Should NZ persevere with Chris Martin?

[Scaly piscine]

His batting doesn't matter. While it's aggravating to watch him get out for a duck, when has it ever really contributed to a loss?

Heh what a ridiculous statement. Remember it's not just however many his replacement would score, there's also the guy at the other end who's not going to get imminently stranded. Even if a direct replacement for Martin can only manage an average of 10 occupying 30 balls, that's going to get you another 20 or so runs on average - per innings. As always with cricket it could be that any given innings it makes no difference, or it could be that there would have been one of those match turning 50+ last wicket partnerships.

You can't afford to carry someone like that when they're as mediocre a bowler as Martin is. A team like New Zealand above anyone else should realise the importance of lower order batting depth because they'll rarely have the quality to match teams up front.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I watched the third session in a bar with no sound, but the way Sky kept popping Martin's career stats up on the screen gave me a feeling they thought his days were numbered.

Exactly the same here, and I came to the same conclusion also.

 

[Bahnz]

Heh what a ridiculous statement. Remember it's not just however many his replacement would score, there's also the guy at the other end who's not going to get imminently stranded. Even if a direct replacement for Martin can only manage an average of 10 occupying 30 balls, that's going to get you another 20 or so runs on average - per innings. As always with cricket it could be that any given innings it makes no difference, or it could be that there would have been one of those match turning 50+ last wicket partnerships.

You can't afford to carry someone like that when they're as mediocre a bowler as Martin is. A team like New Zealand above anyone else should realise the importance of lower order batting depth because they'll rarely have the quality to match teams up front.

I really can't think how a 50 run last-wicket partnership would help us when we're already trailing by 300 in the first innings (which we usually are). I'm all for having some competent batsmen in the lower-order (I remember the days when we used to have Dion Nash come in at 9 and Vettori at 10), but seriously, when was the last time that 20 runs in an innings would've made any noticeable contribution to a match we lost?

 

[Bahnz]

Top Ten Pace Bowling Wicket Takers
GW Aldridge 42 @ 20.16 SR 37.9
MD Bates 37 @ 25.40 SR 54.4
EP Thompson 34 @ 24.08 SR 49
BJ Arnel 29 @ 19.58 SR 48.6
MJ Mason 28 @ 22.78 SR 49.1
N Wagner 26 @ 36.69 SR 64.7
WC McSkimming 23 @ 28.39 SR 54.2
BC Hiini 22 @ 26.68 SR 56.8
SR Wells 20 @ 23.55 SR 41.8
MJ Tugaga 20 @ 38.35 SR 52.2

Top Ten Pace Bowling Wicket Takers Last Year
DR Tuffey 27 @ 20.96
LJ Shaw 26 @ 23.92
HK Bennett 26 @ 29.26
MJ McClenaghan 26 @ 42.26
AM Ellis 23 @ 23.78
EP Thompson 23 @ 31.95
AJ McKay 23 @ 34.34
de Grandhomme 21 @ 24.19
N Wagner 21 @ 33.33
MJ Harvie 19 @ 31

Out of those guys I'd think that Aldridge, Bates, Mason, Wagner, McKay, Bennett must be close to getting a Test match run.

Can they bat better than Martin?
Aldridge 1541 @ 22.01
Bates 191 @ 22.22
MJ Mason 1194 @ 15.92
N Wagner 517 @ 16.15
AJ McKay 175 @ 11.66
HK Bennett 108 @ 5.68

Odd how the guys closer to the team Wagner, Bennett, Mckay, Arnel are all worse with the bat. Hiini must average 30 odd.

McKay actually has pretty mediocre stats over the past couple of seasons, which is a bit discouraging. Same for Wagner. There's no point in selecting Aldridge, as he'll add nothing and the selectors seem to think that Mason has done his dash. Bennett seems to have picked up the injury bug just as he was starting to string some halfway decent performances together, and none of the rest have been particularly consistent.

 

[DIRK-NANNES]

With a first class average of 37 those seats might be a hard sell. Although to be fair to him, he is a player of rare ineptitude with the bat (averaging 0.3 this season). He's a worthy successor to Martin in that sense at least.

Personally I give more weighting to his most recent performances, rather than his career average.

