NZ contracted players for 09/10

[Flem274*]

I'm struggling to find any relevance the title of that article has to the article itself. Obviously playing to the favourite catchcry of the talkback brigade whenever something is pervieved to be bad with NZ cricket.

 

[straw man]

Both the Herald and Stuff websites have it that Bond will be on the Sri Lanka tour for ODIs and 20/20s, but not tests. Woooooooooooooohoooooooooooooooooo!! Can't wait to see him bowl again.

And yeah, think it's a sensible move not playing tests yet.

A couple of interesting points in the Stuff article, noting that there is no backup test batsman in the contracted player list (perhaps he doesn't count Broom as a test batsman?) so wonders if they'll send someone like Redmond over there.

David Leggat in the Herald thought the test touring squad would include Reece Young and Daryl Tuffey... really... has he even looked at the list of contracted players?

 

[Polo23]

I hope he does get the nod the the ODI's, that would be fantastic.

Heres my test squad:

Martin Guptill
Tim McIntosh (cringe)
Daniel Flynn
Ross Taylor
Jesse Ryder
Neil Broom
Brendon McCullum
Jacob Oram
James Franklin
Daniel Vettori
Jeetan Patel
Brent Arnel
Chris Martin
Iain O'Brien
Gareth Hopkins

It will be interesting to see how close I get.

 

[trapol]

Not bad Polo...only change will be Tuffey for Arnel....you can take that one to the bank. He's not even twice the bowler he's 3 times the bowler. We in serious trouble though if Broom is in there. Second thoughts im going Elliott over Broom

 

[Polo23]

Not bad Polo...only change will be Tuffey for Arnel....you can take that one to the bank. He's not even twice the bowler he's 3 times the bowler. We in serious trouble though if Broom is in there. Second thoughts im going Elliott over Broom

You think Tuffey will go over Arnel despite Arnel getting a central contract? To me, that makes no sense.

I think Broom is quality. Has a sound FC record and deserves his shot.

 

[straw man]

Please, keep Elliott to ODIs only. We've already got Oram, Franklin and Vettori as all-rounders (or quasi-all-rounders).

I like Tuffey more than Arnel, but selectors must think he doesn't quite merit being rushed back in like Bond does. Arnel would still be alright as a backup bowler - we need someone there in case Martin or O'Brien get injured.

Test team in SL picks itself really (assuming only contracted players):
McIntosh, Guptill, Flynn, Taylor, Ryder, McCullum, Oram, Vettori, Patel, O'Brien, Martin.

Would be tempted to take a backup opener so that you can drop McIntosh if he fails after one or two tests (harsh on McIntosh, but probably fair). My 4 other squad members would be - Cumming, Broom, Arnel and *sigh* Hopkins.

Edit: Crap, forgot Franklin. Could come in for Broom. Still, his bowling will be total fodder in SL so I'm not totally convinced.

 

[trapol]

-

Broom is Quality Polo?? Based on what? The Fact he hasnt got to 30 yet for NZ? (i hope thats right as its aguess but im sure it is)

But do you mean he has a good first class record much like Bell does? or Cumming? Sinclair? Fulton?

At the end of the day its pure pot luck whether or not he succeeds. Taking him to SL is probably the toughest assignment at the moment so if he goes good luck to him

 

[Polo23]

Broom is Quality Polo?? Based on what? The Fact he hasnt got to 30 yet for NZ? (i hope thats right as its aguess but im sure it is)

But do you mean he has a good first class record much like Bell does? or Cumming? Sinclair? Fulton?

At the end of the day its pure pot luck whether or not he succeeds. Taking him to SL is probably the toughest assignment at the moment so if he goes good luck to him

Well, you'd actually be wrong. He's hit 36 in a T20 for NZ. Not that that is at all relevant to test cricket, so i'm unsure why you'd bring it up.

Perhaps you can explain to me how him playing 8 ODI's (and a vast majority of them he's come in well down the order needing to slog) is a good indicator to how he'd perform in test cricket? Surely his FC record would be a better indicator.

Yeah, all those guys do have decent FC records (though Bell and Cumming both average less than Broom), and because of that they were given a number of test matches to prove they could cut it. Broom is probably the guy who has the best FC record in NZ who hasn't played a test for NZ yet.

What exactly are you trying to suggest anyway? That we ignore the top FC performers and just select our batsmen at random? That would make sense right? Since according to you its just a pot luck who would perform.

