NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
I'd rather Brownlie over McCullum, tbh.
I'd go with Brownlie as well. I'd go with anyone scoring some good runs in NZ FC right now.I'd rather Brownlie over McCullum, tbh.
I'd rather have someone who stays around longer than McCullum so the other batsmen in the team can bat around him. McCullum comes and then he's gone very quickly. He's adding very little value to the team.Look I know it's not an exceptional record, but McCullum averages over 35 in test cricket and has scored lots of runs at the highest level over a long career.
He's far from a complete batsman and he has mind explosions and he's nowhere near Taylor or Ryder's class, but if we're comfortable with the amount of runs Kane Williamson has scored since his debut (and I know he's going to get better blah blah blah) we must be comfortable with McCullum.
32 as an average over the last little while is poor, but he's a better batsman than Guptill, Brownlie, Latham, Rutherford, Fulton, Redmond, Flynn, Anderson or anyone else pushing for a spot in the team who's name is not Jesse Ryder. Anderson is arguably more valuable because of what he adds as a bowler, but he's in no way a better batsman.
Why is it ridiculous to want Guptill there ahead of him? I truly believe he has the game to be an effective Test #5, and average 40 in that spot. He's five years younger than Brendon, his body is better, he's got a better hunger for it I'd suggest etc. I haven't seen him achieve a single thing at #5 that Gup couldn't. Can anyone see Brendon having a golden period in the next 2-3 years, defying the fact he's regressed in the last 2-3 when his body will continue to make things harder for him etc? Not I.It's very easy to say that but that's not what his record suggests. Look, I'm not saying he's a great batsman but he scored more runs than the "grafters" who were in the team at the same time as him. I'm talking Flynn, Fulton, Redmond etc. Whether he's got there on talent or hard work, I don't know or care.
And I say that as a huge Daniel Flynn fan.
If you ask me to put the team most likely to win test matches on paper there is not a ****ing doubt that McCullum would be on that sheet. He'd not be my first picked batsman, probably my 4th, 5th or even 6th, but he'd absolutely be there.
And yeah, he has played some grafting innings himself as well. It's not his best role but he has put in the effort.
It's pretty ridiculous to want Guptill there ahead of him.
Probably because he played 28 tests against top 8 opposition, and only averaged 24. Tim Southee is only 5-6 points behind that level of performance. He didn't even deserve as many chances as he got in the first place. He's a good ODI batsman, a "hard worker", and a "nice guy" so it's all ok though.Why is it ridiculous to want Guptill there ahead of him? I truly believe he has the game to be an effective Test #5, and average 40 in that spot. He's five years younger than Brendon, his body is better, he's got a better hunger for it I'd suggest etc. I haven't seen him achieve a single thing at #5 that Gup couldn't. Can anyone see Brendon having a golden period in the next 2-3 years, defying the fact he's regressed in the last 2-3 when his body will continue to make things harder for him etc? Not I.
He may have played a couple of grafting innings but he's also played some absolutely atrocious shots, one in Sri Lanka coming to mind and a couple in this series. We wouldn't miss him and I doubt the balance of our side requires a guy at 5 averaging a tick over 30 who doesn't score hundreds, bowl, keep, or offer anything unrivalled as a skipper.
It's great that you truly believe it but there's no justification for it. The man failed to an unprecedented degree. 31 tests FFS. That's two fewer than Matthew Sinclair for an inferior average playing against inferior opponents. The man had a leash longer than Mohammed Ashraful.Why is it ridiculous to want Guptill there ahead of him? I truly believe he has the game to be an effective Test #5, and average 40 in that spot. He's five years younger than Brendon, his body is better, he's got a better hunger for it I'd suggest etc..
Largely irrelevant if I'm considering him for the #5 spot, which I am and where he has averaged 68.60 (I am aware this leans on Bangladesh, but also features a 50 v Australia in a small sample size). I'd suggest that his abilities in the shorter form of the game give some relevance, certainly as does his work ethic which you seem to be taking the P out of it. I couldn't care less how he is as company. Although given he stays out of trouble, he might prove to be a longer-term option than the other #5 being mooted.Probably because he played 28 tests against top 8 opposition, and only averaged 24. Tim Southee is only 5-6 points behind that level of performance. He didn't even deserve as many chances as he got in the first place. He's a good ODI batsman, a "hard worker", and a "nice guy" so it's all ok though.
Agreed he averages 40 in TEST MATCH cricket. Forget about his qualifications at FC level.Ryder is the only other player currently making domestic waves beyond these guys and is someone we'd want in the team even if he wasn't IMO.
It is understood Vettori, who opted out of a New Zealand Cricket contract this year, is not overly keen to return for the India tests on February 6 in Auckland and February 14 in Wellington. If the Heat make the Big Bash playoffs in early February he'd be unavailable anyway, and he also doesn't want to stand in the way of promising test legspinner Ish Sodhi.
Test statistics no longer drive New Zealand's second-highest wicket-taker like they once did, and various injury niggles after years of heavy workloads make test cricket a tough prospect.
It wouldn't surprise if Vettori announced his retirement from tests, was available for the World T20 in Bangladesh in March and set a target of an international hurrah at the World Cup.
It always takes a genuine stage to switch Ryder on tbh, going right back to when he declined A tours on the basis they were just another contrived hoop to jump through, produced sterile cricket with no intensity or followers or atmosphere, and were a waste of everyone's time.I'm very interested to know why 'he's an opener or nothing'. If I see a guy who can average 40 or so at 5, I'll take it thanks very much. Is Jesse a superior option? Why? He's scoring the same amount of runs Gup is. And I'm looking at a very lean trot of runs
See that's the sort of reasoned argument I'd prefer to see. Not 'this average is my basis, I'm ruling him out altogether forever and I won't reconsider' etc.It always takes a genuine stage to switch Ryder on tbh, going right back to when he declined A tours on the basis they were just another contrived hoop to jump through, produced sterile cricket with no intensity or followers or atmosphere, and were a waste of everyone's time.
As for Guptill, his cut shot isn't up to it imo, so I wouldn't take away the straighter and fuller lengths he can pound down the ground by batting him at 5. It was good to see him get the pull shot out again against Bennett last month, but once again, he was undone by a prod well out in front of himself to a poorly read length.
Are the domestic bowlers switched on enough or talented enough to keep probing his weaknesses? Not in my viewing, no. They are cricket brains of the Ian Smith, "oh man, I'm bowling to Martin Guptill. Even my grandma would rate Guptill" ilk.