2007-08 --- 18 wks @ 36.33 + one 5wk bag
2008-09 --- 26 wks @ 29.26
2009-10 --- 18 wks @ 27.00

Hopefully the improvement hes shown over each season continues.

Anyway, stats are just a guideline...

 

[Uppercut]

I really can't think how a 50 run last-wicket partnership would help us when we're already trailing by 300 in the first innings (which we usually are). I'm all for having some competent batsmen in the lower-order (I remember the days when we used to have Dion Nash come in at 9 and Vettori at 10), but seriously, when was the last time that 20 runs in an innings would've made any noticeable contribution to a match we lost?

You're not looking at this the right way. You might end up losing a match by an innings and think "hey, what difference would a 50-run tenth wicket partnership have made?" But in reality those things occasionally do make a difference. What if it was just enough to frustrate your opponents and lead to them losing their openers in the first five overs when otherwise they scored centuries? New Zealand used to be notorious for niggly lower-order stands giving them a way back into games. When you only field ten batsmen, you're missing out on something.

Anyway, Chris Martin's a fantastically likable cricketer, but I'm afraid I can't see any benefit to keeping him in the side at his age.

 

[Bahnz]

You're not looking at this the right way. You might end up losing a match by an innings and think "hey, what difference would a 50-run tenth wicket partnership have made?" But in reality those things occasionally do make a difference. What if it was just enough to frustrate your opponents and lead to them losing their openers in the first five overs when otherwise they scored centuries? New Zealand used to be notorious for niggly lower-order stands giving them a way back into games. When you only field ten batsmen, you're missing out on something.

Anyway, Chris Martin's a fantastically likable cricketer, but I'm afraid I can't see any benefit to keeping him in the side at his age.

There have been occasions when Martin has succeeded in lasting sustained periods of time/ was kept off the strike long enough for the other batsman to blast 40 odd. Had no effect, because the match positions we either were too far behind the game, or subsequently let ourselves down. And if we're relying on 10th wicket partnerships to change to course of a match it really says a lot about how far we've sunk.

 

[Athlai]

England have saved a crap load of matches recently with 10th wicket partnerships.

 

[Bahnz]

England have saved a crap load of matches recently with 10th wicket partnerships.

And when have we ever been in a position to do the same?

 

[Athlai]

And when have we ever been in a position to do the same?

What if the circumstance popped up?

 

[straw man]

There have been occasions when Martin has succeeded in lasting sustained periods of time/ was kept off the strike long enough for the other batsman to blast 40 odd. Had no effect, because the match positions we either were too far behind the game, or subsequently let ourselves down. And if we're relying on 10th wicket partnerships to change to course of a match it really says a lot about how far we've sunk.

This argument is not a good one. It's just like "it didn't matter that we dropped two catches because we lost by 200 runs anyway", or "it didn't matter that Guptill gifted his wicket on 25 yet again because the top order had already collapsed to put us so far behind". Like Uppercut says, those little moments in the game where you give away some advantage or momentum for free to the other team have an importance that can't easily be measured.

Playing Martin is a cost (batting & fielding) vs benefit (bowling) thing, where he should be compared to potential replacements. I've usually been of the opinion that his bowling has been good enough to justify a spot ahead of other contenders, even if they bat better. But now his bowling has lost a fair bit it's hard to justify that. If O'Brien and Bond were still around he'd be gone. As it is Tuffey and McKay may both be better options.

 

[Flem274*]

Drop him.

There's not a lot coming through though, and everyone who is rated is quite young. Bennett has really improved and guys like Tugaga and Milne have impressed, but they're too inexperienced and young.

Trent Boult would be a nice bowler to have two full seasons under hisb elt, but he got injured for most of the season.

I'd happily trade Martin for Andrew McKay or Michael Bates however.

 

[Bahnz]

This argument is not a good one. It's just like "it didn't matter that we dropped two catches because we lost by 200 runs anyway", or "it didn't matter that Guptill gifted his wicket on 25 yet again because the top order had already collapsed to put us so far behind". Like Uppercut says, those little moments in the game where you give away some advantage or momentum for free to the other team have an importance that can't easily be measured.

Playing Martin is a cost (batting & fielding) vs benefit (bowling) thing, where he should be compared to potential replacements. I've usually been of the opinion that his bowling has been good enough to justify a spot ahead of other contenders, even if they bat better. But now his bowling has lost a fair bit it's hard to justify that. If O'Brien and Bond were still around he'd be gone. As it is Tuffey and McKay may both be better options.

