*Official* New Zealand in India 2010

[Prince EWS]

but yeah that 4-8 looks really good we just need a solid opener to partner Brendon

It can't actually happen though because I was basing it on a fantasy world where McCullum can open the batting and keep wicket in Tests without hurting his back. He can't even do the latter while batting down the order anymore so there's no hope of him ever doing the double.

The only way to get Franklin in the Test side at the moment is to bat Williamson, Taylor, Ryder, himself or whoever you select to keep wickets at three. As it stands I'd strongly consider batting Franklin at three - sure it's not really a natural position for him but I'd still back him to outdo Guptill or Watling there and it means you don't disrupt the good middle order structure that currently exists. It's not like it'd be ruining a young player either - it'd be giving another lifeline to a player who's been tried and failed in a couple of roles now but has earned another run based on domestic performances (and being an epic gun ). It could be a monumental failure but I think it has less risk and more potential return than playing a talented but completely unproven (at all levels) young batsman who averages 26 in the Plunket Shield there.

 

[straw man]

I like the idea of Vettori, Franklin and wicketkeeper-who-can-bat at 6, 7, 8 in tests too. I think Franklin's bowling could still be very useful when he has a good day - Vettori can throw him the (still-new-enough-to-swing) ball and see what happens. One day in three he could come up with a few of those wicket-taking deliveries that he used to produce, one day he might be fairly average but ok for a couple of overs and one day he might be awful, in which case the ball is taken off him and we still have three other seamers.

This presupposes that Franklin is still capable of bowling wicket-taking deliveries on a good day, but I think he probably is. Otherwise you just have a specialist batsman batting at 7

We also must have a wicketkeeper who can average 30-ish though with the bat for this to work. It also of course means Williamson has to move to 3, which is something they may want to delay.

 

[_Ed_]

I'm distraught, quite frankly.

 

[Mike5181]

It can't actually happen though because I was basing it on a fantasy world where McCullum can open the batting and keep wicket in Tests without hurting his back. He can't even do the latter while batting down the order anymore so there's no hope of him ever doing the double.

The only way to get Franklin in the Test side at the moment is to bat Williamson, Taylor, Ryder, himself or whoever you select to keep wickets at three. As it stands I'd strongly consider batting Franklin at three - sure it's not really a natural position for him but I'd still back him to outdo Guptill or Watling there and it means you don't disrupt the good middle order structure that currently exists. It's not like it'd be ruining a young player either - it'd be giving another lifeline to a player who's been tried and failed in a couple of roles now but has earned another run based on domestic performances (and being an epic gun ). It could be a monumental failure but I think it has less risk and more potential return than playing a talented but completely unproven (at all levels) young batsman who averages 26 in the Plunket Shield there.

Yeah the golden rule from now on is to leave Taylor, Ryder, Williamson at 4,5 and 6. I don't know about Franklin at number 3. I think we will see a Peter Fulton scenario early on where his height might be a disadvantage. Only other names that are worthy of a mention are Neil Broom, Sinclair and maybe up and coming Brownlie. I do think we should stick with Guptill some way or another though at least 12th man!

BTW on McCullum. Yeah it's a shame because i always thought he would be the guy to play through until he was 36 but he seems to be breaking down recently which is not good.

 

[BeeGee]

Wow, what an innings from Pathan. To hit an ODI ton, coming in at 6, when your team was in a bit of trouble... incredible stuff.

Much better effort from the Kiwis. Franklin showed his class with the bat and NcCullum was superb with the ball on a flat track.
The rest of the bowling was a problem. McKay was woeful and our two most experienced and top ranked ODI bowlers (Vettori and Mills) were expensive and didn't take a wicket between them (although Vettori was unlucky on one occasion).

What's wrong with How? This tour was a prime opportunity for him prove to the selectors that he deserved his place in the team. He can't seem to buy a run on this tour.

 

[Blocky]

In my view, too much is made of the difference between #3 and #4 for Taylor and I think it's a pathetic viewpoint that your "best" most established batsman cannot do the job one spot up in the order.

It's quite obvious that at the moment we do not have a suitable #3 candidate but we have several #4567 candidates. Therefore the team needs and dictates that Taylor should bat #3 (as he does for his province and as he has done all his junior career)

Putting Vettori ahead of Franklin is brainless if you're also asking Vettori to captain and bowl the most overs. I'm playing Franklin as a specialist batsman and someone who bats either 5 or 6.

 

[Mike5181]

In my view, too much is made of the difference between #3 and #4 for Taylor and I think it's a pathetic viewpoint that your "best" most established batsman cannot do the job one spot up in the order.

It's quite obvious that at the moment we do not have a suitable #3 candidate but we have several #4567 candidates. Therefore the team needs and dictates that Taylor should bat #3 (as he does for his province and as he has done all his junior career)

Putting Vettori ahead of Franklin is brainless if you're also asking Vettori to captain and bowl the most overs. I'm playing Franklin as a specialist batsman and someone who bats either 5 or 6.