 

[trapol]

You got it Polo

It is pot luck. Look at Marshall. Terrible for ND ave 38 at test match level with hundreds against SL and Aust (warne/mcgrath) both played. Not many have done that. Guptill has 1 1st class hundred and an av of 28 and he's been picked but has proved that he can handle all the external pressures that playing at the top level provides. Styris has 2 first class hundreds and only an ave of 30 but has 5 test hundreds in only 27 tests.

On the other hand all those players i mentioned werent gret at the top level and i think you can include Harris in there as well because he averages nearly 60 for Canterbury.

I dont envy the selectors as picking on character seems far more important that maybe we give it credit for. Now, i have no idea whether Broom will succeed but his performances for Otago are certainly no indicator. He was also only moderate in scoring for NZ A in their last tour of India.

Lastly i said Broom hadnt scored a 30 in International cricket, now you quite rightly corrected me, but the saviour of NZ cricket which some think he is is simply dumb. Im not suggesting you are calling him the saviour but im not sure he's as good as some people think. I would love to be proved wrong here but all i said was international cricket in my last post

 

[trapol]

Sorry. Styris 2 first class hundreds for ND/Auck is what i meant

 

[Polo23]

You got it Polo

It is pot luck. Look at Marshall. Terrible for ND ave 38 at test match level with hundreds against SL and Aust (warne/mcgrath) both played. Not many have done that. Guptill has 1 1st class hundred and an av of 28 and he's been picked but has proved that he can handle all the external pressures that playing at the top level provides. Styris has 2 first class hundreds and only an ave of 30 but has 5 test hundreds in only 27 tests.

On the other hand all those players i mentioned werent gret at the top level and i think you can include Harris in there as well because he averages nearly 60 for Canterbury.

I dont envy the selectors as picking on character seems far more important that maybe we give it credit for. Now, i have no idea whether Broom will succeed but his performances for Otago are certainly no indicator. He was also only moderate in scoring for NZ A in their last tour of India.

Lastly i said Broom hadnt scored a 30 in International cricket, now you quite rightly corrected me, but the saviour of NZ cricket which some think he is is simply dumb. Im not suggesting you are calling him the saviour but im not sure he's as good as some people think. I would love to be proved wrong here but all i said was international cricket in my last post

Your post makes no sense. All of the players you mentioned were picked on the back of solid form for their domestic team, just like Broom has been (if not more so, Broom has had about 3 seasons of amazing form before being picked). Again you mention someone and their ODI exploits when talking about test cricket (Guptill), so far Guptill hasn't shown much in test cricket, how do you know he can handle all the pressure test match cricket brings?

Of course performances for players domestic teams are indicators. How about we call up Todd Astle to open for NZ? By your way of thinking that selection would be no more or less warranted than Broom's.

I'm not entirely sure who ever called Broom the savior...now it just seems you're making things up. I simply said he was a quality player, and I stand by that. You're yet to prove me otherwise.

Oh, also Broom may not have been fantastic on NZ A's last tour. But before that he had been NZ A's best batsman for a while.

 

[trapol]

It makes plenty of sense Polo but youre obviously not prepared to listen. Hamish Marshall in fact has the lowest high score of any batsman picked for NZ ever. He also took 7 years to score a first class hundred. Guptill was picked on his ODI performances yes and then succeeded which means he can handle the additional pressures (crowds, greater media scrutiny, better opposition, foreign conditions, TV) which is half the battle. So he was picked on his character more so than his performances as he only had 1 1st class century which is nothing compared to Broom.

At no stage do i say that picking by character is the be all and end all of selecting players but im saying it has a far bigger importance in NZ than people think. Traditionally over the last 10-20 years our best performed domestic players havent necessarily been our best Test players. Astle comes to mind here. Thats why i am a believer in giving players like Broom more of a shot in ODIs before Tests so than we (coaches/selectors/captain) can gauge whether he has the make up to be successful.

To be fair there are more Bowlers in this category than batsman but hopefully you get my point. Im thinking Adams, Kennedy, Penn, Walker, Walmsley, and the likes who dominated the domestic circuit before largely failing at the level above.

If you read my post i never suggested that you said Broom was the saviour and i certainly dont have to show you why Broom isnt a quality player. On the contrary, you havent shown me why he is? All ive done is show you averaging 38 in NZ domestic cricket is not a tell tale sign that a player is ready or able to play at the level above.

Im not sure where youve got your 'he's been NZ A's best batsman for a while' from either. He didnt play against Eng A last summer, averaged 1 in the test series vs India, 30 in the ODIs vs India/Aust. 2 players better. Previous tour to that averaged 46 but 3 players (all batsman not bowlers with not outs) were better. ALL 3 games were against a Combo A/B Queensland as well not anyone decent.

