• 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*** England in New Zealand series 2013

Flem274*

123/5
And how many chances have you given these people who've managed to score runs?

Ronchi has already played some international cricket and given his background he's not going to horribly flawed or a medium pace bully. He'll be decent at least. A blazing ton and three failures is fine at NZ's stage given how bad their batting is.
A whopping four ODIs for one 50 certainly proves this is the case.

He opens or he doesn't play. His style does not suit 3-5 and Brownlie and Watling are better than him and they're going to bat 6 and 7.

Unless you're a true gun like Gilchrist or Sehwag, being one paced is a big flaw in tests, especially in a team like NZ who need a lower order than can bat time.

He's a shoe in for the ODIs though, as bitter as it is to admit.
 

Kippax

Cricketer Of The Year
Even Ronchi thinks of himself as merely a good hitter tbf.

Cricket: Ronchi Ensures Firebirds Get A Move On | Stuff.co.nz

He wasn't going to die wondering yesterday against internationals Michael Bates and Kyle Mills, blasting 21 fours and two sixes.

"That's the way I bat. I'm no good trying to block it or leave it. If I start doing things like that, my mind is not where it needs to be.

"Any hundred's a good one for me and I'm pretty chuffed."
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
I'd play Williamson, Taylor, Ryder, Brownlie and Watling all ahead of Ronchi in the middle order.
McCullum possibly too.

If Ronchi wants in he needs to open or get the gloves off Watling. Has done nothing to push his way past the aforementioned players.
 

Flem274*

123/5
That's like saying England should have only picked guys who can outscore Hick or Ramprakash. It's a nonsense.
Yeah, but the selectors who made those picks watched those batsmen play in the county comp and Ronchi is no Ramps because Ramps was a batsman. Ronchi is your typical modern day aggressive wicketkeeper batsman suited for 6 or 7 only. He doesn't fit. Watling may not be as destructive but he has a defensive technique, can bat time, and can go on the attack. He's simply a better batsman and good with the gloves to boot.
 

Flem274*

123/5
Ronchi opening isn't the most far fetched idea ever considering how desperate we are either tbf.

Completely yuck, but putting aside the yuck it's a reasonable call. Might get Williamson in at 40/1 off three overs instead of 10/1 off three.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Has Ronchi been ordinary with the gloves over there? Don't think there was too many complaints about his glove work over here.
 

Flem274*

123/5
Has Ronchi been ordinary with the gloves over there? Don't think there was too many complaints about his glove work over here.
Been a few drops talked about, but then on the flipside he has his backers.

I don't have an issue with his glovework and I haven't seen enough to compare it to Watling. Watling has been tidy though, so I'd be surprised if there was enough in the gloves to separate the pair there.
 
Last edited:

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
A whopping four ODIs for one 50 certainly proves this is the case.

He opens or he doesn't play. His style does not suit 3-5 and Brownlie and Watling are better than him and they're going to bat 6 and 7.

Unless you're a true gun like Gilchrist or Sehwag, being one paced is a big flaw in tests, especially in a team like NZ who need a lower order than can bat time.

He's a shoe in for the ODIs though, as bitter as it is to admit.
So Brownlie and Watling go from 4 and 6 in the last match to MUST PLAY AT 6 AND 7 ABOVE ALL ELSE. So you're basically excluding someone who might be competent when you have a batting lineup full of incompetents who didn't even bat in the holy grail positions whch now have the reserve sign painted in?

NZ seem to have this idea that if they find the magic position that it means they'll suddenly perform like a competent Test batsman. So they juggle people around, devoid of any reasoning, ignoring the fact that you actually need to pick a competent Test batsman in the first place.

When NZ have Doug 'averages 10' Bracewell at 8 do they really want someone who can bat time and end up 15 not out off 40 balls? Southee is not exactly going to help with the whole grinding out partnerships thing is he when he returns?

NZ need to somehow make 250-300 in conditions where their seamers can knock the other team over for 200. Ronchi is actually perfect for NZ's dynamics. A random blazing 100 will turn the usual 70-5 scoreline into something competitive. Same as Taylor almost single-handedly carried the batting to win against Sri Lanka.
 
Last edited:

Flem274*

123/5
So Brownlie and Watling go from 4 and 6 in the last match to MUST PLAY AT 6 AND 7 ABOVE ALL ELSE. So you're basically excluding someone who might be competent when you have a batting lineup full of incompetents who didn't even bat in the holy grail positions whch now have the reserve sign painted in?

NZ seem to have this idea that if they find the magic position that it means they'll suddenly perform like a competent Test batsman. So they juggle people around, devoid of any reasoning, ignoring the fact that you actually need to pick a competent Test batsman in the first place.

When NZ have Doug 'averages 10' Bracewell at 8 do they really want someone who can bat time and end up 15 not out off 40 balls? Southee is not exactly going to help with the whole grinding out partnerships thing is he?

NZ need to somehow make 250-300 in conditions where their seamers can knock the other team over for 200. Ronchi is actually perfect for NZ's dynamics. A random blazing 100 will turn the usual 70-5 scoreline into something competitive. Same as Taylor almost single-handedly carried the batting to win against Sri Lanka.
Williamson, Taylor, Ryder, Brownlie, Watling, Vettori..thats the 3-8 for England all but confirmed if Vettori is fit since the word seems to be Ryder is coming back. There's talk of McCullum going into the middle order to boot, so that's some serious congestion of batsmen who are all better than Ronchi.

Who makes way for the Plunket Shield number 7?

Ronchi bats below Luke Woodcock and Grant Elliott for Wellington ffs. That's how highly he's rated as a proper batsman. He replaces Guptill as an opener or he doesn't play. It's unfortunate all our limited resources consist of middle order batsmen and wicketkeepers but that's the hand we've got to work with. Maybe Ronchi can go from being a 10 of clubs to the joker if he opens.
 
