*Official* New Zealand in India 2010

[Flem274*]

I've been entertaining the thought of us stealing a match, only because we play our absolute best when no one expects us to.

But then I think about just how good the likes of Sehwag and Tendulkar are...

But really, if the players aren't wanting to smash some batsmen/bowlers now then nothing can motivate them.

 

[lockton2skipper]

only way i can see this squad working is if williamson plays as second spinner. we need 3 seamers and 2 spinners, where franklin would have been handy. if patel plays with 3 seamers it means vettori 6 hopkins 7 then the tail, no thanks. likewise if we play 2 seamers and 2 spinners haven't a hope in hell of bowling india out. so you either weaken the batting, weak all ready or weaken the bowling ,weaker still or like i said have williamson as second spinner to 3 seamers. even with that line up it's still going to be a huge struggle and can see the seamers been rotated. my tip to do well brent arnel.

 

[Hurricane]

New Zealand are not a minnow by any stretch of the imagination.They always raise their game against India,and after the talking to their board gave them following the ODI series against B'desh,you'd def. back them to come good.

The Indian fans making sure they don't jinx their team by counting their chickens.

Look forward to following the series with you fellows.

Havn't been this excited by a series in a long time. Lets hope Tendulkar gets another century in his quest for 100 100s. Felt like I was going to a funeral with some of the Aussie games - I was there at the basin when we had to follow on.

@Flem - I am secretly harbouring hopes of a draw in a game given our new batting line up. Can't wait!

 

[Athlai]

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

Total garbage.

 

[Hurricane]

I forgot you are a proponent of Hopkins.

I said he will avg 17-18 in the series if he does well. Which is not good enough for a number 7.

I am willing to have some sort of wager with you that he will not average more than 20.00

Or are you making some other point that if you are good enough to bat at 8 you can bat at 7?

 

[Athlai]

I'm not a fan of Hopkins, I just think he deserves a Test chance and he is easily a Test number 7.

 

[Flem274*]

if a batsman who scores runs for fun at number five for Auckland and number six/seven for New Zealand A over a decent time span can't average over 20, I'll facepalm.

That said, in the team I would field he would bat at eight.

 

[Hurricane]

By what standards is he a number 7 ....comparing him to past NZ number 7s he is not of that ilk. We have had really strong players there recently -

When I grew up it was Hadlee who averaged 27.

What do you think he will average for the series?

Anyways - I think it is a done deal that he is going to be number 8 - based on Howise's article. I am just happy we have a keeper who is happy to bat there for the good of the team.

If Hopkins averages 30 at number 8 then that is a bonus for the team. And I will post a retraction.

Finally he is going to get his shot.

 

[straw man]

Mixed feelings going into this series - on the one hand it feels like they're our only tests of the season (after recent events I take any performances against Pakistan with a massive grain of salt)... on the other hand I see no other result in this series than an absolute hammering from India. That's bad enough, but what concerns me more is the potential for injury to our fast bowlers (particularly Arnel and Southee) from bowlings hundreds of overs on unresponsive decks.

Over the last three seasons I have felt that our test team has very slowly but surely built and improved, piece by agonising piece, from a very very low level towards a team that could be quite good. From literally zero international test quality batsmen three years ago (around the time Oram's batting went to pieces) to now where we have three (yes, I'm counting Vettori) and at least one other who might be able to step up.

But, the end of last season and the off-season shattered this mental image/ dream. O'Brien retired, Tuffey failed to live up to expectations on his return, Guptill went backwards and now I think Vettori is feeling the strain and his performances are likely to suffer. Worst of all, McCullum gave up the gloves and we're now going to be playing Gareth bloody Hopkins in our team. I cannot quite describe in words how much this pains me. It's something like

uuuaahhahahhhhghghghhhhhhhhhhhhghghgggggggggggggggggggggggggggUUAUAAAAHHGGGHG!!

In our bowling anyway, we are back to square one, where we were with our batting three painful years ago. I am pinning the entirety of my hopes on Tim Southee, who in perhaps two years from now (during which period our bowling will be awful) he might just be ready to lead the attack. Because he'll need to. Everyone else will have retired or has not played a match for us yet (apart from McKay, but I'm not putting much of the aforementioned hope into that basket). No-one else seems worth discussing (I like Arnel but he's already 32 ish). It seems quite likely that for a change our batting could be stronger than our bowling (very relatively speaking) though of course we still have no openers and there is the Hopkins factor. The Hopkins factor means to me that every match we have to choose between going in a batsman light or a bowler light - both options are awful.

It's all a bit depressing to be frank and with the way the ICC is running the game it's gotten to the point where I wonder if NZ will ever have a test team again that reaches even the modest heights of the early 00s.

So, come on Vettori and co, give us something to be hopeful about.

 

[straw man]

I'm not a fan of Hopkins, I just think he deserves a Test chance and he is easily a Test number 7.

I think, Mr Athlai, that you are being very very optimistic there.

