Ben on...a new coach, a new leaf

Callooh! Callay! The Black Caps have a new coach!

New Zealand Cricket have appointed Andy Moles as the new coach and have hastened Bracewell's departure – Moles is to start in two and a half weeks, in time for the West Indies tour.

(For anyone who is wondering what's going on because didn't he just turn that job down? Mott is the guy who rejected the position.)

By accounts, Moles was not high on the short list, behind Mickey Arthur, Graham Ford and Matthew Mott. So we've ended up with the fourth choice. And that's not counting John Wright and Greg Shipperd and other worthies not up for selection. On the one hand, it's a matter of "anyone but..." On the other hand, we can count the advantages of having a less-fancied coach.

1. Hey, this is the NZ cricket team, when we did we last deserve first pick? Moles should fit right in.
2. Moles ought to be coming to the position with a bit of humility. We can hope that he won't make the same sort of demands as Bracewell did when he started and hopefully he won't try to exert himself over the team in the same way.
3. Again, that bit of humility should help him be receptive to learning from the mistakes of the previous administration.

While some in New Zealand will be familiar with Moles from his two years at Northern Districts, it is fair to say that he is a bit of an unknown. He led ND to victory in the State Championship last year and has overseen the development of Tim Southee and Daniel Flynn. However, there isn't much there to judge him on. His previous stints at Scotland (chased out by a cabal of senior players) and Kenya (where the infrastructure is so crap, the best coach in the world wouldn't have made a difference) likewise tell us little.

So we'll have to judge him by his results with the Black Caps alone.

The Black Caps are in a real trough at the moment. After briefly being the 2nd ranked ODI team in the world, we have slipped to 5th. We are also going to be 8th in the test rankings by the start of the Windies tour. The only way is up.

Ben on...more internet finds

Miss Field catches up with the Brisbane test, suggesting that the underperforming players should be dropped: Watson, Hayden, Ponting and the whole NZ team. (She's blogrolled.)

There's currently a big rave on about analysing your blog, so I thought I'd have a go at that. Since I write 91% of the blog at the moment, I suppose this analysis applies largely to me.

The Typealyzer reckons I'm an ESTP, a 'doer'.

The active and play-ful type. They are especially attuned to people and things around them and often full of energy, talking, joking and engaging in physical out-door activities.

The Doers are happiest with action-filled work which craves their full attention and focus. They might be very impulsive and more keen on starting something new than following it through. They might have a problem with sitting still or remaining inactive for any period of time.

The GenderAnalyzer is 91% sure Mike on Cricket is written by a man, if any of you were wondering.

Ben on...stuff found on the internet today

A quick squiz at the Aussie blogs finds not much excitement about the weekend's test. JRod covers it, Stu mentions it and Beer and Sport make fun of Jesse.

Better add Stu and Beer and Sport to the blogroll.

I'll also add Damith to the blogroll. He's been badgering me about it in the comments so it would be only fair to acknowledge the work he has done in keeping our comments section alive. He also says nice things about our man Dan. (I'll add HoldingWilley to the links. It's a great site though I never seem to find the time to keep up with it.)

Closer to home, Sportsfreak critiques the test in a remarkably upbeat mood and the Public Address juggernaut finally posted about cricket, not in the sports blog Field Theory, but in Emma Hart's blog. Also, the Sideline Slogger has pointed me towards a blog by our very own Iain O'Brien! Awesome! He's covering every day of every test that he's in, in impressive depth. A great insight into what really goes on for pro cricketers. Highly recommended.

A new section has appeared on the Black Caps site, an archive. It's a bit rough, but the content is breathtaking. A treasure trove of stats. Did you know that there have been 18 double centuries scored at the basin? I should probably also add a link to the CricketArchive, which is the Aladdin's Cave of cricket statistics.

Ben on...a failed experiment

Despite logic and sense being against it, McCullum is likely to bat at 5 again in Adelaide. Vettori backs him to play up the order and says "initially Brendon did really well in England". He's referring to the match at Lords where McCullum scored 121 match runs. The only other time he has impressed at 5 was an innings of 66 against Bangladesh.

