Bangladesh in NZ (3 ODI's & 3 Tests)

[PhatBoy]

This acronym is dumb and should be banned.

Why? It’s better than ‘the subcontinent’ imo

 

[The Speaker]

Why? It’s better than ‘the subcontinent’ imo

How? New Zealand and Australia are not alike despite their geographic proximity, especially compared to teams from the subcontinent. It's a description Indians came up with to lump together, in essence, all the 'white' nations, even though Aus/Saf are quite different to NZ/Eng. Furthermore, the subcontinental idea is a bit of a carryover from the idea of tours, which is definitely not applicable with these four nations given their distance from each other. It's a silly statistical category and should go away.

 

[SunGirl89]

Stumps. Bangers trail by 141, NZ need 7 wickets.

 

[PhatBoy]

How? New Zealand and Australia are not alike despite their geographic proximity, especially compared to teams from the subcontinent. It's a description Indians came up with to lump together, in essence, all the 'white' nations, even though Aus/Saf are quite different to NZ/Eng. Furthermore, the subcontinental idea is a bit of a carryover from the idea of tours, which is definitely not applicable with these four nations given their distance from each other. It's a silly statistical category and should go away.

Whether the conditions are alike or not, all four countries are traditionally the biggest test for subcontinental batsmen. They all assist fast bowling more than spin, the kind of bowling Indian players traditionally struggle with the most.

Once upon a time the West Indies probably would have been lumped in there too but the decks India have played on over there for the last 15 years have been closer to home than they have to away.


While there are many nuances that make the pitches of Australia, England, NZ and SA different from one another, the fact remains that if you are from India, they are ALL bouncier and faster than what you’re used to.

 

[The Speaker]

Whether the conditions are alike or not, all four countries are traditionally the biggest test for subcontinental batsmen. They all assist fast bowling more than spin, the kind of bowling Indian players traditionally struggle with the most.

Once upon a time the West Indies probably would have been lumped in there too but the decks India have played on over there for the last 15 years have been closer to home than they have to away.


While there are many nuances that make the pitches of Australia, England, NZ and SA different from one another, the fact remains that if you are from India, they are ALL bouncier and faster than what you’re used to.

When is Ireland being added to the acronym then?

If it was about 'different testing conditions', they could easily just say 'the rest of the world'.

 

[PhatBoy]

When is Ireland being added to the acronym then?

If it was about 'different testing conditions', they could easily just say 'the rest of the world'.

The rest of the world includes the West Indies at the moment, which doesn’t offer them a challenge.

This seems a strange thing to get frustrated about.

Should fast bowlers never be assessed by how they have performed in Asia?

 

[The Speaker]

The rest of the world includes the West Indies at the moment, which doesn’t offer them a challenge.

This seems a strange thing to get frustrated about.

Should fast bowlers never be assessed by how they have performed in Asia?

Because it's an unnatural grouping being presented as a natural one. (Indian, mostly) journalists and fans will talk about 'the SENA countries' as though its ASEAN, when infact it's an entirely arbitrary grouping used entirely for their own purposes in only the world of cricket, which may be at least partly political. Its usage is certainly representative of Indian hegemony.

 

[Doss]

Something worth noting; Boult, Southee and Wagner have the small matter of 657 wickets between them. It's doubtful they've ever had a more prolific pace trio.

Southee will probably end up north of 300 wickets, Wagner will push over 200 and towards 250, and as for Boult, I wouldn't be surprised if he pushes 400 by the end of his career. Only NZ's relative lack of Test cricket will stop it; Boult is one of my favourite bowlers to watch in world cricket.

 

[PhatBoy]

Because it's an unnatural grouping being presented as a natural one. (Indian, mostly) journalists and fans will talk about 'the SENA countries' as though its ASEAN, when infact it's an entirely arbitrary grouping used entirely for their own purposes in only the world of cricket, which may be at least partly political. Its usage is certainly representative of Indian hegemony.

Sorry but I respectfully disagree, which is unusual as you’re probably among the best handful of posters on this forum.

As long as there are different climates and conditions in cricket, the biggest challenge conditions-wise for players from England, Australia, SA and NZ will be series in the four Asian countries - conditions wise anyway. Hence a side like Bangladesh can win tests against Australia and England at home, and be mincemeat in NZ. And the biggest challenge for players from those nations will be in Australia, SA, NZ and England. If the west indies’ growing relevance and return to faster pitches continues, maybe they will change to a degree.

 

[The Speaker]

Sorry but I respectfully disagree, which is unusual as you’re probably among the best handful of posters on this forum.

