Would Chris Nash make the current NZ Test side?

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Disagree wholeheartedly. English players struggle when they come to NZ and Sussex would struggle - at least with the batting. Someone like Robin Martin-Jenkins might love to bowl here though.

Think of Ravi Bopara. Averages 46 for Essex, 33.50 for England in tests and 32.6 for Auckland. Mal Loye - 46.70 for Lancashire, 17.00 for Auckland. Graham Napier 29.60 for Essex, 12.50 for Wellington.

On the t'other hand. Hamish Marshall averages 31.55 in New Zealand, but 39.42 for Gloucestershire. James Franklin similarly has a higher batting average in the UK than NZ.

Some of the sample sizes aren't huge, but based on this recent trend I think it's fair to say that Chris Nash would average less in NZ than any of the openers tried in recent years - Papps, Cumming, Redmond, Bell, McIntosh. I'd take any of 'em over Nash.

And as for Sussex, in a one-off game I'd definitely back the Kiwi team to win in NZ over them. If Sussex suddenly transferred to NZ to take part as a regular participant in the Plunket Shield, then give them a year and they'd be right up there.

I find your argument incredibly patronising. Just because NZ are in a rut at the moment doesn't mean they'd take the first 5 pound Pom to jump off the boat, though I'm sure that the competition for places would be welcomed, and at least Peter Ingram would be one step further away from Test selection.

 

[Jarquis]

It's not patronising and it's not based off the last 6 months. You've had top order problems for absolutely ****ing ages.
The idea that Redmond is better than Nash is just one I don't understand or agree with.

The point about Sussex joining the PS is fair enough, one I mentioned myself. However if played on an entirely neutral deck, Sussex would give all of your sides a run for their money and beat most of them, IMO anyway.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

So, Nash averaged 39 in the last English season which is likely to be hit if he played in NZ and this is clearly superior to Redmond's 38.80 over the last three seasons of NZ cricket (I went with three as this season and last season the sample size of 3 and 2 FC games is too small and Redmond's average increases if you extend the sample further back).

Yes, I think Redmond is clearly superior.

Now, I've seen plenty of cricket in NZ and England and played cricket in both and I know how different it is to bat in NZ compared to England and I don't "understand or agree" with your proposition that a guy who's totally untried in NZ FC conditions is eminently superior to those who've succeeded. I can't see how you're so convinced that Nash would succeed in test cricket where Kiwi batsmen have failed.

 

[Jarquis]

So, Nash averaged 39 in the last English season which is likely to be hit if he played in NZ and this is clearly superior to Redmond's 38.80 over the last three seasons of NZ cricket (I went with three as this season and last season the sample size of 3 and 2 FC games is too small and Redmond's average increases if you extend the sample further back).

Yes, I think Redmond is clearly superior.

Now, I've seen plenty of cricket in NZ and England and played cricket in both and I know how different it is to bat in NZ compared to England and I don't "understand or agree" with your proposition that a guy who's totally untried in NZ FC conditions is eminently superior to those who've succeeded. I can't see how you're so convinced that Nash would succeed in test cricket where Kiwi batsmen have failed.

I'm not saying he'd be an ultimate success, but he'd make your team. That's the question being asked. He's better than Watling, better than Guptill and better than most, if not all, than of the options you've tried in recent years other than McCullum.

If you want to extend averages then look at the fact Nash has averaged 48 across the last 2 seasons (55 innings).

Not being funny here but Redmond's hardly succeeded in NZ conditions, if an average closer to 30 than 40 is what you're after than sure, he's a success.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Not being funny here but Redmond's hardly succeeded in NZ conditions, if an average closer to 30 than 40 is what you're after than sure, he's a success.

How is 38 closer to 30 than 40? Or are you comparing apples with eggs here?

And no, I categorically would not take Chris Nash to open here. Watling and Guptill are not really openers anyway. Nash should be compared to Papps, Bell, Redmond, Cumming and McIntosh.

I thought this thread was a wind-up at first, but clearly you just want to make crass judgements about the quality of cricket played in another country. If that's what you want to do, then go ahead. I've articulated my opinion.

