***Official*** England in New Zealand series 2013

[NZTailender]

Originally Posted by Bahnz

In every way. Inconsistent line and length, little pace (generally hovering around 130), inconsistent swing, zero reverse swing etc etc. Should never play for NZ again.

Wagner's failure also does a bit of damage to the 'select 4 seamers' argument. There's no way he's a better bowling option than Vettori (he's not even more likely to take wickets than DV). Given that Martin has declined into a medium pacer, and Gillespie is perpetually injured, who else is there banging on the door for the 4th seamer's role? Milne can't stay on the park for more than a couple of games in a row, Arnel is completely toothless at test level...unless you're prepared to give someone like Ian Butler a chance, the cupboard is pretty bare.

Mitch, or Hamish Bennett when he's fit.

[NZTailender]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

Terrible starter though.

Agreed. At the start seemed like he didn't move his feet much - and he doesn't overall - but certainly looks better once in. Actually look his footwork later on; minimal but enough. Bit unconvincing vs the spin there, though. Punishes the bad balls but not great vs the rest.

I wouldn't be upset if he played Tests for us, though. Scaly's words have basis.

[hendrix]

Originally Posted by Bahnz

In every way. Inconsistent line and length, little pace (generally hovering around 130), inconsistent swing, zero reverse swing etc etc. Should never play for NZ again.

I feel sorry for the guy, but +1 to this.

Originally Posted by Bahnz

Wagner's failure also does a bit of damage to the 'select 4 seamers' argument. There's no way he's a better bowling option than Vettori (he's not even more likely to take wickets than DV). Given that Martin has declined into a medium pacer, and Gillespie is perpetually injured, who else is there banging on the door for the 4th seamer's role? Milne can't stay on the park for more than a couple of games in a row, Arnel is completely toothless at test level...unless you're prepared to give someone like Ian Butler a chance, the cupboard is pretty bare.

McCleneghan?

Honestly, I didn't think Martin was that bad.

Hopefully when we get Neesham or Anderson in the team we'll have a genuine seaming allrounder so we can pick a spinner.

[Bahnz]

Originally Posted by NZTailender

Mitch, or Hamish Bennett when he's fit.

I'd like Mitch to have more than 1/2 of a decent season in plunket shield under his belt before getting picked for the test side. Who knows when Bennett will get back on the park.

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by NZTailender

Agreed. At the start seemed like he didn't move his feet much - and he doesn't overall - but certainly looks better once in. Actually look his footwork later on; minimal but enough. Bit unconvincing vs the spin there, though. Punishes the bad balls but not great vs the rest.

I wouldn't be upset if he played Tests for us, though. Scaly's words have basis.

Think after about 50 ING games, he'd made something like 18 ducks.

[Kippax]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

btw on a sidenote i missed the majority of the last test apart from some memorable moments like watching that final lollapse at the pub, but in what way was Wagner bad? The thread was grim reading tstl.

Catchup Catalogue Page

T2 D2. Should see at least a little bit of Elgar vs. Wagner there.

[Mike5181]

Originally Posted by Daemon

Not enough emphasis on the poor bowling. We all knew the batting was ****, but the pace bowling had been looking so promising for the last 2 years. Were seriously toothless in decent conditions.

We rely heavily on Southee. He's our best bowler, and our second best Trent Boult bowls better with him in the team as well. Bracewell's been average for ages, and whatever spinner we select will still be ordinary. It's really up to players like Matt Henry, Adam Milne, Ben Wheeler, Bevan Small to first of all stay fit, and then continue performing well in the Plunket Shield. There's talent there to have a decent attack at test level in a couple of years. I'm not sure where we go for a spinner though. I've seen a little bit of Sodhi, but I'm not sure what everyone thinks of him.

[Bahnz]

Originally Posted by NZTailender

I wouldn't be upset if he played Tests for us, though. Scaly's words have basis.

So do Phlegm's though. Ok, a good part of his opinion is based on

a) An irrational hatred of Ronchi; and
b) A faulty assumption that Ryder will be back.

But if he's correct in the later of those, then NZ's middle order will look like this:

4. Taylor
5. Brownlie
6. Ryder
7. Watling

Taylor and Ryder are absolute locks for 4 and 6 respectively. Scaly is being unnecessarily dismissive of Brownlie and Watling. They weren't just the best of a bad bunch. Their failures in 45ao-gate were the most forgiveable - both got unplayable deliveries from Philander that leaped off a good length on the line of off stump and jagged away. They both averaged 40+ against the best fast bowling attack in the world. Their efforts legitimately demand reselection for the England series. Watling's keeping isn't the flashest, but it's hardly like New Zealand have a top quality spin bowler whose presence requires a high class keeper. So unless you decide to drop Williamson and move everyone up by one position there's not really a place for Ronchi at this stage. Watling could yet come undone, but his efforts in SA and his performances in ODI's in 2012 should've secured his position in the side until at least the conclusion of New Zealand's tour of England.

If Ryder isn't available, I would be tempted to bat Ronchi at 7, relieve BJ of the keeping duties and tell him to focus on making runs at 6. Still, even that's tricky, as that would leave NZ worryingly light on 5th bowling options. He'd need to keep piling on the runs in domestic cricket for the pro's to outweigh the con's.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Bahnz

So do Phlegm's though. I think his opinion is based on

a) An irrational hatred of Ronchi; and
b) A faulty assumption that Ryder will be back.

