***Official*** England in New Zealand series 2013

[Howe_zat]

How good a gloveman is Watling, considering he first played as a specialist bat?

I like him because I once mispronounced his name as "Waddling" and would welcome others to do so

 

[Hurricane]

I think the loser of Howsie's and Bahnz's bet should have to change their user name to Hesson.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

How good a gloveman is Watling, considering he first played as a specialist bat?

I like him because I once mispronounced his name as "Waddling" and would welcome others to do so

Hasn't made any obvious blunders. He's definitely good enough and will only improve (with the gloves)

 

[Kippax]

They're both Wellingtonian batsmen who score runs ridiculously quickly and cbf with the whole blocking thing is how I'm using it.

Ronchi on a Greentop - YouTube

Try not to confuse a guy who doesn't think he's very adept at a job and does it unwillingly and one who's been doing this...

 

[hendrix]

Utterly ridiculous comment. I mean with sort of logic why pick anyone? May as well just draw names out of a hat right?

Virtually every batsman NZ picks will look out of their depth. Ronchi has international experience and wasn't out of his depth. He plays properly, not your typical NZ blocker/slogger/both with blatant weaknesses. He scored centuries in a low-ish scoring game against the strongest bowling attack in domestic cricket. He has a history of being at least decent and you'd hope he's matured and reaching his peak.

My point was that other domestic batsmen have performed better than Ronchi.

So basically, the opposite of picking names out of a hat.

Absolutely, but then he's competing against guys who can't even average 30 in Test cricket or debutants. In those four seasons he still averaged about 30 overall. He's a great fit for a no. 7 and I think he'd average low 30s in Test cricket, any more would be a bonus. He's not much of a risk because of his background, so I don't think he'd be a disaster in the medium term (obviously being a bad starter means he's prone to runs of low scores) and would be at least as decent.as anyone else likely to play in his place.

He's competing against batsmen who've scored more runs at a better average than him.

If you want him at 7 as a wicketkeeper-batsman, then I don't disagree with you.

But my comment was that his selection as a batsman is in no way justified.

Watling is more an opener than a number 7. And Ronchi is possibly the best number 7 NZ have available.

With regards to Ryder I think 6 is too low. Unless he bats 4 or 5 you may as well just have him wherever is convenient - he'll be equally unsuited to opening, 3, 6 or 7.

I don't disagree with anything here.

I would much rather Watling gave up the gloves because he's not particularly good and Ronchi looks far better as a wicketkeeper IMO.

How good a gloveman is Watling, considering he first played as a specialist bat?

not very good.

 

[Flem274*]

must admit I hadn't seen that knock. fair play to him then. I've seen a selection of his other knocks and read about his batting philosophy and got the impression he wasn't one for playing time.

 

[Athlai]

Watling really is the best Marshall twin. Official status and everything.

 

[Scaly piscine]

The reality with NZ's batting is they're struggling to get a regular lineup, and bat them in the same position. Picking duffers and hope they do a job, then shuffling the pack again, it's not going to work.

Watling is likely to be the guy that covers what's left. McCullum should be your opener. Kane at 3. Taylor and Ryder are your 4 and 5 (either way around it doesn't matter too much). Brownlie at 6. Ronchi 7.

That would be the strongest top 7 NZ can probably field. The likelihood of it being maintained for long, if at all is pretty low. But the aim should be get a core batting lineup where if someone like Ryder buggers off or punches a window then Watling knows if the next cab off the rank is an opener (probably unlikely, but who knows) he'll swap round. If not it is a straight swap for Ryder's position. NZ need to get to a situation where they're not auditioning 2-3 batsmen every match. If they don't pick Ronchi this will happen and it will make things more complicated later on. I can see Ronchi just coming straight in and playing as though he'd already played 50 Tests - doesn't mean he'll set the world alight, but he'll be a threat at 7.

Vettori and the will he won't he situation is disruptive. I generally don't think NZ should look to play him as part of a 4 bowler attack, but NZ need to sort out a pattern to what they're doing. 6 batsmen + Ronchi + 4 bowlers is the best fit when Ryder/Williamson can do 10 overs or so. Realistically Vettori won't be around much longer and he's injury prone, so NZ should plan for the future - even if they decide to pick Vettori at 8 when available in the short term.

 

[Kippax]

I like the cut of Scaly's jib on this, I have to say. Watling will become the poster boy of a pissily knee-jerk organisation dominated by tumult, jury rigs and burning furniture to keep the room warm, but that truth probably does need to be owned if we want our optimum XI.

My point was that other domestic batsmen have performed better than Ronchi.

Statistics | Plunket Shield | ESPN Cricinfo

Not actually true based on the raw numbers from this season, once you've rubbed out an obvious outlier. There's one player with over 400 runs at a better average than 73.5 (the Mark Perham corn-fed, hand-reared anomaly that is Munro) and there's no-one with more tons yet than Ronchi's three.

Ronchi's FC career season-by-season.

 

[Athlai]

I'm backing Scaly in this, that would be our best top 7.

But it won't happen. Decent chance no one will want to open and we at least keep Guptill. Heaven forbid Rob Nicol may even get a game under this regime.

 

[Kippax]

Peter Fulton, Opening vs. Wellington - YouTube (fmd Kuggs, you're trying to knock Fulton's block off, on a pitch you'd just seen Andrew Ellis take sixfer on)

Kuggs' last confirmed smile, Gillette Cup 2008.

