Mark Richardson : Keeping the Boss Happy

[flamy]

ya I saw this dood posting on PP too..

[Sachinism]

Keeping the boss happy When India last toured New Zealand, in December 2002, we stitched them up all right. They were known for their weakness in seamer-friendly conditions, and they got green ones to play on all right. In the two Tests, the highest score India made was 161; in the second Test, in Hamilton, in the first innings both sides failed to make 100. New Zealand won the series 2-0. Things then didn't overly improve for India in the ODI series, which they lost 2-5. You could argue that the weather had a major impact on producing green wickets, because pre-Christmas in New Zealand the climate is far from conducive to dry brown wickets; but it did not help India that the New Zealand administration's desire to produce wickets with pace and bounce meant grass, and lots of it, was left on the surface. All that conspired into a nightmare for anyone who didn't bowl. But hey, who cared: with a batting line-up that read Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Laxman it gave us Kiwis the best chance of winning... and we did. Little did we know that the boss, Indian cricket, was not impressed, We had embarrassed this powerful cricket nation, and in particular what they were most proud of - their top six batsmen. They were dispatched and sent packing. They were laughed at, ridiculed, and their bravery brought into question. That was six years ago and we have not seen them back until now, and so it comes as no surprise that recently comments have been made by the tourists about the difficulties this grass-loving country poses for a batsman, because all but one of the above batting greats are back for another crack. However Messrs Tendulkar, Dravid and Co can rest easy this time round because I can almost guarantee conditions will be vastly different. Why? Well, because New Zealanders and New Zealand cricket understand who pays the wages nowadays and this tour for the Black Caps is very much the scenario of playing your boss at golf. You need to put up a good account for yourself if you want to get the desired invite again. However, if you are going to win you don't want to stuff him out of sight in some sort of perceived under-handed manner. If you do win, do so in a manner that allows the boss to retain some sort of dignity, and if you lose, make sure he felt the engagement worthy of his time. That way you may just get the invite to join the country club. In cricket terms what New Zealand really need to achieve from this tour is a sense of goodwill towards New Zealand cricket from Indian cricket once the tour is over. That does not mean rolling over and dying, because fans of New Zealand cricket also like to win. However, this could be the last time New Zealand fans see these great batting names of Indian cricket on our shores, and both nations may feel cheated if seaming wickets nullify the Indian batting machine. So the people under the most pressure may in fact be the ground staff. Nothing but perfect cricket conditions will suffice for this tour. In the ODIs we want conditions that provide for quality strokeplay, but ones that don't turn Iain O'Brien and Co into cannon fodder. In the Tests we need a session or two of movement, followed by a batsman-friendly period, and then some turn and variable bounce later on. The good news is that this can be done with the application of a little work ethic. Also, over the last few years New Zealand wickets have improved out of sight, and the weather also generally plays ball in late summer, unlike in early summer - the part of the season India experienced last time. So the red carpet, or more appropriately the brown, dry carpet, may be rolled out for our guests this time round, and fewer demons may be found in the Basin Reserve pitch; but that said, there are inherent challenges that Indian players must overcome in New Zealand. Whether or not the pitch has seam movement or not, most New Zealand surfaces bounce. It's not an Australian-type bounce but rather a tennis-ball-style bounce. The ball may only carry to the keeper at shin height, but as it passes the batsman it can be quite high, even when very full. Indian players who are used to being able to move into the ball and driving on the up will find that in New Zealand you must get much closer to the ball if you want to experience good timing. In defence, on the front foot they must get used to the ball hitting high on the bat. New Zealand soils need grass to provide enough pace, and that grass also provides seam movement. If caution is taken by the ground staff, pitches could be slow. In India the ball often skids and that provides for good batting; in New Zealand the ball will hold up and that means patience and batting accuracy become paramount. It's not just the surface you must get your head around in New Zealand. Stoppages and shortened games become a challenge too. March and April may be the best summer months, but in a narrow country bordered on both sides by ocean you can expect very changeable weather. You must be able to deal with starting and restarting games at will and adapting to the differing situations that scenario brings. You can expect a lot of wind too. All venues in New Zealand can get windy, let alone Wellington, which on most days blows a gale. It ruins the bowling rhythm, makes your eyes water, chills you to the bone, affects you balance and back-lift, and most of all is exhausting. You must have strategies, preferably developed through experience, to deal with the wind in New Zealand. Wind and a bit of chill also leads to old, and even young, bones getting a little stiff. It can take a bit of extra time to get the body loosened up and moving early in an innings or bowling spell. For those used to starting warm and loose, special attention needs to be taken to ensure stiffness does not result in sloppiness. New Zealand is not that dissimilar to England, but it is most certainly not the subcontinent, and thus takes a bit of getting used to as far as the Indians are concerned. However, the only advantage in terms of assistance the New Zealand bowlers may get this time round against a touring Indian side may simply be an initial psychological one, based on the mental scarring from the last time the Indian players toured, and stories of horror told to the new guys in the squad. Former New Zealand opener Mark Richardson is now a television commentator and cricket columnist http://content.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/391978.html I think this article is a little unfair, NZ wickets have been improving for quite a while now, they haven't made the wickets like this just for India. India have outplayed NZ in the ODIs. Also if they did make seaming wickets, we now have some really good bowlers who could exploit those conditions.

