I would estimate the percentage to be about 98%. This means that despite it being the fastest growing sport in the USA and Canada, and having large playing numbers in certain urban areas, the sport remains outside of the public mainstream. In fact, as an example, when I have mentioned cricket to downtown Torontonians, without exception they have assumed that the sport didn’t exist in Canada.

So the major challenge for those that run the game is to break into the mainstream. The best way for this to happen is through the schools and colleges, and through public media exposure. Some independent organizations are doing a great job of this already. Two which deserve a mention are American College Cricket and the United States Youth Cricket Association. For the sake of not rambling for too long I’ll leave you to look up their websites in your own time if you want to know more.

The other challenge for cricket in this part of the world is the ‘elephant in the room’ of corruption, factionism and cronyism. Yes this still goes on, and in my short time here I have been witness to its detrimental effects. However, the game has grown to such a point that power-hungry individuals are no longer able to manipulate things to their liking without there being significant back-lash from the wider cricketing fraternity. Essentially they are fast losing their power to corrupt. In fact I am heartened by those who currently run the sport at USACA, Cricket Canada, and ICC Americas. They are all very capable professionals in their own right, and have a genuine passion for cricket! With continued hard work over the next few years, the stains left by past administrations will fade into obscurity.

One final point worth noting is the immense talent that is being produced at a youth level. Perhaps I have just been lucky in that the club I have stumbled upon seems to be producing some of Canada’s brightest prospects? But even so, I would put the talent I have seen on par with, if not better, than kids of the same age in NZ and Aussie.

It remains to be seen whether the recently announced Cricket Holdings America t20 tournament will be a success, but judging from what I’ve seen it could be just the catalyst needed to propel cricket into Canadian and Americans hearts and minds! Here’s hoping…

For the New Zealand Cricket team we have finally seen the end of their tour to the West Indies. Unfortunately no matter which way they paint it, it has been a disaster for the Black Caps! They only won the single ODI match, and were only really close on one other game on tour. The bowlers toiled manfully at times, but the batsman were woefully inadequate. Scoring 40-80 is not good enough for a top 5 international batsman. Starts must be converted into hundreds, and hundreds must be converted into big hundreds! During the 10 matches on tour NZ managed 14 50’s, another 4 scores in the 40’s, but only one century to their skipper Ross Taylor. Why can’t the NZ batsman go on to a big innings once set? Is it a mental thing or are they simply not technically good enough? Please give me some answers so that we can send the NZ Cricket board some suggestions. World cricket needs a competitive NZ. At the moment they simply aren’t worth the price of admission :-( *apologies for the lack of punctuation, I was too ticked off with NZ to bother.

Before I elaborate on the title I feel that I must give a brief description of what a ‘hipster’ actually is for those of you who have seen and heard the word bandied about, but really have no clue what people are referring to!?

Remember a few years back there were those kids called Emo’s? Well basically they’ve grown up and evolved slightly. They’ve discovered hair product and swished their ridiculous fringe (which used to cover their eyes) into a pompadour or 50’s and 60’s inspired sleek-with-a-side-part look. Skinny jeans are still standard issue, but instead of the mandatory black they must instead be rolled up slightly at the bottom and be accompanied by boat shoes, loafers or low cut vans with no socks. Fitted plaid shirts are also a common marker, yet ‘ironic’ (or ‘iconic’) era inspired pieces are also common, with the bright colors of the 80’s and the rockabilly style of the 50’s particularly common. Vampire TV shows and movies have been replaced by Mad Men, Wes Anderson movies, and re-runs of Twin Peaks; and no longer is My Chemical Romance or HIM the music of choice ( thank God!) The recreational pursuit of Emo’s was the cutting or burning of oneself with small blades or cigarettes, but hipsters have spent thousands of dollars on their ‘original’ tattoo sleeves, and need to find a new pursuit that doesn’t damage their investment! Which is where I suggest that cricket is the perfect alternative!

Cricket is a sensible sport played with the ‘spirit of cricket’ as its defining characteristic. Something that would surely appeal to the now grown-up, responsible, and socially aware hipsters. Cricket as a sport is not ‘cool’ to the general populace, which sits perfectly with the hipsters love of irony. Cricketers also get to wear funny long sleeved white clothing with knitted woolen pullovers, again a perfect fit for the hipsters sense of style and tradition. And finally cricket is awash with stats and statistical analysis - again a perfect fit for the hipsters love of intelligent banter and all things nerdy.

So if you consider yourself a hipster and you’re looking for a new sport, then hop on you ‘fixie’ and head down to the local cricket club, or find one online whilst you sip your favorite coffee in that local cafe with free WIFi.