***Official*** New Zealand Domestic Season 2015/16

[Kippax]

Raval is quite a nice leaver of the swinging ball, although there's a lot of unco direness in every pack you choose to open of his, also.

 

[hendrix]

that's the exact logic which leads to the revolving door policy of the 00s. Guptill is **** against good bowling, but he's a quality fielder and can score big runs against bowlers who aren't quite the same standard. Raval has shown absolutely nothing in domestic cricket to prove that he'd be anything but a slightly poorer guptill.

Guptill's technique is particularly prone to bullying lower standard bowlers and failing spectacularly against high quality bowlers. He is the absolute definition of this. It's entirely plausible that Raval's technique will offer a more consistent spread. And I'd take that.

I do think it's valuable to have poor attack bullies in your team so I'm not taking that away from Guptill. But I (and many others) prefer someone with a more consistent curve for when we play against teams that are actually good.

 

[Prince EWS]

Raval in Auckland:
2398 runs @ 52.13

Raval out of Auckland:
2070 runs @ 35.04

His home bullying is certainly not exaggerated. I think the latest iteration of Guptill is every bit as capable of doing this sort of thing -- scoring runs on flat tracks against mediocre attacks -- as Raval, and will do so even in Test cricket. When Raval has been asked to step outside this comfort zone he's been average himself. I'd sooner replace Guptill with Brownlie if I had to make a swap.

 

[Prince EWS]

Guptill's technique is particularly prone to bullying lower standard bowlers and failing spectacularly against high quality bowlers. He is the absolute definition of this. It's entirely plausible that Raval's technique will offer a more consistent spread. And I'd take that.

I do think it's valuable to have poor attack bullies in your team so I'm not taking that away from Guptill. But I (and many others) prefer someone with a more consistent curve for when we play against teams that are actually good.

I think this would be a much more compelling argument if Raval's domestic spread was more even. He seems a cash-in-when-it's-easier merchant as well, though, and I think Guptill is probably a better version of this type of player than Raval.

 

[Zinzan]

I think this would be a much more compelling argument if Raval's domestic spread was more even. He seems a cash-in-when-it's-easier merchant as well, though, and I think Guptill is probably a better version of this type of player than Raval.

"Think" & "assume" are the operative words here & there's only one way to find out, give the lad a crack. Of course it would be an entirely different argument if Guptill was actually performing, but he's not. And this whole argument about how good Gup is against weaker attacks isn't actually all that valid, he's actually just 'okay' against them. He's awful against the best attack & just okay vs. the weak ones, which I'm fairly confident would be the same for a few NZ FC batsmen going around the tracks if they were only given a chance.

Then strangely you get someone like a Brownlie, who actually does scores runs against the better attacks, the fact he was pretty much our best test bat in Oz in 2011 & in Africa in 2013 seems to have been forgotten.

 

[Kippax]

Shouldn't give Raval a crack just based on a quick glance at the abacus tbh. Hopkins and Craig Cachopa also hugely distorted their numbers beyond their true ability levels with high 50s average Auckland plundering.

 

[hendrix]

I think this would be a much more compelling argument if Raval's domestic spread was more even. He seems a cash-in-when-it's-easier merchant as well, though, and I think Guptill is probably a better version of this type of player than Raval.

I don't really know much about Raval other than his domestic average and a few Kippax clips, and I have a feeling I knew one of his sisters or cousins briefly. He may well be a cash in merchant, but I really doubt it's to the degree of Guptill. Purely in a qualitative look, I suspect Raval's technique and scoring areas (by no means perfect) are more capable of surviving higher quality bowling. We won't actually know until we give him a decent run, which yes risks losing the known mediocrity of Guptill but that's a risk I'm very happy to take.

There's also the fact that Guptill has a decade of international experience including all the money and coaching that brings, which may or may not confer an advantage.

 

[Zinzan]

Shouldn't give Raval a crack just based on a quick glance at the abacus tbh. Hopkins and Craig Cachopa also hugely distorted their numbers beyond their true ability levels with high 50s average Auckland plundering.

Yes I'd agree ordinarily, but the incumbent in this case is NOT Test quality, so it's not a case of just making change for changes sake. I'm not so attached to Raval specifically anyway, I'd just like us to try someone who might be able to see off the new ball more often that not, & is not just a walking wicket.

 

[Zinzan]

The fact people cite the number of runs Guptill may save in the field really highlights the issue with his batting. He is a fine fielder, but when has ground fielding in test matches ever been used to justify a poor batsmen spot?

 

[Kippax]

Will Young is definitely the comp's makes-50-whenever-it's-harder merchant btw. Despite the annoying lack of play as an opener, when I go over the hours of accrued vault knowledge in my mind, I'd find it a really poor call to have Raval in any Test side that Young isn't.

