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

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

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]

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]

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*]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

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*]

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]

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

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

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.

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by Kippax

Even Ronchi thinks of himself as merely a good hitter tbf.

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

Is it too much to hope Eden Park wasn't a total road btw?

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

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.

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

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.

[Kippax]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

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

A few sharp stumpings, hasn't struck me as say vintage Parore quality by any stretch.

Ronchi Drop - YouTube

Ronchi Drop #2 - YouTube

[Mike5181]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

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*]

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]

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]

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.