*Official* - Pakistan in New Zealand 2010/2011

[Flem274*]

I don't think it was just getting called up. He handled some tough jobs at number 6 against Australia and England with a great deal of competence. It was only when he was unwisely elevated to number 3 that everything fell apart. Should serve as a good warning not to get too cute with Kane Williamson whilst he's still in the very early stages of his career.

Flynn scored some 40s against them (though that 40* to draw in England was a good debut knock, and his best imo), but looking at the trend of his FC career, that's what he did domestically too bar one season.

And Kane Williamson is a few levels above Flynn imo. Not saying he should be elevated, because I'm still on the fence for that one (though if he wants to move up...), but just because one player did X when we moved him to X, it doesn't mean another player will do the same.

I hope Flynn scores some good runs opening for ND though, because knowing our openers we'll need as many options as possible if T Mac goes.

 

[Bahnz]

Flynn scored some 40s against them (though that 40* to draw in England was a good debut knock, and his best imo), but looking at the trend of his FC career, that's what he did domestically too bar one season.

And Kane Williamson is a few levels above Flynn imo. Not saying he should be elevated, because I'm still on the fence for that one (though if he wants to move up...), but just because one player did X when we moved him to X, it doesn't mean another player will do the same.

I hope Flynn scores some good runs opening for ND though, because knowing our openers we'll need as many options as possible if T Mac goes.

Flynn was generally good in his first 5 matches. He never got a big score away, but in most of those matches nobody did, and he helped to stem what otherwise might have been some fairly dramatic collapses. Should've stayed where he was.

Williamson is definately a more talented batsman than Flynn, but he's also 2 or 3 years younger than Flynn was when he made his international debut, and still has a lot of work to be done. You don't want to overburden a developing player, particularly one who's so promising. I want Williamson to spend ideally, another 18 months in the middle order. He doesn't necessarily have to stay at 6 (in fact, it would be ideal if we could bump him up to 5/4 for a few matches), but number 3 I fear is a bridge too far at this stage.

 

[Howsie]

They certainly should improve technically if there is a deficiency there.

Who are these blokes btw? It's been mainly Sinclair, Franklin and Fulton on the roundabout in the recent past.

Jamie How would be another.

That is a risk, but I'd prefer that to his current situation. At least if he smashes it domestically and struggles on recall he'll deserve to be persisted with. At the moment we're batting an opener with very few domestic runs at three, with questions over his shot selection and backfoot defense, and we're hoping he'll learn how to get past these deficiencies while still scoring some runs in the hardest level of cricket. I don't think it's fair on the bloke.

Like I said, he's doing a good enough job at the moment, espeically when you compare him to the likes of Sinclair, Franklin and Fulton who all bombed during their last spells in the team. It's not ideal sure, but we could be doing a whole lot worse as you can see. If keeping a player like Guptill in the team means keeping someone like Franklin out of it then I'm fine.

In any case, unless the players name is Taylor, Ryder, Vettori, McCullum or Williamson, being one of the better batsmen in the NZ test side doesn't mean much. If you're talking FC then I disagree, he wasn't one of the better batsmen there either.

Flynn being one of the better batsmen, if not best, we've tried to have failed.

 

[Flem274*]

Jamie How would be another.

Got just the two cracks at test cricket iirc, and he was a better player on his second go. He failed after the two England series, but he was a better player than when he first came in sometime in 2005 or whenever it was.

Like I said, he's doing a good enough job at the moment, espeically when you compare him to the likes of Sinclair, Franklin and Fulton who all bombed during their last spells in the team. It's not ideal sure, but we could be doing a whole lot worse as you can see. If keeping a player like Guptill in the team means keeping someone like Franklin out of it then I'm fine.

I think he's doing a very borderline job at best tbh. And I wouldn't be against Franklin getting one last shot. If he succeeds then great, if not then put him away from the test side for good.

Flynn being one of the better batsmen, if not best, we've tried to have failed.

You mean domestically? I know you're a Flynn fan, but I'm not sure how you can say he's better than the likes of Sinclair domestically and keep a straight face.

If you mean in tests, then as I said, it doesn't say much. Outside our test class batsmen the others we tried are all a much of a muchness.

 

[Bahnz]

If keeping a player like Guptill in the team means keeping someone like Franklin out of it then I'm fine.

Why? They both average low 20's, and Franklin can at least contribute some useful medium pace. The fact that Franklin spent most of his career as a bowler doesn't reflect that well on Guptill either.

 

[Howsie]

Why? They both average about the same in test cricket, and Franklin can at least contribute some useful medium pace. The fact that Franklin spent most of his career as a bowler doesn't reflect that well on Guptill either.

Ah, no they don't. The last time Franklin played test cricket (as a batsmen) his average was under 20. I couldn't give a toss about his bowling either, this isn't one day cricket.

 

[NZ Guy]

Why? They both average low 20's, and Franklin can at least contribute some useful medium pace. The fact that Franklin spent most of his career as a bowler doesn't reflect that well on Guptill either.

