Where to for NZ cricket in the next few years?

[Will Scarlet]

I don't know that Ryder should be in the test side either, but his FC average is 44.88. That is terrific by NZ standards. You can't go accusing him of not performing at NZ domestic level.

His form last season wasn't flash though.

And Fulton averages nearly 47 in FC cricket (including tests) but the majority of people still wouldn't have him in the starting line-up. Oh, the madness!

 

[Will Scarlet]

We lost in the semi-final of the champions trophy, the crunch game in the Australian tri-series and the semi-final of the WC. Bracewell your team has failed in the last year of ODI cricket and you still have problems with a third seamer, top order batting (Vincent's & Taylor's injuries didn't help) and death bowling! Time to go buddy!

If Fleming was to play in the test team I would open with him instead of wasting him on a 3/4 spot which would be easier to fill (Styris, Taylor, Vincent & Fulton). The only openers I would feel comfortable with are Papps & Cumming - though I find it difficult to play both of these players at the expense of either Vincent/Taylor or Fulton.

My top six:
Papps
Fleming
Taylor (perhaps Styris or Fulton)
Styris
Fulton
Oram

Why waste Fulton at #5, below two guys he has a much better FC record than? Styris, other than his big ton against SA, has failed in tests in the top 4, and Taylor only bats at #4 for CD.

 

[The Big Cheese]

If Fleming was to play in the test team I would open with him instead of wasting him on a 3/4 spot which would be easier to fill (Styris, Taylor, Vincent & Fulton). The only openers I would feel comfortable with are Papps & Cumming - though I find it difficult to play both of these players at the expense of either Vincent/Taylor or Fulton.

My top six:
Papps
Fleming
Taylor (perhaps Styris or Fulton)
Styris
Fulton
Oram

Fleming is not an opener. The reason he opened in tests was because there was absolutely NO other options after richardson left. In the Aus test series, flem was out to mcgrath lbw pretty much every time for a score of <10.
He performed well in the SA test series with a double hundred lets not forget! Everyone seems to want his head, and a contributing factor is his inability to play the sri lanka trio of malinga, vaas, and murali. Our test series next summer are against SA and Eng. Which are two teams that flem has performed very well against in the past.

And Taylor IMO is no where near test selection. Id rather mcmillian or h marshall than him at the moment. My top order:
vincent
papps
fleming
fulton
styris (a marginal selection in tests)
oram etc

 

[thierry henry]

His form last season wasn't flash though.

And Fulton averages nearly 47 in FC cricket (including tests) but the majority of people still wouldn't have him in the starting line-up. Oh, the madness!

I think they would. And he will be.

The point is, everyone started pushing for Fulton's inclusion because of that average. Hardly anyone averages over 40 in NZ domestic cricket, and when someone does they're worth a look.

 

[Will Scarlet]

I think they would. And he will be.

The point is, everyone started pushing for Fulton's inclusion because of that average. Hardly anyone averages over 40 in NZ domestic cricket, and when someone does they're worth a look.

I don't see anyone, other than me, pushing for Sinclair's inclusion - and he's averaged over 40 for many years.

 

[The Big Cheese]

I think they would. And he will be.

The point is, everyone started pushing for Fulton's inclusion because of that average. Hardly anyone averages over 40 in NZ domestic cricket, and when someone does they're worth a look.

Fultons figures are slightly bloated by his not out 300. But nonetheless i agree with you there. He looks to be an oddity in NZ cricket: someone who can consistently score runs. Hes not overly young, but that seems to have counted in his favour already over Taylor who really showed some naivety in the WC. My impression is hes a quick learner. He used to be criticised for his ineptitude at playing the short ball, now hes got one of the most amazing pull shots i have seen. He was thrusted into an opening role in ODIs and basically hit the ground running. From that point, he was the best nz batsman at the WC.

 

[The Big Cheese]

I don't see anyone, other than me, pushing for Sinclair's inclusion - and he's averaged over 40 for many years.

Apart from two magic double hundreds, he has failed at international cricket. I think he's had his chance and has squandered it. Yet another NZ player with considerable talent but a small amount of application or consistency.

 

[Flem274*]

Fultons figures are slightly bloated by his not out 300. But nonetheless i agree with you there. He looks to be an oddity in NZ cricket: someone who can consistently score runs. Hes not overly young, but that seems to have counted in his favour already over Taylor who really showed some naivety in the WC. My impression is hes a quick learner. He used to be criticised for his ineptitude at playing the short ball, now hes got one of the most amazing pull shots i have seen. He was thrusted into an opening role in ODIs and basically hit the ground running. From that point, he was the best nz batsman at the WC.

I'd rate him as 2nd best kiwi after Styris but he is definitely a better No.3 ATM than Taylor. Fulton is more reliable IMO.

 

[Flem274*]

Apart from two magic double hundreds, he has failed at international cricket. I think he's had his chance and has squandered it. Yet another NZ player with considerable talent but a small amount of application or consistency.

