Current NZL batting potential

[thierry henry]

taylor was chosen for the test side based on talent even though his domestic first class record wasnt great. But he already has a few test centuries.

By NZ standards, Taylor's FC record (mid-30s average) is decent though. So far, his international performances in tests and ODIs have basically matched his domestic performances. I think he's very much a merit pick- he didn't have overwhelming evidence to support his test selection, but he had reasonable evidence.

To be honest I cant remember Ian Butlers debut and why he was picked. He may have been one of those "Hes got talent and he has had a good 3 or 4 games in a row so we'll pick him now" ones. Half on merit and half on talent.

No. He was picked completely on talent. His selection was equally as random as, say, Daniel Vettori's selection.

I dont remember him as being a bad bowler or pie chucker, so i cant understand your points there. he bowled alright.

No. He was rubbish. After his initial selection he was always a fringe selection because he never quite performed, and he never performed at domestic level either to reinforce the promise the selectors saw. The 6-for was a one-off.

 

[straw man]

Definitely the most excited I've been about the NZ batting lineup for years.

Prior to this test Taylor was the only on who had proven himself capable at test level to any extent. Really hoped he'd had something of a coming-of-age in Australia, where he was quite consistent. But seems to have fallen back since then - a couple of unlucky dismissals and difficult match situations haven't helped.

Great that Jesse has now also racked up his first century - if those outside-of-cricket 'issues' don't rear their head again then there's not doubt he should turn into a great long term middle order batsman.

Guptill and How - desperately need these two to establish themselves. The promising middle order is never going to be that consistent if our problems with openers of the last X years persists. These two seem to have the most ability at the moment. Flynn at 3 as our quasi-opener could also make a real difference, though I wish he'd get rid of that double-swing he seems to do.

Just hope noone turns into a McMillan and belies the promise that they seem to have.

 

[profernity]

Now I can't comment on batting technique or talent becuase I know bugger all about that.

But all the potential in the world does not mean much if it's not being converted at international level.

Cricinfo Statsguru - Test matches - Batting records

Above is a search of centuries scored in Tests within the last five years. Of the 25, only 2 were in the third innings, none in the 4th! In addition, there are no more than 2 centuries in any one innings listed.

Cricinfo Statsguru - Test matches - Batting records

When looking at scores over 50 (sorted by innings then date), it's not that much better.

My concern is the inability to combine all of that batting potential into a single good innings total - we can quote instances of NZ batsmen scoring the occasional century to support our theories as to who's capable and who's not, from now until the end of time. But we're not going to get close to winning a test match if that's all there is.

I don't know how much domestic test cricket is played by Black Caps. If little, it's no surprise that once selected some have trouble recreating their FC form (I'm not going to get into an argument about talent vs merit picks).

I apologise in advance if this all sounds like amateurish twaddle.

 

[Flem274*]

Some have trouble replicating domestic form because they're our version of Ramprakash/Hick, others have a flaw in their batting, and most just replicate their domestic averages (we've had quite a few average high thirties in FC then average high thirties in tests)

God just hates our openers.

 

[Athlai]

Good to see all the faith in Taylor and Ryder being somewhat justified up to this point. Guptill and Flynn have fallen away a lot though.

?
?
?
Taylor
Ryder
Williamson
Vettori
?
?
?
?

The core of the NZ team looks good but those question marks really add up. McCullum might do something up the order but it is hard to tell. And will any opener come right ever?!?

 

[_Ed_]

I'm not giving up on Guptill just yet. While the jury's still out on him in Tests, he has far too much quality as an ODI player not to succeed in that form of the game. He'll come good again.

 

[vcs]

NZ's middle order looks really good, technically and temperamentally, if Ryder can get his life outside the field sorted. They are all young and have an awesome future ahead of them.

 

[straw man]

Good to see all the faith in Taylor and Ryder being somewhat justified up to this point. Guptill and Flynn have fallen away a lot though.

?
?
?
Taylor
Ryder
Williamson
Vettori
?
?
?
?

The core of the NZ team looks good but those question marks really add up. McCullum might do something up the order but it is hard to tell. And will any opener come right ever?!?

The only opener/ number 3 I have had any confidence in since Richardson was Jamie How for that brief period when he performed well. Unfortunately our batsmen who get into the team, fail and get dropped have a very very poor record at coming back.

 

[Julian87]

Still reckon How deserves another shot.

 

[Bahnz]

Still reckon How deserves another shot.

Not on today's evidence he doesn't.

Earlier this year, New Zealand had three batsmen. Now they have 5. Realistically, they'll need at least 6 if they want to consistently battle with the top test nations again.

The bowling question marks are more of a concern to me. Martin will retire in 6 months, and there's no obvious successor to him as leader of the attack. Most of the prospects in domestic cricket are either consistently injured, too young or both.

