Living up to early promise

This is my first post for From the Couch. I am an absolute sports tragic and especially love the quirky, statistical side of sport. I am also a huge admirer of Tim Southee, so my first post is dedicated to him.

Imagine your test cricket debut. Desperate to do well, you want to prove you belong in the arena. For a bowler a five wicket innings is trumped only by a 10 wicket match haul. And as a specialist bowler you might strive your whole career to score a test match fifty. Tim Southee did both on test debut, 5-55 in England's first innings and then a six laden 77* in the futile chase for 553 to win.

I do go on, but it really is a big deal. Only 8 players in test history have done the "50 & five-for" double on debut. The interesting thing is that ever since that debut Tim Southee has never scored as many or had bowling figures as good. His debut performances remain his best in his 16 test career. So what about the others, who else never reached the dizzying heights of their test debut?

The table below shows all the players who have done the 50 and five for double on debut. The last two columns show the matches taken until they bettered their debut performance.

Four players (Trott, Lever, Dodemaide and Southee) never bettered their debut performance in either discipline. John Lever had the longest career without ever bettering his debut effort ( 21 tests) but our boy Tim is closing in - 16 tests to date.

Wally Hammond, one of the greatest batsmen of all time, took only until his third test to better his debut 51 but never again took a test match five-for in his 85 match career.

All of the others in the list did better their debut performances at some point in their career, in some cases very soon after their debut.

Surely the question is not if, but when, Tim Southee will go on to better his debut performance with either bat or ball. What price he does it against Zimbabwe some time over the weekend?

Player	Debut	HS	BBI	Total career	Bettered
					High Score	Best bowling
AE Trott (Aus)	1895	72*	8 for 43	8 matches	never	never
LC Braund (Eng)	1901	58	5 for 61	24 matches	3rd match	14th match
FR Foster (Eng)	1911	56	5 for 92	11 matches	3rd match	2nd match
WR Hammond (Eng)	1927	51	5 for 36	85 matches	3rd match	never
BR Taylor (NZ)	1965	105	5 for 86	30 matches	13th match	2nd match
JK Lever (Eng)	1976	53	7 for 46	21 matches	never	never
AIC Dodemaide (Aus)	1987	50	6 for 58	10 matches	never	never
TG Southee (NZ)	2008	77*	5 for 55	16 matches	never	never

Also, big shout out to Bruce Taylor - the Kiwi all-rounder who appears in the list as the only player in test history to score a century and take five wickets in an innings on test debut. Kudos.

The Black Cap XI - today, tomorrow and three years time.

Victory in Australia is great but unfortunately it probably didn't answer any of the questions we have about our top XI, oddly enough it probably threw up a few more.

We did learn a couple of things though that we can bank for the years ahead.

1) Between Doug Bracewell, Tim Southee and Trent Boult we have quick bowlers that can win us test matches for the next six or seven years. Behind them sit a group including Neil Wagner (come April), Hamish Bennett and Adam Milne. That group can win us test matches.

2) Chris Martin can still lead this attack. Martin was outstanding this whole series, making Phil Hughes his bunny was memorable but I could make Phil Hughes my bunny by bowling underarm if I was taking the ball across him. The way he lead a group of youngsters and kept showing up was testament to what experience and heart can achieve. Sure he may only have a year or two left (terrorising A Strauss and A Cook next summer in NZ might be a nice finish to the careeer) but in that time the group of bowlers I discussed in point 1 will learn a lot from Tommy!

3) Dean Brownlie is a middle order rock that you can build a batting line-up around.

There are also things we already knew

1) Ross Taylor is world class.

But what are the questions?

1) Is Kane Williamson a #3.... yet? Kane Williamson will be a world-class cricketer and will earn that reputation as a #3 but I am not convinced he is there yet. The best #3 of my lifetime is Ponting (well maybe Dravid but it being Ponting suits my argument) spent the early years of his career at 6 where he learned how to be a test batsman. Everyone knew he would always be a 3 but they gave him time to grow into it and look at the results! Should that be what they do with Kane? I guess it depends if you have another batsman to put there which maybe we do in Dean Brownlie.

