**Official** England in New Zealand

[Dick Rockett]

Which is why I'll be furious to see Southee playing tests at 19. Swings the ball alot and is fairly accurate but he maxs out at 135 which just isn't fast enough to trouble international batsmen.

Actually, like Ryder it makes far more sense to select Southee for tests over ODIs because that's where he's shown himself to be more adept.

I also don't agree with this obsession with speed; a fast bowler with poor control will always be tonked - look at the likes of Heath Davis and Ian Butler - whereas a medium pacer with excellent control and swing will own all. I grew up watching perhaps the definitive example of this - Richard Hadlee. He was deadliest after he shortened his run-up and slackened his pace.

Yes, a Shane Bond-esque speedster with amazing control is ideal, but the extra pace is the cherry on top, and simply not essential by any means.

 

[Matt52]

Happy about the Ryder selection.The basic point is that you just have to be good enough, No use chucking in an average player in form cause he wont sustain it. You have to have the talent to succeed at international level. Ryder has that.

It seems a few people here are happy with the Southee selection because hes got talent although his record doesnt really show it yet. Yet, people are unhappy with the Ryder selection because hes got talent but his record doesnt really show it yet.

I read that Hadlee mentioned McCullum and Ryder batting together so it seems Ryder may open with McCullum.

This means imo that Jamie How could be in danger for his spot., both Taylor and Fulton are better no3s.
And you cant keep chucking How further and further down the order. He did look out of his depth against Australia unfortunately. Vincent doesnt have a great record but at least he could compete, and so can Ryder imo...

It seems strange that the selectors didnt include Ryder for the Bangladesh series as that would have been a much easier and more comfortable introduction.

Poor old Matt Sinclair. Dropped for the upteenth time. This may be a good opportunity for Lou Vincent though in the sense that if Ryder and /how are considered for the opening spot he may finally get a shot in the middle order where he belongs.

I would like to see this side play

McCullum
Ryder This top 5 is NZs best imo. Should be kept the same for a while yet.
Taylor Maybe Vincent could be added.
Fulton
Styris
How, just because there is no-one else but vincent would be better here.
Oram
Vettori
Mills
Southee( hoping hithcock picks up a minor injury and is replaced.)
Martin/Mason. I dont know.

 

[Flem274*]

Actually, like Ryder it makes far more sense to select Southee for tests over ODIs because that's where he's shown himself to be more adept.

I also don't agree with this obsession with speed; a fast bowler with poor control will always be tonked - look at the likes of Heath Davis and Ian Butler - whereas a medium pacer with excellent control and swing will own all. I grew up watching perhaps the definitive example of this - Richard Hadlee. He was deadliest after he shortened his run-up and slackened his pace.

Yes, a Shane Bond-esque speedster with amazing control is ideal, but the extra pace is the cherry on top, and simply not essential by any means.

The main concern is his body coping with tests at 19 years of age. We don't need another Dan Vettori style injury which forces him to change his action and make him less effective. As for obsession with speed, thats our Heathy. I'm the one who suggested the semi medium pacers of Scott and Thompson.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Yes, but it's for development purposes - and his T20 stats are very promising

It's not just about his stats, its the base of skills he has. Giving him shots against top class batsmen is trying to build him into a better bowler in the longterm. He aint going to be making the blackcaps anytime soon.

Once bowlers like Boult and Southee pick up 10kphs each, experiences like this will help them without a doubt.

And to be honest Boult and Southee are the pick of our young bowling talent. Every opportunity should be taken to give opportunities to learn before they hit the big time. Instead of just learning to bowl to dismiss half-assed nz domestic cricketers.

You seem to be confused about what constitutes the "big time". Although my contempt for Twenty20 is well documented, the fact is that Southee is now a Black Cap, and has made the "big time", even if it is just T20.

I still maintain that using internationals to blood promising players is a stupid idea, and never works - look what happened to Ken Rutherford.

Part of the reason the Australians are so successful is that their players spend 10 years or so perfecting their craft at domestic level before they get selected for the national team. By this stage they are usually in their late 20s and reaching their peak. That's why you get guys like Clarke and Hussey walking straight into the team and succeeding instantly.

 

[Mixmasterreece]

The main concern is his body coping with tests at 19 years of age. We don't need another Dan Vettori style injury which forces him to change his action and make him less effective. As for obsession with speed, thats our Heathy. I'm the one who suggested the semi medium pacers of Scott and Thompson.

Looking at his action it seems very likely that he'll get up around the 145kph + mark.

 

[Flem274*]

Happy about the Ryder selection.The basic point is that you just have to be good enough, No use chucking in an average player in form cause he wont sustain it. You have to have the talent to succeed at international level. Ryder has that.

It seems a few people here are happy with the Southee selection because hes got talent although his record doesnt really show it yet. Yet, people are unhappy with the Ryder selection because hes got talent but his record doesnt really show it yet.

I read that Hadlee mentioned McCullum and Ryder batting together so it seems Ryder may open with McCullum.