Even though I haven't seen much of Hopkins against spin, and wicketkeepers do tend to be ok as batsmen against spin, I would be seriously surprised if Hopkins managed more than 100 runs all series (very likely will bat 6 times).

 

[Avada Kedavra]

The Indian fans making sure they don't jinx their team by counting their chickens.

Look forward to following the series with you fellows.

Havn't been this excited by a series in a long time. Lets hope Tendulkar gets another century in his quest for 100 100s. Felt like I was going to a funeral with some of the Aussie games - I was there at the basin when we had to follow on.

@Flem - I am secretly harbouring hopes of a draw in a game given our new batting line up. Can't wait!

lol that wasn't an anti-jinx-I don't do that sort of thing.I genuinely feel that NZ are a better side than what they are being made out to be in this thread.They arent B'desh(or Aus )And yeah,look forward to following the series here.

 

[Halfpast_Yellow]

I agree that we're stuffed if we play Patel.

Should be 3 seamers, Vettori, with Kane and Ryder part-timing. Kane to bowl more if he goes well.

I am optimistic with McCullum at 3. If he looks to play a mature innings I think he could handle India's bowlers.

Please please please play

McIntosh
Watling
McCullum
Taylor
Ryder
Williamson
Vettori
Hopkins
Arnel
Bennett
Martin

If Martin/Bennet are bad then sure try Patel or Southee. I guess. At least it would help the batting

 

[BeeGee]

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.

I totally agree.

 

[Woodster]

My concerns for NZ are that McCullum is not good enough to be batting at number 3 in a Test side. He should be allowed to come in at 5/6, hopefully when the ball is an older state, and play his attacking brand of batting. He should be restricted in his strokeplay, and the responsibilities he will feel at 3 may see him a little more cautious than usual.

Dan Vettori should no higher than 7, I appreciate he is probably a better batter than I give him credit for, his style is pretty ugly to watch, but I understand he can be effective, and at 7 he will give the line-up a degree of batting depth. If he were to bat at 6 with Hopkins at 7, it looks pretty weak.

I hope they don't fall into the trap of feeling like two spinners are essential in India. Yes conditions may indicate turn will be a prevalent factor in winning Test matches there, but only if the spinners are of a high quality. India play spin exceptionally well in their own conditions, the way they toyed with Hauritz, the latest example of this. I've seen in England do it in the past with poor results, they felt obliged to play spinners for the sake of it, India will dismantle most spinners. It is not easy even for the spinners to contain India. Australia hoped Hauritz would at least do that even if he wasn't a wicket-taking threat, and they could attack with Hilfenhaus or Johnson at the other end.

The way NZ are going to trouble India is if they have a bowler or two that can find some reverse swing. Zaheer Khan is the perfect exponent of this. Basically he'll have a go with the new ball, they'll then employ the spinners till about 45 overs when Zaheer will return, generally to good effect, and get in reversing. Who are the likely bowlers in the NZ squad capable of achieving this ?

 

[BeeGee]

I agree that we're stuffed if we play Patel.

Should be 3 seamers, Vettori, with Kane and Ryder part-timing. Kane to bowl more if he goes well.

I am optimistic with McCullum at 3. If he looks to play a mature innings I think he could handle India's bowlers.

Please please please play

McIntosh
Watling
McCullum
Taylor
Ryder
Williamson
Vettori
Hopkins
Arnel
Bennett
Martin

If Martin/Bennet are bad then sure try Patel or Southee. I guess. At least it would help the batting

AWTA. That's the team I'm hoping for. McKay or Southee could grab a seamer's spot based on tour form, but that's the 11 I'd like to see for the first test.

 

[BeeGee]

James Franklin must be wondering what he needs to do to get into the test squad.
His figures from the A tour:
Batting average: 60
Bowling average: 17.2

The A tour figures for a couple of the players who did make the squad:
Guptill batting Average: 36
Martin bowling average: 24.8

I'd have had him in my squad.

 

[irottev]

James Franklin must be wondering what he needs to do to get into the test squad.

Sucking some dicks is what you need to do I think. It's obviously what Patel, Guptill, etc. have been doing.

 

[Howsie]

The way NZ are going to trouble India is if they have a bowler or two that can find some reverse swing. Zaheer Khan is the perfect exponent of this. Basically he'll have a go with the new ball, they'll then employ the spinners till about 45 overs when Zaheer will return, generally to good effect, and get in reversing. Who are the likely bowlers in the NZ squad capable of achieving this ?

Probably Southee and McKay.

 

[Howsie]

James Franklin must be wondering what he needs to do to get into the test squad.
His figures from the A tour:
Batting average: 60
Bowling average: 17.2

The A tour figures for a couple of the players who did make the squad:
Guptill batting Average: 36
Martin bowling average: 24.8

I'd have had him in my squad.

Let's remember who they played on this A tour shell we.

 

[lockton2skipper]

Probably Southee and McKay.

got to agree.