But if he's correct in the later of those, then NZ's middle order will look like this:

4. Taylor
5. Brownlie
6. Ryder
7. Watling

Taylor and Ryder are absolute locks for 4 and 6 respectively. Scaly is being unnecessarily dismissive of Brownlie and Watling. They weren't just the best of a bad bunch. Their failures in 45ao-gate were the most forgiveable - both got unplayable deliveries from Philander that leaped off a good length on the line of off stump and jagged away. They both averaged 40+ against the best fast bowling attack in the world. Their efforts legitimately demand reselection for the England series. Watling's keeping isn't the flashest, but it's hardly like New Zealand have a top quality spin bowler whose presence requires a high class keeper. So unless you decide to drop Williamson and move everyone up by one position there's not really a place for Ronchi at this stage. Watling could yet come undone, but his efforts in SA and his performances in ODI's in 2012 should've secured his position in the side until at least the conclusion of New Zealand's tour of England.

If Ryder isn't available, I would be tempted to bat Ronchi at 7, relieve BJ of the keeping duties and tell him to focus on making runs at 6. Still, even that's tricky, as that would leave NZ worryingly light on 5th bowling options. He'd need to keep piling on the runs in domestic cricket for the pro's to outweigh the con's.

Yeah I would pick Ronchi if Ryder wasn't available, but I'd probably not do it if he was. It's really tempting to make Watling open again but unless he actually came out and said he was keen on it, it'd be so unbelievably harsh to make him go and do it.

[wellAlbidarned]

Originally Posted by Bahnz

In every way. Inconsistent line and length, little pace (generally hovering around 130), inconsistent swing, zero reverse swing etc etc. Should never play for NZ again.

Wagner's failure also does a bit of damage to the 'select 4 seamers' argument. There's no way he's a better bowling option than Vettori (he's not even more likely to take wickets than DV). Given that Martin has declined into a medium pacer, and Gillespie is perpetually injured, who else is there banging on the door for the 4th seamer's role? Milne can't stay on the park for more than a couple of games in a row, Arnel is completely toothless at test level...unless you're prepared to give someone like Ian Butler a chance, the cupboard is pretty bare.

Personally, it perfectly reinforces the 4 seamers argument. If you play a fringe or unknown guy as a fourth seamer then it really doesn't matter nearly as much if he goes missing for a day like all of our bowlers are prone to because there's a safety net of three other bowlers. It's far more worthwhile sticking in a bloke like McCleneghan than a guy like Flynn. If he sucks? Nothing much lost because our fringe batsmen suck too. If he's on fire? Brilliant, we may just win something.

[Kippax]

Haha yeah, I've always thought a bit along those lines. The old non-counting score policy tends to dapple the light the way a Kiwi likes it, and because a bad ball doesn't have the finality risk of a bad shot, it should more reliably enhance our XI than a batsman. Take the edge off and you should get them chipping in with 3-3-2-2 hauls at everyday low prices.

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by Bahnz

In every way. Inconsistent line and length, little pace (generally hovering around 130), inconsistent swing, zero reverse swing etc etc. Should never play for NZ again.

But we were all being told how wonderful he was for four years.

Wheeeeelerrrrrr

[Flem274*]

One final word on the Ronchi thing: I'm not saying he shouldn't make the side because he's a terrible cricketer, I'm saying he doesn't fit because we already have a performing wicketkeeper, Brownlie has made runs, and Taylor and Ryder are (well okay, only likely in Ryder's case) returning. His style of play does not suit being a 3-5 either.

You could shuffle the deck chairs to fit everyone in but that means designating a valuable and scarce resource to open the batting when none of the middle order batsmen, probably Watling included, are cut for opening.

Btw I forgot to ask earlier but Flynn seems to have batted himself out of everyones fan made teams, even as an opener. I know he scored piffle but I take it he got out in numpty ways?

On the topic of Flynn opening, I have a feeling it's going to happen for England but I don't think it will work. He has the defensive technique but his scoring shots are not opener material. Too slashy.

[Hurricane]

*Shuffling the deck chairs* (tm)

[Mike5181]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

One final word on the Ronchi thing: I'm not saying he shouldn't make the side because he's a terrible cricketer, I'm saying he doesn't fit because we already have a performing wicketkeeper, Brownlie has made runs, and Taylor and Ryder are (well okay, only likely in Ryder's case) returning. His style of play does not suit being a 3-5 either.

You could shuffle the deck chairs to fit everyone in but that means designating a valuable and scarce resource to open the batting when none of the middle order batsmen, probably Watling included, are cut for opening.

Btw I forgot to ask earlier but Flynn seems to have batted himself out of everyones fan made teams, even as an opener. I know he scored piffle but I take it he got out in numpty ways?

On the topic of Flynn opening, I have a feeling it's going to happen for England but I don't think it will work. He has the defensive technique but his scoring shots are not opener material. Too slashy.

I'm a big Flynn fan, but I doubt he's going to be involved in this series at all imo. He only averaged five in the series. If he can't outperform Guptill in his preferred middle-order position, then how can they expect him to outperform him as an opener? As much as I hate it, if they are going to replace Guptill, I'd expect them to revert back to someone like Peter Fulton.