Where to for NZ cricket in the next few years?

[Flem274*]

While on tour of SA the players took a tour to a diamond mine and some diamonds "went missing" apparently. Parore was prime suspect. There are rumours it was settled behind the scenes by management and he was made to return them, but that is just rumour and someone else here might have a more correct version of events, I don't know.

I read about that in his book, he didn't say he was a suspect though....

 

[Fiery]

Experimentation is fine in certain circumstances. Its also a lot easier with bowlers than batsman. If the bowling line-up isn't firing, then a part timer can often find success, I just fail to see what there is to gain by bringing a bowler into a batsman's position under normal (non-nigh****chman) circumstances. It would piss me off no end of one of my team's bowlers came in ahead of me to bat. With bowlers, its a bit different because if the bowlers haven't taken a wicket then they become tired and then there is a place for part timers and experimentation, but this won't be the case with batsmen, in fact, quite often the bowler being promoted to #3 would have shouldered a heavy workload before having to bat. As I say, I just can't see what there is to gain. If Mills had scored some runs, I really can't see that it would have suddenly meant that he would have become a batting all-rounder.



I couldn't possibly comment on that

He batted around 5 earlier in his career for Auckland and had an average around 40 for a long time so he was a genuine allrounder then. Since making the national side he has been forced down the order and made to concentrate mainly on his bowling but he's definitely no mug with the bat

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

He batted around 5 earlier in his career for Auckland and had an average around 40 for a long time so he was a genuine allrounder then. Since making the national side he has been forced down the order and made to concentrate mainly on his bowling but he's definitely no mug with the bat

I never said that he was a mug with the bat, its unfortunate for him that people like Vettori and Franklin are in the same team and they all compete for the same #7 batting position.

Also, there is a significant difference between Club - First Class - International cricket.

Devon Malcolm was once recognised as the world's worst batsman. I heard that after moving down to the minor counties he scored a hundred! Hence, there's a difference between Auckland and NZ - obviously.

My real problem with the 'experiment' was that it made a complete mockery of the test match being played and it betrayed the lack of confidence that Bracewell had in the batsmen being able to do the job they were there to do! Maybe if the Marshall twins had both been playing, he wouldn't have seen fit to tinker with the batting order. I'm not making any complaints about Mills!!

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Hmm I think if they score runs down the order like Franklin then they could get a go up the order. I wouldn't have a problem with Franklin batting at 5 or 6 as an experiment for example.

I suppose we do have the luxury of being able to field a full eleven of all rounders.

Styris, Franklin, Vettori, Mills, Oram, McCullum, Southee, Hiini, Elliott, Scott, Redmond.... I'm sure one of them can keep as well!!

 

[Perm]

I suppose we do have the luxury of being able to field a full eleven of all rounders.

Styris, Franklin, Vettori, Mills, Oram, McCullum, Southee, Hiini, Elliott, Scott, Redmond.... I'm sure one of them can keep as well!!

Maybe McCullum?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Maybe McCullum?

I had actually meant the other McCullum, but maybe McMillan would have been better. Either McCullum or either McMillan.. possibly...

 

[Fiery]

I never said that he was a mug with the bat, its unfortunate for him that people like Vettori and Franklin are in the same team and they all compete for the same #7 batting position.

Also, there is a significant difference between Club - First Class - International cricket.

Devon Malcolm was once recognised as the world's worst batsman. I heard that after moving down to the minor counties he scored a hundred! Hence, there's a difference between Auckland and NZ - obviously.

My real problem with the 'experiment' was that it made a complete mockery of the test match being played and it betrayed the lack of confidence that Bracewell had in the batsmen being able to do the job they were there to do! Maybe if the Marshall twins had both been playing, he wouldn't have seen fit to tinker with the batting order. I'm not making any complaints about Mills!!

Yeah, history shows it was a poor decision because we need 250 odd to win and ended up getting all out for 120 in the final innings. I think the decision was made by Bracewell because we had 2 makeshift openers playing and the fact Fleming batting at 3 got a duck in the 1st innings. One of the openers went early so Bracewell decided to play a bit of a random wildcard. It backfired on him but as I said, it could have been remembered as a masterstroke if Mills had managed to stick around and take the shine off the new ball for the rest of the batters and we went on to win the game.