This means imo that Jamie How could be in danger for his spot., both Taylor and Fulton are better no3s.
And you cant keep chucking How further and further down the order. He did look out of his depth against Australia unfortunately. Vincent doesnt have a great record but at least he could compete, and so can Ryder imo...

It seems strange that the selectors didnt include Ryder for the Bangladesh series as that would have been a much easier and more comfortable introduction.

Poor old Matt Sinclair. Dropped for the upteenth time. This may be a good opportunity for Lou Vincent though in the sense that if Ryder and /how are considered for the opening spot he may finally get a shot in the middle order where he belongs.

I would like to see this side play

McCullum
Ryder This top 5 is NZs best imo. Should be kept the same for a while yet.
Taylor Maybe Vincent could be added.
Fulton
Styris
How, just because there is no-one else but vincent would be better here.
Oram
Vettori
Mills
Southee( hoping hithcock picks up a minor injury and is replaced.)
Martin/Mason. I dont know.

We don't want him in limted overs because he has a poor attitude, he's too ****ing slow and his list A average after many seasons is 23!! It's pathetic. How and McCullum have proven themselves so far as a decent combination so why change it?

 

[Mixmasterreece]

You seem to be confused about what constitutes the "big time". Although my contempt for Twenty20 is well documented, the fact is that Southee is now a Black Cap, and has made the "big time", even if it is just T20.

I still maintain that using internationals to blood promising players is a stupid idea, and never works - look what happened to Ken Rutherford.

Part of the reason the Australians are so successful is that their players spend 10 years or so perfecting their craft at domestic level before they get selected for the national team. By this stage they are usually in their late 20s and reaching their peak. That's why you get guys like Clarke and Hussey walking straight into the team and succeeding instantly.

I hardly regard T20 as the big time, but I see your reasoning.

I agree on the Australian thing, the only real difference I see is their talented youngsters - they produce a lot, we dont. They have more than 10 bowlers in their comp peaking over 145kph - we have 1? 2? 3?

I think blooding players in T20 is fine. 4 overs is not enough to be really found out, and while T20 is still being taken lightly it could prove to be an adequate stepping stone.

Theres a reason he has been selected in T20 and not a ODI squad yet...

 

[NZTailender]

Sigh.

Tim Southee's selection in the T20 is a good thing in my mind because he's clearly a prospect from the future. I was impressed by him in the T20 match vs Bangladesh (mainly because he bowled to Fleming's plan).
I see these T20's as a nothing, really, as much as I enjoy the T20 format. 2 matches that mean squat in the grand scheme of things (there's not even a T20 ranking at the ICC site...) - so why not try someone new? Exposing Southee to the international scene will do him the world of good in his development in my opinion.
Saying that, he should be in the ODI squad as well. Hitchcock? He may be alright on domestic tracks but he shouldn't play T20's or ODI's for us - he is definitely a step backwards. Southee should be at least in the ODI squad, even if it's only to play a couple of dead rubber games (if that occurs).

Ryder is a good selection for me as well. Wrong format though, but he's hardly going to get into the test line up considering you have Styris and Vincent waiting in the wings, no doubt ahead of him.
Debuting him in T20's and ODI's will be good for him just like Southee. He may not have a good domestic record in the OD format but he is a very talented cricketer and someone who I would think would thrive at international level. But if he opens, I'll be livid.

Dropping Gillespie for the ODI's is a good move, as he's extremely poor in that area. But yet, he is a fine T20 bowler. IIRC he is the 5th best wicket taker for us in that format behind Bond, Vettori, Styris and Patel. And yet Martin is retained! To be fair though, Martin has been okay in T20 internationals.
And add to this, Jeetan Patel also not playing in the T20's! Madness! Especially since he's in the ODI squad where he has been poor of late.

The mind simply boggles.

Mason's selection seems to be that of there's no Bond, Franklin and Gillespie is ****, so you're in. For what it's worth I do think he's a good bowler. He's not world class but far better than Paul Hitchcock, Bradley Scott et al.

Dropping Sinclair is a good move. Let's face it, he shouldn't play one day internationals, as good a batsman is he is. Besides, I'd prefer if he kept his form for Tests and now there won't be the chance of the "oh he failed in ODI's, lets drop him from tests" mentality.


Anyway, I would've liked to have seen Neil Broom get a call up for the ODI's. He seems to have earnt it more than Ryder at least.

 

[Richard]

Sure Rycharld

Oi, I didn't miss-spell your actual name, just a faux-pas (Heath) of your posting-ID.

 

[Matt52]

Part of the reason the Australians are so successful is that their players spend 10 years or so perfecting their craft at domestic level before they get selected for the national team. By this stage they are usually in their late 20s and reaching their peak. That's why you get guys like Clarke and Hussey walking straight into the team and succeeding instantly.

I agree that its not ideal to blood young players against international players but IMO we just have to accept it as NZ cricket fans. The Aussies are groomed but playing at a high quality cut throat level of cricket for 10 years. Its not the same as our guys playing domestic pie chucking , small boundary, hit and giggle cricket for ten years. The only way to develop a tough mided player is to introduce them (slowly) to internationals, and hope they dont develop some sort of complex. you cant really compare Aussie and NZ domestic competitions and expect them to both produce the same type of tough cricketer.

