**Official** Road to New Zealand in the West Indies 2012

[Hurricane]

Originally Posted by Bahnz

ODI's

Guptill
Nicol
Taylor
Williamson
Latham
Watling
McCullum
Oram
Southee/Tarun
Mills

Ugh, that batting lineup looks awful, really shows the total absence of depth in NZ cricket atm. Without Vettori, the team continues to look horribly unbalanced.

Yeah without baz it looks weak.

Brownlie may also get a run in the XI

[SteveNZ]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

Kruger to take the gloves.

Apart from being a fellow CD-ian (presume that's what you call yourselves), why? Kruger never made over 35, made 3-4 starts and never capitalised on them. Not exactly enough to unseat a guy who made a ton in his last start, whoever it may have been against.

And I wouldn't worry about that ODI batting line-up as much as I would the bowlers. Where the hell are 10 wickets going to come out of Mills-Nethula-McCulluN-an out-of-form Southee-Oram? Same issue as the South African series and they've gone and dropped McKay, who has never done a thing wrong. Even could have picked Gillespie. It's weak.

[wellAlbidarned]

Originally Posted by SteveNZ

Apart from being a fellow CD-ian (presume that's what you call yourselves), why? Kruger never made over 35, made 3-4 starts and never capitalised on them. Not exactly enough to unseat a guy who made a ton in his last start, whoever it may have been against.

Scoring 35 against Steyn, Philander and co is worth as much as a ton against the Zimbos. Smashing a few 125kph (if that) scatterguns around doesn't prove anything.

[SteveNZ]

Originally Posted by wellAlbidarned

Scoring 35 against Steyn, Philander and co is worth as much as a ton against the Zimbos. Smashing a few 125kph (if that) scatterguns around doesn't prove anything.

A) Who's to say Watling wouldn't have scored those runs?
B) If it's worth as much, then Watling still keeps his spot as the incumbent (before injury)
C) Watling is a better long-term option

I understand the van Wyk is gutsy frenzy that came, but at the end of the day the guy still didn't capitalise on starts. 60s-70s even and I might be different.

[vandem]

Originally Posted by SteveNZ

A) Who's to say Watling wouldn't have scored those runs?
B) If it's worth as much, then Watling still keeps his spot as the incumbent (before injury)
C) Watling is a better long-term option

I understand the van Wyk is gutsy frenzy that came, but at the end of the day the guy still didn't capitalise on starts. 60s-70s even and I might be different.

or

A) Who's to say Watling wouldn't have continued his run of pre-Zim moderate test scores?
B) Does 1 test really make you the "incumbent"?
C) Derek de Boorder is a better long-term option

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by SteveNZ

A) Who's to say Watling wouldn't have scored those runs?
B) If it's worth as much, then Watling still keeps his spot as the incumbent (before injury)
C) Watling is a better long-term option

I understand the van Wyk is gutsy frenzy that came, but at the end of the day the guy still didn't capitalise on starts. 60s-70s even and I might be different.

The scorecard.

It doesn't matter to me who the best long term option is tbh. We should select NZ for the next test, not the test in 2015.

[Mike5181]

People who say Watling>Van Wyk didn't watch enough of the test series against South Africa.

[SteveNZ]

Originally Posted by Mike5181

People who say Watling>Van Wyk didn't watch enough of the test series against South Africa.

I watched every ball.

Van Wyk is a journeyman. A very gutsy one at that, and us Kiwis dig that. I get that.

But everyone is missing the fact that he had five knocks, scored more than 20 in four of them but never made more than 39. He averages 24, albeit against South Africa. It's not exactly knocking the door down.

Watling was the incumbent. Everyone (McCullum apart, obviously) was available for the Zim Test and he was picked - ahead of van Wyk. So he was the incumbent, before injured. And now he's back, and will take the gloves.

He deserves that chance, whatever his age is in any case. I'm just saying if you split it, and it seems like it is a fairly evenly-balanced argument, Watling is a lot younger, plays all three formats now etc etc.

As for de Boorder, won't get too many arguments from me that he's a player in waiting.

[Kippax]

No, I'm a van Wyk vote. I don't want to see Watling's iron hands and inexperience anywhere near a Gayle or Chanderpaul snick -
http://nzcpooch.blob.core.windows.ne...9/2_037_02.mp4

Hopefully I don't need to make a vindictive 'compare and contrast' video at Watling's expense.

[Mike5181]

Originally Posted by SteveNZ

I watched every ball.

Van Wyk is a journeyman. A very gutsy one at that, and us Kiwis dig that. I get that.

But everyone is missing the fact that he had five knocks, scored more than 20 in four of them but never made more than 39. He averages 24, albeit against South Africa. It's not exactly knocking the door down.
**** my life. He wasn't required to score big runs

Watling was the incumbent. Everyone (McCullum apart, obviously) was available for the Zim Test and he was picked - ahead of van Wyk. So he was the incumbent, before injured. And now he's back, and will take the gloves.

He deserves that chance, whatever his age is in any case. I'm just saying if you split it, and it seems like it is a fairly evenly-balanced argument, Watling is a lot younger, plays all three formats now etc etc.

As for de Boorder, won't get too many arguments from me that he's a player in waiting.

Watling isn't getting the gloves for the test matches. He's replacing McCullum as the ODI and T20I keeper.

[straw man]

Originally Posted by Mike5181

Watling isn't getting the gloves for the test matches. He's replacing McCullum as the ODI and T20I keeper.

Source? I'd read here that Watling be keeping in tests.

Perhaps not surprisingly given his economy rate is on the high side, Wagner has not been named in the one-day and Twenty20 squads.

Neither has McCullum, with a fit-again BJ Watling to keep wickets in all three forms.

I don't have a huge preference for either at this stage.

[Mike5181]

Originally Posted by straw man

Source? I'd read here that Watling be keeping in tests.



I don't have a huge preference for either at this stage.

Stuff isn't the most reliable source. Blackcaps.co.nz just said he's been included in all three squads.

[Hurricane]

I don't care what people's opinions are because there is an argument to be made either way. But just don't call watling the incumbent. He only played one test. That does not make you an incumbent.

[WindieWeathers]

Really looking forward to this one and see this as a chance for us to have a clean sweep of all the series to be honest!! , i just wanna see how we play with all the big guns back in the team, no more excuses, lets see what the likes of Gayle, Narine and possibly Pollard can add to the test side when the kiwi's come to town, also depending on how he does for the A-team vs India this might be the series where we see Jason Holder for the first time aswell.

[Howsie]

Originally Posted by SteveNZ

I watched every ball.

Van Wyk is a journeyman. A very gutsy one at that, and us Kiwis dig that. I get that.

But everyone is missing the fact that he had five knocks, scored more than 20 in four of them but never made more than 39. He averages 24, albeit against South Africa. It's not exactly knocking the door down.

Watling was the incumbent. Everyone (McCullum apart, obviously) was available for the Zim Test and he was picked - ahead of van Wyk. So he was the incumbent, before injured. And now he's back, and will take the gloves.

He deserves that chance, whatever his age is in any case. I'm just saying if you split it, and it seems like it is a fairly evenly-balanced argument, Watling is a lot younger, plays all three formats now etc etc.

As for de Boorder, won't get too many arguments from me that he's a player in waiting.

Yep, AWTA.