***Official*** Bangladesh in New Zealand

[Jono]

I can't believe they chased that in 6 overs.

 

[Perm]

I don't think his poor run in South Africa had anything to do with form, though. It was a degeneration of his technique. He could be in superb form and I'd still rate Fleming, Sinclair and Fulton as batter batsmen than he. New Zealand weren't really in a position to back incumbancy after that tour of South Africa - it was absolutely abysmal and a team picked from fresh was required. I don't really view him as dropped.. more unselected. It wasn't about whether to drop Styris or not, but who the best #3-5 batsmen are, and Styris isn't one of them, IMO.

Has Fleming played any FC cricket this season? If not I wouldn't have minded seeing him not selected, in order to give Fulton, Sinclair and Styris the chance to fight it out for two spots against England. If Fulton and Sinclair scored heavily then I'd have no problem and gladly accept Styris sitting out those Tests, but at the moment Styris won't get a chance to prove he should be selected for the next series. What happens if Sinclair and Fulton both fail miserably? Bring back Styris, with no cricket under his belt? Persist with them and have them dangerously short of runs? It's a lose-lose situation AFAIC.

 

[Prince EWS]

Has Fleming played any FC cricket this season? If not I wouldn't have minded seeing him not selected, in order to give Fulton, Sinclair and Styris the chance to fight it out for two spots against England. If Fulton and Sinclair scored heavily then I'd have no problem and gladly accept Styris sitting out those Tests, but at the moment Styris won't get a chance to prove he should be selected for the next series. What happens if Sinclair and Fulton both fail miserably? Bring back Styris, with no cricket under his belt? Persist with them and have them dangerously short of runs? It's a lose-lose situation AFAIC.

It'd be much the same if you selected Styris and didn't select Fulton though. What if Styris failed? Would you then select Fulton based on no cricket or persist with Styris out of form? It's exactly the same situation.

A lot of these complexities can be removed if you just select your best team for every game. I'm a firm believer in doing that - resting players opens up Pandora's box, as does using a test match to prepare yourself for another test match, regardless of who it's against.

 

[The Baconator]

Haha, McCullum, nice innings.

 

[Flem274*]

The Styris issue is a dificult one and I'm not quite sure how to word this but here goes: A Sinclair, Fleming, Fulton middle order is more talented and has the technique to be better than one that includes Styris. If a middle order were to score 600 by themselves I'd back the one without Styris. Not because he is a poor batsmen but the others have more potential to do so.

Now the reason I wouldn't pick Taylor on potential is because his technique is so disgraceful his hand eye coordination can not play a part at all, it has no chance. I'm not a big parrot of technique and if his technique was passable like Styris's then I would consider him but it isn't, its awful. He needs a batting coach and County Cricket.

 

[Perm]

It'd be much the same if you selected Styris and didn't select Fulton though. What if Styris failed? Would you then select Fulton based on no cricket or persist with Styris out of form? It's exactly the same situation.

A lot of these complexities can be removed if you just select your best team for every game. I'm a firm believer in doing that - resting players opens up Pandora's box, as does using a test match to prepare yourself for another test match, regardless of who it's against.

At the moment Scott Styris is a better Test batsman than Peter Fulton, and arguably Matthew Sinclair. In the future I've no doubt Fulton will be better, but he isn't at the moment, and you're still an advocate of selecting him? Seems to contradict the best XI theory.

 

[Prince EWS]

At the moment Scott Styris is a better Test batsman than Peter Fulton, and arguably Matthew Sinclair. In the future I've no doubt Fulton will be better, but he isn't at the moment, and you're still an advocate of selecting him? Seems to contradict the best XI theory.

I don't think Scott Styris is a better test batsman than Fulton and Sinclair, though. He has a better record, yes, but I don't think he's actually better at this stage of his career.

 

[archie mac]

I had to do the match report for this, I must say it did not take me long. Thinking I may have been a little harsh on the Bangas

 

[slugger]

ha ah what a suprise.. I really thought they would drop sinclair.. because he's nz official fall guy...lol glad im wrong...

 

[Natman20]

At the moment Scott Styris is a better Test batsman than Peter Fulton, and arguably Matthew Sinclair. In the future I've no doubt Fulton will be better, but he isn't at the moment, and you're still an advocate of selecting him? Seems to contradict the best XI theory.

Scott Styris has a solid technique to be aggressive by playing basic but great shots which makes him partially succesful at ODI level. I dont think he has the ability to settle down for long periods of time as the likes of Sinclair and Bell who are presumably test specialists IMO. On their day in first-class level Bell and Sinclair look as if they are Aussie cricketers and are very solid scoring big centuries and racking up the runs. If they can just emulate the 1st class performances and play with patience then i am sure they will be successful internationally as they near the end of their careers. It is just a pity that ODI specialists have been picked so often so that these test players havn't had an opportunity. Fulton can also be included in the above paragraph.

Good to see that the batting side to me looks solid although I would have still picked Papps over Cumming or even have How into the side.

I would like Vincent in the side but thats a bit out of the question and everyone knows that woth the way NZ selectors work these days but I am sure he'll have another go sometime.

The bowling attack looks fairly ordinary and reflects lack of bowling depth we have at the moment. If we are to lose these tests (highly unlikely) IMO it would be due to our bowlers being in-effective. I think they have tested O'brien and I don't think he is very capable of claiming wickets. Anyway will have to see when the tests come as to whether these playesr have improved or not.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Haha, who was it that dropped McCullum on the boundary? Shocking drop.

