A missing ingredient?
If I could place my order for anything in the second test against Sri Lanka starting today, it would be preceded by an entree of 5-wicket bags, but the main course would have to be a smorgasbord of batting partnerships and high scores.
I'm not thoroughly obsessed with winning but if New Zealand can consistently score 450-plus that should stop us losing matches, even if the Ws do not begin to belch forth in the result column.
In the past 12 months of Test cricket, the record of Kiwi batting partnerships is dire. Only eight times have our pairings made it past 100 and then only one passed the 200-run threshold (Taylor & Ryder's 271 in 60 overs vs India at Napier).
It is Big Ol' Jesse Ryder who stands out as our player most likely to feature in a decent partnership - of the eight returning a century or more, he features in five of them: Taylor, Vettori, McIntosh, McCullum and Franklin are there twice, and Daniel Flynn put on 118 with Timmy Mac against the West Indies at the Fruit Bowl.
Another indictment on the top order is that the bulk of our best partnerships are clustered around the 4th, 5th and, disappointingly, the 7th wicket. None of the top six collaborations have been from "the top" of the batting order with our best opening partnership a paltry 55 (the two discards How and Redmond vs Bangladesh at Chittagong), for the 2nd wicket the Flynn-McIntosh effort above was the best, while the highest for the third wicket is an even more mediocre 49 (McIntosh and Taylor vs India at Wellington).
If we compare Sri Lanka, they have a better partnership record over the past 12 months with 13 times past 100, two past 200 and the outrageous 437-run obliteration of Pakistan at Karachi by the non-opener Samaraweera and Mahela Jayawardene. Their top 10 partnerships weigh in at a hefty 1846 runs, a full 536 (33%) more than the Kiwi effort in the same period. That is a significant margin.
They are also not averse to scoring well in pairs away from home - 14 of their 20 best efforts have come outside Sri Lanka. New Zealand's record is the inverse of that with just five of the top 20 partnerships stitched together on foreign soil.
In terms of scores, I had a squizz at the best efforts from both teams over the past two years. Sri Lanka are even further ahead of the Kiwis on this front. They have plundered 26 centuries as opposed to New Zealand's 12, with their quartet of double tons (two to each of Samaraweera and Jayawardene) comparing favourably to Jesse Ryder's solitary Kiwi effort of 201.
Among other things, consistency appears to be one of the New Zealanders' weakest attributes: more New Zealand batsmen have actually scored tons in the periods (7) but the Sri Lankan batsmen have repeatedly turned in three-figure efforts. Jayawardene has 8 to his name, Samaraweera 5, Sangakkara 5, Dilshan 5 and Warnapura 2. In comparison, New Zealand's multiple centurions are only Taylor with a commendable 4, while Oram and Ryder have 2 apiece.
New Zealand's top 10 partnerships in test cricket: Aug 2007-Aug 2009
Ryder & Taylor 271 vs India (Napier)
Ryder & Vettori 186 vs India (Hamilton)
Franklin & Taylor 142 vs India (Wellington)
McCullum & Ryder 137 vs Bangladesh (Dhaka)
McCullum & Vettori 128 vs India (Napier)
Franklin & Ryder 121 vs India (Napier)
Flynn & McIntosh 118 vs West Indies (Napier)
McIntosh & Ryder 100 vs West Indies (Napier)
Redmond & Ryder 90 vs Bangladesh (Chittagong)
McCullum & Ryder 89 vs West Indies (Dunedin)
Sponsored links
Is it any surprise that it's a lack of runs that costs our country? Daniel Vettori may look ungainly at the crease, but he bats with attitude. That's the adjustment our players need to make.
Dr Zoidberg when does Oram get 15 or 20 runs? I don't think he's capable of getting to 10 runs at the moment.
Drop him for Tuffey.
Its called getting the singles in other nations make up. Clarke is a master of that basic art. But getting the singles and rotating the strike would be too boring for our batsman. They like to work on their muscles, design a new tattoo, and have a competition as to who can smack the ball out of the net the furtherest (in fact asst. coach Mark O Donnell encourages that!) No matter what form of the game the use of the single can never be under utilised. We would be fine connect four players, whereas other teams our fine chess players, attention spans of a goldfish then.
It really just shows how crap our batting is!!!!! Hell Vettori is our best batsman not because he tries to smash everything but he gets his bat or himself behind the ball and deflects it away from the stumps & SHOCK HORROR away from the fielders. He's not afraid to grind it out and work hard for it - test cricket isn't easy and our batsman need to change their attitude towards working hard for long periods of time.
Looking forward to some more great batting from Dilshan though!
Oh and here's some sobering statistics for the test tonight:
Mahela Jayawardene's previous seven innings at the SSC: 82, 374, 127, 195, 136, 79, 2
Sorry David, for Oram remove the second digits. PP, those are some scary looking stats. They would be close the BCs batting totals for the past few tests.
At least the forecast is in our favour....
I'm not so sure it's all about attitude, that's part of it, but I think the main issue is we just don't have enough batting talent. I thought we battled hard enough in that first innings but it was a battle. We never looked particularly comfortable, unlike the Sri Lankans. Having said this you have to play with what you've got and I agree that our best chance of not getting embarrassed (not of winning) is by batting conservatively and batting time. Agree with Alvin on the singles too, although I thought we were better than usual with our single collection in the first test, we're usually terrible.
I thought Patel looked every bit the capable accumulator. Put him up the order. Without Malinga, Sri Lanka don't appear to have anything to blow him over. With that thought circulating in my mind, I'd bat them as follows..
McIntosh, Guptill, Taylor, Patel, Ryder, Flynn, Elliott, Vettori, McCullum, Tuffey, Martin
That's a looong looking batting order. McCullum could complain if he wanted, but Patel looked better than he did in the last test.
Yes, the batting leaves much to be desired, but its little wonder when our top batsmen face the wrath of Martin and Oram day in, day out in the nets. God help us if Chris Martin is still in the side when he is 36 or 37, and the rest of our bowling attack is ageing admirably also. And we wonder why our batsmen dont perform? I only hope we manage to acquire some youthful pace in the near future so our batsmen can cope with the step up to world class international attacks. You try facing military medium pace then stepping up to Slinga Malinga ripping one down at you 150+. Probably no excuse, but perhaps part of the reason why we have international batting stars not living up to their potential.
Newest First
Oldest First
I feel our batsmen are guilty of trying to play too aggressively , too early and aren't prepared, or equipped, to just hang in there. McIntosh's 70 off 200 odd deliveries may have been a bit tepid to watch, but he at least gave himself an opportunity to build a decent score. Too often I see the likes of Guptil, Taylor, Ryder, McCullum and Oram come in and play a couple of sweet shots, get to 15-20 from near a run a ball, and then spoon up a dolly. They wander off shaking their heads like the bowler has just delivered an unplayable ball. I'd be happy to see us post a couple of 300+ innings. That might at least give our bowlers some chance of exerting soreboard pressure.
Rant over (for now).