[punjabi_khota]

repost

[Fontaine]

I suppose the WI, England and other teams that toured NZ recently are the boss as well because they got flat tracks also.

[EnterTheVoid]

:haha: Revenge is a dish best served cold. Read and weep, sweetheart :finger: ************************************************************************************** New Zealand incapable of beating India - Richardson March 21, 2009 Mark Richardson: I think a lot of people believe that if New Zealand got the conditions that suited them, they would be able to push India, in that they would need green, seaming conditions or at least plenty of assistance for the bowlers. And if the conditions were flat, India would win and win comfortably because they out-rank New Zealand in all departments in flat conditions. There was some movement there on the first day, but New Zealand couldn't use them because they got put in. MS Dhoni had a bit of luck but India used the conditions very well. But India shouldn't have had such a commanding victory. New Zealand will be very disappointed with the way they batted, starting from that first session and they were always fighting back from that. Even though they were always behind the eight-ball and under all sorts of pressure after India made that massive 520, they still had the chance to bat for a long period of time. Even if they did lose the game, to actually score 500 themselves, which they haven't done for a long time, or even lose by six or four wickets, they could have taken some confidence from the game. The fact that they were unable to get more than 300 in their second innings in good batting conditions and were bamboozled by Harbhajan Singh will disappoint New Zealand.s When you produce a bowler-friendly surface you are essentially making the game a lottery, especially when it comes to seaming wickets. What happens is it bring uneven teams together. India are ranked No.3 in the ICC rankings and New Zealand are No.8 so there is no doubt that New Zealand are a poor side in Test match cricket - they have proven that over the course of these four days in comparison to India. If you put a side on a green seaming wicket - even though Ishant Sharma, Zaheer Khan and Munaf Patel are good bowlers - it does turn the match into a bit of a lottery. Perhaps that's what New Zealand need now - a straight seam-bowling shootout - because when I think back to the two-Test series that India last played when they were here, in Hamilton and Wellington, in bowler-friendly conditions, India could have easily won that series because those conditions level the two sides up. New Zealand ironically then had Shane Bond who was probably the best bowler on display and didn't need those conditions. But given the make-up of the New Zealand and the India sides right now, they need to make it a bit of a shootout. It has been a long time since New Zealand has had a settled top three. I think back to when I played and when I managed to hold my place for a number of Tests, I had numerous partners, so it really hasn't been settled until you go back to the [bruce]Edgar-[John] Wright days. Maybe it's the nature of the beast where you play half your cricket in New Zealand where there is a little movement for the seamers, I don't know. I think [Martin] Guptill has shown that he has got some ability. He is a young man, it's his Test debut so you can understand him playing a poor stroke after some time at the crease because the pressure does get to you. If [Tim] McIntosh does fail then it looks awful because he has an interesting technique to say the least; its not a pretty technique but he can be hard to dislodge. He hasn't been in the best of form leading up to this match, so he is probably battling with his own issues form-wise. He did do well against West Indies so let's hope that he can play well. There is hope that the top-order can establish a partnership but once again, it's what comes first: consistency or performance and these two have got to string together some decent performances. Daniel Flynn should take hold of this No. 3 position for a long time. He should be playing with the desperation; this is the only form of the game he has got a run-in now. He has got all the tools to be a very good No. 3. His defense is nice, he has got a nice rhythm and tempo to the way he bats; he scores in good areas and doesn't get stalled. He has sown his position at No. 3 for a while now which is good for New Zealand. They are still searching for their openers and its up to Guptill and McIntosh to be consistent. My theory on selecting the side is that you pick your four best bowlers; then you pick your six best batsmen and a wicketkeeper. Then you pick an order. So just because a guy is picked as a batsman, and one your four best bowlers happens to bat in the top five, it just means you can pick someone else, or you could have a batsman batting lower than say Daniel Vettori. I have no problem with Brendon McCullum batting at No. 5. I still think he needs to show little more process about his play in early game conditions; show a slightly better defense to bat further up the order. He needs to find some stability. While Vettori has got a very interesting technique to say the least, he has scored runs. I have no problems with him even going up to No. 5. There are 11 batsmen in the team and they all bat but the important thing is that you select your best four bowlers. New Zealand lack penetration. They have done so since losing [shane] Bond. If you go back to the record books, they were able to win Tests with Bond opening the bowling. What it did was to provide them with a spearhead. You then had Vettori and then you had two or three support seamers who would do a good job. Now when you think back to the glory days of New Zealand cricket in the mid 80s, they had Richard Hadlee as the spearhead; they had John Bracewell or Stephen Boock as a spin bowler. They also had a number of very capable medium-pacers who did a very good job. Right now New Zealand are lacking a spearhead and it means that they are operating with three good quality, what I would call support bowlers in Tests, or third seamers. But that does not make a bowling unit. I expect Napier as well as Wellington to be flat wickets. So in terms of better results I wouldn't say I am hopeful because I think in batting conditions this side is currently outgunned and outclassed. If it turns markedly it brings Vettori into it but if its not spinning viciously with irregular bounce then Harbhajan becomes the best spinner on display simply because he can get something out of a wicket that doesn't offer much to the spinner and New Zealand struggle against him. I think it's an uphill battle. I do not believe that we have a balanced test team capable of beating India. There are some individuals there who can if they perform can provide an opportunity but five days is generally enough time for the better team to rise to the top and take control of the game. India are ranked No. 3 and are not there by luck, and New Zealand ranked at No.8 are not there by luck either so there is a gulf between these two sides right now. http://content.cricinfo.com/talk/content/multimedia/396170.html?view=transcript **************************************************************************************