He averages only 26 batting at 5, whereas his average at 7 is 33.46. It seems clear his natural place in the order is at 7. Batting him at 5 is a luxury we could just afford when we had Oram to take his place down the order, but the middle order needs more solidity just at the moment.

Shifting Brendon out of the top order also allows us to figure some balance into the batting order. Our current 3, 4 and 5 all bat at strike rates over 50, which is a mite too reckless against a good new-ball attack. I would be keen to see Flynn promoted all the way up to 3. Flynn bats at a much more sedate SR of about 40.

Shifting Flynn up into the new-ball firing range would be a big experiment too. He did a good job in the middle order at Brisbane, fighting to save both innings. However, it would be much better to have the match saved from 3 than from 6. (Ryder has done a decent job of this, but I'd rather he was an innings builder than an innings saver.)

Anticipating Fulton to come in for Elliott, this is a batting line-up I would like to see:

Redmond
How
Flynn
Ryder
Taylor
Fulton
McCullum
Vettori
Southee/Patel
O'Brien/Patel
Martin

Ben on...a quick game's a good game

Thank heavens it was over quickly. I would not have enjoyed spending more of the day pretending like I wasn't thinking about how the game was going.

There was a lot of talk during the match about New Zealand still being competitive, right up until Katich was dropped. The truth is though that NZ was out of the match from about the point McCullum fell in the 1st NZ innings. We were behind Aus then and never caught up and the faster it was over the better.

So we've got a couple of extra days before the next test. I'll have to find something else to blog about. Domestic cricket perhaps.

Ben on...the rhythm of NZ cricket

I suspect that students of dramatic theory could identify and classify the unerring pattern of NZ cricket defeats. I suspect there might be something operatic in the grand shifts from hope through despair to tragedy. Imagine Vettori as Siegfried and Australia as the Nibelungs and you'll understand what I mean.

The basic rhythm of an NZ test defeat looks something like this (using the current test as an example):

1. Rising dawn of hope (Aus rolled for 214)
2. Tables turned (NZ rolled in turn)
3. Misery reaches a nadir (last two Aus partnerships add 82 runs)
4. Inevitable countdown to defeat (metronomic fall of 4th-innings' wickets)
5. The end (game over by lunch, day 4)

I suppose a parallel can be drawn to the traditional dramatic structure of exposition–rising action–climax–falling action–denouement. If the parallel is poor it is because the whole thing is so poorly scripted.

Ben on...Australia in disarray

Heh. We're not likely to see a day like yesterday again for a while, so let's indulge in some schadenfreude while we can.

Being at the receiving end of some disciplined, half-way decent bowling has knocked Australia around so badly they are starting to doubt who they are.

"Confused Australia battle identity crisis" is the headline in Cricinfo. Should Australia continue the 'all-out attack all the time' approach that has served them well or do they rebuild from the ground up, finding themselves a new attitude.

The Age sees things as being even more serious (following the defeat by India, not NZ it should be admitted) and sees the weakening cricket team as a constitutional crisis. "This nation deserves a team to again be proud of" wails Peter Roebuck. Australia, the multi-cultural paradise of altruistic firefighters, shouldn't be represented by a mamby-pamby team that sets defensive fields and doesn't get through it's overs. Peter is a fan of the all-out attack, mental disintegration, no friends on the cricket field approach. Vettori should be accorded full respect, and taken apart ruthlessly.

Ben on...reasonable achievements

Wow! Aus 60/3 at lunch, day 1. NZ lead the Trans-Tasman clash with only about 29 sessions to play in the series.

Would it be unfair for me to make a pessimistic post now? After all, I've been composing it in my head all morning.

J-Rod has some upbeat advice for how NZ can beat Australia. Basically, bat well, field well, captain well, bowl well. Sounds like too much to hope for. I reckon we'd do better to lower our expectations. Winning a test is an unrealistic goal and we should be looking for some smaller victories. Here's a few suggestions:

1. Win the toss in each test.
2. Last 10 days.
   
3. Have one of the Black Caps lead one of the stats, such as leading wicket taker or highest strike rate.
4. Keep Ponting's average below 30 for the series.
5. Every opening stand to last at least half an hour.
6. Hasten Hayden's retirement.
   
