marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!
Anyone want to join the Society?
Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.
Fleming, Astle, Hamish Marshall, Cairns, McCullum and Vettori are the only stabile one-day players. And i agree, both test and one-day teams should be totally independent of each other. Different skills, different players required.
In the one-day side the only contentious issue for my mind is the no. 3 spot. I would put Hamish Marshall back there, as there is too many middle order places to have him at 5. Oram and Cairns both have to play if they are fit.
That way you have Bond and Tuffey opening up, with Cairns and Oram to provide the first and second change. Then you have Vettori, Styris and Astle to provide variation. McMillan has had so many chances its not funny. He has been performing recently so you must stick with him.
The ideal one-day side for my money would be:
3 H Marshall
2 J Marshall
4 H Marshall
10 Franklin/ Martin
"Harmison runs in now....a comical pile of sawdust behind him.."
-Henry Blofield, overheard, 4th Ashes test
Originally Posted by lord_of_darkness
I think he has to be involved somehow. He is too good to waste.
Martin Crowe should have got a look in IMO
I pretty much agree with those, but I have to say that although McMillan has performed recently I'd rather have James Marshall. I think running between the wickets has been important to us and was really the winning of the game on one occasion (H.Marshall and McCullum at Telstra Dome) and James is as fast as Hamish and with their communication together they could score at around 5 an over in partnerships together in the middle stages which is a skill I really value in ODIs.Originally Posted by AndrewM
Agree. Our best batsman of all time, disregarding any personality clash, should be included. He is outspoken but has some very good thoughts. Hadlee IS too good to waste as well. Even if it is in the background, he is one of the game's great thinkers.Originally Posted by Blaze
That was my only qualm as well mate. James and Hamish could potentially be form amazing partnerships with the running and communication as you indicated. It was well highlighted in their brief appearance in that one-day match at home against the Aussies recently. In that case James should go at 3, having Styris to separate them at 4 and Hamish at 5. But i think McMillan's experience would see him picked ahead of James if they named a side tomorrow. But it will ultimately come down to McMillan's consistency in the next year. If he performs, he gets to stay. If not, then its the birth of the Hamish and James show.Originally Posted by _Ed_
I personally think McMillan will have to show to the selectors that he has matured into a batsman that can build an innings on a regular basis, not have a cameo of 20 off 27 balls.
Let's face it, if we are to succeed in the next five years or so we need Bond to be fit and to be on fire (Especially in tests) or if he gets injured again we need the young quicks Sherlock and Davis to come through.
Bond is so crucial to our success i agree. He has only just turned 30, so there's 5 good years left for him, providing (touch wood) he stays fit and healthy. And he has worked so damn hard to get to his current level of fitness, screws in back and all, that he deserves to lead us to some glory years. If not then we have to look at Butler as our immediate next hope to step up and have faith in his ability and potential. Forget the fact that he wasn't contracted, he will play for sure in the next season.
Davis and Sherlock are 3-5 years away, they need time in the domestic arena.
I see that Styris is going to be playing in Auckland, and rumours are also available that Tuffey may be switching to Auckland as well as he stays in Auckland. Both would be huge losses to ND.
Styris is over the hill - Auckland can have him.Originally Posted by shaka
Yes I am a little sour...
ND have been a huge producer of black cap bowler over recent years, even more than Auckland.
Imo thats when you know the word is nearin an end..Martin Crowe should have got a look in IMO
Don L-o-d , Legion Of Doom
Lords Lounge, Off Topic, The Happening Place in CW and OT.
Co Chairman CWBCC - Cricketweb XI - CW Green | Manager of Hampshire CC - Wccc | Chairman of the Muralitharan Supporters Club ~MSC~ |
2* - 17-4-35-3 - Season Ends..
Batting - RHB: M:48 Inns:43 Runs:457 H/S:33* Ave:15.5 N.O:10
Bowling - Off Spin: O:280 M:40 Runs:975 Wickets:104 Ave:9.3 S.R:15.6
Good work flemming on scoring 62 and leading the mcc side to win over international XI
I mostly agree with both squads. However, I'd have Hamish Marshall at 3 for Tests and Fleming at 4. I'm still not too sure about the openers, but I guess they both need to be given a decent chance. I think I'd rather see Papps open, but he has been in bad form opening in 4-day games for Canterbury the past season.Originally Posted by AndrewM
I'm still not too sure about the top-order for ODIs. The only problem I have with Hamish Marshall at 3 is that if Astle or Fleming get out early, Marshall isn't really going to take full advantage of the first 15 overs. In saying that, I'm not sure who else I would have at 3, but I think Hamish Marshall would be ideal for batting at 4. If Styris gets a bit of form behind him, then maybe he could move to 3. Oram and McCullum might be in with a chance because we just have too many middle-order players.
Another thing I've been thinking about l lately: should Fleming continue on as captain? Is it time the Black Caps moved on and gave someone else a go? By now we know what Fleming offers and, if he hasn't given everything he has to offer by now, then I doubt he never will. England have tasted a lot of success since Michael Vaughan took over the captaincy; perhaps it's time for New Zealand to look at what other players - such as Vettori and Oram - have to offer the team as captain.
New Zealand have never been able to be consistant at both ODIs and Tests simultaneously. Although we do not have the talent a lot of other countries do, we have managed success in both forms of the game in the recent past. This shows the attitude and commitment was once there, but, for whatever reason, the team hasn't been able to be consistantly successful. Arguably, Fleming's captaincy has dropped off since the 2001-02 tour of Australia - where he was at his best. Since then, Fleming's tactical game has been missing and his batting, while having improved, is still indfferent and inconsistant.
So without going on and on, the point is: would New Zealand be better off giving a new bloke a chance? As a result, maybe Fleming's batting would improve without the extra worry of being captain.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)