So sick of hearing about how much better than Vettori Patel is.
Patel looks a fair bit better than his First Class stats would suggest, but I still think a 74-game First Class career tells us a lot more about a bowler than a 7-game Test career (in which he never did anything more than just 'look' decent in anyway). Sure, he won't have been given favourable bowling conditions too often in New Zealand First Class cricket, but he's not going to get favourable bowling conditions in Test cricket either - why does everyone just assume he'll do better against much better opposition on similar pitches?
Vettori's over-rated as a bowler in some parts, but Patel's quickly becoming one of the most over-rated bowlers of all time the way the New Zealand media carry on about him. I can see merit in Patel playing sometimes, but he's not New Zealand's saviour and he's not a better bowler than Vettori just because he outbowled him in a game or two. He's not better than the seamers either: I really enjoy watching him bowl but he's just not very effective.
Anyway, I'd keep Franklin around. He's definitely improved his batting a bit in recent times (although I think we can call the #6 experiment a failure) and I think he's gradually getting back into some decent bowling rhythm. The first spell he bowled in the third Test for example was vintage Franklin and I think he's a better new ball option than Mills (particularly recent-Mills) and Southee, even ignoring his batting. I think some people have forgotten how good a bowler Franklin was before his injury - hell I think even Franklin may have forgotten it. He needs to get back to that on start focus on his bowling primarily again.
I'd be looking at this:
3. Flynn
4. Taylor
5. Ryder
6. Oram/Patel
7. McCullum
8. Vettori
9. Franklin
10. O'Brien
11. Martin
If Patel plays he obviously slots in at 9 with everyone else moving up one.
Openers... well they're anyone's guess. The funny thing is, New Zealand seem to have been reasonably happy with one of their openers and unhappy with the other one at all times since the tour of South Africa - but the one they're happy with seems to change each series. They seem to have a short life-spam of decentness and then become the designated public whipping boy while their newer partner is pressure-free.
- Against South Africa, Cumming opened with Papps. Cumming showed "fight" and was retained, while Papps was dropped for Bell who was in career-best domestic form.
- Against Bangladesh (at home), Cumming opened with Bell. Bell was revelation scoring a ton while Cumming was disappointing and dropped for Jamie How who had performed well in the ODIs just prior.
- Against England (at home), Bell opened with How. How looked really good and made lots of starts while Bell's technique was horrible - he was dropped for Aaron Redmond who was in career-best domestic form.
The cycle was broken here for a bit as How actually didn't become the one immediately under pressure - Redmond, unlike the others, wasn't decent for the first few Tests of his stint. Strangely enough though he lasted longer than many, playing the series against England (away), Bangladesh (away) and Australia (away). How was disappointing here too but the pressure remained on Redmond who was eventually dropped. McIntosh, who like his predecessors was in career-best domestic form, was brought in for him.
The cycle then resumed as normal though with McIntosh scoring a hundred on debut against the West Indies with How subsequently struggling and becoming the fashionable man to criticise. True to form, How was dropped for the man of the moment, Martin Guptill, who proceeded, of course, to outperform McIntosh early on.
If the cycle is to continue on from here, McIntosh will be dropped for AN Other who who start well while Guptill tapers off and becomes the man under pressure. Guptill will then be dropped for AN Nother who will begin well, outscoring AN Other.
The moral to the story is, the established man is always doomed.. unless his partner is Redmond.