7. Make Ponting sweat about his captaincy at least once in each test. Maybe an unbreakable late innings partnership or someone defying every attempt to set a field.
8. A first innings lead. (Wouldn't that be nice!)
   
9. Drive Symonds to drink.
10. Player of the series.
    

Ben on...beaten by our own future coach

What would be more satisfying for a coach? To take a bunch of green underachievers through a challenging growth, from character-building defeats to hard-fought near-losses to scrappy wins to finally achieving some respect. Or taking a well-drilled bunch of confident cricketers and sitting back while they do their work without you lifting a finger. The first scenario sounds the more fulfilling (especially if the coach is alcoholic and the gutsy efforts of his proteges convinces him to give up the bottle), but in reality would involve more hair-tearing than satisfaction. Only a saint would find it appealing.

The choice for potential NZ coach/current NSW coach Matthew Mott is not quite as stark. NSW aren't exactly all-conquering (bottom of the Sheffield Shield table). However, after the weekend's game (NSW def. NZ by 6 wickets) he would be a saint for not immediately tearing up any NZ coaching contracts he might have on his desk.

Being beaten by NSW's B-team is fairly embarrassing, and has sent the team into a panic. However, it is just a warm-up, it doesn't count. Warm ups are only there to give the team a bit of practice and to sort out any problems with the team. In that respect, the loss to the NSW juniors was a great victory – everyone got some time at the crease and we worked out that our fragile batting is more of a liability than our weak bowling.

The loss doesn't bode well for the test series however, but then that doesn't tell us anything we didn't know.

Let's quickly preview the series.

We have two tests in the series, at Brisbane and Adelaide. This is identical to the tour in 2004 (including being preceded by a tour to Bangladesh), a series where Australia handed us defeats by an inns & 156 runs and by 213 runs. A more recent series, at home in 2005, gave similarly discouraging results, two losses by 9 wickets and a rained out thrashing. Going back through history, 2001 in Aus was Fleming's famous poke in Waugh's eye, but even that was only a series of three draws. We have to go back to 1993 to find our last victory against Australia, with Aus being led by Alan Border and our bowling headed up by Danny Morrison.

Now, Australia – just returned from being given a good spanking by a fired-up India – is a team in free-fall. They have clearly been greatly weakened by recent retirements, their captain is lacking confidence and there are dangerous divisions within the team. However, this will do little to bridge the gap between the teams, it is just too great. Consider also that the last time we toured Australia (that 2004 series I mentioned above) we had a fantastically stronger team, with Richardson, Fleming, Franklin, Astle and Oram playing, and we still got thrashed. The decline in the Aussies since 2004 has been more than matched in the Black Caps. So we should probably expect similar results.

Players to watch

Vettori: First test series against Aus as captain. How will his leadership and tactics compare with Ponting's?

Taylor: First series against Aus. Taylor's going to be carrying the NZ batting crew in the years to come; wouldn't we like to see him do it right now.

O'Brien: The star of 2008 and our secret weapon.

Symonds: First series back from his alcohol-fuelled meltdown and raring to repair his reputation. First test series against NZ believe it or not.

Lee/Johnson/Clark/Watson: So who is Australia's main strike bowler now? Who's going to rise to the top?

Ben on...an absence

There are some notable missing players in the squad named for the 1st test in Australia. Jacob Oram is of course out of the squad with an injury. Patel stays home, at least for the Brisbane test, saved from taking a trip over just to be 12th man. Martin coming into the squad is the other change worth reporting.

There is another player notable in his absence, not because of selection issues but because he is still injured. James Franklin has not played a test for New Zealand for nearly 2 years (a fact that is slightly misleading, as the whole of the NZ team played no tests for the better part of 2007). He had surgery on his knee in November 2007. The recovery time was supposed to be 6 months, which would have put in the frame for the tour to England. Well we are now in the 12th month and he still isn't in the picture for selection for the Black Caps.