As long as there are different climates and conditions in cricket, the biggest challenge conditions-wise for players from England, Australia, SA and NZ will be series in the four Asian countries - conditions wise anyway. Hence a side like Bangladesh can win tests against Australia and England at home, and be mincemeat in NZ. And the biggest challenge for players from those nations will be in Australia, SA, NZ and England. If the west indies’ growing relevance and return to faster pitches continues, maybe they will change to a degree.

Sure. So what? That doesn't make the acronym sensible. As I said, those four countries have far more variation than the subcontinent, and there is no geographic logic to it either. I get the statistical idea, but the SENA acronym and the way they use it is bad.

 

[Doss]

Not that I think it's enormously important, but I'm with Speaker on this one.

 

[Park cricketer]

Because it's an unnatural grouping being presented as a natural one. (Indian, mostly) journalists and fans will talk about 'the SENA countries' as though its ASEAN, when infact it's an entirely arbitrary grouping used entirely for their own purposes in only the world of cricket, which may be at least partly political. Its usage is certainly representative of Indian hegemony.

Wait, what? No idea what the bolded part is about.

SENA term is mostly used by fans (not just Indian fans but also Pakistani ones) since a long time, journalists and a few commentators only started using the term recently. The term is simply used to filter out the flat track bullies from the legit guns because while technically these countries strictly don't have the exact same conditions (swing is more prominent in Eng and NZ, Aus has quick bouncy wickets, SA similar but tends to have tennis ball bounce and a lot of seam movement), but the recurring theme is that fast bowling plays a prominent role in all of those countries. Just like the teams from outside asia tend to struggle against spin in asia, asian teams always struggle against fast bowling in these four countries.

People don't include the West Indies currently because:

1. The Windies have been weak for the best part of this decade and winning in the West Indies for an asian team is not the same as winning a series in England, Australia, South Africa or New Zealand.

2. The nature of the wickets in the caribbean has changed a lot since the heydays of 80s and they had slow wickets that assisted spinners until as recent as 1 or 2 years ago. Only now they seem to have changed their strategy and started preparing quick wickets in the past 12-18 months. Funnily enough, a few fans were discussing as to what is the best acronym now that Windies have reverted to quick wickets and have become good at home again - SENAW or SWENA (the latter is better imo).

Anyway this terminology has been used in Indian and Pakistani forums since a long time and personally, I only rate the asian bats who perform well in the SENA countries and vice versa for the bats from the rest of the world (I rate those who perform well in asia). It's the same for bowlers as well. Ashwin has a fantastic record in the west indies as a spinner but he does not have a single 5 fer in the SENA countries and hence he got criticised for his performance in those countries.

 

[The Speaker]

Wait, what? No idea what the bolded part is about.

SENA term is mostly used by fans (not just Indian fans but also Pakistani ones) since a long time, journalists and a few commentators only started using the term recently.

Read these two sentences again. The latter informs the former.

The term is simply used to filter out the flat track bullies from the legit guns because while technically these countries strictly don't have the exact same conditions (swing is more prominent in Eng and NZ, Aus has quick bouncy wickets, SA similar but tends to have tennis ball bounce and a lot of seam movement), but the recurring theme is that fast bowling plays a prominent role in all of those countries. Just like the teams from outside asia tend to struggle against spin in asia, asian teams always struggle against fast bowling in these four countries.

People don't include the West Indies currently because:

1. The Windies have been weak for the best part of this decade and winning in the West Indies for an asian team is not the same as winning a series in England, Australia, South Africa or New Zealand.

2. The nature of the wickets in the caribbean has changed a lot since the heydays of 80s and they had slow wickets that assisted spinners until as recent as 1 or 2 years ago. Only now they seem to have changed their strategy and started preparing quick wickets in the past 12-18 months. Funnily enough, a few fans were discussing as to what is the best acronym now that Windies have reverted to quick wickets and have become good at home again - SENAW or SWENA (the latter is better imo).

Anyway this terminology has been used in Indian and Pakistani forums since a long time and personally, I only rate the asian bats who perform well in the SENA countries and vice versa for the bats from the rest of the world (I rate those who perform well in asia). It's the same for bowlers as well. Ashwin has a fantastic record in the west indies as a spinner but he does not have a single 5 fer in the SENA countries and hence he got criticised for his performance in those countries.

If it's about fast bowlers, then they should be using stats vs fast bowling. The term's existence for x period of time doesn't actually say anything about whether the acronym is good.

When does Ireland get added to the acronym? If you add the West Indies in, why can't you just say "the rest of the world", which has no implications of grouping countries together as though they have any actual reason to be considered a group?

 

[SunGirl89]

New Zealand need to get the win and win the series 3-0 otherwise their Test rating cannot improve.