It's nothing like saying that it didn't matter that we dropped two catches or Guptill getting out cheaply. Guptill is a specialist batsman. His reason for being in the test side is to score runs. And a couple of dropped catches will always have a lasting impact on a match. Number 11's get out for **** all most of the time. They're not expected to make runs, and very rarely do. Yes it's always nice when a last wicket partnership props up to frustrate the oppposition for a half hour, but such things are rare even with semi-competent number 11's and in order for it to have any lasting impact on a match, you need to be at least within touching distance of the opposition.

Tuffey is toothless. McKay hasn't shown anything in FC cricket. Do we really want to bank on a bowling equivalent of Martin Guptill?

 

[Hurricane]

Personally I think our entire tail is pathetic at batting except for Tuffey.

I think we should pick a couple of bowling all rounders to bat at positions 8 and 9.

I think number 11 can be excused from having batting prowess this includes Martin at 11.

But the selectors think that the top 7 should be able to do the job. So we can forget about this thought that I have.

 

[Athlai]

Personally I think our entire tail is pathetic at batting except for Tuffey.

I think we should pick a couple of bowling all rounders to bat at positions 8 and 9.

I think number 11 can be excused from having batting prowess this includes Martin at 11.

But the selectors think that the top 7 should be able to do the job. So we can forget about this thought that I have.

Haha rubbish, bowlers are there to bowl. 8 should hopefully know which way to hold a bat but number 9 and 10 are in the team to bowl and only to bowl.

 

[Hurricane]

Haha rubbish, bowlers are there to bowl. 8 should hopefully know which way to hold a bat but number 9 and 10 are in the team to bowl and only to bowl.

With NZ I don't think we can afford the likes of Patel and Southee at 8 and 9 based on their batting.

Southee should be in the team but at #10.

 

[Athlai]

With NZ I don't think we can afford the likes of Patel and Southee at 8 and 9 based on their batting.

Southee should be in the team but at #10.

Yeah fair enough that we have bowlers in the team that can be replaced because of superior bowling but we shouldn't think about chucking our best bowlers just because we can get someone with a FC average of 20 with the bat. 8 is too high for Patel true but the bigger issue is that he also doesn't make the top 4-5 bowlers in NZ right now. We need to sort that out first and foremost, eventually Southee will probably settle down in 4-5 years time and really advance in his batting, but right now his bowling is more important.

Top 5 Bowlers
Bond
O'Brien
Vettori
Southee
???????
???????
???????

 

[Hurricane]

Yeah fair enough that we have bowlers in the team that can be replaced because of superior bowling but we shouldn't think about chucking our best bowlers just because we can get someone with a FC average of 20 with the bat. 8 is too high for Patel true but the bigger issue is that he also doesn't make the top 4-5 bowlers in NZ right now. We need to sort that out first and foremost, eventually Southee will probably settle down in 4-5 years time and really advance in his batting, but right now his bowling is more important.

Top 5 Bowlers
Bond
O'Brien
Vettori
Southee
???????
???????
???????

1) Southee made some runs today - but I think he can only do that when he goes for it. Can not be depended on/does not have the technique to score 20 when the chips are down.

2) I would be happy with an 8 and 9 of N McCullum and Tuffey in that order. I think they are good enough at bowling.

3) If we are determined to not play any all rounders but only the best bowlers in the country per your post. Then we need to only play 4 bowlers and not 5 bowlers in the team. Play an extra batsman and push McCullum and Vettori down the order. They won't like it at first but at least we will score more runs.
Not very long ago Vettori was scoring a truck load of runs from number 8.

 

[Bahnz]

Hope all you doubters took note today. Clearly Chris Martin is the lynchpin of our lower order. Scored more than Arnel and Patel combined, and given the effortless grace with which he belted Johnson through the covers, it was only a matter of time before he surpassed Timmy as well. I smell a promotion.

 

[Athlai]

NcCullum is a terrible FC bowler, dart bowler if there ever was one.

In other news Astle must be rapidly moving up the ladder with 3 5fers in a row. If he backs it up next season I can see him being the 2nd spinner.