Guptill averages in the mid 30's (33.95 to be exact) and Franklin 21.46.

 

[Howsie]

You mean domestically? I know you're a Flynn fan, but I'm not sure how you can say he's better than the likes of Sinclair domestically and keep a straight face.

If you mean in tests, then as I said, it doesn't say much. Outside our test class batsmen the others we tried are all a much of a muchness.

Yeah tests.

 

[Bahnz]

Ah, no they don't. The last time Franklin played test cricket (as a batsmen) his average was under 20. I couldn't give a toss about his bowling either, this isn't one day cricket.

Then how come you want Guptill in the team?

And the last time the two played in the same side they produced very similar aggregates and averages.

 

[Bahnz]

Guptill averages in the mid 30's (33.95 to be exact) and Franklin 21.46.

When you exclude his 245 runs in his one test against Bangladesh (played on NZ soil just to make it that little bit more meaningless) that average drops down to 24. He's rubbish.

 

[NZ Guy]

1. TMac 29
2. BMac 38
3. Guptill 34
4. Taylor 41
5. Ryder 50
6. Williamson 42
7. Young -
8. Vettori 30

All the averages of the NZ team, Guppy not doing too bad. Don't know the last time Ive seen so many over 40 averages in a kiwi team tbh

 

[Howsie]

He's rubbish.

But better then Franklin

 

[Bahnz]

But better then Franklin

Meh, they have different roles in the team, and both have underperformed badly in them.

 

[NZ Guy]

When you exclude his 245 runs in his one test against Bangladesh (played on NZ soil just to make it that little bit more meaningless) that average drops down to 24. He's rubbish.

Reckon India's bowling line up is just as bad and weve played them on flat decks, let's take out all of Ryder's innings against them. He made that innings when NZ were like 180/5, we could've lost that game had it not been for that knock. So sick of that argument, Bangladesh beat us in the last 4 games I don't think we can brush them aside as not even worthy of stats.

 

[Mike5181]

1. TMac 29
2. BMac 38
3. Guptill 34
4. Taylor 41
5. Ryder 50
6. Williamson 42
7. Young -
8. Vettori 30

All the averages of the NZ team, Guppy not doing too bad. Don't know the last time Ive seen so many over 40 averages in a kiwi team tbh

BMac isn't far away either. He averaged like 32 a while ago. To have four batsmen average 40+ is pretty special for an NZ team.

 

[Mike5181]

Reckon India's bowling line up is just as bad and weve played them on flat decks, let's take out all of Ryder's innings against them. He made that innings when NZ were like 180/5, we could've lost that game had it not been for that knock. So sick of that argument, Bangladesh beat us in the last 4 games I don't think we can brush them aside as not even worthy of stats.

AWTA a test match is a test match. We are New Zealand not the great West Indies/Australian side every team we play should count.

 

[NZ Guy]

BMac isn't far away either. He averaged like 32 a while ago. To have four batsmen average 40+ is pretty special for an NZ team.

And we all now about Vettori's exploits over the last couple of years. Yet it still feels as if we collapse all the time, probably because of the lack of matches for Ryder and Williamson. Could we see the end of 80/5 scores?

 

[Mike5181]

And we all now about Vettori's exploits over the last couple of years. Yet it still feels as if we collapse all the time, probably because of the lack of matches for Ryder and Williamson. Could we see the end of 80/5 scores?

Tbh i feel a lot better with McCullum up the top. He seems to be able to handle any type of bowling and adds a bit of stability. If he goes early i think we will still be in trouble though. Taylor is still irresponsible Ryder/Guptill/Williamson aren't overly experienced either. Though there is a good feel about our batting line up tbh. I thought when Astle/Fleming went we were ****ed

Think it is the bowling that will hurt us. We have a few decent young bowlers like Southee, Wagner, Milne, Benett but none are overly special tbh.

 

[Bahnz]

Think it is the bowling that will hurt us. We have a few decent young bowlers like Southee, Wagner, Milne, Benett but none are overly special tbh.

Yup, of all the test countries only Bangladesh had a worse overall bowling average than we did in 2010. And I can't see Martin sticking around beyond this season. The more promising young quicks are all at least a couple of years away in my opinion. For the next year or so we may have to do with an attack made up of Southee, Bennett and Arnel. Gah. Is it too late to bring back the mug?

 

[Mike5181]

Yup, of all the test countries only Bangladesh had a worse overall bowling average than we did in 2010. And I can't see Martin sticking around beyond this season. The more promising young quicks are all at least a couple of years away in my opinion. For the next year or so we may have to do with an attack made up of Southee, Bennett and Arnel. Gah. Is it too late to bring back the mug?

Yeah, i really hope Southee comes of age this year. Our results IMO depend on his performances with the ball in the next couple of years. Martin/Mills/Tuffey etc are all on the decline.