2) Is Reece Young international quality? People who follow/watch first class cricket closely say that Young is the best keeper batsman in the country by a distance. Unfortunately that hasn't translated into quality on the test stage. Runs in Hobart were hard to come by, absolutely but players that are supposedly not as good managed to graft through it and provide support to the guy at the other end. Young wasn't able to. His contributions in Brisbane with the bat were poor. I am not a wicketkeeping expert so can't comment on that really, obviously he dropped Clarke in Brisbane with a ball that swung back late so was a tough chance but you would still want your keeper to take those in a test match. The difficulty is though, do we have anyone better to take his spot? Kruger Van Wyk isn't available yet, Derek De Boorder is running up some good numbers with the bat but do you pick the guy to debut against the best pace-attack in the world right now in South Africa? Tough call. Very very tough call. My opinion is that I would give Young the Zimbo test, let him find some confidence and hope he takes that into the South African series. My off-season if I was Wright/Buchanan would be spent turning BJ Waitling from a part-time keeper to a test quality one because then the problem is solved.
- Brendon McCullum does not come into this equation because I believe the guy when he says his body will not let him keep in the long form.

3) What role does Daniel Vettori play in this team? Is he a bowler that bats? A batsman that bowls? I think these days he is probably the latter. In my team I would pick him to bat at 6 and expect runs from him while knowing that he is good for 30/40 overs a test match but is unlikely to rip through an international top-order anymore (lower orders are a different matter for the rabbit hunter though!) Having him as this means we can play four quicks or three and another spinner in the right conditions. Don't ask me who the other spinner is though because that is for a completely different conversation. If Vettori bats 6 it probably means no place for Jesse Ryder at the moment (unthinkable 12 months ago) but if Ryder gets back to a place where he can bowl 10-15 overs a day then you can pick him and have Vettori batting at 6/7 with the keeper and 3 quicks behind him.

I do genuinely think the future is bright for the Black Caps, this is a talented generation of cricketers we have coming through and who are maturing into good international cricketers at the moment. Most pleasing though is not that we have a good 11 but that we probably have a group behind these guys who are not far off or who are international standard and can push for a spot over the next five or so years.

So here is my talent pool, I would pick an 11 but I can't honestly make up my own mind on how I would fit everyone into a fully fit lineup.

Top Order group
McCullum, Guptill, Flynn, Waitling, Nicol, Williamson
Middle Order group
Taylor, Ryder, Brownlie, Vettori, Williamson, Flynn, Franklin, Broom
Keepers
Young, Van Wyk, De Boorder
Spinners
Vettori, Astle, Patel (at a push)
Quicks
Bracewell, Southee, Mills, Bennett, Milne, Wagner

We won something.... else!

So we were always going to win a Rugby World Cup, however long it took the odds were on the fact that we would probably do it.

Winning a cricket test in Australia though, I wasn't entirely confident that would ever happen in my lifetime. In fact winning a cricket test against Australia fullstop was always going to be difficult. On Monday however, we did it. Did anything suggest it was likely to happen? No. Did people give us a chance? No. Was it fucking mean? Yup!

I watched the last 30 minutes in a round about kind of way, after remembering that parking in an undercover carpark doesn't do good things for radio reception I set off in a mad-dash around an Auckland shopping mall to find a television. Luckily, I found a pub and enjoyed this historic moment in NZ sport with a group of people who seeminlgy have nothing better to do than drink on a Monday afternoon at 4 o'clock. There isn't a sport that I follow which can take you on the ride that test cricket can and this was certainly one of those test matches.

Many of my favourite sporting moments of the past five or six years come from watching great test matches; various Ashes tests stretching back to 05, a couple of Aussie v Africa tests and one or two of the Aus v India clashes. Unfortunately for NZ cricket fans we don't play enough test matches nor are we good enough at them to get close to good teams. This time though, we got close to a good* team and boy was it wonderful to watch, torture for sure but sporting theatre at its very best.

