• 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.

All Right Kiwis, Hand On Heart: Fulton/Rutherford - Do You Believe?

Do you believe?


  • Total voters
    27

Flem274*

123/5
I'm interested to hear what everyone thinks of the first opening partnership to score some damn runs in a series since half of us were born.

Needless to say, both Fulton and Rutherford have exceeded my wildest expectations. You guys might remember I picked Fulton to be dropped by Eden Park in the sweep stake before the first test and I wasn't joking. His technique going into Dunedin was not one to inspire any confidence. He was stepping across with the front foot rather than forward and his back foot was going no where. On top of that, he was defending balls several kilometres outside off stump and his backfoot drives held zero balance.

Amazingly, by Auckland he had massively improved his skill at leaving the ball. I don't think the leaving weakness will ever truly go away because of the positions his footwork put him in but he has improved it. It's also far too late to remedy his technique much: he is 34 years old.

But he scored the runs, and in contrasting fashion in each innings. He trolled the English into bowling on his pads and then in the second innings he went into the middle with no fear and belted them around the park on both sides of the wicket amidst a top order collapse. Humble pie was served for dinner country wide.

Rutherford is a guy who has a loose back foot defense due to his tendency to have a go at anything resembling width. His front foot play and his back foot attack to anything wide is good, but he likes a flirt at balls he shouldn't and England figured this out. But still, he scored a debut hundred and got starts in most of his other innings.

So do you guys think they can form a test standard partnership? I think they can both average 30 - 35 each, and be pretty severe on flat pitches like those served up in this series but fade when the pitch has demons. However I wouldn't be surprised if one of them was dropped after four single digit scores in England. I'm still skeptical.

Is this a false dawn or is the universe being kind to us for once?
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
I hate to say it, but I think Rutherford has serious technical issues that will see him be dropped from the test side before the year is out. I do think he'll be back though.

I would love for Fulton to have a late career renaissance for a couple of years, but I'm a little sceptical...he looked awful in Wellington.
 

jcas0167

International Debutant
Glenn Turner's views, as reported by Mark Reason:

Glenn Turner, New Zealand's greatest opener, calls Fulton "a tough bugger". He also noticed that the opener seemed to have cured the fault of planting his front foot and playing around it. Against England it all came together, although a little long-term faith might have brought much greater rewards earlier in Fulton's career.

When asked what he regarded as the fundamentals of opening, Turner came up with some first principles that any young, aspiring Kiwi batsman might pin on his wall.

Turner said: "You need to be technically proficient, a master of the fundamentals, because you are up against the new ball and the opposition at its freshest. You need to know what 'arousal' levels work best. Some players are sleepy before they go out and need to wake up with a bit of shadow boxing. Others need to calm down. You need to understand who you are.

"Defend first, attack second. You may middle the swinging new ball through the covers for four, but it is too loose a shot for an opener. The main thought is occupation.

"The best openers concentrate on line rather than length. They are not tempted by the wide half-volley or the half-pitcher ... concentrate on playing close to yourself.

"Wait for the ball before committing, then move the feet. Fulton can still move his feet early at times and Rutherford doesn't clear his hip and can get tucked up. But he can also become a very good player if he asks the right questions and is ready to learn and work."
Cricket, Opinion: Peter Fulton Stands Tall With... | Stuff.co.nz
 

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
I'm predicting Fulton plays for 12-18 months on the back of this series and hopefully scores a few runs at home against West Indies later this year. That would be a fairly good result given his age, even if he doesn't score many in England or in Bangladesh.

Agree with Bahnz that Rutherford will probably spend some time out of the side some time in the next couple of years, then hopefully tightens up his game, improves and makes the opening position his own... for ten years. We can dream.
 

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
I have a lot of time for Rutherford and I think he is the real deal.

I will make another post analysing his technique tomorrow when I have given the matter more thought.
 

BackFootPunch

International 12th Man
I believe. I think Fulton wants it so bad he's just gonna find a way to score runs. They won't always be pretty but he'll get them somehow. Definitely the anti-Guptill, as others have said.

Ruds - well I've got a fair bit of first-hand experience of how he can hit a cricket ball and if he doesn't average 35-40 I think it'll be disappointing. Especially now that he seems to have the other aspects of his game sorted out.
 

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
I think Ruthers needs to play his game and play his shots. He made a defensive 20 something in Wellington and then couldn't resist a slightly loose one and got caught. He can't be slightly more circumspect - he just needs to play his game.

If the opposition like England did - refuse to bowl the ball his side of half way then he is going to have to pull and hook to make them pitch it up (after the ten over mark is reached of course)

One inning of authoritative pull shots and teams from around the world will notice and give up on that tactic.

Kudos though to England for shutting him down after his 170.
 

Flametree

International 12th Man
They did get to bat on some fairly friendly wickets against an attack that didn't really fire. I suspect even Guptill would have managed one big innings in the series somewhere, so I'm trying to keep my expectations to reasonable levels. If it's bowler-friendly in England for the return series I have my doubts they'll manage more than one 50 a piece.

Having said that, if Fulton can somehow bottle the attitude he had in that second innings at Auckland... just looked so composed and unruffled, even at 8-3.

Genuinely don't know. Which is nice, the likes of McIntosh and Guptill were depressingly predictable....
 

NZTailender

I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Eeen if Rutherford fails sometime soon it'll have to be a pretty spectacular, Guptill-esque, failure to score runs over 12 innings, and if that happens, who replaces him? Guptill? I'll back Rutherford to scratch out enough runs to be effective in the next year. Partly out of a 'he's young and hungry and wants to play' and 'there's no-one else so lets stick with the debutant hundred maker, as we've done with Kane Williamson despite his inconsistencies' mode of thinking.

19,000 hoiiiiiiiiiiiiii
 
Last edited:

Days of Grace

International Captain
Hand on heart, I'd be happy if they average anything over 30 as an opening partnership and anything over 35 as individual openers.
 

African Monkey

U19 Vice-Captain
A tough ask for them coming up in England but they do deserve a decent run in the side. Hopefully Rutherford can sort out a few problems with the short ball because he does look the goods.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
I don't understand the "anti-Guptill" description of Fulton.

As flawed as his technique is, it's still better than Martin "if you're playing straight, you can't be wrong" Guptill.
 

BackFootPunch

International 12th Man
It's the idea that Guptill looks awesome but scores no runs. He's **** despite having a (seemingly) good technique.

Fulton, on the other hand, looks terrible at times but still finds a way to score runs.
 

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
Well to me Guptill doesn't look awesome and has a terrible technique.
guptil's defensive system is flawed thus he always gets out.

But he has a ***y straight drive - and some other classy shots that give the illusion of a good technique.
 

Top