As i said in my last post i would love to be proved wrong. I have only been back to NZ once in the last 3 years so havent seen much of him play. But i do hope that he plays well when he does get his chance but i wont be holding my breathe based on a guy who averages 38 in first class NZ cricket

 

[Polo23]

I'm not prepared to listen? You are talking crap.

So you're saying you don't think Broom will perform because somehow you know he isn't mentally prepared for test cricket? How could you possibly know one of our best domestic batsmen over numerous seasons doesn't have what it takes? Now i'm not saying he does, but I know for sure he's a quality cricketer and deserves his chance.

Also, Guptill hardly succeeded in his first test series, unless you think an average of 27 is a success. Where has he handled foreign conditions? The only tests he's played have been in NZ.

I havn't shown you why he is a quality player? His record speaks for itself. I've seen him bat a few times and i've seen him grind out scores when he is not in good touch, but unlike a lot of NZ batsmen he's refused to throw it away and stuck in there and made a contribution. We need more NZ batsmen like that. In my opinion (based on his record, and from what i've seen) he is a quality player, as opposed to your opinion which is based on nothing.

You "don't hold your breathe for a guy who averages 38 in FC cricket". Well then who do you hold your breathe for? The only batsmen with a better record in NZ FC cricket have beentried and they failed (Sinclair, Fulton). Who exactly would you have over Broom?

 

[trapol]

Thats right Polo i am saying you are not listening.

Nowhere have i said that Broom will fail at the international level because he has an average of 38 in NZ first class cricket. All i said is that its not a precursor to success at the top level. I have given you examples of other players who hve done similar or better things and they have failed and others who have done less but been successful.

You again mention Guptill, and of course he wasnt a raging success in the Test match arena but he has shown that he can handle all the externals that come with INTERNATIONAL cricket. Now, of course the 3 versions all require different skill sets for success and Guptill is far far from the finished product in terms of Tests but he has shown that he handles all the other pressures which is why he gets more latitude than others. (note all the talk is about how poor MacIntosh is even though he has a century in his 5 tests and Guptill struggled) As for foreign conditions again im talking about Guptills performances in Aust/England. Broom looked out of his depth in his only performance in the T20 WC and that wasnt down the order which is a common reason given for his lack of production thus far.

Interestingly and slightly off topic Guptill looks like he really struggles against spin so i am looking forward to his tour of SL.

Thats why ive stated i think Broom should go on a lot more ODI tours before they even think about Tests with him. Styris always said playing 40-50 ODIs before he played Test matches helped because they were no surprises and nothing to be nervous about as he'd faced everyone before and he did well for us for 5 years. Broom has the ability but as the 'Test' part of the A tour to India showed when he scored 2 runs in 2 innings that taking him to the sub-continent may not be the best thing for him....yet

I will say it again Polo, i hope Broom is good for NZ and does really well. My point is simply that averaging 38 is not an indicator as to whether he will do well internationally or not..nothing more

As for replacing him...The Top 6 is set in the Tests anyway but maybe Elliott? Oram can bat there plus judging by your beloved NZ first class cricket Franklin and his 631 runs at 157 last year deserves a shot before Broom who failed to finish in the top 20 for batting average last summer....

PS im not really a believer in Elliott but i do think he's further up the food chain than Broom

 

[Howsie]

Trapol get of the drugs

Your argument makes no sense at all.

 

[trapol]

OK my points are obviously off the mark.

Its not just about talent people and our first class cricket is so poor that you cant use it as a meaningful concrete proof judge on wehther somebody is good enough.

Time will tell with Broom and as i said hopefully he gets a whole heap of ODI performances first before Tests so that when his opportunity finally comes he'll be better equiped to take it cause as it stands i dont see him being anything special

 

[trapol]

If i dont know what im talking about please explain to me how both Ramprakash/Hick are considered failures at the international level?

Cause it sure doesnt have anything to do with talent or skill or their level of play at the first class level

 

[Polo23]

Thats right Polo i am saying you are not listening.

Nowhere have i said that Broom will fail at the international level because he has an average of 38 in NZ first class cricket. All i said is that its not a precursor to success at the top level. I have given you examples of other players who hve done similar or better things and they have failed and others who have done less but been successful.