[Mamu]

You know what I am sick and tired of Flat Wickets Theory. I think they should dish out super Green Tops -- and see what our fast bowlers are going to do. Matches might become a little more competitive than what they have been, but I still think India will steam roll them putting an end to this nonsense theory.

[Shehezaada]

Greentops are their only hope and Richardson is right in asking for a shootout. We'll kill them on flat pitches. Atleast with a green track their bowlers have a chance. And we also have a chance to prove (yet again) we're not FTB's. Although then the excuse would be "look at their bowling attack, if they had imran khan then..."

[Rajan]

Chris Martin O Brien Franklin Mills none of them looked threatening. Our Munaf was better than all of them. bring on the grassy pitch................... Lets show them how to win! one innings would be enough for our batsmen!

[Guest gaurav_indian]

Why people start making excuses like "our bowlers were not fit" "we played second string attack" "our main batsman wasnt playing" "your indian batsman are Flat track bullies" all these excuses by pakistanis.:hysterical:Are pakistani batsman Green Track Kings? We all know what india did in Australia,England and South Africa when these teams gave india green and bouncy wickets.:hysterical: Perth and a win in england on bowler friendly conditions.So yeah bring it on and lets see.India have the bowlers to exploit bowler friendly conditions.B->

[Sachinism]

^^ Ignore what the Pakis say, everyone knows the lack of intelligence they posses and the huge jealousy towards India

[Guest gaurav_indian]

They are not the only one lol.I have seen even aussies and english fans making excuses.Its simple give credit where its due.If india is playing well then accept it.We always give credit to aussies and others when they play well and appreciate them.

