Yo Steve, without wanting to draw you out too much on your former career*, do you know what is up with the behind closed doors attitudes and work ethics in the NZ team and how it compares to the FC sides (in general obvz, because they'll all be different)? Evidently the Black Caps infuriate FC players as much as the fans, yet a procession of batsmen, especially openers, have been inducted into the test side and shown promise only to start repeating the mistakes of everyone around them.
*lol jks, half of us are dying to know which ex-Aucland fast bowler you are
Taylor and Ryder are 40+ batsmen. McCullum has been averaging around 40 for the past couple of years.
Williamson might be in the distant future. I don't think we can expect much more than an average of around 35 for Guptill, tops.
Half the batsmen will fail almost every team innings. But with us it seems that there is some days where it is just an absolute train wreck. It's hard to draw on too many other examples of this happening to other sporting teams around the world.
The reality is that if there were four batsmen averaging 40+, then it would be New Zealand's greatest batting lineup. Taylor at 4 and Ryder at 5 should be the backbone of the batting order, and I'd be perfectly happy for the others to average between 30-39 around them.
This lot are pretty good at getting to 40 and out tbf. They take the averaging 40 thing seriously.
Guptill is a master of it in ODIs.
Averaging 40 is so 1990s though.
Proud member of the Twenty20 is boring society
E-Mail - email@example.com
MSN - firstname.lastname@example.org
Probably due a couple of deliveries with his name on them early in the next test though, as openers are liable to get. That's what happened second test vs India after innings in the first that were very similar to this one.
I used to defend him, but idgaf anymore. He's our Twatto minus the ability to bowl. They even suck at slip fielding together. Turner, Dempster, Wright et al might have similar averages but they have a lot more hundreds in the whites, and against some pretty handy bowlers on some interesting home pitches we wheeled out for Hadlee, Collinge, Cowie etc. When they got in, they made the opposition pay. McCullum scores 40 - 60 and <20 in almost every ****ing test match, and combined with Guptill's 20 - 30 we're always 2/90 at absolute best, and usually 2/30.
Williamson and Taylor are de facto openers who come in knowing we have eight wickets left instead of ten. Batting number four for New Zealand is not the same as batting at number four for some other sides, and that's what kills us. The rot starts at the top.
Last edited by Flem274*; 20-11-2012 at 05:05 AM.
The last two do not have career averages of 40 - but a few years ago they were sustaining high averages and as such were consistent.
When we had those 4 together we were better. We weren't amazing but there were situations where we would be 150-5 and make it through to 300 thanks to Dan and Brendon. We were a better batting team.
This team now only has two 40+ batsman and that puts too much pressure on those two and makes the whole team fragile.
Options to get us back to 4 consistent contributors:
1) Dan and Ryder come back into the team and kick ass. I think this is a long shot for both of them. Ryder is capable but mentally he is a recovering alcoholic and is one drink away from having another fiasco. I think Dan's bowling may recover but I think his batting has jumped the shark. Although he was never a superstar at ODI batting he was decent and it exposed him to international bowling and it "got his eye in" - he can't get up to speed as a test specialist as easily on each tour.
2) We send some of our best prospects - (Rutherford and Latham) over to county cricket and try to build some long term solutions.
I actually think Vettori's bowling is gone for good but his batting can recover. There has been nothing to suggest 2011 wasn't anything more than a temporary dip. If he gave away being a serious bowler entirely I think he could return even better than before as a batsman who bowls a bit.
But then I am the resident fanboy of Vettori's batting.
Part of me just knows that Vettori is always going to be one of those annoying batsmen who can only score down the order where the pressure's off and the opposition starts napping because they think they're into the tail. I want him to prove me wrong, but that's how I reckon it's going to play out, his technique is great for cashing in on poor deliveries but I don't reckon there's much substance there when he comes up against fired up bowlers hitting the spot consistently.
Exit pursuing a beerOriginally Posted by Jimmy Neesham
Anyway I'll put my money where my mouth is and suggest a side for traditional home conditions.
van Wyk (wk)
Our only strength is the depth and quality of our seam bowling so we need to make full use of it. I've mentioned elsewhere I wouldn't mind Dean Brownlie attempting to open since he's such a good player of pace and he would avoid starting his innings against spin. For the opening spots I'm pretty meh on who they pick because the specialists aren't great, McCullum is McCullum and I wouldn't be against some of our middle order blokes reinventing themselves, though I can definitely understand Vettori, Watling and Brownlie attacking Flynn's and Williamson's places in the side listed above, and I won't be holding my breath on their success if they do try to open.
Behind Taylor and Ryder, ever since his return Flynn looks organised and has a technique that will enable him to succeed at test level provided he has the mental fortitude, so I'm starting to get confident for the first time that he will nail his spot in the side and he gets first go at six. I'll probably be eating these words in six months time though because he's from ND and they just don't do batsmen.
If Vettori returns to the side he has to bat in the top six because he is a waste of a bowling spot. Even Jeets has advanced beyond him as a bowler and I never thought I would type that. I hope Jeets' effort wasn't a flash in the pan because he can play a role when the pitch suits if he continues to probe away like he did in the test just gone. Not terrible for someone who averages over 40 in the Plunket Shield. Guns it in County matches though so evidently Wellington should just move all their home matches to England because it seems to turn their players into world beaters.
Looking outside the players we know, only Carl Cachopa has been putting his hand up in a big way (well Sinclair too, but its not gonna happen). He is an organised player and proficient off of the back foot but I'd like to see a video of not just his dismissals but anything that shows him up on a consistent basis, and there's no way Kippax or anyone cbf putting that together. Tom Latham and Hamish Rutherford have had their moments but so did Daniel Flynn before his initial induction into the test side, and Kane Williamson appears to have lost all confidence and he wiped the floor with Plunket Shield bowlers in a fashion not seen since Sinclair debuted, so I think it is fair to say none of the three are a quick fix, even if they become good batsmen.
We've invested nigh on 30 tests into Guptill so we need to make a final call on him soon, and Watling needs his role clarified once and for all so he can put everything he has into it.
It's unfortunate cricket doesn't require two or three wicket keepers instead of openers because then we could ditch the openers and play both Kruger and Watling.
What the hell Rutherford's FC strike rate is 73. Is he an aggressive player?
@Flem - I don't think any of those options will do any worse than Guptil.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)