*Official* New Zealand in India 2010

[Bahnz]

If it was a size issue, then the West Indies would never have been as good as they were. The population vs talent pool argument is just an excuse we can pull when we play ****house and a way for Channel 9 and some Sky UK commentators to be patronising.

The reason why the Windies used to be as good at cricket as they were (even with a relatively small population) was because Cricket was so popular as to border on the semi-religious. We have a similar thing going on in New Zealand with rugby these days, which is why we're able to pummel much larger countries. We take the sport seriously, funnel our best athletes into it, pour in a good chunk of government finances and then throw in the weight of the national psyche as well. We don't have that with our cricket team. We survive off the dregs who weren't quite good (or big) enough for rugby. Israel Dagg is a prime example of this in recent years, but there must be countless others. That smaller talent pool imposes a glass ceiling that we've only broken through on the rarest of occasions (and even then usually not for very long). Also, the West Indies, with bouncier, harder tracks, was a much better environment for fostering dynamic, skillful cricketers, than the pudding pitches we get down here.

 

[Flem274*]

Nah, the top 1% are the top 1% everywhere tbh. There is a ceiling for how good you can be, and out of the 100,000 players we have there should be 11 test class players. Plenty of talented players have batted for New Zealand recently, but most of them have big technical shortcomings.

Where we lose out is in player depth.

 

[Flem274*]

The reason why the Windies used to be as good at cricket as they were (even with a relatively small population) was because Cricket was so popular as to border on the semi-religious. We have a similar thing going on in New Zealand with rugby these days, which is why we're able to pummel much larger countries. We take the sport seriously, funnel our best athletes into it, pour in a good chunk of government finances and then throw in the weight of the national psyche as well. We don't have that with our cricket team. We survive off the dregs who weren't quite good (or big) enough for rugby. Israel Dagg is a prime example of this in recent years, but there must be countless others. That smaller talent pool imposes a glass ceiling that we've only broken through on the rarest of occasions (and even then usually not for very long). Also, the West Indies, with bouncier, harder tracks, was a much better environment for fostering dynamic, skillful cricketers, than the pudding pitches we get down here.

This thread is a pretty good read:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...ions-per-capita-other-factors-considered.html

However, I certainly agree rugby and other sports drain the talent pool considerably.

 

[Bahnz]

It'll be really interesting to see if Patel does indeed get selected. On the one hand, it is India, and the pitches will probably suit it. On the other, as Hauritz showed, substandard spinners tend to get nuked in India. Get the feeling he probaby will though. Otherwise, I'm sure Williamson will make his debut at some stage during the series, and I suppose they'll play one of either Watling or Guptill at the top. I'd almost be tempted to shift J-Dawg up to number 3, for a second crack at it, but that does involve leaving 1/2 of our genuine batting resources exposed to the new ball, so its probably ill advised.

 

[Flem274*]

Cricket: Selectorial roles in doubt - Cricket - NZ Herald News

Jeez man, we've been screwing round with different coaching formats for years, and none have hit the mark. How about we have the plain old Coach/Manager/Captain combo?

 

[Flem274*]

It'll be really interesting to see if Patel does indeed get selected. On the one hand, it is India, and the pitches will probably suit it. On the other, as Hauritz showed, substandard spinners tend to get nuked in India. Get the feeling he probaby will though. Otherwise, I'm sure Williamson will make his debut at some stage during the series, and I suppose they'll play one of either Watling or Guptill at the top. I'd almost be tempted to shift J-Dawg up to number 3, for a second crack at it, but that does involve leaving 1/2 of our genuine batting resources exposed to the new ball, so its probably ill advised.

I'd like Williamson to play the role of backup spinner to Vettori, but Patel will get the three tests unless he's woeful in two.

Ryder might be worth a shot at three, but it's much more fun letting him smack bowlers around at number five like he has been.

 

[Edged&Taken]

Test Squad: Daniel Vettori (capt), Brent Arnel, Hamish Bennett, Martin Guptill, Gareth Hopkins, Chris Martin, Brendon McCullum, Tim McIntosh, Andy McKay, Jeetan Patel, Jesse Ryder, Tim Southee, Ross Taylor, BJ Watling, Kane Williamson.