[Feed]

Dylan Cleaver : There's no such thing as a holding pattern in India You cannot legislate for genius. So New Zealand should not worry too much about the never-ending threat of Sachin Tendulkar. He has flayed far better bowlers than Mills, Franklin and friends over the past 20 years and the chances... More... Dylan Cleaver: There's no such thing as a holding pattern in India 4:00AM Sunday Mar 22, 2009 By Dylan Cleaver You cannot legislate for genius. So New Zealand should not worry too much about the never-ending threat of Sachin Tendulkar. He has flayed far better bowlers than Mills, Franklin and friends over the past 20 years and the chances are he's a got a few more in him. The guy has made Shane Warne look like Bryce McGain in the past so the thought of facing Daniel Vettori, for all his class, is not going to have him shuffling to and from the dunny as he waits to bat. The same could be said, with varying degrees, of his mates Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman and co. Sometimes these guys are going to hurt you, so you learn to live with it because if you don't, life will become pretty unbearable. No, more worrying for Andy Moles and New Zealand was not the rather large discrepancy in skill level that contributed to this win, it was all that other stuff that is so hard to measure. India out-thought New Zealand; they out-hustled them. Find a word prefixed by 'out' and India did it to New Zealand. Everything they did on the field had positive intent. When they batted, their first instinct was to score, their second to defend. This might give the impression to the bowler that they are always in with a chance of a wicket but, more importantly, the positive intent decreases the bowlers' margin of error and eventually forces them to think defensively. Likewise, when they bowled, it was always with the intention of picking up wickets. In MS Dhoni, they have a skipper who is never prepared to let the game drift. An hour with few runs and no wickets is an hour wasted in his book. India is a country of extremes: full of flavour and an assault on the senses. Their cricket is now being cast in a similar image to their land and the sporting world is all the richer for it. So what can New Zealand take out of this test? Unfortunately, they've ended up learning more about India than they have about themselves. They know that India don't do holding patterns; that the only time the switch flicks off is at stumps. So Mssrs Vettori and Moles are left with an unenviable task. The one-day series demonstrated that the "fighting fire with fire" method is largely futile. This test showed you cannot hope to dry them up and frustrate them. So they are going to have to get clever, get creative. Problem being that they have just four days to come up with that plan.

[cochise]

What you guys don't seem to understand is this. The excuses come out when the person making them is feeling vulnerable...i.e. they don't have a comeback so the make excuses to cover up for their inadequacies. The better India gets, the more snide remarks will be made and excuses concocted to cover up for the opposition's inadequacies. Take it as an implicit acknowledgment of their own failure. To be fair, in the article above, after all the excuses, he does admit where the blame really lies.

[Chandan]

I'm a bit confused by Mark Richardson. In cricinfo he says something but the same day he sings a completely tune in NZ Herald Column. Just read and make comparisons: Better team deals test lesson to NZ 4:00AM Sunday Mar 22, 2009 By Mark Richardson Isn't it ironic how, in the lead-up to this test match, the talk was about how the Indian batsmen would continue their assault on the New Zealand bowlers? It's ironic because they continued their assault but it was more a sustained and systematic dismantling of our attack, as opposed to the expected destructive bombardment. India's first innings was a lesson in test match application. Sure, the majority of that lesson was meted out by the brilliant Sachin Tendulkar but most, if not all, of the Indian top order showed run-scoring in test cricket is all about intelligent application, intelligent accumulation with minimal risk; being prised out rather than surrendering. You can argue it's unfair to benchmark New Zealand batsmen against someone of Tendulkar's class and experience but the way he plays has earned that class and experience. If I was one of our potentially good yet underperforming top order, I'd be keen to emulate the best. Here was a player who played one of the great ODI innings, full of improvisation, in Christchurch and the very next innings played out a Lord's coaching manual test century. You could argue that India has more test match specialists of high quality in the form of Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman and don't need to make the necessary adjustments to test match batting. However New Zealand still has Tim McIntosh and Daniel Flynn. There will continue to be a problem in New Zealand adjusting to the requirements of each form of cricket quickly. No New Zealand cricketer in their right mind would want to be a test match specialist, certainly not when the expansive stroke players in Twenty20 and ODIs outrank your yearly income 10-1. New Zealand will always have a large core of players who take part in all forms of the game and will need to find a way to adjust their games immediately. I'd also imagine most players, when nearing the end of their careers, will opt for the Scott Styris way and specialise in the lucrative and easier options of the short games. Jesse Ryder's natural skill in the first innings apart, I'd suggest those New Zealanders who succeeded with the bat to some extent played with a form of desperation. Test cricket is hard and it challenges you physically and mentally and, to be able to last substantial lengths of time under pressure, takes desperation. Daniel Vettori is playing for his test captaincy record, Martin Guptill was on debut and Flynn has only this form of the game to play for New Zealand right now. Once again we have been soundly beaten by a better team but a better team because they applied the basics much better than us and thus are better cricketers. Then again I ask the question: how desperate are our key players to find their test games when it is not lining their pockets. Really, how desperate are they?