For those who aren't aware, or have forgotten because he has been away for so long, Franklin with 76 wickets from 21 tests is the best bowler currently on the New Zealand scene. And he was also starting to show his potential with the bat, making him a real all-rounder. Damn but it is frustrating to have him close, but not close enough to being available.

Apparently in the emerging players tournament in July, he was not troubled in extending himself for short bursts. Which is barely encouraging. Wellington will be starting off their domestic season on the 17th with a match Championship match against Canterbury, so hopefully Franky will be lining up for that and we can get some idea of how he's doing.

Ben on...'bring back Bond' is back

Looks like we'll be fighting for the Trans-Tasman Trophy not only without Jacob Oram and Chris Martin, but also without Shane Bond, according to the major newspapers yesterday.

That Shane Bond has no interest in returning to play for New Zealand (and would have retired from tests even if he hadn't left for India) is old news. However, I predict an annual excitement about his imminent return (which should run shortly after Shane Warne's annual plea to be asked out of retirement in the news cycle).

We had this year's story a couple of weeks ago when there was excitement over the fact that the BCCI was willing to talk to the ICL. According to the story, if the ICL was accepted as an unofficial but sanctioned tournament, Shane Bond's exile would be over and he could be free to play in the test series against Australia. This article ignored firstly, as I mentioed above, that (i) Shane Bond was retiring from tests and (ii) doesn't want to play for New Zealand at all anyway, but was also misguidedly optimistic about the outcomes of the talks when (iii) there is in fact no way in Hell the BCCI was going to accept the ICL.

In the end, the BCCI refused to consider making any consessions to the ICL unless they basically closed down their tournmant, which is pretty much as aggressive as you can get in peace talks. The BCCI wants to destroy the ICL and isn't concerned about any casualties.

If you are interested in revisiting the legend of Shane Bond, Cricinfo is reviewing the interview that prompted the story in the papers.

He is also currently playing in the ICL tournament, 7 wickets @ 28.14, decent enough but not electric.

Ben on...the surprise performer

I'm not going to analyse the performance of the individual Black Caps, I'll leave that to others, and I'm not going to praise Vettori, he has his well-deserved man of the series award. But I do want to highlight one player whose performance has not only been great, but has exceeded expectations.

In the test series Iain O'Brien picked up 8 wickets at 11.87. The best of the specialist pace bowlers by 7 wickets.

So he had a great series in Bangladesh. However, he also had a great series in England, picking up another 8 wickets from 2 tests at 23.12, again the pick of the pace bowlers.

His selection for the England tour was derided, but for the better part of a year, O'Brien has been our best seamer.

Ben on...Bangladesh, the agony and the agony

Prior to this tour, Bangladesh's greatest achievement in tests against New Zealand was avoiding an innings defeat. Things could only have gotten better.

1st test choke

When Bangladesh had the Black Caps at 52/4 in their first innings in the first test, they had a solid hold on a possible victory. Their grip loosened as the BCs recovered, but defending a target of 317, the game was Bangladesh's to win.

They couldn't do it of course. No doubt, the first test was a good one for Bangladesh, despite the fact that it was lost. And they can justly feel that grim satisfaction of knowing that they lead for most of the match. However, this wasn't the "one that got away". Bangladesh have failed to capitalise on a dominant position a number of times. Most famously perhaps, they squandered a 150-odd first innings lead against Australia in 2006, and they also let Pakistan squeak home by 1 wicket in 2003. They've butchered a few other first innings leads by poor second innings efforts.

One day they will turn a first innings lead into a win against a major team. And that will be great for the game in Bangladesh. However, I reckon the path ahead for Bangladesh doesn't lie in these fortuitous tests.

Fighting draw

The draw in the second test was of course a better final result for Bangladesh than the first test loss. They were however under the cosh for almost the whole of the game. At 44/6, chasing a follow on target of 162, you should have been expecting another loss. The 7th wicket fight back turned the match and saved the test. It was therefore the defining moment of the whole test series for Bangladesh.

It is performances like this that will move Bangladesh cricket forward. Sad as it may sound (and as insufferably arrogant it may be coming from an NZ fan), Bangladesh have to more regularly force the opposition to bat twice before they can think about winning matches.

