McCullum's a bit of a freak, sorta like Dan Carter. You can be a quality first-five without being in Carter's league, similar with McCullum.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The Official Gareth Hopkins isn't terrible thread
- Thread starter Athlai
- Start date
Flem274*
123/5
As long as Young isn't Stephen Donald.
But from what you've said Young sounds like a decent package. Sounds good.
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
This view gets quite a bit of airplay on CW and I think it's too simplistic. In my opinion ODI performance may provide some indication of test-match performance - it's on a case by case basis and requires a bit of thought before drawing any (tentative) conclusions.
Neil Broom's poor performances batting 6 in ODIs have doubtless made the selectors more nervous about giving him a test debut and rightly so IMO. Yes he deserved some leeway batting in a slightly unfamiliar role but if you look at many of his dismissals it surely is relevant to future test-match performance and it surely does not bode particularly well. And he did have enough ODI innings in all sorts of different game situations to draw these sorts of conclusions.
On the other hand, if Jesse Ryder had been repeatedly getting out cheaply when batting as a highly attacking opener in ODIs, I think most people would agree that indicates nothing about test performances. Because it's a totally different role and a different mindset.
For Hopkins' batting, see Broom. IMO.
On pure keeping ability - surely there's not a huge amount of difference between wicketkeeping in one-dayers and wicketkeeping in tests. If anything, wicketkeeping in tests might be considered harder (more attacking bowling, much longer time in the field, generally punished more for mistakes, though I guess you don't have to sometimes stand up to the stumps to seamers like in ODIs) so any general weaknesses of a Hopkins wicketkeeping in ODIs would be more of a concern when bringing a wicketkeeper into test matches. ODI form again not irrelevant.
Last edited:
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Disagree with everything (including what you said about Broom) in that post apart from the stuff about wicket keeping.
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
So if Van Wyk has qualified and if JimmyGS says Young is a good keeper (assuming he knows a lot more than most of us, and definitely more than me), then those seem like two credible alternatives to Hopkins.
I'm not saying either is guaranteed success, but they are worth giving a chance in the absence of anything resembling good performances from Please-stopkins.
I'm not saying either is guaranteed success, but they are worth giving a chance in the absence of anything resembling good performances from Please-stopkins.
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
Surprised you managed to disagree with the point about Broom AND the point about Ryder....
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Haha you know what I mean. I think Broom should be in Test calculations too. I don't care what he does in ODIs either.Surprised you managed to disagree with the point about Broom AND the point about Ryder....
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
I wouldn't completely discount him based on ODI performances and I hope the selectors wouldn't either. Just that he will have gone down in the selectors' estimation and will probably have to rack off and score lots of domestic FC runs..... and maybe not get out to a slightly quicker bowler aiming straight at the stumps or any sort of spinner next time a selector happens to be scouting a game.
Hurricane
Hall of Fame Member
Actually I think it's funnier that despite the match result being already decided and with the pressure totally off, he still only managed 11* from 43 balls, having survived a close lbw shout and a dropped catch
More discourse
Hurricane
Hall of Fame Member
Right he has 36 runs from 4 innings with three dismissals so he is averaging 12.
He needs to make 64 next dig for athlai to win Strawmans bet.
He has a better chance at averaging 20 - he just needs a 24 not out to do it. Alternatively if he is dismissed he needs just 44.
For NZs sake I hope Tim Mcintosh can bat 2.5 days and Hopkins doesn't need to bat.
He needs to make 64 next dig for athlai to win Strawmans bet.
He has a better chance at averaging 20 - he just needs a 24 not out to do it. Alternatively if he is dismissed he needs just 44.
For NZs sake I hope Tim Mcintosh can bat 2.5 days and Hopkins doesn't need to bat.
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
There is more than one other domestic keeper with a good record, which is why it's so annoying the selectors keep barking up the Hopkins tree.
Hopkins has a good domestic record too, but he's a proven failure at this level IMO.
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
I'd better start making an Athlai avatar.
thierry henry
International Coach
I think we are pretty similar in terms of cricketing philosophies, but I have to make a semi-exception for Broom, and probably Hopkins too. They both just look consistently godawful batting against international bowlers. I get the distinct impression that both are incapable of facing bowling over about 140kph, Broom in particular had a tendency to look like a genuine tailender against quick bowling, repeatedly missing straight balls even when defending etc. There's some logic to the argument that an NZ domestic batsman could possibly (in rare cases imo) simply be not up to facing even sharpish bowling, and that we would never know this until they reached international level.