 

[Will Scarlet]

Didn't Parore open and bat at 3 for us back in the day?

Yes Parore did. That was because NZ had no decent batsmen other than Astle and Fleming during the 90s.

 

[_Ed_]

Yes Parore did. That was because NZ had no decent batsmen other than Astle and Fleming during the 90s.

The highlight of his stint as opener came when he was clean bowled by the first ball of the match in an ODI against Pakistan. Pure class.

 

[Flem274*]

Sorry for dragging this thread up again (well actualy Im not) but I'm having another "must talk about NZ cricket, must talk about NZ cricket" thingy again and if those english get all those ODI threads then I'm allowed to drag this back up again.

Anyway firstly I'd like to share some teams with you and then ask a question

NZ XI for next test

Michael Papps
Jamie How
Matthew Sinclair
Stephen Fleming
Peter Fulton
Scott Styris/ Lou Vincent
Brendan McCullum
Danile Vettori
James Franklin
Kyle Mills
Shane Bond

Pretty much the logical XI. The reason no Oram is because his batting form compared to other batsmen isn't as good and he isn't really a threatning test bowler. Vincent for hard tracks and Styris for slow low ones.

Guys that will make a debut/comeback in the near future are:

Greg Hay @ 4/5
Rob Nicol @ 5
Ross Taylor @ 5/6 (prefferably 6 as I think he'd make a decent finisher)
Iain O'Brien @ opening bowler
Mark Gillespie @ opening bowler
Jeetan Patel @ spinner

Chris Martin I hope never plays for the BC's again.

OK so my question is at what age do other nations introduce the hard ball? Here it is at intermediate school. I think that if it was introduced earlier then our youngsters would improve considerably just through more experience of it. How much improvement do you think there would be?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

The trouble with the use of the 'hard ball' as you say it is that the increasing encroachment of the Nanny State makes it more and more likely that age limits for usage will go up rather than down.

When I lived in the UK recently, they'd made the sensible move that all under 18s had to wear helmet, and the not so sensible move that depending on your age, the number of overs you can bowl were heavily restricted both overall and for spells. Hence, you could be an ace quick at 15 playing men's cricket at a top grade, but you were limited to 5 over spells and 12 over maximum a day (I think). The restrictions were even tighter if you are younger.

Now, I can understand why this has been done (obviously the injury record for bowlers isn't great and the young developing teenage male body is not good at coping with severe pressures whilst growing), but it is ultimately counter-productive to the quality of seam bowling.

I remember when I was a real young-un, my uncle (who'd been a decent club cricketer) was flinging a cricket ball down at me in the nets. No helmet, no gloves, no pads.... It didn't exactly do me any harm, but I will say that my batting never really saw the benefit. It wasn't so much facing a 'hard ball' that was a problem, but the fact that at different times, I'd be facing hard balls and at other times I'd be facing soft balls - both needing completely different timing to put the ball away. Didn't do me any good at all really.

As for your team:

Michael Papps
Jamie How - PROBLEM
Matthew Sinclair - PROBLEM
Stephen Fleming
Peter Fulton
Scott Styris/ Lou Vincent
Brendan McCullum
Danile Vettori
James Franklin - PROBLEM
Kyle Mills - PROBLEM
Shane Bond

How is not an international class opener. I can see why he's in the team, but he's not good enough in the long term. We need a youngster to come through and put his hand up for this position, because How is not the solution. Sinclair is another problem. If they are going to pick Sinclair (which is a doubt anyway) then they actually need to STICK with him and not do to him what the English did with Hick and Ramprakash. If you rate Sinclair as good enough, regardless of form he should be in there every game.

As for the bowlers, I think your team is weak. 4 bowlers + Styris... None of the other batsmen are really decent options for a few overs. The trouble with this is that Franklin is unreliable. If you've got all four bowlers on form, then there's no problem, but the issue is Franklin being highly erratic and susceptible to migraines, and Bond being injury prone. You could find yourself an hour into a test match, Franklin belting down long hops and Bond on the physio's bench. This is where a player like Oram/Ryder/Hiini would be useful to the team.

