Terrific last 6 or 7 posts by you kippax. You have my BOTM loyalty to the death next year.
That two minute clip you posted of Devcich (and we need a nickname for him by the way - I am open to any suggestions) shows some "interesting" shots. Somehow the tour coach didn't care and recommended him anyway.
Regarding bhanz's team. If milne can play would prefer him to get a go rather than Southee. Better for his development. And he is more likely to be up for the games while Tim may be a bit meh about the whole series (even though we may lose).
as to other untried options, the likes of kitchen belted hundreds in the openers slot, and while hand on heart i couldn't say he's a gun he's a better batsman than devcich. i think bradburn might be the man behind this elevation.
otherwise im mostly happy with the squad. hopefully some one day cricket will encourage rutherford to develop shots all around the wicket so he isn't so easy to cut off in tests.
i agree with mike on watling at five.
my full strength team from that squad would be
wanna see some milne with the white ball and in the whites though, and neesham to get a crack in the odi's.
Everyone was very quick to say that he shouldn't be opening after a few consecutive failures but he did actually play some really good innings for New Zealand in the top order for a little while, right after his visible improvement as a batsman. He had this series in the West Indies as a middle order batman where he looked good but then he went to Sri Lanka where he played this innings and then this innings in a three match series; they were both top knocks. I realise that Sri Lanka's opening bowlers aren't the litmus test for makeshift openers but neither are Bangladesh's.
I'd be looking at this at a full strength top six:
Guptill is injured so even if Watling does open you need another one. From a performance perspective, Devcich is actually as good a pick as any right now. Kippax called him meretricious and while that's a great cricket-forum word and while that's a word that could've been used to describe the guy for most of his career, there actually is some substance there for limited overs cricket. His T20 and List A records are both actually pretty decent particularly when used as an opener, he's backed it up for New Zealand A and in tour games and he can also bowl some darts. The problem with Devcich isn't a lack of performance substance; it's the technique and the temperament. I don't think it's a case of the selectors thinking they know better than the game itself and have picked a rough diamond; it's legitimately justifiable based on performance. I definitely wouldn't have picked him but the fact that I probably would've picked Papps says all you need to know about how good the rest of the options are.
this is going to be a stream of consciousness post as I cbf to structure it.
I agree with munro being picked. I like in odis that he doesn't **** around. He knows he is a dirty slogger and he just gets on with it. I have been sold on him since his 50 in SA - I just wish he could learn to bowl cutters or swing it so he can be good for 4 overs a game. I have always coveted his bowling action.
If elliot dogs it I wouldn't mind baz going to 5 and munro going to 6. In no way take this an endorsement for him in tests where I would rather debut myself at 40 years old than give him a 2nd run.
The other player that I am chuffed with the selection of is Anderson and I also hope he gets a go ahead of Elliot.
2) latham (because he isn't devcich) and keeper
3) williamson (his future is to open with two white balls but latham can't bat three so that will have to wait)
4) Our only batsman
9) Mills (he has become a great servant of NZ cricket)
10) Milne (promotion to 10 after some gun domestic knocks)
Quite a Few M's in that bowling line up.
Munro and Kane to be 6th and 7th bowlers.
I realise that Elliot should be in there but my team is built with building for the next world cup in mind.
Latham ahead of Devcich for the opener's spot, IMO. Especially if Watling is playing and Latham ain't keeping.
My order would be:
Watling is not in the squad - so won't be playing you know that right? Unless you know something I don't.
^it was in response to PEWS full strength top 6, but I suppose he's looking from the selectors' point of view.
Cricket: Revolving door continues for Black Caps... | Stuff.co.nz
McCullum, whose dodgy back and knees restrict his keeping these days, confirmed to coach Mike Hesson he will keep wicket in the ODIs and T20s, with Tom Latham his backup.
Ronchi clearly needs to return to the middle order in limited overs cricket, and Edgar said he'd probably do that for the rest of the NZA tour to try to force his way back in.
"Luke is still in the frame as a very good keeper. We'd like a few more runs from him, obviously, but he's thereabouts."
Central Districts quick Milne played two ODIs in Sri Lanka last year but has struggled to stay on the park. He returned from an England winter in solid shape and bowling at a good clip for NZA, Edgar said, and provides another genuine strike option. Trent Boult is being saved for test cricket, for now.
Asked if Devcich was well equipped to open at international level, selector and former opener Bruce Edgar said: "We don't know that yet but we have a lot of confidence in him based on what he's done to date.
"He's played a lot of cricket and he's got a good head on him. He's found his game now in the sense of moving from bits and pieces player in the middle to someone who can bat at the top and bat quite aggressively and well. He's also a good player of spin bowling."
That's Christopher Mary Kugs?
Still not following, is he on A tour? As a spectator/parent? Or part of ND conspiracy ..,,,
Sometimes you are extremely obscure ...
Haha yep, just showing you how they all roll.
I had a meeting with a senior adviser to
BushDavid White. He expressed the White House’s displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn’t fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidencyDevcich selection.
The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, [now?] and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Hesson = Dick Cheney?
Otago = Halliburton?
Other comment is that I'm wary of encouraging the biffer tendencies in Anderson and perhaps Neesham too, by batting either of them at 7. If Anderson plays I wouldn't mind him at 5 instead (though I know that won't happen). Get him to do some accumulating against spin before the biff begins.