West Indies v New Zealand, 3rd Test, Bridgetown, 1st day June 26, 2014

'We were 20-30 short of the par score' - Neesham

ESPNcricinfo staff
  shares 5

Play 01:40
'We fell short of the par score' - Neesham

Jimmy Neesham's counter-attacking 78 helped New Zealand recover to 293 on the first day of the Barbados Test against West Indies but the allrounder admitted his side had fallen at least 20-30 runs short of a par score at the Kensington Oval.

"I think we were a bit short. I think if we had got north of anywhere between 320-330 , it would would have been a really good effort," Neesham said. "So to fall 20 or 30 short is a little bit disappointing but there's a lot in it for the bowlers and if we get a couple out early, it will be interesting."

Neesham's innings was central to New Zealand after West Indies left-arm spinner Sulieman Benn had broken through the middle order, dismissing Kane Williamson, Brendon McCullum and BJ Watling. Benn went on to pick up his fourth Test five-for but did not rate his effort highly.

"I think this is the worst I have bowled for this series," Benn said. "In saying that, I worked hard through the series, so probably the results came today. If someone had said we would bowl them out for 280-290 and be batting on the first day, you would take that."

Whle Benn admitted the pitch was helpful for the bowlers, he was not sure if that assistance would continue through the Test. "I know on the first day in Barbados you always get a bit of assistance, because of the moisture in the pitch," Benn said. "It spun in the evening as well. Normally it does a bit first day, and rest of the days it flattens out. You get a little bit, obviously when the balls get older it tends to be good for batting. Kensington Oval always has bounce for spinners. So you want to get the ball into good areas. A little bit of turn also, so that was good."

Despite Benn's strikes, Neesham's fluency at the crease ensured that the run-rate hovered around the four-per-over mark but the batsman said that had more to do with the nature of the outfield than any tactics from the sides.

"I think the outfield on this ground is a lot quicker than the ones we've played on in the first two Tests," Neesham said. "There wasn't a whole lot different going on with the shot-making or the bowling. It was just when you did get one in the gap, it raced away for four as opposed to pulling out for one or two."

Neesham, who had scored hundreds in his first two Tests, was on track for scoring a third before he was run-out for 78. The dismissal also brought an end to a stubborn 64-run eighth-wicket partnership between him and offspinner Mark Craig, who scored an unbeaten 46.

"Anytime you get to the 60s or 70s, you start looking at that mark," Neesham said. "It was a little bit disappointing, the mix-up between me and Mark, called at the same time and there was a little bit of miscommunication going on but I'll take that on my shoulders. It was probably my call. It was a little bit disappointing to get out that way, but I think you'd move and get on with the rest of the game."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY on | June 27, 2014, 19:45 GMT

    Neesham must be smoking some of the West Indian herb. As weak as the West Indies are, you'd want to be about 400 at least.

  • POSTED BY RichDeGroen on | June 27, 2014, 17:25 GMT

    That 20-30 short is entirely relative. With only one spinner, a wayward one in Mark Craig who can't apply consistent pressure, I think we are 150 short of a competitive score. And if Neesham gets a bowl too, then our lead will disappear pretty quickly. I think NZ have lost this test already with poor first innings batting, and a selection blunder in leaving out Sodhi on a sharply turning wicket.

  • POSTED BY kiwicricketnut on | June 27, 2014, 9:31 GMT

    those 20-30 runs short that neesham is talking about probably would have been scored by anderson if he was picked ahead of rutherford, not only that with benn being so tall he seemed to really trouble our batters of shorter stature, mccullum, watling and williamson are all short guys and struggled with the extra bounce benn gets yet a tall guy like neesham seems to negate him with ease, not sure if its a coincidence or not but maybe the taller anderson might of been able to handle benn better than the others, just think we have missed a trick here, one that might ultimately cost us an away series victory.

  • POSTED BY on | June 27, 2014, 7:01 GMT

    now this is the big test ,we again missed a couple of chances ,the batting has to be consistent its a good start o for 32 . this where d bravo has to perform ,cant rely on chanders all the time someone has to make a big hundred.we are good enough to win it.

