***Official*** South Africa in New Zealand 2017

[Moss]

I would like to see Tim Southee's place in question in all formats please.

He's had a good test summer so far, right? Though of course he's a bit lucky that Henry hasn't kicked on as we might have hoped.

Of course in the other two formats I'd anyway just prefer Milne, McClenaghan, Henry do the bulk of the work and save southee/boult for tests

 

[_Ed_]

Of course in the other two formats I'd anyway just prefer Milne, McClenaghan, Henry do the bulk of the work and save southee/boult for tests

I'm inclined to agree, although Boult was so crazily good last night that it would be a shame not to use him in that format.

 

[SeamUp]

He did not look over aggressive or fast, hopefully that is just him easing in and not a long term issue from his injury.

He looked like he needed game time. On that performance he can't be considered for NZL but will give him 2 or 3 more games to see where he is.

 

[hendrix]

He's had a good test summer so far, right? Though of course he's a bit lucky that Henry hasn't kicked on as we might have hoped.

Of course in the other two formats I'd anyway just prefer Milne, McClenaghan, Henry do the bulk of the work and save southee/boult for tests

The point is he hasn't been consistently test class for a couple of years now. Sure he had a couple of good tests over the summer - he's capable of that, we already know that. But he hasn't been consistently good. Henry has fallen by a bit too but you could also say he's been operating at the same-ish level - not consistently good. So there's little to lose by actually putting pressure on him by getting some other guys in the squad.

If someone is not consistently performing we should be actively looking for a replacement. Asking questions. Can Milne do his job? I don't know. Can Ferguson? I don't know. Can Henry? Can Bennett or one of the older guys?

We need to select one or two of these guys in the test squad. At the very least it puts pressure on Southee.

I want Milne/Ferguson. Probably Ferguson since he seems less likely to be injured. Then we just allrounder it up to cover our bases.

Frankly I can't see us beating the good teams anymore with our bowlers operating the way they are.

 

[banquetbear]

Not really.
- Taylor has always been terrible at international t20s
- it's random, meaningless t20s, why not select some debutants
- other guys have done well domestically in t20s and are more deserving of selection.

He's gun in tests and ODIs. He's **** in t20s. It's just reality.

...with a highest ODI score of 63, an average of 34, an average strike rate of 120 and a total of 1200 runs there is no way that you can characterize Taylor as "terrible" at t20. It simply isn't true. His figures are comparable with the New Zealand Captain: Kane Williamson has a high score of 73, an average of 36, a strike rate of 122 with 1125 runs. And Taylor has better figures than Williamson in domestic Twenty 20. If Taylor is terrible at t20 then so is the captain.

The reality is that Hesson has a history of marginalizing Taylor. And to pretend that this isn't another example of that is spitting in the face of history. If Hesson considered this a meaningless t20: so they were going to stay with the same team and pick a debutant to give him experience in the New Zealand team environment I actually think that Taylor would have accepted that. But that isn't what Taylor was told.

For the players there are no "meaningless t20 games." This is Taylor's job. He misses out on the match fee. His value on the open market diminishes. He can't showcase his skills at the international level and that literally translates to lower future income. Taylor has been loyal to New Zealand cricket in the face of a huge amount of adversity. But he has no reason to be loyal to them any more. He might be "gun" in tests and ODI's: but don't be surprised if he decides to walk away from the New Zealand colours shortly to go look after himself. As he should. That is reality.

 

[Flem274*]

As a massive Taylor fan I don't think he's particularly good at international T20 but if we had a world cup coming up I'd have him in the squad. we play too many big hitting allrounders but I'd be looking at Bruce et al for specialist batting.

Strolls into the ODI and test sides of course.

 

[_Ed_]

Not a wonderful forecast for the Tron today. How's it looking at the moment?

 

[banquetbear]

As a massive Taylor fan I don't think he's particularly good at international T20 but if we had a world cup coming up I'd have him in the squad. we play too many big hitting allrounders but I'd be looking at Bruce et al for specialist batting.

Strolls into the ODI and test sides of course.

..."not particularly good." "Terrible." These aren't objective measures: and when you look purely at the numbers (in comparison to other New Zealand players) then every New Zealand player is not particularly good at t20. Do you think that Kane Williamson is not particularly good at t20 as well?

 

[Mike5181]

After watching Friday's game, yeah, you'd have to have Taylor in the XI. I don't think he was entitled to a spot or an automatic pick before that, though.

That being said, his post-surgery form is really encouraging, and he did say that he may have underestimated the impact his eyesight problems had on him. I think he'd be more likely to perform for us atm than in the past.

 

[_Ed_]

After watching Friday's game, yeah, you'd have to have Taylor in the XI.

You'd think we would make room for him, although the guy he would probably have replaced would be Bruce, who was easily our best bat in that game.