Guys that will make a debut/comeback in the near future are:

Greg Hay @ 4/5
Rob Nicol @ 5
Ross Taylor @ 5/6 (prefferably 6 as I think he'd make a decent finisher)
Iain O'Brien @ opening bowler
Mark Gillespie @ opening bowler
Jeetan Patel @ spinner

Taylor will be there, Patel will be in for Mills on a spinning wicket. You could find Gillespie and Mills swapped over in any case. Hay is a few years off yet, I would reckon. Rob Nicol's a damn good player, but I think he'll need some first teamers to get injured in order for him to get a chance. Ryder could get a chance.... It will depend on the coach I reckon. If Bracers is still in charge, Ryder might as well stay in England. I'll be keeping tabs on Brandon Hiini this season - although he's only played one full season so far, it was a belter and he looks like the real McCoy to my eyes. I might like to see him get a go in the 20:20 or ODI team if he starts the domestic season well. Another one to be keeping tabs on is if Ingram can carry on his form from last year and put How to shame for Central.

 

[Flem274*]

The trouble with the use of the 'hard ball' as you say it is that the increasing encroachment of the Nanny State makes it more and more likely that age limits for usage will go up rather than down.

When I lived in the UK recently, they'd made the sensible move that all under 18s had to wear helmet, and the not so sensible move that depending on your age, the number of overs you can bowl were heavily restricted both overall and for spells. Hence, you could be an ace quick at 15 playing men's cricket at a top grade, but you were limited to 5 over spells and 12 over maximum a day (I think). The restrictions were even tighter if you are younger.

Now, I can understand why this has been done (obviously the injury record for bowlers isn't great and the young developing teenage male body is not good at coping with severe pressures whilst growing), but it is ultimately counter-productive to the quality of seam bowling.

I remember when I was a real young-un, my uncle (who'd been a decent club cricketer) was flinging a cricket ball down at me in the nets. No helmet, no gloves, no pads.... It didn't exactly do me any harm, but I will say that my batting never really saw the benefit. It wasn't so much facing a 'hard ball' that was a problem, but the fact that at different times, I'd be facing hard balls and at other times I'd be facing soft balls - both needing completely different timing to put the ball away. Didn't do me any good at all really.

As for your team:

Michael Papps
Jamie How - PROBLEM
Matthew Sinclair - PROBLEM
Stephen Fleming
Peter Fulton
Scott Styris/ Lou Vincent
Brendan McCullum
Danile Vettori
James Franklin - PROBLEM
Kyle Mills - PROBLEM
Shane Bond

How is not an international class opener. I can see why he's in the team, but he's not good enough in the long term. We need a youngster to come through and put his hand up for this position, because How is not the solution. Sinclair is another problem. If they are going to pick Sinclair (which is a doubt anyway) then they actually need to STICK with him and not do to him what the English did with Hick and Ramprakash. If you rate Sinclair as good enough, regardless of form he should be in there every game.

As for the bowlers, I think your team is weak. 4 bowlers + Styris... None of the other batsmen are really decent options for a few overs. The trouble with this is that Franklin is unreliable. If you've got all four bowlers on form, then there's no problem, but the issue is Franklin being highly erratic and susceptible to migraines, and Bond being injury prone. You could find yourself an hour into a test match, Franklin belting down long hops and Bond on the physio's bench. This is where a player like Oram/Ryder/Hiini would be useful to the team.



Taylor will be there, Patel will be in for Mills on a spinning wicket. You could find Gillespie and Mills swapped over in any case. Hay is a few years off yet, I would reckon. Rob Nicol's a damn good player, but I think he'll need some first teamers to get injured in order for him to get a chance. Ryder could get a chance.... It will depend on the coach I reckon. If Bracers is still in charge, Ryder might as well stay in England. I'll be keeping tabs on Brandon Hiini this season - although he's only played one full season so far, it was a belter and he looks like the real McCoy to my eyes. I might like to see him get a go in the 20:20 or ODI team if he starts the domestic season well. Another one to be keeping tabs on is if Ingram can carry on his form from last year and put How to shame for Central.

Like you I highly rate Ingram, mainly because I'm CD and Taranaki biased. How IMO looks to have real class, he was just brought in too early and against a certain Lasith malinga in top form. I rate Geoff Barnett highly too but I can't see him making the team.

Franklin is an good test bowler averages 25-28 IIRC. He wouldn't make my ODI side though. Mills averaged 18.6 last year so he's in. IMO Patel will be a better spinner than Vettori.