[EnterTheVoid]

^^ Ignore what the Pakis say' date=' everyone knows the lack of intelligence they posses and the huge jealousy towards India[/quote'] Such feelings of jealously and animosity are not only confined to one set of supporters. Jealousy breeds from feelings of insecurity. i.e. "Why can't we play like them" India's recent performances aren't the result of waving of a magic wand but the culmination of years of planning, hard work and foresight. Seems like investment in young players, the development of pace academies is starting to pay off. As for Richardson, I've read a handful of articles and all his articles are filled with his customary flip flops.

[cowboysfan]

I'm a bit confused by Mark Richardson. In cricinfo he says something but the same day he sings a completely tune in NZ Herald Column. Just read and make comparisons: Better team deals test lesson to NZ 4:00AM Sunday Mar 22, 2009 By Mark Richardson Isn't it ironic how, in the lead-up to this test match, the talk was about how the Indian batsmen would continue their assault on the New Zealand bowlers? It's ironic because they continued their assault but it was more a sustained and systematic dismantling of our attack, as opposed to the expected destructive bombardment. India's first innings was a lesson in test match application. Sure, the majority of that lesson was meted out by the brilliant Sachin Tendulkar but most, if not all, of the Indian top order showed run-scoring in test cricket is all about intelligent application, intelligent accumulation with minimal risk; being prised out rather than surrendering. You can argue it's unfair to benchmark New Zealand batsmen against someone of Tendulkar's class and experience but the way he plays has earned that class and experience. If I was one of our potentially good yet underperforming top order, I'd be keen to emulate the best. Here was a player who played one of the great ODI innings, full of improvisation, in Christchurch and the very next innings played out a Lord's coaching manual test century. You could argue that India has more test match specialists of high quality in the form of Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman and don't need to make the necessary adjustments to test match batting. However New Zealand still has Tim McIntosh and Daniel Flynn. There will continue to be a problem in New Zealand adjusting to the requirements of each form of cricket quickly. No New Zealand cricketer in their right mind would want to be a test match specialist, certainly not when the expansive stroke players in Twenty20 and ODIs outrank your yearly income 10-1. New Zealand will always have a large core of players who take part in all forms of the game and will need to find a way to adjust their games immediately. I'd also imagine most players, when nearing the end of their careers, will opt for the Scott Styris way and specialise in the lucrative and easier options of the short games. Jesse Ryder's natural skill in the first innings apart, I'd suggest those New Zealanders who succeeded with the bat to some extent played with a form of desperation. Test cricket is hard and it challenges you physically and mentally and, to be able to last substantial lengths of time under pressure, takes desperation. Daniel Vettori is playing for his test captaincy record, Martin Guptill was on debut and Flynn has only this form of the game to play for New Zealand right now. Once again we have been soundly beaten by a better team but a better team because they applied the basics much better than us and thus are better cricketers. Then again I ask the question: how desperate are our key players to find their test games when it is not lining their pockets. Really, how desperate are they?

If i was a BLACK CAP player i will be deeply offended by that statement by richardson.I dont know what his agenda is but he seems hell bent on antagonizing both sides.

[EnterTheVoid]

:mad: same articles being posted two - three times