New Zealand doom and gloom thread

[Prince EWS]

I understand the compulsion to go for youth, but it's an NZA side, not an emerging players XI. Nethula comfortably outbowled Sodhi last season, and it's hardly as though his career is about to wrap up.

There's no glory in winning an A series though. If someone has no realistic chance of playing for New Zealand again, then there's no real point picking him. It's great to have some experience on A squads so the younger guys on the trip can learn from those players, but I don't think anyone would call Arnel a natural leader anyway. I'd think about sending someone like Papps to captain the side and see if his P.S. revitalisation could translate to a level above in the same way Fulton's (probably briefly ) did, but there are a lot of young bowlers who are pretty highly rated here so it's a chance to get them some experience abroad.

If I was going to send an experienced bowler it'd be Butler. Firstly because he's actually improved of late and is worth having a look at, and secondly because he does seem like more of a leader.

 

[Bahnz]

I don't see any point in sending guys like Arnel over if we already know they aren't and never will be test standard. It's a waste of money, and more importantly it's a waste of an opportunity for younger guys who will be playing tests in the future. The whole team shouldn't be filled up with players with records like Sodhi/Mitch, but if we see enough talent there it's more beneficial to develop those players as best as we possibly can rather than throwing proven failures in their mid-30s in the team because they're slightly better atm.

Yes because there's no chance that a 30's something cricket could ever make a contribution to the NZ side.

 

[straw man]

worryingly low levels of doom and gloom currently detected in this thread

 

[Kippax]

If I was going to send an experienced bowler it'd be Butler. Firstly because he's actually improved of late and is worth having a look at, and secondly because he does seem like more of a leader.

Yeah no Otago players ftr, due to the CL.

Guptill, Fulton and Brownlie probably all go. NZC bound to be wary of sending another underdone top team to Bangladesh, for another October spring clean.

 

[Mike5181]

Yes because there's no chance that a 30's something cricket could ever make a contribution to the NZ side.

And that lasted a grand total of one test.

Contributing in one test < the development of a talented young player

Maybe if Fulton learned how to leave the ****ing ball when he was 24/25 and not in between tests in this series he could have been a decent test player.

 

[Bahnz]

And that lasted a grand total of one test.

Contributing in one test < the development of a talented young player

Maybe if Fulton learned how to leave the ****ing ball when he was 24/25 and not in between tests in this series he could have been a decent test player.

With the exception of the Lord's test, Fulton has been pretty decent in every match since his return - far more consistent than Rutherford.

 

[Dan]

Jeet Raval
Hamish Rutherford
Craig Cachopa
Dean Brownlie
Tom Latham *
Martin Guptill
Luke Ronchi +
Ian Butler
Ish Sodhi
Ben Wheeler
Adam Milne

Corey Anderson
Matt Henry
Michael Papps
Will Young
Doug Bracewell

 

[Mike5181]

With the exception of the Lord's test, Fulton has been pretty decent in every match since his return - far more consistent than Rutherford.

He's played five tests since his return, take out Auckland and he's averaged 22.

 

[Howe_zat]

Taking out a huge score and him still averaging 22 seems decent. Not sure you could do that with any other kiwi bar Taylor.

 

[Prince EWS]

Taking out a huge score and him still averaging 22 seems decent. Not sure you could do that with any other kiwi bar Taylor.

It was actually two huge scores.

 

[Kippax]

Completely the wrong thread, but the partial rib-ectomy went down a treat apparently. "150km/h!" - Phlegm.

Cricket | Bevan Small on Road to Full Fitness | Stuff.co.nz

 

[Bahnz]

He's played five tests since his return, take out Auckland and he's averaged 22.

In that time a few NZ batsmen have been a bit variable in their performances.

Take out his effort at Dunedin and Rutherford averages 16.4
Take out his effort at Wellington and Williamson averages 27.8
Take out his effort at Lords and Taylor averages 15.67
Take out his effort at Wellington and Watling averages 13.8

Guess we should just dump the lot of them.

