But Flem really, who is this guy who is good enough to bowl at test match level AND score runs at number 8?? I don't know if he exists at present. Franklin might have been a chance but who knows what's happening there now. Mills is a better batsman than Tuffey but still not great, plus his test bowling isn't very good (Thierry Henry to disagree). And of course he has injury issues at the moment too.
Vettori has certainly shown he's good enough to bat 6, but until that question of who can bat 8 is answered we are taking a massive risk playing that many bowlers. Especially considering Ryder is a decent bowler (not to mention Guptill
), so IMO the risk is not justified.
Worked in this game, sort of.
Theoretically we shouldn't need our tail to score runs. Though this obviously isn't the case. With Taylor, Ryder and Vettori at the top there's less risk. Vettori with proper batsmen>Vettori with the tail. Get him in earlier and he'll be more effective.
At this point an attack of Bond, Martin, Tuffey/Southee, Vettori doesn't look likely to take 20 wickets cheaply unless Bond goes boom every game. Martin hasn't been a a strike bowler in how long, Vettori isn't a wicket taker, Bond is so injury prone we risk being down to three bowlers, Tuffey has just returned to the side and seems to bowl first change, which decreases his effectiveness and Southee needs swing or he's rank awful.
If Bond went down and we went in with an attack of Martin, Southee, Tuffey, Vettori how easily do you think they'll take 20 wickets?
Unless at least one of Tuffey or Southee came good I wouldn't be confident (Tuffey back to 2003 form, Southee to just get better). They'd get there eventually, but not very quickly to justify the extra batsman that in all likelihood will get out for ten extra runs anyway.
Five man attack has its risks, but imo it gives us a better overall chance of winning. The extra batsman plus four man attack without Bond is more likely to get a draw.
James Franklin please start taking wickets.