 

[Zinzan]

Furthermore on the point of fielding value... I can't ever recall anyone arguing Jonty Rhodes's test average of 35 was actually worth 50 since he was such a dynamic fieldsman.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, I think it's a fair enough that some people think it'd be better for the side to have someone who averages 30 by consistently getting starts against everyone than it would be to have someone who averages 30 by hitting home tons against Sri Lanka and snicking off for single figures against better bowling, but in that case Raval really is the last person who should be tried; I think at best he'd just be another Guptill, and both the video analysis and the ground-by-ground statistical analysis back this up. Young, Brownlie or Smith would be better picks if the goal was solid starts against the better new ball attacks.

 

[Zinzan]

I don't really know much about Raval other than his domestic average and a few Kippax clips, and I have a feeling I knew one of his sisters or cousins briefly. He may well be a cash in merchant, but I really doubt it's to the degree of Guptill. Purely in a qualitative look, I suspect Raval's technique and scoring areas (by no means perfect) are more capable of surviving higher quality bowling. We won't actually know until we give him a decent run, which yes risks losing the known mediocrity of Guptill but that's a risk I'm very happy to take.

There's also the fact that Guptill has a decade of international experience including all the money and coaching that brings, which may or may not confer an advantage.

Couldn't agree more, I think rightly or wrongly Gup seems to get a pass based on the fact he's a fine short-form player, a beautiful striker of the ball, a fine fieldsmen & great team man, but none of those score you test runs opening the batting. If it was any other player with that record, they'd have been thrown in the trash heap long ago.

 

[Kippax]

Kuggs is indeed out of tomorrow's PS round. Gibson competing with just Hampton now to get a game.

 

[Kippax]

ND's oppo -

Young (C) Bracewell Bruce Cleaver Dudding Hay APatel Renwick Robinson Small Smith Tickner

 

[Blain]

Nothing wrong with having a grafter in the test side at the top of the order to take the shine off, that's their most important job. I'm thinking Tim McIntosh here, but instead of being a mid 30's averaging domestic opener, a guy with a much healthier record for scoring runs with age still on his side.

Too many times has Williamson been in early (under 5 overs) and having to do Guptill's job for him and blunt the new ball. We lose him early, and we are pretty much guaranteed a sub 300 total.

Alot of people are saying no to Raval opening, but what is the alternative? Keep Gup there? Who do you believe should be partnering Latham. And who is our number 5. I was thinking Watling to 5, Ronchi to keep but he has done nothing in the past year to show he's up to test standard, which is a shame.

 

[hendrix]

At the moment the options for number 5 are probably Anderson and/or Neesham which leaves us extremely light and pretty screwed.

I'm not going to mention the R word.

 

[Athlai]

Raval should not even be in the top 3 blokes that are next in line on the opener merry go round. Before a week or so ago he was having some of the worst form of his entire career. Gets back to Auckland and scores some hundreds and now hes the one who has been so unfairly left out again. It's bollocks.

He scored a double against an attack that had Anaru Kitchen as top wicket taker for Otago and a hundred against a CD attack that I doubt even Phlegm knows who the bowlers actually are (and in a match where a good 1500 runs were scored in 4 days).

Now I don't mean to overly dismiss a guy who is a very handy batsman for his team, and very may well actually read forum posts about himself but he is a long way off being good enough to play for New Zealand.

 

[Dan]

I suppose another argument for Raval vs. Guptill would be how long they last opening. Raval may average the same as Guptill opening in Test cricket, he may have the same distribution of scores across good and bad attacks and conditions, but he's probably going to take more balls to do so.

If I'm, say, choosing between Ed Cowan and Martin Guptill (i.e. two sub-par Test opening batsmen), I'm taking the guy who faces more balls. Cowan faces ~75 balls per innings, Guptill faces ~64 balls per innings. Cut out the 50+ scores (i.e. if you're expecting them to, at best, get a start then get out) and Guptill faces ~35 balls per innings, Cowan faces ~51.

So while both statistically suck in terms of output, IMO Cowan sucks less because he actually sees off the new ball and protects the middle order. Guptill doesn't; he has 20 single-figure scores as an opener, most of them 0s and 1s.

If Raval's capable of leaving the swinging ball alone, then I don't care if he's not a 40-averaging FC batsman who would be Guptill-lite in his ability to only cash in against **** bowlers. If he sees off the new ball and is less likely to leave NZ one down in the third over, nicking to slip with hard hands, he's a better option for opening the batting.

 

[Dan]

Substitute in any other opener for 'Raval' and the principle applies; if you're stuck with **** options, work out which **** option soaks up the most balls.