It's such a great feeling watching a team that you have invested so much mental energy in over the years at last repay some of that faith. The Black Caps are a tough team to follow, anyone who does it knows that but we all do it because we know that behind the inconsistency and the frustration is a really good cricket side. To win a test match you have to be better than the other team across all three disciplines of the game, in Hobart we were that. It means so much to us because we know they can be better than the good* teams, it is just that they have to show it more often.

Maybe this is the beginning of something, not a golden era but certainly an era where we have a good cricket side that can compete with the best teams in the world at home and abroad. Here's hoping, because to watch test cricket is great, to watch great test cricket is amazing and to watch great test cricket that your teams ends up winning is one of the best feelings I have ever expereinced.

good* - note: this Australian team are not a very good cricket team but it is still Australia and they are still a team of dead set fuckwits!

How we could win the Cricket World Cup.

So I'm sitting here getting frustrated with the Black Caps, and our awful bowling unit- as Afridi has just hit 65 off his last 24 balls due to a) him being quite good, and b) our poor death bowling. I figure I'll blog about how this isn't so relevant at the Cup.

I'll start with the bowling positives (of which there are few).

Southee- He can typically put the ball where it is required- something most of the others in the squad cannot do. It was highlighted a year or so ago in a Super over against Oz in T20- where he went for 6 runs. He isn't quite consistent enough yet- it's not uncommon to see him bowl four pearlers in an over, with a couple of loose ones which will go for four, but generally a lot more accurate than the rest of the squad.

Vettori- No comment needed really- as a containing bowler he'd be one of the best in the world. Obviously a shoe-in as captain, and a quality batsman, getting us out of trouble so often.

Outside of these two though, we are lacking in any real quality. Mills- one time best ODI bowler in the world, now past it and awful. Oram- useful option when he's bowling well, probably not a match-winner any more. Bennett- a bit raw, but possible match-winner if all is going well. Woodcock- pleased to see him in the squad, but no experience on the big stage. Franklin- being used to open our bowling currently, but surely no more than a bit-part bowler at the Cup.

We also have a large number of players who can play a bit-part in our bowling plans at the Cup. Obviously Piggy can roll the arm down succesfully, and will play a part in the WC. With Ryder's injuries he's bowling less, but I really rate him as an option if tossed the ball. Williamson- not bad domestically, unproven internationally. N-Mac- not a great wicket-taker, but could be useful in India.

Hardly a bowling lineup that'll strike fear into opposition at the Cup- ipso facto, we're not going to win with our bowling prowess.

Our depth lies in the strength of our batsmen, and their ability to accumulate quickly when required. Taylor, Ryder and McCullum are among the best in the world, and all play their best when they are hitting the ball hard. Guptill for mine is also heading this way, and could be a useful support act here. Williamson, not so much an attacking option, but if these other four are on their game, he'll be a useful foil down the other end. I don't mind Jamie How (would rather McGlashan)- but don't anticipate he'll play a huge part at the Cup- and not nearly as powerful as those he'll be competing with at the top of the order.

Piggy and Vettori are both more than useful batsmen, and (the new) Franklin and Oram on their day can be match-winners. As much as I don't particularly want Mills in the starting XI, he can hit a big ball if required, as can Southee (over cow and cow only).

So cutting to the chase (something I'm awful at). I think we almost need to head into games in the Super stage of the Cup expecting to chase in excess of 300, but to have the faith that we will be able to. We need to stack the team with players who can bat, somewhat cutting our losses with our bowlers- meaning that you won't see a lineup of Woodcock/Mills/Southee/Bennett at 8/9/10/11 as you do in today's match. Realistically we'll have potential match-winners batting down to 10, and all we need is three or four of these batsmen to fire and we'll be able to chase down 300.

I'd lineup as follows.

Guppy
Ryder
Williamson
Taylor
Styris
B McCullum
Franklin/N McCullum
Oram
Vettori
Southee
Bennett

Potentially open with B-Mac- but sounds like that's not an option with Wright. Also easy to drop Williamson down the order if we need to capitalise on an early power play.

Do I think we'll win the World Cup? No- I'm not deluded. But if we have any chance to win, I think that batting deep and using a large number of bit-part bowlers whose strength lies in their aggressive batting, will be the way that we could.