Gillespie should be picked for tests. He's definitely more of a long format bowler than a one day bowler where he is rubbish. How many New Zealanders have taken a 5'fer on debut? I believe Gillespies were the best figures by an NZ bowler on debut but I could be mistaken.
AM Moir - 6/155
Sounds about right. I remember one of the commentators saying he would've had the best figures if he had taken the final wicket. Thats why I got a bit confused.
*Loads shotgun*
Yes, 9 centuries in 13 years would certainly show that. And when has Fleming stood up and won us a Test?
I'm sick of people going on about how Styris hasn't scored a century in X amount of years. FFS he's batted in 6 Tests since his century against the West Indies, and now people want him replaced? Goes to show how dire the public can be with this sort of thing. He had a poor Test series in South Africa, but so did all of our batsmen (with the exception of Fleming and Vettori). Not to mention the fact he did well in the SA and Australia ODIs, and has a few runs under his belt against Bangladesh already.
But Fleming is more dynamic and destructive than Richardson. There have been many instances where he has stood up and won us a test, not through centuries all the time but also there have been games where he has scored heavily and the rest of the team has collapsed.
AWTA. To top it all off, Murray Deaker said on the radio the other day the press are far too nice to the black caps.
Geez, I would hate to see what it would be like when the media are not nice
Talent wise, we're not as good as most of the sides in world cricket. But as a team (in the past at least) we've usually been somewhere around the top 4 as far as ODI's go, simply because reasonably average players would gel together to do something special. The second last CH series for instance.
I'm fairly sure he's ruled himself out of any games against Bangladesh in order to be fully prepared for the England series.
I don't think Styris is the batsman he once was, TBH. This isn't based on how long it's been since he scored a test ton, admittedly, but I'd consider dropping him and he was once my favourite cricketer. I think Fulton, Fleming and Sinclair are better middle order batsmen than he is (at least at the current time), and I don't think he offers enough with the ball given his knee injuries to justify getting picked ahead of Oram (or a bowler, shifting Oram to 7, McCullum to 8 etc). Would he make a better opener than Cumming, How, Papps and Bell? Maybe, but it's not a road I'd go down again after trying it with so many other middle order players and watching it fail miserably. He'd be my 12th man.
Really? I thought I read somewhere that he was out of the England series too and was aiming to be fit for the Black Caps tour of England.
He is not in great form but for people to say they would rather How or any of these 4 to play before him staggers me, In the recent tour of Australia,, How was terrible, looked totally out of his depth and never looked like scoring, all he did was clog up an end and put pressure on the rest of the top order. Styris looked very good in a couple of his innings. Its one thing to bash around these terrible attacks (Bangladesh and Co) but when Nz come up against the likes of England, Australia and Sth Africa How, Papps and Cumming will continue to lookout of their depth.
Styris is obviously a better batsman than How, but Styris is not an opener, which was my point. Styris would look out of his depth opening against Australia as well.
Could not do any worse than How and that is the point, if you have to select who you want opening and in the side who would you honestly pick? How or Styris?
Asking Styris to open would be similar to the dire decision India made by asking Dravid to open, opening in test cricket is tough job and specialist opener is always better man for the job, asking a middle order batsman to open almost is asking for trouble.