Last edited:

Mike5181

International Captain
Been a few drops talked about, but then on the flipside he has his backers.

I don't have an issue with his glovework and I haven't seen enough to compare it to Watling. Watling has been tidy though, so I'd be surprised if there was enough in the gloves to separate the pair there.
I wouldn't call Watling's keeping tidy tbf. He was pretty messy in that last test. I'm not entirely convinced by Ronchi at this stage, but everyone seems to be convinced he's the best with the gloves in the country. It's all irrelevant anyway, as it looks like Ryder may be available for the test series if that meeting goes well, and that would stop any chance of a Watling/Ronchi combo at 6/7. That was the only way Ronchi was going to be included, especially when you consider Hesson already ruled out Watling as an opener.




.
 

Flem274*

123/5
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.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I reckon Ronchi would be a better option than Watling but would still pick Watling at this stage. Incumbency is funny like that.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
I know Watling has been stuffed around a fair bit already, and it's probably more a timing issue now that he's starting to get settled, and I can understand why the status quo probably should be kept...

But, if I was picking the NZ side with a clean slate, Watling has history as an opening batsman, should feel somewhat confident at Test level, and you're alternative keeping option is better than your alternative opening options, especially if McCullum is moving down the order.
 

BeeGee

International Captain
New Zealand would be crazy not to play Ronchi in at least short form cricket. Crazy.
Ronchi became eligible for New Zealand on January 13, having been born in Dannevirke but having to sit out four years since his Australian appearances. His fans will have to wait.

Hesson rated Watling's wicketkeeping highly, knows he's working on improving aspects of his glovework.

''His keeping is going nicely. He's done everything that's been asked of him," Hesson said.

That's bad news for Ronchi's backers as McCullum has a lock on the two limited-overs versions of the game.

''Luke's a very good wicketkeeper and from a batting point of view has performed well in the long form. Luke's asking us good questions.

''He'll be involved in New Zealand XI games against England and that'll be a really good opportunity for us to gauge where he's at."
His fate's in his own hands.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Is it weird that I'm actually much, much, much angrier about McCullum moving down the order than I was of Taylor being stripped of captaincy at the most ridiculous possible moment, leading him to withdraw from the hardest tour in the world at the moment and be replaced by a combination of James Franklin and Colin Munro?

McCullum moving down the order is just, so, soooo stupid. A lot of what Hesson has said and indeed the posts in this thread from some members remind me of Athlai's post about what the SA commentators were essentially suggesting - that every single player should bat 4-6 except Watling. Shuffling the deckchairs doesn't solve anything and, FFS, you can't just bat every **** in the middle order. Yes, it's probably easier to bat 4-6 for most players, especially in South African conditions for example, but that doesn't mean your best 8 batsmen should all be fighting over three or four spots and you nominate three designated shunts to average 20 in the top order while quality players miss out. People keep referencing the Bracewell era in which he employed fringe middle order options as openers unsuccessfully, and yes it was a bit dire at times, but since then numerous coaches have employed "genuine" openers from the country and you know what? That's been equally unsuccessful. New Zealand just aren't producing players that are suited to bat in the top three at Test level, and the solution lies in technical development at both grass roots and professional levels, not in looking for the magic selection combination.

McCullum has comfortably been New Zealand's best opener since Richardson. His performances with the bat as an opener have been better than what they were when he batted in the middle order, and that's without even taking into account how much more a top order player is worth to New Zealand at the moment than someone who can bat four or five. Moreover, in recent times he's actually seen out the new ball with ease and then got out to stupid shots against left arm spinners - how exactly is moving him further down the order meant to fix that? People have this weird idea in their heads that McCullum is actually a massive gun and should be averaging 45+, which is dangerous because it means they'll try anything and everything to try and make it happen. Fact is, he's not that good - he's not underperforming, being used in the wrong role or anything like that, he just is what he is. He's a decent batsman, definitely one of New Zealand's best six currently, but he's little more than that and if he can average 30-40 as an opener at the moment that's absolutely fantastic from a New Zealand perspective given how bad the top order depth in the country is

Shuffling decent players out of the side in order to have the chosen ones in the roles they think they might like to play this week in a false quest for true greatness and propping up the top order with absolute prank cricketers is not the answer. If New Zealand want to improve their batting lineup, the first step should be getting all their best batsmen available and in the side, and the second step should be working on the actual practicalities of batting. There's no magic batting order that is suddenly going to transform this team without technical work and improved management. Forcing all the best batsmen in the country into a massive dog fight for three spots and giving the other three spots to ****s who aren't actually deemed good enough for the much coveted "he should bat in the middle order" praise is only going to make things worse.
 
Last edited:

BeeGee

International Captain
rant, rant, rant
AWTA

Some mildly interesting pointless stats...

Since 2000...

Opening the batting (1-2)

MH Richardson 44.67
BB McCullum 35.77
SP Fleming 33.30
MS Sinclair 33.0
MD Bell 31.75
L Vincent 29.14
TG McIntosh 28.46
MJ Guptill 26.53
CD Cumming 25.94
JAH Marshall 23.71
JM How 23.36
BJ Watling 23.11
AJ Redmond 23.00
DR Flynn 22.00
MHW Papps 18.53
MJ Horne 16.75
PG Fulton 16.25
HJH Marshall 13.80
RJ Nicol 7.00 :laugh:


Middle order (4-7)

BB McCullum 34.63
 

Cabinet96

Global Moderator
Agree with the PEWS rant. Seems pretty stupid to want to move your best opener into the middle order, when you're struggling, with him as it is, to get a decent second opener.
 

Top