New Zealand's Test ranking depending on the result of this series:
3-0: remain 2nd, rating up 2 (107 to 109)
2-0: remain 2nd, rating unchanged (stays at 107)
1-0/2-1: remain 2nd, rating down 1 (107 to 106)
1-1: drop to 5th, rating down 4 (107 to 103)

 

[PhatBoy]

Read these two sentences again. The latter informs the former.



If it's about fast bowlers, then they should be using stats vs fast bowling. The term's existence for x period of time doesn't actually say anything about whether the acronym is good.

When does Ireland get added to the acronym? If you add the West Indies in, why can't you just say "the rest of the world", which has no implications of grouping countries together as though they have any actual reason to be considered a group?

Much of this debate - highlighted by your last sentence, seems to ignore the fact that it is simply very quick nd easy to say and type.

 

[Park cricketer]

If it's about fast bowlers, then they should be using stats vs fast bowling. The term's existence for x period of time doesn't actually say anything about whether the acronym is good.

Because facing a fast bowler in asia where he doesn't have much to work with is vastly different to facing a fast bowler outside asia where there's often plenty of help for the quicks. There's no point in including the stats in asia even if it's against fast bowling. That's like seeing Khawaja belt Ashwin and Jadeja on a flat road at the MCG and concluding he's a great player of spin.

When does Ireland get added to the acronym? If you add the West Indies in, why can't you just say "the rest of the world", which has no implications of grouping countries together as though they have any actual reason to be considered a group?

Not sure what you're trying to get at. I feel you're over complicating things when it's simple. Ireland are minnows, why would you include the likes of Ireland, Zimbabwe and Afghanistan in the conversation? It's for the same reason, nobody took stats against Bangladesh seriously because they were minnows for a long time and turned competitive only in the last few years.

People would include Windies in the conversation too if they keep producing quick wickets and develop into atleast a mid table team (which I think they have the potential to become). If you think this acronym is about including "white countries", then why would South Africa be included? If you think it's about the big three or four, why would New Zealand be included?

 

[SunGirl89]

Bangladesh started the day 3/80 (23 overs) and were bowled out for 209 (56 overs) with a run rate of 3.73. Not sure what the hurry was.

Kiwis win by an innings and 12 runs, Wagner taking 5 today. The Test lasted just 201.5 overs.

Leading the series 2-0 with one Test to play, New Zealand's Test ranking situation:
3-0: remain 2nd, rating up 2 (107 to 109)
2-0: remain 2nd, rating unchanged (stays at 107)
2-1: remain 2nd, rating down 1 (107 to 106)

 

[Damon_3388]

Interesting to see Neil Wagner having such success with the not-new ball, almost playing the role of "closer", like in baseball. He's gotten 16 wickets in the last two Tests, bowling 4th or 5th in the order.

In fact, 43 of the 79 Test innings he's bowled in (and 109 of his 174 Test wickets), have seen him come on 4th or 5th in the order. Just three of those 79 innings has he taken the new ball at the start.

That's not to say he's just collecting tail-enders, just that he's not getting the luxury of the new nut every time out.

 

[Doss]

He's not likely to ever get the new ball with Boult and Southee there.

 

[Ishikawa]

Interesting to see Neil Wagner having such success with the not-new ball, almost playing the role of "closer", like in baseball. He's gotten 16 wickets in the last two Tests, bowling 4th or 5th in the order.

In fact, 43 of the 79 Test innings he's bowled in (and 109 of his 174 Test wickets), have seen him come on 4th or 5th in the order. Just three of those 79 innings has he taken the new ball at the start.

That's not to say he's just collecting tail-enders, just that he's not getting the luxury of the new nut every time out.

It would be an utter waste to be handing a new ball to Wagner though, he doesn't need swing at all.

 

[PhatBoy]

I’d love to know what the coaching staff are trying to tell them about Wagner and how to handle him

 

[Kyptastic]

I'm glad to see Henry Nicholls has gotten passed his Temba Bavuma phase of making tough 50s but not cashing in when the going is easy.

 

[kiwi4life]

I'm glad to see Henry Nicholls has gotten passed his Temba Bavuma phase of making tough 50s but not cashing in when the going is easy.

Nicholls has really developed into a fine batsman. Now averaging 45 in tests and still only 27 so theorically his best is still ahead of him.

Crazy how most of our top order average mid 40s+ now. For a very, very long time averaging in just the mid 30s would be good enough for a NZ top order batsman to hold down a spot for years! Glad times have changed!

 

[the universal]

Nicholls looked like an absolute liability to the side only a couple of years ago, but then that superb century against South Africa happened - more or less the turning point for his career and he hasn't looked back since. The faith in him has been repaid and then some.

 

[SunGirl89]

Bangladesh cricket team caught up in the Christchurch mosque attack: