-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** South Africa in New Zealand 2012
- Thread starter Heboric
- Start date
Hurricane
Hall of Fame Member
Look at his econ rate though - he can probably tie up an end and didn't get thrashed in the ODIs - which means he won't be a joke to face in a test. He will probably bowl ten overs 0/33 in a day and give the other seamers a rest. And then score 24 runs with the bat while holding up an end for Vettori to score 35 or 40 at the other end.
In the scheme of this test match having another partnership worth even 40 runs would have been quite handy.
And like I said before name a specialist bowler who you would play in his place who isn't Arnel, Southee, Boult (who isn't coming back next game no matter how much you want it or how much logical sense it makes) or Wagner
Do you fancy Nethula maybe then?
Last edited:
Mike5181
International Captain
Vettori at 6? Personally I think he's more of a test match number seven but his position in the team can't change unless the team balance changes.
I think Guptill is a superior batsman to Nicol and personally think he will score runs against the weaker non-minnow test teams later in the year. He's safe at the moment anyway because there are no other options outside of converted middle order batsmen. That's not going to happen because this isn't Cricket Coach 2012 and majority of current players don't want their careers messed with. It's up to fringe batsmen like Flynn, Franklin, Broom etc to actively come out and say they have an interest in opening for us in test cricket and take the up the change of role in the Plunket Shield.
I put Williamson at 3 because of Brownlie. Probably an odd thing to say but Brownlie's just coming back from injury so he should be eased in at no higher than number 5. That would mean Williamson could bat at number 4 but considering he bats at 3 in first class the difference is minimal so just play him at three.
I think Brownlie still has to prove himself but he looked good against Australia and basically dominated the Plunket Shield so at the very least he is in the best six batsmen in the country.
Last edited:
Mike5181
International Captain
That's fair enough logic-wise. I'd argue Brent Arnel has a similar economy rate in first class though and good batsmen like the South African ones today know how to play his type of bowler. If I couldn't pick Boult I'd probably go with Matt Henry who has form and talent. That isn't ideal because of his age and inexperience but that's a situation that would never occur anyway because I think they will rush Boult back in after failing selection-wise with the Arnel pick.
Last edited:
Hurricane
Hall of Fame Member
Because the selectors will be too proud to admit they made a ridiculous decision IMHO. He is out until the next tour. The more official explanation is for consistency of selection policy.
The only way he comes back is if Ross Taylor makes a personal appeal for him which affects John Wright's and the other selector's opinions.
Hurricane
Hall of Fame Member
I saw Boam play in a 20 20 at the basin and it is definitely not his format. He wanted to get his eye in which he didn't have time to do.
He must focus on his batting more and get himself up the order above Woodcock because his bowling is never going to be anything more than handy. But I remember looking at his stats last year and getting pumped about him.
I did the same - had no other bowling options in any semblance of form. He did pretty well, got a full series from him averaging about 30 with the bat, down at 9, and 35-ish with the ball.
Admittedly CdG turned out to be a test-quality bowler for me, so realism wasn't particularly evident in that game...
Kippax
Cricketer Of The Year
They've painted themselves into a corner on McCullum at 3. I thought it was perhaps just a 'let's fully support Rob' thing that the press misread, but with blunt comments like "If we wanted Brendon to open he would have in Dunedin" from Taylor it will actually require quite an embarrassing backtrack.
Kippax
Cricketer Of The Year
The Taylor LBW
Listening to Virtual Eye's Ian Taylor in his interview below, he talked about spinners "being really, really good" for predicted paths because their slower pace allows their cameras to collect a humongous amount of detail. (Turning it around, what about Steyn's late reverse at 145?).
He goes on to say he's long wanted the third umpire to be like the TMO in rugby, they have the system at their aid but no-one is hung by the technology alone.
http://content.radionetwork.co.nz/weekondemand/radiosport/22000.mp3 (after news, 8:45 in)
http://content.radionetwork.co.nz/weekondemand/radiosport/22015.mp3
Listening to Virtual Eye's Ian Taylor in his interview below, he talked about spinners "being really, really good" for predicted paths because their slower pace allows their cameras to collect a humongous amount of detail. (Turning it around, what about Steyn's late reverse at 145?).
He goes on to say he's long wanted the third umpire to be like the TMO in rugby, they have the system at their aid but no-one is hung by the technology alone.
http://content.radionetwork.co.nz/weekondemand/radiosport/22000.mp3 (after news, 8:45 in)
http://content.radionetwork.co.nz/weekondemand/radiosport/22015.mp3
BeeGee
International Captain
We don't bother. That's the problem.why do we bother?
Assuming Brownlie is back for the third test it seems inevitable that Williamson will be shunted back up to number 3 (and McCullum up to open), unless they suddenly decide they don't need all four seam bowlers. I don't think this is fair on Williamson, who should be allowed to bat at 5 for a while.
Is there a reason Taylor couldn't bat at 3? It used to be thought that your best player batted at 3, and he's certainly the best player we have. I know some of the "best players" prefer to be at 4 or 5, but is Taylor one of them?
Is there a reason Taylor couldn't bat at 3? It used to be thought that your best player batted at 3, and he's certainly the best player we have. I know some of the "best players" prefer to be at 4 or 5, but is Taylor one of them?