 

[straw man]

Not on today's evidence he doesn't.

Earlier this year, New Zealand had three batsmen. Now they have 5. Realistically, they'll need at least 6 if they want to consistently battle with the top test nations again.

The bowling question marks are more of a concern to me. Martin will retire in 6 months, and there's no obvious successor to him as leader of the attack. Most of the prospects in domestic cricket are either consistently injured, too young or both.

My maths tells me you're including McCullum, which is very much a wait-and-see at the moment. Just one good top-3 batsman would make a huge difference to this side though.

I would have loved to have seen the current batting lineup with the good bowling attack we briefly had last year (Bond, O'Brien) - we could have just briefly been quite good. Instead our batting on its way up and our bowling on its way down managed to just miss each other.

 

[Bahnz]

My maths tells me you're including McCullum, which is very much a wait-and-see at the moment. Just one good top-3 batsman would make a huge difference to this side though.

I would have loved to have seen the current batting lineup with the good bowling attack we briefly had last year (Bond, O'Brien) - we could have just briefly been quite good. Instead our batting on its way up and our bowling on its way down managed to just miss each other.

McCullum has been somewhat impressive wherever he's batted, since New Zealand's tour of Australia in '08 (averaging around 44 since that time). But what's even better is that he's started making runs in situations that have actually mattered. Whether he stays as an opener or eventually shuffles back down the order to 6/7, he looks to have graduated to the ranks of a genuinely test class batsman. He's still too mental to be reliable though.

 

[Hurricane]

Some good posts by Flem earlier in this thread - and some justified early skepticism on Flynn.

The only thing about talent vs merit - is that if you have tried all the merit based selections and they failed you are left with picking people on talent.

@Athlai - you might as well replace one of those question marks with McCullum - he might fail as an opener but he will stay in the team as a batting resource at least at number 7.

Pity we lost myburgh

 

[honestbharani]

Why not have Taylor at 3 and Ryder at 4? Your best 2 SHOULD bat in these positions AFAIC.. How abt this line up?


McCullum
Guptill/<random opener>
Taylor
Ryder
Williamson
Vettori
Franklin/<other allrounder>
<keeper>
Southee
Mills
Martin/<3rd seamer>


Sounds like an awesome side for mine.. Depth and balance. Should be competitive if everyone plays well in most places.

 

[Athlai]

Taylor and Ryder aren't really number 3's though, Williamson is but it's too soon.

 

[Prince EWS]

The only thing about talent vs merit - is that if you have tried all the merit based selections and they failed you are left with picking people on talent.

If the best seven top order batsmen in the country aren't good enough, it's highly unlikely the eighth best one will be. There comes a time where you just have to drop your standards in certain positions and own up to the fact that while the best player you have for the job might not be very good, but he's still the best you've got. Like what has been done with McIntosh.

If Watling, Guptill etc are really as talented as people make out, they'll be able to average at least 40 odd consistently in a competition Hopkins has maintained a 55+ average in over the last four seasons. And when they do, they'll get picked. It doesn't have to be hard.

 

[Bahnz]

Why not have Taylor at 3 and Ryder at 4? Your best 2 SHOULD bat in these positions AFAIC.. How abt this line up?


McCullum
Guptill/<random opener>
Taylor
Ryder
Williamson
Vettori
Franklin/<other allrounder>
<keeper>
Southee
Mills
Martin/<3rd seamer>


Sounds like an awesome side for mine.. Depth and balance. Should be competitive if everyone plays well in most places.

I imagine the concern would be that with McCullum opening and Taylor at 3, New Zealand would be at risk of falling to 30/3 with 2/5ths of its usual firepower gone. Admittedly, right now Taylor does come into bat inside the first 20 overs mostof the time anyway, and he generally handles the pressure very well, but might be classified as being too dangerous.

 

[Hurricane]

If the best seven top order batsmen in the country aren't good enough, it's highly unlikely the eighth best one will be. There comes a time where you just have to drop your standards in certain positions and own up to the fact that while the best player you have for the job might not be very good, but he's still the best you've got. Like what has been done with McIntosh.

If Watling, Guptill etc are really as talented as people make out, they'll be able to average at least 40 odd consistently in a competition Hopkins has maintained a 55+ average in over the last four seasons. And when they do, they'll get picked. It doesn't have to be hard.

Based on Merit we would persist with Sinclair at number 3. Is this what you are advocating.

 

[straw man]

Agree with Bahnz that McCullum is not the flake he used to be. I'm not convinced he'll do brilliantly against good new ball attacks on less flat wickets, though probably not worse than the others. At least, being mr undroppable, he'll get a fair chance to prove himself.

 

[straw man]

Honestbharani's side is not bad, however there's no way we can push vettori back to six unless we find a wicketkeeper and bowler genuinely good enough to bat seven and eight.