You were the one who suggested Nash's last 6 months made him superior to Kiwi openers, yet his last English season was merely 'average', especially considering he played in Division 2.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Not being funny here but Redmond's hardly succeeded in NZ conditions, if an average closer to 30 than 40 is what you're after than sure, he's a success.

I see, you've looked at his whole career have you? His first six or so seasons were poor, but that's not really a surprise in NZ. Check out his career since 2005 where he's averaged well over 40. He's a different player now than he was then.

 

[NZTailender]

Aaron Redmond's average for Otago, where he's played 35 matches: 41.23
Chris Nash's average for Sussex where he's played 72: 38.68

When Redmond started out in Canterbury he played 33 matches for 1207 runs @ 24.14, which is pretty poor.
He made a switch to Otago, which is where we can conveniently slice his career in two. In the last few seasons he has been one of the better Domestic openers playing in New Zealand conditions. I would say he is now a success, but it's easy to get the impression he isn't by looking just at his stats as a whole.

 

[Jarquis]

How is 38 closer to 30 than 40? Or are you comparing apples with eggs here?

And no, I categorically would not take Chris Nash to open here. Watling and Guptill are not really openers anyway. Nash should be compared to Papps, Bell, Redmond, Cumming and McIntosh.

I thought this thread was a wind-up at first, but clearly you just want to make crass judgements about the quality of cricket played in another country. If that's what you want to do, then go ahead. I've articulated my opinion.

You were the one who suggested Nash's last 6 months made him superior to Kiwi openers, yet his last English season was merely 'average', especially considering he played in Division 2.

Aaron Redmond : 32.83 - that's how it's closer to 30 than 40. Even accounting for the last 2/3 seasons, in that period Nash has averaged 48.

Watling and Guptil aren't openers... but NZ keep picking them as openers. So when we're talking about whether Nash would make the NZ Test side or not it'd make a lot more sense to compare him to the incumbents than a bunch of players who aren't even deemed that good.
However, I'll allow the fact that I was the one who said he is better than most of the players you've tried in that position and I stand by it.

I'm not making crass judgements about the quality of cricket played anywhere. I'm making a judgement on Chris Nash and NZ's current top order and whether or not I think Nash is good enough to claim a spot in the aforementioned top order. The likes of yourself and Phlegm are the ones who decided to start a slinging match about NZ and English domestic cricket. I mean a hack like Mal Loye dominates County cricket but can't buy a run in NZ

I never mentioned anything about Nash's last 6 months, the 6 months figure was in reference to your comment about NZ being in a trough. To which I said this is not based on the last 6 months. Read ffs.

 

[Jarquis]

I see, you've looked at his whole career have you? His first six or so seasons were poor, but that's not really a surprise in NZ. Check out his career since 2005 where he's averaged well over 40. He's a different player now than he was then.

Yeah, and Nash is a different cricket now to when he first started. His first full season was 2007 where he was clearly still learning his game. Since which he's had 49 matches and averaged 44.

 

[NZTailender]

Aaron Redmond : 32.83 - that's how it's closer to 30 than 40. Even accounting for the last 2/3 seasons, in that period Nash has averaged 48.

Watling and Guptil aren't openers... but NZ keep picking them as openers. So when we're talking about whether Nash would make the NZ Test side or not it'd make a lot more sense to compare him to the incumbents than a bunch of players who aren't even deemed that good.
However, I'll allow the fact that I was the one who said he is better than most of the players you've tried in that position and I stand by it.

I'm not making crass judgements about the quality of cricket played anywhere. I'm making a judgement on Chris Nash and NZ's current top order and whether or not I think Nash is good enough to claim a spot in the aforementioned top order. The likes of yourself and Phlegm are the ones who decided to start a slinging match about NZ and English domestic cricket. I mean a hack like Mal Loye dominates County cricket but can't buy a run in NZ

I never mentioned anything about Nash's last 6 months, the 6 months figure was in reference to your comment about NZ being in a trough. To which I said this is not based on the last 6 months. Read ffs.

You asked if Nash would make the current side, which means displacing either of the Macz. Considering they both scored centuries (Baz a double to boot) on an away tour of India, I wouldn't replace either of them with Nash.

As much as McIntosh's technique is gash , I wouldn't replace him with Nash *jingley-music*

 

[Jarquis]

You asked if Nash would make the current side, which means displacing either of the Macz. Considering they both scored centuries (Baz a double to boot) on an away tour of India, I wouldn't replace either of them with Nash.

As much as McIntosh's technique is gash , I wouldn't replace him with Nash *jingley-music*

Ok, do you think Nash is a better batsman than McIntosh?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

You are taking the proverbial Michael. I've provided plenty of statistical evidence to backup the fact that an average in England does not equate to the same player performing to the same standard in NZ. If the guy came over here and averaged 48 across two season in FC cricket, that's another thing entirely. My belief is that he wouldn't and he would end up with a record in NZ cricket worse than the available options. Yes, the available options aren't great and none have them have actually succeeded particularly, but the current McIntosh/McCullum combo appears to have done well enough to warrant a few goes but I simply don't think Nash's record suggests that he'd be superior to any of the options.

How much Kiwi FC cricket have you seen by the way? I've seen plenty of both Kiwi and English FC cricket, though granted I haven't seen Chris Nash bat in FC cricket. The pitches are not the same.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Yeah, and Nash is a different cricket now to when he first started. His first full season was 2007 where he was clearly still learning his game. Since which he's had 49 matches and averaged 44.

And averaged 39 over the last full season in Division 2. Really, this is just a circular argument. You're not going to change my mind about this as he's not so clearly superior as you are saying. Bopara averages 46 for Essex, and 33 for Auckland. A similar drop for Nash, or even a drop of half that would make him only marginal. Given the selection merry-go-round in recent years, it's not unreasonable to think he'd get a game, but certainly I don't think he'd warrant it or do any better than the existing options.

 

[Jarquis]

You are taking the proverbial Michael. I've provided plenty of statistical evidence to backup the fact that an average in England does not equate to the same player performing to the same standard in NZ. If the guy came over here and averaged 48 across two season in FC cricket, that's another thing entirely. My belief is that he wouldn't and he would end up with a record in NZ cricket worse than the available options. Yes, the available options aren't great and none have them have actually succeeded particularly, but the current McIntosh/McCullum combo appears to have done well enough to warrant a few goes but I simply don't think Nash's record suggests that he'd be superior to any of the options.

How much Kiwi FC cricket have you seen by the way? I've seen plenty of both Kiwi and English FC cricket, though granted I haven't seen Chris Nash bat in FC cricket. The pitches are not the same.

Plenty? You've given about 4 examples.

As for NZ cricket I've watched, not a great deal I'd admit but I've seen Nash, McIntosh, Redmond, Guptill, Bell, How etc all bat in FC/Tests.
I've also seen a significant amount of Test cricket played in New Zealand. Enough for me to have conviction in my opinion certainly.

 

[fredfertang]

Roger Twose and Dipak Patel, both roughly comparable, did rather better in NZ domestic cricket than in England when they switched - neither was a great success at Test level, though they did a job for a while, quite a long while in Patel's case - I think Nash would be the same ie would do OK at First Class level but wouldn't suddenly become a Test class player

 

[Jarquis]

Roger Twose and Dipak Patel, both roughly comparable, did rather better in NZ domestic cricket than in England when they switched - neither was a great success at Test level, though they did a job for a while, quite a long while in Patel's case - I think Nash would be the same ie would do OK at First Class level but wouldn't suddenly become a Test class player

Don't have to in order to be better than Watling

 

[NZTailender]

Ok, do you think Nash is a better batsman than McIntosh?

I haven't seen him bat, so I can't comment on technique. Statistically I would probably be more inclined to agree but as Heath brought up earlier, there are numerous differences between the two first class competitions and conditions. Plus McIntosh has actually played Tests and has some successes so far and may improve.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Twose did well in ODers, but was pretty poor in tests though. Probably did better in New Zealand than England, though. I remember watching him score a ton at Edgbaston once for Warwickshire... Think it may have been a NatWest Trophy game... Not sure though... A long time ago, for sure. And, I guess to support my point, he struggled with the bat when he first came to NZ - and then improved after about 2 or 3 seasons of getting used to the pitches.

 

[fredfertang]

Don't have to in order to be better than Watling

Give the bloke a chance - he's only played a handful of tests

 

[Howsie]

Watling and Guptill aren't opening batsmen?