 

[Hurricane]

Don't understand dropping Guptil for ODIs but selecting him for tests. Also I agree with Flem - Guptil is appalling off the back foot.

That said I have also witnessed him get out off the front foot many times as well so PRince has some valid points. I have also witnessed him do a Tim Mcintosh and bat with a SR of 23 for some innings. Needs to bat positively. Needs to play a back foot defence and all will be good.

If Patel plays that means we will play 5 bowlers as they will always take in 3 seamers. So a team with Patel will look something like

McCullum
Mcintosh
Guptil/Watling
Taylor
Ryder
Vettori
Hopkins
Patel
Southee
Arnel
Martin

Can't stand the thought of Patel batting at 8 but I know they will do it

Vettori "It is the job of the batsman and top six to score the runs so if that puts more pressure on the batsman to score the runs then so be it. Perhaps they will perform better under pressure."

Why is it mr selector/part time coach/captain that Australia and other teams have a batsman at 6 and play 4 bowlers ..yet we with our weaker batsman we figure we don't need as many batting resources. You would think we need extra batsman in the team not less...but that is just me Dan.

And Hopkins while acceptable as a test match number 8 is not a test match number 7.

Never should have put a bowler in as a selector...if this is how they are going to pick teams.

I will do an anti Jeets dance hoping he doesn't get selected.

I guess I should stop caring - we are going to lose anyway - yet a part of me would like to see us doing our best and putting a good foot forward.

 

[Hurricane]

Cricket: Selectorial roles in doubt - Cricket - NZ Herald News

Jeez man, we've been screwing round with different coaching formats for years, and none have hit the mark. How about we have the plain old Coach/Manager/Captain combo?

Yep can Vettori and Greatbatch as selectors. Never understood why the coach in particular was a selector.

Let Vettori be a selector after he retires.

 

[NZ Guy]

Guptills pull shot is pretty good. On Israel Dagg, I heard he bowled 140+ at school level yeah? Anywhere I could read about his school cricket?

 

[Hurricane]

out of the 100,000 players we have there should be 11 test class players.

Where we lose out is in player depth.

Can't reconcile these two statements. Are you saying that we should have 11 guys but the fact we don't have 30 players of that calibre it hurts us in case of injuries or retirements.

 

[Howsie]

Greatbatch said it was likely Williamson and Martin Guptill would go head-to-head for the No 6 spot in the batting card, with Jesse Ryder at No 5, one slot below Ross Taylor

FMD. Honestly, if Guptill bat's at six during this series I'm done with this team.

 

[irottev]

That means McCullum's batting at 3 then I take it. Ewwwww. Guptill shouldn't be near this squad. If he plays ahead of Williamson i'm gonna burn effigies.

 

[Hurricane]

FMD. Honestly, if Guptill bat's at six during this series I'm done with this team.

Where is this quote from - it seems like my anti Vettori/Patel rant was uncalled for.

 

[Howsie]

Where is this quote from - it seems like my anti Vettori/Patel rant was uncalled for.

New caps named in Black Caps test team | Stuff.co.nz

 

[irottev]

There's no way Vettori should be a selector - we're the only cricket team i've ever heard of with a player as a selector. I support the coach being a selector though. I'm all or Vettori providing input - but having a vote on the matter is a big no-no.\

What happens when Vettori gives up captaincy. He can't remain selector surely. What does Taylor or whoever takes over say? Why can't I be a selector too?

 

[NZ Guy]

Don't get what all this Guptill hate is about, he averages 35, seems pretty good out of our current crop, I know a lot of that is from his 189 against the Bangers, but we cant really discount that anymore can we?

 

[Hurricane]

WE had a whole thread debating MCullum batting at 3 vs opener. I wanted him opening.
Looks like he will be 3.

 

[irottev]

He's gonna fail and fail and fail and then the selectors will have a headache on their hands.

 

[Hurricane]

Don't get what all this Guptill hate is about, he averages 35, seems pretty good out of our current crop, I know a lot of that is from his 189 against the Bangers, but we cant really discount that anymore can we?

I just don't understand dropping him for ODIs if we are going to play him in tests. he was always good at ODIs until a recent drop in form.

Averages like 23 if you take away that inning.