Actually I think if you leave someone in domestic (NZ) stuff too long he may just adapt to that level, get comfortable, and fail to improve .

 

[Mixmasterreece]

Actually I think if you leave someone in domestic (NZ) stuff too long he may just adapt to that level, get comfortable, and fail to improve .

e.g. Mason, Thompson, O'Brien, McSkimming, Scott etc.

 

[Richard]

We don't want him in limted overs because he has a poor attitude, he's too ****ing slow and his list A average after many seasons is 23!! It's pathetic. How and McCullum have proven themselves so far as a decent combination so why change it?

Bloody hell, 23, that all? Presumed it was at least a bit better than that.

 

[Matt52]

We don't want him in limted overs because he has a poor attitude, he's too ****ing slow and his list A average after many seasons is 23!! It's pathetic. How and McCullum have proven themselves so far as a decent combination so why change it?

Ive never met the guy so cant comment on his attitude. Fleming used to watch ants fly by when running between the wickets. McMillan tried to run quickly, but to no avail. There has been plenty of good batsmen that werent quick. His average is 23 and dissapointing, but Bonds first class average was in the high twenties if I recall correctly, And as such, about 15 0r 20 other bowlers should have been chosen ahead of him. But the man simply had enough skill.

For me it comes down to this. A lot of players simply dont have enough ability to play international cricket. They never will . If we put them in the side, they get beaten by average teams and destroyed by good ones. That outcome is inevitable.

Ryder is one of the select few that have enough talent to compete at international level. He may succeed or he may fail miserably but at least ,, if you have the talent,, then you have a chance at being successful.

 

[Flem274*]

e.g. Mason, Thompson, O'Brien, McSkimming, Scott etc.

Surprised Michael Parlane never got an opportunity in ODIs

 

[Flem274*]

Ive never met the guy so cant comment on his attitude. Fleming used to watch ants fly by when running between the wickets. McMillan tried to run quickly, but to no avail. There has been plenty of good batsmen that werent quick. His average is 23 and dissapointing, but Bonds first class average was in the high twenties if I recall correctly, And as such, about 15 0r 20 other bowlers should have been chosen ahead of him. But the man simply had enough skill.

For me it comes down to this. A lot of players simply dont have enough ability to play international cricket. They never will . If we put them in the side, they get beaten by average teams and destroyed by good ones. That outcome is inevitable.

Ryder is one of the select few that have enough talent to compete at international level. He may succeed or he may fail miserably but at least ,, if you have the talent,, then you have a chance at being successful.

Fleming and McMillan would thrash Ryder in a sprint.

Bonds average was in the high twenties because he started out as a medium pacer, got dropped, joined the cops, bulked up, came back, played for two seconds then got a call up to Australia.

 

[Mixmasterreece]

Fleming and McMillan would thrash Ryder in a sprint.
.

Yet he's very agile in the field. Anomaly.

 

[Silver Arrow]

Daniel Flynn was very very close to selection for the Twenty20 side I heard from an inside source.

 

[Dick Rockett]

I agree that its not ideal to blood young players against international players but IMO we just have to accept it as NZ cricket fans. The Aussies are groomed but playing at a high quality cut throat level of cricket for 10 years. Its not the same as our guys playing domestic pie chucking , small boundary, hit and giggle cricket for ten years. The only way to develop a tough mided player is to introduce them (slowly) to internationals, and hope they dont develop some sort of complex. you cant really compare Aussie and NZ domestic competitions and expect them to both produce the same type of tough cricketer.

Not with things the way they are, no. I agree that ten years in our current setup won't do anyone any favours. The problem is though, that imo a primary reason our domestic scene is a breeding ground for mediocrity is precisely because it's so easy to get the callup to the national side. The cream of the crop never becomes apparent because no-one is ever forced to make an inspired effort over a long period of time to improve their game.

I agree that we'll never have the talent pool of the Australians but I still think that if there was more emphasis on hard work with a payoff at the end, we'd see a far more consistent number of decent players emerging than we otherwise do. In recent times the only player I can think of who's proven motivated enough to put the kind of effort into his game that your average Australian FC cricketer does is Mark Richardson.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

The main concern is his body coping with tests at 19 years of age. We don't need another Dan Vettori style injury which forces him to change his action and make him less effective. As for obsession with speed, thats our Heathy. I'm the one who suggested the semi medium pacers of Scott and Thompson.

There's one thing worse than an erratic fast bowler. That's an erratic medium pacer. Hitchcock has no greater control (in fact, significantly less control in my opinion) than Southee, Martin, Franklin, my Grandmother and also my parrot.

If you have two equally incapable bowlers, at least the one who's quicker will cause more problems.

 

[Mixmasterreece]

Daniel Flynn was very very close to selection for the Twenty20 side I heard from an inside source.

Are you for real ?