Should Martin Guptill be playing test cricket?
 

The selectors appear to believe Martin Guptill is one of the top eight batsmen in the country. Certainly he has a very fine List A record, averaging 42 for Auckland with 4 centuries and 4 fifties in 30 matches, and he's translated it to a respectable ODI record.

But in first class cricket for Auckland, he averages only 26 from 19 matches with just one century. Forgetting comparisons with other openers around the country for a moment, since Guptill made his debut he has had the worst first class record of any Auckland opener barring the very new wicketkeeper opener Brad Cachopa and his brother Carl Cachopa.

Auckland Openers since Guptill's First Class Debut

Martin Guptill: 821 runs @ 26.48
Tim McIntosh: 4660 runs @ 39.49
Matt Horne: 5161 runs @ 45.27
Richard Jones: 7064 runs @ 37.57
Jeet Raval: 876 runs @ 43.80
Carl Cachopa: 240 runs @ 20.00
Brad Cachopa: 77 runs @ 19.25

At first glance his test record is respectable, with a century and four fifties from 13 tests at an average of 33, but he averages 245.00 against Bangladesh and his next highest average is against India (27.22).

I think he is a very good List A and ODI player, is excellent off the front foot, and he's great to watch, but I don't think he should be playing test cricket.

The counter argument is the rest of our openers are dire, so we might as well persist with him because he might come through. It does have some merit, because the names Michael Papps, Matthew Bell, Craig Cumming etc don't exactly inspire confidence.

But imo, firstly if Tim McIntosh, who would probably not be our first choice of opener if we were to play our first test ever tomorrow with his suspect technique, can score a few runs at the top level then there is still some hope for the rest.

In any case, with McCullum's move up the order Guptill seems to be the fighting for the number three spot with BJ Watling. I don't believe either should be anywhere near it. I won't mention the number three because you'll all roll your eyes and call me biased (pick Sinclair!), but while it's not fantastic pickings around the traps number three wise either (unless we elevate Williamson now) every single number three batsman currently playing first class cricket has a much better record than Guptill. By all accounts there's some dodgy techniques in that group but Guptill is hardly the epitome of perfection on the backfoot, and his ability to construct an innings is almost non-existent.

Secondly, I think it's about time we stopped devaluing the New Zealand cap. We're not a fantastic side at the moment, but I firmly believe players should earn their keep. Judging by some of the selections these days it's more about fluke/luck than scoring runs. Easy runs to the test side is not helping these young guys either, because players like Daniel Flynn and BJ Watling had only just begun to belong at the first class level when they were elevated to the test side to face the best bowlers in the world. Martin Guptill hasn't even found his feet yet for Auckland and he's in the test team.

It isn't fair on these batsmen and when you see the selectors leaving guys like Williamson to work their way up at their own pace before getting a "softer" position down the order in the test side, you have to wonder whether the selectors are saying "Well, player x isn't the most hyped kid like Williamson/Taylor/Ryder was, but they look good at the crease when they score their thirties and forties so maybe if we give them a crack at the top they will succeed but if they don't it doesn't matter because they weren't talked up much anyway."

I think it would do Martin Guptill a world of good to go play for Auckland and learn his game some more. Our FC cricket isn't the best thing since sliced bread but time at the crease and some short pitched bowling from the Bennett's/Milne's/McClenaghan's/Gillespie's etc would do him no harm at all.

I'd probably pick How over him. But Guptill is obviously going to have a long international (and test IMO) career so I don't mind him cutting his teeth at that level and averaging 30 or just below for a few years in order to improve and come of age as a player. This is a better solution than not playing him for someone at the peak of their form and talent who would average just over 30 and never have the capacity to improve,. (most NZ batsmen outside of Taylor, Ryder and McCullum since Fleming and Astle tbh)

Not at this stage, basically I believe that Guptill needs to go back and perform well for his province, prove that he's a class above in terms of ability to score big and score consistent and then come back into the mix. He has the one day stuff to keep his name near selection and maybe some talks with county cricket clubs for him to go and play over there would be helpful

Always maintained Skippy Sinclair, Mark Richardson, Craig McMillan and Nathan Astle should have sought contracts in county cricket to assist their consistency and get them more ready for test cricket.

I wouldn't select How either, he's had a decent crack at test cricket and while he's consistent and performs at first class level, I think Peter Fulton is a better candidate. Hasn't had quite so many chances as How, has performed more consistently at First Class level and had 6 out of 16 innings against RSA/Aus to date.

To be honest, the NZ Top 6 should read something like

1. McCullum, 2. McIntosh, 3. Taylor, 4. Ryder, 5. Williamson, 6. Vettori.

If NZ are serious about winning test matches, they need to add an extra bowler, or bowling all rounder into their side for the added strike power. The argument about Taylor not being able to bat 3 isn't one I accept..

Wicket keeper wise, McGlashan, Young and Krueger all have to make the next couple of years count but personally I still like the idea of BJ Watling converting himself into a keeper who bats and adding more depth at 7 (or potentially bat him 6 with Vettori 7)

If McIntosh doesn't cut it, then I'd be tempted to relook at guys like Papps, Fulton, Cumming and Redmond to see if they've developed further.

Don't understand why Van Wyk isn't seriously in calculations.

Test class fielder.

Ineligable. At least he WAS. He might be allowed now.

I voted yes, though i'd rather have How in there so on second thought probably not. Keep him in the squad though. I think he has talent and potential if he irons out some technical faults.

Stop giving him a free ride. Make him earn in.

Yep, is.

Unfortunately I get the feeling if you sent Guptill back to Auckland he'd simply train his crosshairs on the still plentiful short-a*** medium-pacers and spinners who'll pitch it up to him. Not bagging Guptill's intelligence personally, but when a NZ batsman with a well-established nickname gets dropped, I'm expecting the 'your wrong! me good! get this up ya!' reaction rather than anything more contemplative.

Will How cut across his drives and put us through huge LBW shouts every second ball if we drop Guptill? Maybe, I'd probably say it's worth giving him a run at #3 though.

I'd also put Ryder at #4 fitness-permitting due to 'Crazed Cow Corner Ross' making too many appearances apropos of nothing in tests for my liking. Ryder a much greater risk of getting in and running short of partners IMO.

Desperate times when that record is considered respectable for an opening bat. NZ should aim a bit higher, particularly in these batsmen-friendly times.

Taylor's too high at 3 for mine, personally prefer him at 4 or 5

Yeah same. Run Williamson at 6 for a bit until he's ready for number 3.

Broom for 3!

I don't see why not. He was okay in the series against India.

The only argument I see for keeping Guptil is to let him grow and learn at the top level. We might as well build a player for the future mentality. ie why play Sinclair there who is never going to get better.

I voted no however on the grounds that we dropped Flynn who has a better average than Guptil (if you take out the Bangers factor) 26.63 vs Guptil 24.36

If we were going to keep players in the team because they are young and have potential then we would have kept Flynn. But we didn't keep him because he had technical deficiencies. And Guptil has technical issues (although I note his backfoot defence has improved).

Basically it just isn't realistic to keep a non performing player in the team because the selectors will get the sack. They need to ensure there is accountability for performances or they have not done their job.

A little old, isn't he?