 

[Flametree]

I suppose the bright side of our Bangladesh tour will be we'll be batting against pacemen who would be fortunate to play Hawke Cup.

Dunno.. Robiul Islam looked a bit tasty in his recent matches. Only against the Zimbos, I know, but who are we to sniff..

 

[Kippax]

Haha yeah, here he is. Taranaki 35ao I'd suggest.

A spell by Robiul Islam (26.04.13) - YouTube

 

[Bahnz]

Wow, that is a trundle-tastic run up. I guess when you grow up bowling in 35 degree heat you have to learn to conserve energy, but still...

Lovely bowling though. Will cause our top 3 a few problems if he can get that sort of movement later this year.

 

[Mike5181]

With the exception of the Lord's test, Fulton has been pretty decent in every match since his return - far more consistent than Rutherford.

Taking out a huge score and him still averaging 22 seems decent. Not sure you could do that with any other kiwi bar Taylor.

It was actually two huge scores.

He excluded a bad performance to claim consistency, I proved inconsistency by dropping his good performance in Auckland. Basically the same thing. I'll gladly admit that averaging 47 overall since his return is absolutely fine, but don't expect it to last. I'm happy for Fulton and what he accomplished in Auckland, he's a ****ing good bloke. But I wouldn't be throwing important development opportunities like the A tour to India away because of it. I'd trade his short-term success for better development of our talented young players like Tom Latham, Daryl Mitchell, and hopefully in time Will Young in an instant. If anything we should be putting all our resources into these guys so they don't turn out like Fulton, fighting hard to make an impact at test level at 34 years of age.

 

[Howe_zat]

Yeah fair point Mike. Missed the post you were replying to for some reason.

 

[Bahnz]

He excluded a bad performance to claim consistency, I proved inconsistency by dropping his good performance in Auckland. Basically the same thing. I'll gladly admit that averaging 47 overall since his return is absolutely fine, but don't expect it to last. I'm happy for Fulton and what he accomplished in Auckland, he's a ****ing good bloke. But I wouldn't be throwing important development opportunities like the A tour to India away because of it. I'd trade his short-term success for better development of our talented young players like Tom Latham, Daryl Mitchell, and hopefully in time Will Young in an instant. If anything we should be putting all our resources into these guys so they don't turn out like Fulton, fighting hard to make an impact at test level at 34 years of age.

Well, fair enough I suppose. My perspective though, is that if you restrict your focus to developing those who are 22 and under, then you're further shrinking an already small pool of talent. Some people just develop later. Others, who've failed in their first run at test cricket, have learnt from their setbacks and improved their form of play. Then there's also the factor that pews mentioned - the young guns can have plenty to learn from the more experienced players. That's why I opted for a balanced mix of youthful potential and experienced success. To automatically draw a black line through the name of anyone above 30, in favor of players with average records (such as Latham) or those who've played only a handful of games (such as Mitchell) you'd have to ignore the fact that many successful cricketers in recent years have only established themselves at a relatively late age.

Also, just noticed that Fulton top scored again last night. What a star.

 

[Zinzan]

In that time a few NZ batsmen have been a bit variable in their performances.

Take out his effort at Dunedin and Rutherford averages 16.4
Take out his effort at Wellington and Williamson averages 27.8
Take out his effort at Lords and Taylor averages 15.67
Take out his effort at Wellington and Watling averages 13.8

Guess we should just dump the lot of them.

This just highlights the sad reality that our batsmen fire once every 5-6 tests as opposed to good batting line-ups that fire every 2-3.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I think, even more encouraging than Boult coming on, is the Boult-Southee partnership as a whole. They've obviously played a lot of cricket together growing up and they really complement each other beautifully, primarily swinging it in opposition directions, bowling with different arms and delivering from different sides of the wicket.

In the 12 Tests they've played together:

Tim Southee - 46 wickets @ 26.65
Trent Boult - 42 wickets @ 27.33

Can't ask for any more than that from your opening bowlers.

They look a fine pair and I pray they stay fit for many years to come. As a neutral they are a joy to watch with their styles fitting superbly as a pair of opening bowlers.