Smack bang on the money there.

 

[_Ed_]

Fleming is not an opener. The reason he opened in tests was because there was absolutely NO other options after richardson left. In the Aus test series, flem was out to mcgrath lbw pretty much every time for a score of <10.

True, but he actually opened with Richardson in the England tour of 2004, and I believe he scored a century in that series.

 

[The Big Cheese]

I'd rate him as 2nd best kiwi after Styris but he is definitely a better No.3 ATM than Taylor. Fulton is more reliable IMO.

I don't agree with all the praise Styris is getting. Sure he did well in the WC, but it really is a golden patch of form for him. We all know he does well in the caribean, but what about other areas? In the SA test series recently he scored one 50 in 3 tests...

 

[The Big Cheese]

True, but he actually opened with Richardson in the England tour of 2004, and I believe he scored a century in that series.

And a centurys a big thing for ol' flem! Ha! Whos with me?

 

[_Ed_]

Hard to argue with that.

 

[thierry henry]

I don't see anyone, other than me, pushing for Sinclair's inclusion - and he's averaged over 40 for many years.

Yes, and that's why he made the NZ team!! Anyone who averages 40+ in NZ, plays tests for NZ. That's my point- you can't ask any more of Ryder, he's doing enough to warrant a place in the test side as soon as a spot opens up.

 

[Flem274*]

I don't agree with all the praise Styris is getting. Sure he did well in the WC, but it really is a golden patch of form for him. We all know he does well in the caribean, but what about other areas? In the SA test series recently he scored one 50 in 3 tests...

Fair call there. i beleive we should give him a test spot though ATM. He's performing and until he stops performing he should be used. Same goes for the rest of the batsmen.

 

[Flem274*]

True, but he actually opened with Richardson in the England tour of 2004, and I believe he scored a century in that series.

It was at Tent Bridge IIRC on an evil greentop. 2003-2004 were Fleming's best years IMO. I hope he can turn it on again in the near future.

 

[The Big Cheese]

Just an abstract point here. Vincent always seems to perform exceptionally in bouncy conditions. ie australia and south africa. He was one of the few kiwi batsman who people werent calling for the head of after the ODI series in SA...

I guess what im saying is, what if we had vincent for bouncy, hostile conditions, where he thrives, and styris for slow conditions where he seems to thrive. Kindof like having a different coach for tests and odis. This has a lot more guesswork involved though.

(This whole theory goes to the wastepaper bin if vincent is picked as a test opener, because then both batsmen can play.)

 

[Prince EWS]

Apart from two magic double hundreds, he has failed at international cricket. I think he's had his chance and has squandered it. Yet another NZ player with considerable talent but a small amount of application or consistency.

A lot of that has to do with the fact that he's been stuffed around by selectors by being asked to open regularly despite not being very good at it, and then being dropped from the side totally when he failed there. The amount of premature drops and backflip recalls the man has been given is completely ridiculous. I'm sure he would have been more successful if treated better - really the New Zealand equivalent of Hick, but with less exaggerated technical faults and a bit of Ramprakash-esque selection in the wrong position.

That said, he should certainly be in the test side for mine - or at least in the mix. Papps and Cumming should open - no doubts in my mind. 3 and 4 should be two of Fleming, Fulton and Sinclair - but I reckon Styris will bat 4 anyway (I'd have him at 5 btw). 6-11 picks itself really, apart from the possibily of Mills in there somewhere in he comes back from injury properly.

 

[Prince EWS]

Just an abstract point here. Vincent always seems to perform exceptionally in bouncy conditions. ie australia and south africa. He was one of the few kiwi batsman who people werent calling for the head of after the ODI series in SA...

I guess what im saying is, what if we had vincent for bouncy, hostile conditions, where he thrives, and styris for slow conditions where he seems to thrive. Kindof like having a different coach for tests and odis. This has a lot more guesswork involved though.

(This whole theory goes to the wastepaper bin if vincent is picked as a test opener, because then both batsmen can play.)

That makes perfect sense really, although test selection doesn't seem to work like that. If someone scores lots of runs in a series, they are generally expected to be selected for the following series, even if the conditions are completely different and the selectors know very well that someone else is a better option.

 

[Flem274*]

Just an abstract point here. Vincent always seems to perform exceptionally in bouncy conditions. ie australia and south africa. He was one of the few kiwi batsman who people werent calling for the head of after the ODI series in SA...

I guess what im saying is, what if we had vincent for bouncy, hostile conditions, where he thrives, and styris for slow conditions where he seems to thrive. Kindof like having a different coach for tests and odis. This has a lot more guesswork involved though.

(This whole theory goes to the wastepaper bin if vincent is picked as a test opener, because then both batsmen can play.)

Yup we should definitley use that idea, though knowing our coaches/selectors Fulton and Styris will probably open in tests.