 

[hendrix]

...with a highest ODI score of 63, an average of 34, an average strike rate of 120 and a total of 1200 runs there is no way that you can characterize Taylor as "terrible" at t20. It simply isn't true. His figures are comparable with the New Zealand Captain: Kane Williamson has a high score of 73, an average of 36, a strike rate of 122 with 1125 runs. And Taylor has better figures than Williamson in domestic Twenty 20. If Taylor is terrible at t20 then so is the captain.

The reality is that Hesson has a history of marginalizing Taylor. And to pretend that this isn't another example of that is spitting in the face of history. If Hesson considered this a meaningless t20: so they were going to stay with the same team and pick a debutant to give him experience in the New Zealand team environment I actually think that Taylor would have accepted that. But that isn't what Taylor was told.

For the players there are no "meaningless t20 games." This is Taylor's job. He misses out on the match fee. His value on the open market diminishes. He can't showcase his skills at the international level and that literally translates to lower future income. Taylor has been loyal to New Zealand cricket in the face of a huge amount of adversity. But he has no reason to be loyal to them any more. He might be "gun" in tests and ODI's: but don't be surprised if he decides to walk away from the New Zealand colours shortly to go look after himself. As he should. That is reality.

Williamson's record is influenced by being awful initially, and later figuring out ways of keeping his strike rate up and becoming good, if not spectacular. Taylor's record is pretty much the exact opposite in t20 internationals. Bowlers know where to bowl to him, he hasn't developed any new shots. He's not good.

RE: Taylor's marginalisation. What "history" are you referring to? There's one instance of poor man management, in which Hesson decided to remove Taylor as captain. I'm not going to disagree that it was handled poorly but to suggest that it's marginalisation is not factual. The coach chooses his captain. That's how this works.

If Taylor decides to walk away to "look after himself"? Errr, that's entirely his prerogative. It would be disappointing from an NZ perspective but of course he's entitled to do that, as is every player. Unless I'm mistaken, this isn't conscription.

 

[Zinzan]

Honestly our batting on Friday looked like a bunch of sloggers to me, pretty uncultured wogging.

 

[Zinzan]

...with a highest ODI score of 63, an average of 34, an average strike rate of 120 and a total of 1200 runs there is no way that you can characterize Taylor as "terrible" at t20. It simply isn't true. His figures are comparable with the New Zealand Captain: Kane Williamson has a high score of 73, an average of 36, a strike rate of 122 with 1125 runs. And Taylor has better figures than Williamson in domestic Twenty 20. If Taylor is terrible at t20 then so is the captain.
.

Sorry to rain on your statistical parade there buddy, but not sure where you got those stats... Taylor averages 24 in T20Is, not 34, huge difference.

 

[Zinzan]

Watching the NZ/SA WC semi, still pissed at Taylor for running Guptill out and then getting dismissed himself afterwards in such a crucial game.

 

[NZTailender]

Taylor looked a different T20 player in the SS after his eye surgery; I wouldn't oppose him getting a run in the T20I side - they just need to be consistent where they bat him. Not float him like they've done in the past. But overall, his T20I career has been poor.

 

[straw man]

Metservice says no more rain in Hamilton today but cricinfo says it was still raining steadily half an hour ago.

Too much to hope for 40 overs per side from here?

 

[Zinzan]

Taylor looked a different T20 player i the SS after his eye surgery; I wouldn't oppose him getting a run in the T20I side - they just need to be consistent where they bat him. Not float him like they've done in the past. But overall, his T20I career has been poor.

I think it's a little early to say that isn't it? I mean he's played some good domestic T20 innings, but hasn't he always been able to do that in NZ domestic T20 level?

That said, I'm not against him getting another crack, especially after the hack slogging we saw on Friday.

 

[Zinzan]

Metservice says no more rain in Hamilton today but cricinfo says it was still raining steadily half an hour ago.

Too much to hope for 40 overs per side from here?

Yup, mate texted me from the ground saying it looks 30 over a side at best.

 

[SteveNZ]

You'd think we would make room for him, although the guy he would probably have replaced would be Bruce, who was easily our best bat in that game.

Wouldn't it be Manu? Taylor could/should would bat 3, especially as Hesson said he wasn't a closer - didn't he?

Whoever said it is right, with a World T20 upcoming Ross needs to be there. I know his record is a bit stinky but he will have a point to prove going forward, and you're picking him in form in the other formats.

If there was a World T20 next week, my side would be Gup Kane Ross Corey Neesham *insertkeeperhere* de Grandhomme Santner Boult Sodhi Southee. And I'd be so tempted to drop Southee for Wheeler, but I find it pointless to suggest as it's never going to happen. Bruce unlucky, but I like the extra bowling option in Jimmy (although needs big work and apparently is doing so)

 

[straw man]

Yup, mate texted me from the ground saying it looks 30 over a side at best.

ffs