Mark Richardson to retire?

[bryce]

he did make a comment after his announced retirement that he was disappointed he never made test double-hundred, then said it's probaly better he didn't because it would of taken him two days to do it lol

 

[Tim]

Considering he was 6 runs close, im sure he'll be annoyed for the next week or 2. But over time I think he'll come to appreciate what he achieved in the end.

 

[shaka]

If you divide his average by 100, you get the average that Bradman had at the end of his test career. Im not reading anything into it though.

 

[Neil Pickup]

If you divide his average by 100, you get the average that Bradman had at the end of his test career. Im not reading anything into it though.

I spotted that as well. Statistics rock

 

[Macka]

haha just wondering if you heard that on radio sport in an interview with flem? if not that's what he said anyway, i think it is more the management's decision to not open with him rather than his own personally

Nah I read it on stuff.co.nz. Fleming is in Invercargill Wednesday at about 12pm for his book. It did cross my mind to go in and ask him whether or not he would take responsibility and open the innings like he did in England. He did that to get Astle in the team, why not do it for Sinclair?

 

[anzac]

if it prevents a specialist from batting in his position then perhaps it might be better not to. but what has without doubt been his best innings in his career thus far came at 3. personally if fleming is going to open the batting which seems more and more likely each day then i would consider mccullum at 3 and whoever it is that comes into the side to bat at 4.

I agree that McCullum would appear to have a better technique than Astle or Styris, and even probably Oram, and that his experience in the top order in domestic cricket would make him a prime candidate for batting as high as #4 for NZL...............

and I'd not be surprised to see this happen - IMO the reason his best innings came at #3 was as a result of his being 'in' b4 the middle order batting self destructed - so he had enough partners hang around to enable him to mount a score...............another factor being his own skills in keeping the partnerships going, rather than the oft maligned & brittle batting sequence of something similar to Styris, Astle, McMillan, Oram, McCullum, Vettori.........

however my personal choice would be to still look at constructing a 'proper' batting order based upon the same ratio as the AUS lineup....this would mean McCullum at #7 & I'd place Oram below him as a bowling allrounder.......

if they sort the so called specialist batting positions out then that will potentially be as good a batting lineup as anyone has so far as genuine depth goes - particularly if the lower order is NOT under constant pressure to score the runs...............

furthermore IMO they can then look to use this genuine batting & depth to 'advance the game' so as to give the weakened bowling attack the extra time required to secure the required number of wickets.............

 

[Kent]

Nah I read it on stuff.co.nz. Fleming is in Invercargill Wednesday at about 12pm for his book. It did cross my mind to go in and ask him whether or not he would take responsibility and open the innings like he did in England. He did that to get Astle in the team, why not do it for Sinclair?

A good point well made. I think you should go, and put it to him in exactly that form!

Perhaps it's the fact he's never been Sinclair's best man or flatmate, and by the sounds of things most of the BCs couldn't think of anything worse.

That may be harsh on Fleming who I think is generally a good bloke, but can you ever imagine them telling Astle "either open or you're not back in the BCs at all"?.

 

[marc71178]

Considering he was 6 runs close, im sure he'll be annoyed for the next week or 2. But over time I think he'll come to appreciate what he achieved in the end.

I think if it had bothered him that much, he would've just retired from Internationals - personally I think he's a player who is happy to have made the best of what he's got (which in a way describes the NZ side - nowhere near the most gifted side, but they make the most of what they've got, so are a far greater challenge than some other teams)

 

[shaka]

NZ have done great things in world cricket because of their consistent unity among the members. ie they work together extremely well. This is not evident in some of the other cricketing nations.

 

[Macka]

A good point well made. I think you should go, and put it to him in exactly that form!

Perhaps it's the fact he's never been Sinclair's best man or flatmate, and by the sounds of things most of the BCs couldn't think of anything worse.

That may be harsh on Fleming who I think is generally a good bloke, but can you ever imagine them telling Astle "either open or you're not back in the BCs at all"?.

Thought better of going in the end. I didn't want to be an ass, I'm sure he gets enough of that with the media. But yeah it is very interesting Fleming opening to get Astle in the side in England. In-form and confident, Sinclair could be huge for the NZ team. However everyone knows he's a poor starter and tends to score big or nothing (see last CD game). I still don't understand why he is opening and I'm not happy with Bracewell because I haven't read why he thinks Sinclair should open. Fleming even has the makings of a good opener - he leaves the ball well generally and knows where his off stump is. Whereas Sinclair doesn't, nothing about him screams opener.

 

[marc71178]

NZ have done great things in world cricket because of their consistent unity among the members. ie they work together extremely well. This is not evident in some of the other cricketing nations.

Indeed, although there are signs that the current England team is developing that sort of unity as well, and I think that has a lot to do with a more settled selection policy.

 

[Richard]

Duncan Fletcher, in other words. With some input from David Graveney.
There've been signs, I might add, of just about every team developing that sort of unity (some, indeed, have developed it) - NZ are the only team who've ever been famous for it over a long time.
It means that, on the relatively rare occasion they get a group of really good players (1999 for instance) they're quite a team.

 

[Craig]

Indeed, although there are signs that the current England team is developing that sort of unity as well, and I think that has a lot to do with a more settled selection policy.

Which makes a certain Test series next year all the more interesting to see how much unity is in the team, should the usual injury bug hit.