With regards to Sinclair if he gets picked then it should be at 3, and he STAYS THERE. He is one of the sad stories of NZ cricket IMO.

And yes I'm not impressed with the nanny state either.

If you don't mind could you tell me a bit about Hini? I don't think I've heard of him before.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

If you don't mind could you tell me a bit about Hini? I don't think I've heard of him before.

I found an interesting interview with him on t'internet, but it must be a rival site and when I tried to post the link it was censored.

Anyway, he's 26 I think, and is from Invercargill. He's been playing in Canterbury for a few years, but given the strength of their team in recent years, he hadn't been able to get a look in for the state side. Rather than move states to try elsewhere, he's fought for a place, and with the retirement of Cairns, Canterbury were looking for an all-rounder and he's taken his chance. Because of his maturity and experience, he's come straight into the team and found success immediately. His bowling is pretty dibbly-dobbley... Probably a 10 kph more than Ryder, but that sort of style. He's primarily a bowler as I understand, but he's proved to be pretty successful with the bat too.

 

[Flem274*]

I found an interesting interview with him on t'internet, but it must be a rival site and when I tried to post the link it was censored.

Anyway, he's 26 I think, and is from Invercargill. He's been playing in Canterbury for a few years, but given the strength of their team in recent years, he hadn't been able to get a look in for the state side. Rather than move states to try elsewhere, he's fought for a place, and with the retirement of Cairns, Canterbury were looking for an all-rounder and he's taken his chance. Because of his maturity and experience, he's come straight into the team and found success immediately. His bowling is pretty dibbly-dobbley... Probably a 10 kph more than Ryder, but that sort of style. He's primarily a bowler as I understand, but he's proved to be pretty successful with the bat too.

Hmmm a dibbly dobbly bowler that bats a bit? Probably an ODI specialist I reckon, maybe the next Chris Harris?

 

[Perm]

James Franklin
Shane Bond
Daniel Vettori
Mark Gillespie


That is what New Zealand's Test bowling attack should look like, with Jacob Oram and Scott Styris to add support when needed. Shane Bond is easily our most lethal weapon while James Franklin provides some good variety and is a pretty good bowler with the red cherry, but because of his ODI woes people seem to forget he has done the job for the Test team in the past. Daniel Vettori is the best spinner in the country and would be joined by Jeetan Patel on a spinning wicket I'd imagine. I opted for Mark Gillespie as the third seamer, mainly due to the amount of First Class success he has had with Wellington. As in the case of James Franklin, don't let his terrible ODI record get in the way of his Test chances.

 

[Flem274*]

James Franklin
Shane Bond
Daniel Vettori
Mark Gillespie


That is what New Zealand's Test bowling attack should look like, with Jacob Oram and Scott Styris to add support when needed. Shane Bond is easily our most lethal weapon while James Franklin provides some good variety and is a pretty good bowler with the red cherry, but because of his ODI woes people seem to forget he has done the job for the Test team in the past. Daniel Vettori is the best spinner in the country and would be joined by Jeetan Patel on a spinning wicket I'd imagine. I opted for Mark Gillespie as the third seamer, mainly due to the amount of First Class success he has had with Wellington. As in the case of James Franklin, don't let his terrible ODI record get in the way of his Test chances.

When Bond retires I'd like to see Gillespie get the new ball.

 

[Perm]

When Bond retires I'd like to see Gillespie get the new ball.

Yeah, WHEN Bond retires. He still has at least 5 years in him if he can keep fit, which is unlikely but still possible. At the moment I think Gillespie would be best suited to first changes especially as he hasn't shown much ability to get sideways movement at the international level.

 

[Fiery]

Yeah, WHEN Bond retires. He still has at least 5 years in him if he can keep fit, which is unlikely but still possible. At the moment I think Gillespie would be best suited to first changes especially as he hasn't shown much ability to get sideways movement at the international level.

5 years? Nah...3 at the most I reckon

 

[Perm]

5 years? Nah...3 at the most I reckon

He is 32 at the moment, so another 5 would be the maximum I'd say.

 

[Fiery]

He is 32 at the moment, so another 5 would be the maximum I'd say.

I would be very surprised if he's still playing at 37 given the strain his type of bowling puts on his body and given his history of injuries