***Official*** New Zealand in India 2016

[NZTailender]

Craig Cumming, Matthew Bell, Aaron Redmond, Roger Twose, Peter Fulton, Tim McIntosh, Matthew Horne, Craig Spearman, Michael Papps

all terrible opening batsmen

and that's just off the top of my head

edit: and Jamie How

Tim McIntosh was decent, should've played more. Cumming was unlucky at times, looked good on tough tours.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Don't worry kiwaaaaaahs Kane will go big today

he's definitely got the runs, not sure if he'll go big though

 

[Gob]

Love Taylor's fast hands

Itstl

 

[TheJediBrah]

Tim McIntosh was decent, should've played more. Cumming was unlucky at times, looked good on tough tours.

Just saying Guptill is probably in the top 3 or 4 Test openers NZ have had in the last 15 years . . .

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Tim McIntosh was decent

god are we really getting nostalgic about tim ****ing mcintosh

 

[TheJediBrah]

And he has such a perfectly rectangular head

surely that's got to count for something

 

[Shri]

Agreed

No this was more about everyone calling Guptill the worst NZ test player eve. I should have been more clear, I'll cop it.

 

[hendrix]

Everyone jumping on Guptill's back, did you all forget you had a spud called Peter Fulton playing for you?

We've always had spud openers, the difference with Guptill is the length of his career and the moronic optimism that comes from his ODI career - it's almost as if commentators and coaches themselves can't see the very obvious differences in bowling quality between test and ODIs.

 

[NZTailender]

Just saying Guptill is probably in the top 3 or 4 Test openers NZ have had in the last 15 years . . .

Nah

 

[Prince EWS]

Just saying Guptill is probably in the top 3 or 4 Test openers NZ have had in the last 15 years . . .

Richardson, McCullum and Latham were all definitely better. Fleming was better when he had a crack too although I'd agree that he doesn't really count. Vincent was better too IMO although we're in more debatable territory now.

 

[Moss]

Craig Cumming, Matthew Bell, Aaron Redmond, Roger Twose, Peter Fulton, Tim McIntosh, Matthew Horne, Craig Spearman, Michael Papps

all terrible opening batsmen

and that's just off the top of my head

edit: and Jamie How

Wouldnt put Horne in that list. Better player than record suggests.

Good team bowling effort from NZ but still somehow gave away 40 runs too many for what they put in.

 

[Athlai]

Richardson, McCullum and Latham were all definitely better. Fleming was better when he had a crack too although I'd agree that he doesn't really count. Vincent was better too IMO although we're in more debatable territory now.

Haha yeah the comment immediately hurt because it was pretty much spot on.

 

[Prince EWS]

Wouldnt put Horne in that list. Better player than record suggests.

Haha it's funny that every follower of NZ cricket has their own top order batsman or two with rubbish Test records who they'll always defend as being better than the other spuds in the list, and it tends to different exception for each person.

I'll defend Sinclair and Papps; NZT will defend Vincent and McIntosh; you'll defend Horne; Athlai will defend Guptill; Phlegm will defend Ingram; Hurricane will defend How.. etc etc.

EDIT: Apparently Zinzan wants to go into bat for How as well.

 

[Zinzan]

Craig Cumming, Matthew Bell, Aaron Redmond, Roger Twose, Peter Fulton, Tim McIntosh, Matthew Horne, Craig Spearman, Michael Papps

all terrible opening batsmen

and that's just off the top of my head

edit: and Jamie How

Good call, was just thinking of worse openers we had than Guptill.

If all those players had the same privilege of playing 46 tests, I'd say How, Cumming, Horne, Papps & Spearman would have almost certainly averaged more than Guptill's 28.95.

How had some proper talent.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nah

not far off

There's Richardson and Latham, then the rest were either part-time/short-term openers or all about the same as Guptill

That list also shows how good Mark Richardson was compared to the rest. Underrated over the years perhaps.

 

[Athlai]

Good call, was just thinking of worse openers we had than Guptill.

If all those players had the same privilege of playing 46 tests, I'd say How, Cumming, Horne, Papps & Spearman would have almost certainly averaged more than Guptill's 28.95.

How had some proper talent.

You're dreaming

 

[Zinzan]

Haha it's funny that every follower of NZ cricket has their own top order batsman or two with rubbish Test records who they'll always defend as being better than the other spuds in the list, and it tends to different exception for each person.

I'll defend Sinclair and Papps; NZT will defend Vincent and McIntosh; you'll defend Horne; Athlai will defend Guptill; Phlegm will defend Ingram; Hurricane will defend How.. etc etc.

Not sure if you saw much of Matt Horne, but think you'll find the defense is little more universal for him, in a Bruce Edgar sort of way.

 

[hendrix]

Haha it's funny that every follower of NZ cricket has their own top order batsman or two with rubbish Test records who they'll always defend as being better than the other spuds in the list, and it tends to different exception for each person.

I'll defend Sinclair and Papps; NZT will defend Vincent and McIntosh; you'll defend Horne; Athlai will defend Guptill; Phlegm will defend Ingram; Hurricane will defend How.. etc etc.

EDIT: Apparently Zinzan wants to go into bat for How as well.

I liked Flynn

 

[Zinzan]

You're dreaming

Not by much, but if they faced the same opposition as Guptill has, including minnows, I think that lot could have at been in the 29s.

 

[Prince EWS]

I liked Flynn

I suspect it would've been Latham for you as well even if turned out to have a rubbish Test record.

We all envy you for the fact that your guy turned out okay.