Ben on...the follow-on target

Vettori's declaration on 262/6 was a good attempt to be aggressive and just what this game needed. And his three wickets were just what we needed.

On the last day, we'll be chasing 17 wickets. Very gettable. The only problem is the likelihood that NZ will have to bat again between the two Bangladesh innings, taking up extra time and requiring another calculation of when to declare. However, Karl has just pointed out to me some interesting aspects to the follow-on law (law 13).

Apparently the follow-on target depends on the length of the match, not just the grade.

Length      Target
5 days      within 200 runs of opponent's total
3 or 4 days 150
2 days      100
1 day       75

The interesting aspect is that the length of the match is determined from when the first ball is bowled. So this will be a two-day match, with a follow-on target of 162, which is not all that low a total for Bangladesh. That dramatically decreases the likelihood of NZ batting again after the first Bangladeshi innings.

Ben on...prospect for the match

The third day of the 2nd test has been rained out, following the washout of the first two days. Even if the weather turns and allows play on the 4th and 5th days, surely there is no point continuing with this test. How could there possibly be a result in only two days?

Well, in fact there have been a few test matches decided within two days. It is also worth considering that extra time can be added to the remaining days, allowing a few extra overs, so we actually have a fraction over two days left. Assuming an extra hour can be added to each day, that should give a total allowable number of overs of 210.

Bangladesh have had many 3-day tests recently and a quick look shows that several of those were completed within 210 overs. During a disastrous 2005, Bangladesh were beaten by England in two tests in 190.1 and 190 overs, respectively, and twice by Sri Lanka within 182 and 198.1 overs. Also, they were beaten by NZ earlier this year within 195.5 overs at Wellington.

However, Bangladesh can take heart from history, as NZ has been rolled in some embarrassingly brief tests. NZ's first test match in 1930 lasted only 189.4 overs and the first NZ–Aus test lasted a scarcely believable 145.2 overs. There are a few other examples also, the most recent of which being a thrashing in 188.4 overs by South Africa in November last year.

Ben on...Cricinfo goes a little bit beige

Cricinfo has a new blogger, Paul Ford, a founding member of the Beige Brigade. (Who we can safely assume is closely related to Paul Holden of Stuff's Sideline Slogger.)

Paul contributes to the blog called Different Strokes, which features 'views from the outside'. I don't know where they draw the boundary, but clearly the Beige Brigade lie outside it.

His first post, Paul analyses Bangladesh and New Zealand based on their performances in the first test and concludes that New Zealand were deserving winners 'by a freckle'.

Ben on...a great escape

Awesome! Forget the 1st innings, ignore the quality of the opposition (and anyway, it's not like we've proven ourselves to be vastly superior) and don't let Cricket with Balls belittle us, the last innings of the test, chasing down more than 300, was a grand achievement.

Ben on...a five-day test

1st test: The 55-run opening partnership got me interested, the 90-run second-wicket partnership got me hopeful, but the 172 runs still required keeps me circumspect.

Also, that run out of Ryder's is the sort of snag that could start the unravelling of the whole innings.

Ben on...Ashraful vs New Zealand

Bangladesh lost the 3rd ODI in the 8th over of the NZ innings. Up to that point, Bangladesh had done well to keep the scoring in check and to dismiss Ryder and McCullum. But in the 8th over, How whipped out two boundaries to set the scoring on a path to a final total that was well out of reach for the Bangladeshis. From that over, NZ's run rate never decreased, and Bangladesh were never up with the required run rate in their innings.

In the eyes of some Bangladeshis however, the game, and the series, was only lost on the first ball of the 16th over of the Bangladesh innings. Playing that delivery, Ashraful shuffled across his stumps to get around the ball and scoop it over leg side, but instead letting it get past him and into his stumps. It was a shot so bad that he felt compelled to apologise to the nation. But for that one ball, that one shot, that decision, the series could have been won. It was that close.

Ben on...lovin' those new uniforms

Like the new Black Caps' uniform? No? Join the Facebook group.

Could be worse though. Check out the rejected designs.