 

[Perm]

I don't think Scott Styris is a better test batsman than Fulton and Sinclair, though. He has a better record, yes, but I don't think he's actually better at this stage of his career.

I'll give you Sinclair, him and Styris are roughly even and not something I've looked into a great deal. However to deny that Peter Fulton is an inferior Test batsman than Styris is ridiculous. He is almost certainly going to be better, but there is no way you can make a decent argument to say he already is.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'll give you Sinclair, him and Styris are roughly even and not something I've looked into a great deal. However to deny that Peter Fulton is an inferior Test batsman than Styris is ridiculous. He is almost certainly going to be better, but there is no way you can make a decent argument to say he already is.

Styris has obviously had a better career. I think Fulton is the better batsman at the moment though.

 

[Perm]

Styris has obviously had a better career. I think Fulton is the better batsman at the moment though.

The better batsman, possibly. The better Test batsman, not a chance. He barely has any runs behind him to justify that kind of tag.

 

[Prince EWS]

The better batsman, possibly. The better Test batsman, not a chance. He barely has any runs behind him to justify that kind of tag.

I think you're misinterpreting my "pick your best team" business. If it was taken the way you are suggesting, no-one would ever debut as they'd have nothing behind them at test level to suggest they were better than even a batsman averaging 20 for example. Statisically (and even realistically), Styris has been better than Fulton at test level so far. Their careers aren't over though, so you can use more than just what they've done so far at test level to determine who you think is better. Determining who is better is not all about what they've done at test level before.

Picking your best team isn't about comparing test records. It's not about picking the eleven whose test statistics give them the best cases, either - it's about picking the players you think will do the best job for any given match.

 

[Perm]

I think you're misinterpreting my "pick your best team" business. If it was taken the way you are suggesting, no-one would ever debut as they'd have nothing behind them at test level to suggest they were better than even a batsman averaging 20 for example. Statisically (and even realistically), Styris has been better than Fulton at test level so far. Their careers aren't over though, so you can use more than just what they've done so far at test level to determine who you think is better. Determining who is better is not all about what they've done at test level before.

Picking your best team isn't about comparing test records. It's not about picking the eleven whose test statistics give them the best cases, either - it's about picking the players you think will do the best job for any given match.

We did misunderstand each other a bit, I didn't quite get what you were trying to put across. Obviously I agree you should pick your best side, and that means that players should get chances based on how they've been performing domestically etc. The thing that confused me was this;

I don't think Scott Styris is a better test batsman than Fulton and Sinclair, though.

I strongly disagreed with how you could say Peter Fulton is a better Test batsman than Scott Styris and still do, as he isn't, not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Prince EWS]

We did misunderstand each other a bit, I didn't quite get what you were trying to put across. Obviously I agree you should pick your best side, and that means that players should get chances based on how they've been performing domestically etc. The thing that confused me was this;



I strongly disagreed with how you could say Peter Fulton is a better Test batsman than Scott Styris and still do, as he isn't, not by any stretch of the imagination.

I only said that when you claimed that I couldn't say "pick your best team" and then leave Styris out because he was a better test batsman than Fulton. Given the interepretations we've now gathered, that was a ridiculous straw-clutching argument from where I sit. In the context of picking your best team, Fulton is a better test batsman than Styris at this point in time IMO. He obviously isn't in terms of a career analysis though, and you used the latter to try to contradict my argument on the former. If you did that in every situation, no-one would ever get dropped.

Styris has had a better test career than Fulton, easily. If they both retired now, Styris would obviously go down as the better test batsman. I'm not disputing that. Quoting things out of context after drawing me into statements and shifting arguments sideways won't work on me as it works on others, either.

 

[Matt52]

In regard to the Styris , fulton issue, I would rate Fulton as a better choice. In terms of domestic cricket Fulton averages around the mid forties, compared to Styris' mid to low thirties.

The thing with Styris imo is that he has had the best run in terms of selection in his favoured position compared to all other players. Guys like Vincent, Sinclair and even Fulton a little bit have been chucked around the order a lot, asked to open, and constantly selected then dropped, whereas Styris has been given a prolonged run batting at 4 or 5 almost test. He has had by far, the best opportunity of any NZ batsman for a long time so, i tend to judge him harder than other those other guys.

I think someone said before that Styris averaged around 40, and he did for most of his career but recently its gone down to 36.04. I think, both Sinclair and Fulton , would have had a better record had they been given the same run of selections at no4. Vincent averages only two runs less while being forced to open, so I would also back him to have a better record had he had the same chances as Styris.

Another point is that this middle order, Fleming, Fulton, and Sinclair have the highest domestic averages ( along with Ryder, and Hay) so I guess you cant complain about the selections.

Not so chuffed about the selection of Bell. Hes in form I guess, but with How, Cumming, Papps, and now Bell the selectors seem to be just as confused as us.

 

[Mister Wright]

OMFG! I just got home to see the scorecard. Unbelieveable. I printed it out just to make sure.

As far as the New Zealand team goes, can't believe Taylor has been dropped.

 

[Matt52]

A rather surprising and interesting stat Ive just read is Vettori apparently will finish 2007 as the worlds leading wicket taker in odis, for a calendar year.