You again mention Guptill, and of course he wasnt a raging success in the Test match arena but he has shown that he can handle all the externals that come with INTERNATIONAL cricket. Now, of course the 3 versions all require different skill sets for success and Guptill is far far from the finished product in terms of Tests but he has shown that he handles all the other pressures which is why he gets more latitude than others. (note all the talk is about how poor MacIntosh is even though he has a century in his 5 tests and Guptill struggled) As for foreign conditions again im talking about Guptills performances in Aust/England. Broom looked out of his depth in his only performance in the T20 WC and that wasnt down the order which is a common reason given for his lack of production thus far.

Interestingly and slightly off topic Guptill looks like he really struggles against spin so i am looking forward to his tour of SL.

Thats why ive stated i think Broom should go on a lot more ODI tours before they even think about Tests with him. Styris always said playing 40-50 ODIs before he played Test matches helped because they were no surprises and nothing to be nervous about as he'd faced everyone before and he did well for us for 5 years. Broom has the ability but as the 'Test' part of the A tour to India showed when he scored 2 runs in 2 innings that taking him to the sub-continent may not be the best thing for him....yet

I will say it again Polo, i hope Broom is good for NZ and does really well. My point is simply that averaging 38 is not an indicator as to whether he will do well internationally or not..nothing more

As for replacing him...The Top 6 is set in the Tests anyway but maybe Elliott? Oram can bat there plus judging by your beloved NZ first class cricket Franklin and his 631 runs at 157 last year deserves a shot before Broom who failed to finish in the top 20 for batting average last summer....

PS im not really a believer in Elliott but i do think he's further up the food chain than Broom

You're contradicting yourself. You say FC cricket isn't an indicator to how people will perform at test level (when clearly it is the best indicator we have) yet you state Guptill can handle the pressures of test cricket because he has a decent ODI record.

Broom got what...one chance at number 3 in the T20 WC? How can you look out of your depth in one innings? Styris looked out of his depth vs Sri Lanka, I guess he's out of his depth at international level also?

I never said Broom should be in the starting XI in Sri Lanka, I think he should be there as the backup batsman. You want Elliott to replace him (test match average of 6.75)? I'll bet my house that if Broom plays he'll average more than 6.75.

Franklin will be in the squad to Sri Lanka anyway, so your point is moot. But his great season last season doesn't make him a batsman, Broom has been doing it for numerous seasons, not just one. Also, the only reason Broom didn't average in the top 20 last season (average of over 50) was because there were about 10 people ahead of him who had only played 1 or 2 games.

You keep mentioning a handful of players who did very well at FC level, but couldn't make the grade at test level. How about you mention some of the players (pretty much every batsman, or bowler playing test cricket) who were fantastic at FC level, and have also done very well at test level? Yeah, it works both ways and it isn't a coincidence every selector in the history of time has predominantly selected based on FC records.

 

[trapol]

You cant be serious Polo

Firstly Franklin since 2004 is averaging 73 for Wellington so i think he deserves his shot first.

Secondly Styris has proven he can succeed at the top level so simply taking one inning is ridiculous. Broom has not.

Now again i am not talking about Brooms ability necessarily. I have merely talked about external factors and that is it. You mention Guptill again but all i said is that he will get longer to prove he is up to it because he has proved, yes via the odi arena, that he can handle the pressures of international cricket so they will hope he develops over time. My own opinion is that he has a lot of work to do in the Test match arena actually but he will get a longer leash than MacIntosh even though he has a test century already.

My point about Ramps/Hick is that they clearly couldnt handle the pressures of international cricket as they are two of the most talented cricketers of this generation. Their first class records are exemplary as we all know so ability is not the reason for their failure.

Yes of course your performance in first class cricket is important BTW. But we have so many examples over the last 20 years of guys in NZ where just because they do well it doesnt mean it will translate to the test match arena. So im just trying to say that character is important too and thats why people have such huge tabs on Kane Williamson. He is not only a quality player apparently but they say he has a good head on his shoulders, nothing gets to him and each time he has stepped up a level he handles it with aplomb.

I thought you made a good point about people who have a good first class record in NZ and then been successful. If i use an average of 40 in test cricket as a loose term for successful then in my time i can think of Fleming/Richardson/Crowe/A Jones/ Turner
Gee wiz thats not a very big list to me? However this is off the top of my head so maybe ive missed a few....If you lower it to 30 and use Brooms first class career average of 38 as a minimum then i can think of McMillan/Coney/Wright/Sinclair/Taylor/Ryder

Thats not a very big list either....

 

[Polo23]

Secondly Styris has proven he can succeed at the top level so simply taking one inning is ridiculous. Broom has not.

Didn't bother reading the rest of your post, this paragraph is about as much as I can handle.

You pretty much just made my argument for me.