*Official* New Zealand in India 2010

[Bahnz]

Williamson bowled 8 overs yesterday. It would be pretty easy to get 15 out of him and Ryder, and maybe even pick up a wicket. Throw in 25 from Danny, and you have 3 seamers expected to share 50 overs, which should be possible without standards slipping too much. Woeful selection all round in this match.

Hopefully this will act as a wake up call that we can't continue to select Patel. Southee to come in in his place in the next match. If they're desperate to have a quicker option, I'd rather see McKay in for Bennett, as he at least offers a bit of variation and swings it more. Don't think that lineup would win us any games, but it would be better balanced than the current lot.

 

[Shri]

Perfect conditions for Dhoni to get himself an average boosting 100. Raina to score a 50 tomorrow in very quick time, betting on it.

 

[irottev]

Any particular reason why Southee and Tuffey arent playing? Should think they are at least better bets than Bennett

Bennett's in his first game and has bowled alright. Probably not the ideal situation to debut a young bowler. I kind of agree. Someone with experience woulda been better. Patel should never have been in the side.

 

[lockton2skipper]

mckay southee arnell vettori williamson sounds better balanced. cant play martin and arnell in same team. i think mckay's slidier deliveries may prove more effective than bennett's bang it in style on indian wickets. although bennett did ok.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Maybe they strengthened the batting in hope of salvaging draws

I know other people have mentioned the long batting line-up etc. but it's more of an illusion than anything. And for me there's no such thing as "having enough batting".

Skipping past the top 6 you have:

Vettori who would be about average for a Test number 7
Hopkins who's been completely horrible in all international cricket, at 8
Patel who's a rubbish number 10 or decent number 11, at 9
A genuine number 11, at 10
A complete shower at 11

Get 6 wickets and it's almost all over. And getting those 6 wickets isn't going to keep bowlers awake at night. Other than if the pitch is an absolute road NZ aren't going to make an opposing team work that hard to take 20 wickets. The bowling isn't going to produce any miracles, so that's pretty much a recipe for losing on a regular basis.

The batting needs to guts it out, scrap their way to 400+ and give the bowlers a chance. There isn't the quality in the top 6/7 to do that very often without the lower order helping out. In the past 250-6 for NZ, there was still every prospect of 400+. Now they'd be happy to scrape past 300 in such a situation.

 

[Prince EWS]

Vettori's better than average for a 7. He's been averaging 40 odd. Agree with the rest of your post though.

 

[Bahnz]

Meh, I think Patel's record is decent for a number 10. Agree he shouldn't be at 9 though (and for that matter, in the team at all).

 

[Prince EWS]

Meh, I think Patel's record is decent for a number 10. Agree he shouldn't be at 9 though (and for that matter, in the team at all).

Yeah, that too. He has a First Class hundred; he can bat a little bit. A good ten or a mediocre nine.

 

[Athlai]

Jeets is a fine number 10 and hardly the worst number 9 there is today. Can't bowl at the moment though.

Vettori is a very good number 7 and Hopkins is a good number 8. Biggest issue is that 10 and 11 can't score a run between them.

 

[Prince EWS]

Jeets is a fine number 10 and hardly the worst number 9 there is today. Can't bowl at the moment though.

Vettori is a very good number 7 and Hopkins is a good number 8. Biggest issue is that 10 and 11 can't score a run between them.

Well you didn't actually mention either of the two biggest issues - the top three and the bowling.

 

[Athlai]

Well you didn't actually mention either of the two biggest issues - the top three and the bowling.

Wasn't exactly what we were talking about though was it?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Of course Vettori averages 40+ if you pick the right stats. Most number 7s would be the same.

If you look at the other number 7s knocking about is Vettori seriously better than most of them? I don't think you can say that.

Oh and domestic records don't matter. Hopkins & Patel are crap international batsman. Patel averaging high 12s is merely competent tailender territory.

 

[_Ed_]

But good chance for Kane to score his debut century here.

I don't have high hopes - he always seems to do badly in his first game in any given format.

The second Test might be more his go.

 

[Halfpast_Yellow]

mckay southee arnell vettori williamson sounds better balanced. cant play martin and arnell in same team. i think mckay's slidier deliveries may prove more effective than bennett's bang it in style on indian wickets. although bennett did ok.

I totally agree this would probably be just about the best attack we could put out on the field at the moment.

There is something wrong with the selectors though when we can't put players like Patel and Martin out to pasture. Hindsight is great but almost everyone knew those two would be struggling if picked in this test.

Maybe it is a problem with Vettori being a selector?

 

[Polo23]

As predicted, Hopkins keeping was crap up to the stumps, Martin was close to useless and Patel was fodder (not helped by Hopkins inability to catch).

Watling should be keeping for mine, he's a better keeper than Hopkins and clearly a better batsman.

 

[Athlai]

Of course Vettori averages 40+ if you pick the right stats. Most number 7s would be the same.

If you look at the other number 7s knocking about is Vettori seriously better than most of them? I don't think you can say that.

Wot?

Vettori has averaged 35+ every year (besides this one so far at 30.50) since 2005. Beyond all stats picking the guy physically transformed himself into an allrounder over the course of his career and to not acknowledge his overall average includes him as a genuine bowler and not to regard his career average since he actually became a genuine batsman is ridiculous.

The guy has averaged over 40 since 2003. It's hardly a small sample size.

The best part is Vettori has only really batted at 6 or 8 he hasn't batted at 7 at all really.

 

[Flem274*]

As predicted, Hopkins keeping was crap up to the stumps, Martin was close to useless and Patel was fodder (not helped by Hopkins inability to catch).

Watling should be keeping for mine, he's a better keeper than Hopkins and clearly a better batsman.

lol

 

[Prince EWS]

Of course Vettori averages 40+ if you pick the right stats. Most number 7s would be the same.

If you look at the other number 7s knocking about is Vettori seriously better than most of them? I don't think you can say that.

Oh and domestic records don't matter. Hopkins & Patel are crap international batsman. Patel averaging high 12s is merely competent tailender territory.

Nah.

In the last four years, which is definitely a long enough sample size, Vettori averages 42.46. It's 41.18 if you take out Bangladesh. That's not "picking the right stats" - that's just looking at how good a batsman he is now.

The average number seven in that time averages 33.22. When you remove Bangladesh it's 33.08. Vettori's definitely a fair bit better than average for his position.

 

[Athlai]

oh and domestic records don't matter.

 

[Flem274*]

Wot?

Vettori has averaged 35+ every year (besides this one so far at 30.50) since 2005. Beyond all stats picking the guy physically transformed himself into an allrounder over the course of his career and to not acknowledge his overall average includes him as a genuine bowler and not to regard his career average since he actually became a genuine batsman is ridiculous.

The guy has averaged over 40 since 2003. It's hardly a small sample size.

The best part is Vettori has only really batted at 6 or 8 he hasn't batted at 7 at all really.

He's going to remove Bangladesh from the equation.

Still doesn't change that Vettori is a decent batsman in his own right these days though. Centuries against a very good Pakistan bowling unit and against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka spring to mind immediately.