  • POSTED BY Rally_Windies on | June 27, 2014, 5:11 GMT

    Stats show shilly is the 4th or 5th pick spinner in the Caribbean ... SURE he got 10 wickets when he bowls 100 over , and has to compete with Sammy, Best, and Gabriel ...

    but in every head to head... Shilly is outbolwed by the other spinner ....

    and just to prove a point .. Benn got 5 ... opposition out for 290 ....

    When Shilly gets 5 the opposition makes 400+ ....

    that is not "world class" ..

  • POSTED BY on | June 27, 2014, 19:45 GMT

    Neesham must be smoking some of the West Indian herb. As weak as the West Indies are, you'd want to be about 400 at least.

  • POSTED BY RichDeGroen on | June 27, 2014, 17:25 GMT

    That 20-30 short is entirely relative. With only one spinner, a wayward one in Mark Craig who can't apply consistent pressure, I think we are 150 short of a competitive score. And if Neesham gets a bowl too, then our lead will disappear pretty quickly. I think NZ have lost this test already with poor first innings batting, and a selection blunder in leaving out Sodhi on a sharply turning wicket.

  • POSTED BY kiwicricketnut on | June 27, 2014, 9:31 GMT

    those 20-30 runs short that neesham is talking about probably would have been scored by anderson if he was picked ahead of rutherford, not only that with benn being so tall he seemed to really trouble our batters of shorter stature, mccullum, watling and williamson are all short guys and struggled with the extra bounce benn gets yet a tall guy like neesham seems to negate him with ease, not sure if its a coincidence or not but maybe the taller anderson might of been able to handle benn better than the others, just think we have missed a trick here, one that might ultimately cost us an away series victory.

  • POSTED BY on | June 27, 2014, 7:01 GMT

    now this is the big test ,we again missed a couple of chances ,the batting has to be consistent its a good start o for 32 . this where d bravo has to perform ,cant rely on chanders all the time someone has to make a big hundred.we are good enough to win it.

  • POSTED BY Rally_Windies on | June 27, 2014, 5:11 GMT

    Stats show shilly is the 4th or 5th pick spinner in the Caribbean ... SURE he got 10 wickets when he bowls 100 over , and has to compete with Sammy, Best, and Gabriel ...

    but in every head to head... Shilly is outbolwed by the other spinner ....

    and just to prove a point .. Benn got 5 ... opposition out for 290 ....

    When Shilly gets 5 the opposition makes 400+ ....

    that is not "world class" ..

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY Rally_Windies on | June 27, 2014, 5:11 GMT

    Stats show shilly is the 4th or 5th pick spinner in the Caribbean ... SURE he got 10 wickets when he bowls 100 over , and has to compete with Sammy, Best, and Gabriel ...

    but in every head to head... Shilly is outbolwed by the other spinner ....

    and just to prove a point .. Benn got 5 ... opposition out for 290 ....

    When Shilly gets 5 the opposition makes 400+ ....

    that is not "world class" ..

  • POSTED BY on | June 27, 2014, 7:01 GMT

    now this is the big test ,we again missed a couple of chances ,the batting has to be consistent its a good start o for 32 . this where d bravo has to perform ,cant rely on chanders all the time someone has to make a big hundred.we are good enough to win it.

  • POSTED BY kiwicricketnut on | June 27, 2014, 9:31 GMT

    those 20-30 runs short that neesham is talking about probably would have been scored by anderson if he was picked ahead of rutherford, not only that with benn being so tall he seemed to really trouble our batters of shorter stature, mccullum, watling and williamson are all short guys and struggled with the extra bounce benn gets yet a tall guy like neesham seems to negate him with ease, not sure if its a coincidence or not but maybe the taller anderson might of been able to handle benn better than the others, just think we have missed a trick here, one that might ultimately cost us an away series victory.

  • POSTED BY RichDeGroen on | June 27, 2014, 17:25 GMT

    That 20-30 short is entirely relative. With only one spinner, a wayward one in Mark Craig who can't apply consistent pressure, I think we are 150 short of a competitive score. And if Neesham gets a bowl too, then our lead will disappear pretty quickly. I think NZ have lost this test already with poor first innings batting, and a selection blunder in leaving out Sodhi on a sharply turning wicket.

  • POSTED BY on | June 27, 2014, 19:45 GMT

    Neesham must be smoking some of the West Indian herb. As weak as the West Indies are, you'd want to be about 400 at least.