I think Ryder has surpassed Taylor as our best Test batsmen. His skill is on par with Taylor and his attitude/temperament was far superior.

 

[Blocky]

I think Taylor quite frankly is the worst of our test batsman when compared with McCullum, Ryder, Williamson, Vettori and potentially even Franklin.

Ryder, I like the idea of him opening in both forms of the game, the only thing against it is how injury prone he is, I'd like our top 3 to be as consistently on the park as possible.

 

[Mike5181]

I think Taylor quite frankly is the worst of our test batsman when compared with McCullum, Ryder, Williamson, Vettori and potentially even Franklin.

Ryder, I like the idea of him opening in both forms of the game, the only thing against it is how injury prone he is, I'd like our top 3 to be as consistently on the park as possible.

Talent wise I would say
Ryder>Williamson>Taylor>McCullum>Vettori
but talent doesn't mean much if you don't have the right application/attitude

Its a shame Johann Myburgh didn't want to play for NZ. He averaged like 45 and our batting would look really good.

 

[Blocky]

On natural striking ability, Taylor and McCullum are probably the two top batsmen in NZ. On technique and skill, Jesse Ryder.

 

[vcs]

Meh, I think the fact that before today he had four List A tons and a strike rate of over 120 was just as much of an indication that he was capable of this as his IPL performances. Picking players on what they're capable of rather than what they're likely to do is a recipe for disaster anyway.

I'm not saying they should be totally discounted anyway; I'm just saying they should be wholly secondary. It makes me sad inside when the first question someone asks when trying to get a handle on the quality of a player is "How did he go in the IPL?" as if it's the best pointer. That's all I was saying before.

Don't you think it's a pretty good indication for an ODI on an Indian track? Don't get me wrong, I dislike the IPL as much as the next guy. Yusuf is fail against quality pace, but NZ don't have that at the moment (though Southee did an acceptable job) and he was always going to be a threat if he got going.

 

[Prince EWS]

Don't you think it's a pretty good indication for an ODI on an Indian track?

Not really, no.

 

[Mike5181]

Not really, no.

 

[TT Boy]

Cricinfo with another knee jerk article.
India v New Zealand, 4th ODI: Yusuf Pathan finds a way past the bouncer | Cricket Features | India v New Zealand | ESPN Cricinfo

This is the last one they wrote…
Peter English: Hilfenhaus expands his repertoire | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[ankitj]

Good thing is that the world cup is in Sub continent. So India can pick batters on their form without worrying too much how they will fare against bounce or if they are FTBs.

 

[Zinzan]

If we can chase 315 do this despite the best batsmen in our second string ODI batting line-up not clicking, It's time for me to have some faith in India's chances in the 2011 WC.

Without wishing to take the cream out of your donut, this NZ side is a mere shadow of it's former self & I hardly need remind you we were recently hammered 4-0 against Bang ( who recently lost to Zim !!!), so not sure I'd be getting overly excited about India's WC chances purely based on these hit-outs against a totally out-of-sorts NZ side.

 

[thierry henry]

ffs I hate the way we manage to make **** cricketers like Pathan look good

I also hate the way we routinely allow batsmen to absolutely destroy us, and then Vettori comes out with something like "so and so just got on a roll today and we couldn't contain him", as if it's impossible to contain a batsman by bowling well.

 

[Hurricane]

Jimmy Franklin should not be in the test side at the moment or in the immediate future. All of the permutations to allow it require either ruining Williamson's career by batting him at 3 prematurely. Or batting Franklin himself at 3.
He is not a test match number 3 as he has a suspect technique that was shown up during the India test series a few years ago. So unless he has been working with a batting coach I would not give him another chance in a top 6 batting position. Franklin >>>> Hopkins it is true. But he is not going to set the world on fire in tests. He would be a respectable number 7 though.

The solution to our test batting line up was Myburgh -

 

[Mike5181]

ffs I hate the way we manage to make **** cricketers like Pathan look good

I also hate the way we routinely allow batsmen to absolutely destroy us, and then Vettori comes out with something like "so and so just got on a roll today and we couldn't contain him", as if it's impossible to contain a batsman by bowling well.

Yeah we have seen Mills, Vettori, Southee contain the likes of Ponting and Hayden but Pathan is to good to handle.

 

[Shri]

Without wishing to take the cream out of your donut, this NZ side is a mere shadow of it's former self & I hardly need remind you we were recently hammered 4-0 against Bang ( who recently lost to Zim !!!), so not sure I'd be getting overly excited about India's WC chances purely based on these hit-outs against a totally out-of-sorts NZ side.

This series was supposed to solve a couple of problems in the ODI batting for India, nothing more. The Yuvraj situation and the no.7 slot. The later is somewhat solved with both Ashwin and Yusuf looking decent. We have come to accept the fact that the bowling is going to be ****e anyway, have to strengthen the batting to compensate. And yeah, we are contenders for a quarter final spot and potentially the final as well, even if this series never happened.