 

[Flem274*]

Thank you Scaly for explaining why you think what you do.

It's sound enough, provided Watling can make a fist of opening, which I'm dubious about. ODIs yes he could, but tests? No, I don't think it will work. Athlai alluded to the Marshall twins above and I guess we should still bear in mind there was a time where Hamish Marshall was scoring test hundreds against good bowlers and we all know how that went. Watling has had a good comeback but is still unproven in his current position, so I don't think we can be 100% confident he is a test standard opener and when on current form he is our best wicketkeeper batsman and our most valuable player in South Africa, it's a risk of a scarce resource.

In saying that, anyone who can average 30-35 like McCullum will be counted as a success. The unfortunate reality is Williamson is an opener and Brownlie/Taylor were batting at three during our most recent series because when Guptill didn't get out within a couple of overs, McCullum did.

I don't think Ronchi has done enough to displace our MVP from the last series, and one of only two batsmen to emerge with any credit, and bearing in mind the "credit" wasn't a couple of tons but a couple of 50s and a 40. We've played the Elevate New Shiny Player To Opener before and it's never worked.

But then I thought Watling being turned into a keeper batsman and selected ahead of de Boorder and van Wyk was a fail move in the first place, so what do I know.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Imo the whole problem (apart from out lack of talent and coaching) is that we rush our players into the system. I'm not saying we should be like Australia, but dominating domestic bowling lineups for a single season shouldn't be enough to merit selection, and neither should potential alone. Neesham and Anderson both needed another season of domestic at least before being integrated into the squad, Williamson needed another year at 5 etc etc.

If any change is to be made, Chops should be brought into the squad, and be made to face aggressive net sessions, until he is comfortable. Chops, Ryder and Williamson is more than enough to cover 5th bowling duties, and would allow us to run 4 quicks.

With our small talent pool, the team needs to be moulded around the available talent, not the players moulded around what the team wants, a basic schoolboy coaching error.

 

[NZTailender]

The reality with NZ's batting is they're struggling to get a regular lineup, and bat them in the same position. Picking duffers and hope they do a job, then shuffling the pack again, it's not going to work.

Agree with this 100%. In years gone by, when Australia had someone go down due to injury or something, there'd be someone like Hodge or Hussey on hand to come in and do the job until the other bloke got better. And if you did that job well enough, you'd eventually displace someone who isn't up to it or who retires (like Hussey did).

I don't think at the moment there's a recognisable list of alternatives should anyone get injured. In fact, with question marks over so many people in the current mix, I think anyone who gets a call up thinks they're probably good for a few Tests and that they've arrived. Someone gets injured, and it's almost as if the selectors throw a dart in the general direction of the Plunket Shield 'most runs' list and take whoever they get without checking their technique and the like. Just as we have a Test XI we should have a shadow XI of players who are the automatic pick in case of injury. In terms of those who are out of form or not up to it, I think there needs to be a specified period of how long you get to actually show your goods. Maybe 6 Tests/2-3 series. Some players don't fire on debut but can come good. NZ has a habit of picking a player for 1-2 Tests and dropping. There's also a habit of dropping someone out of form, only to re-select them for the next series because their replacement hasn't immediately done well, or there's been an injury. There really is no sense of privilege to being picked, because everyone is getting picked. And yet someone like Neil Broom, who probably deserved a Test shot ages ago, won't be considered because he was rubbish at limited overs where he was jerked around.
The 'A' team format is where the newer players earmarked with 'potential' should be tested, not in the Test XI once a spot opens up for the various reasons that they currently do. There needs to be a barrier between that unproven, raw area that should be the First Class and A team arena and the Test XI, and that barrier should be established players with credentials and more than 3 seasons under their belt, like Sinclair, Gillespie and Ronchi. I mean, Bracewell was probably the last punt that really worked, but even so, he's not up to much unless Tim Southee is in the same side. Where has throwing debuts to young guys really gotten us? A group of tried and faileds who won't get recalled because they've gone back and worked on their game but because the most recent pick hasn't worked so they're going back to the drawing board of failure and shuffling names around hoping that they'll come good with their next 'opportunity'...

Problem is there's not enough A team matches for mine.

 

[straw man]

I don't think at the moment there's a recognisable list of alternatives should anyone get injured. In fact, with question marks over so many people in the current mix, I think anyone who gets a call up thinks they're probably good for a few Tests and that they've arrived. Someone gets injured, and it's almost as if the selectors throw a dart in the general direction of the Plunket Shield 'most runs' list and take whoever they get without checking their technique and the like. Just as we have a Test XI we should have a shadow XI of players who are the automatic pick in case of injury. In terms of those who are out of form or not up to it, I think there needs to be a specified period of how long you get to actually show your goods. Maybe 6 Tests/2-3 series. Some players don't fire on debut but can come good. NZ has a habit of picking a player for 1-2 Tests and dropping. There's also a habit of dropping someone out of form, only to re-select them for the next series because their replacement hasn't immediately done well, or there's been an injury. There really is no sense of privilege to being picked, because everyone is getting picked. And yet someone like Neil Broom, who probably deserved a Test shot ages ago, won't be considered because he was rubbish at limited overs where he was jerked around.

You were making sense until your love of Neil Broom interfered He's always been close to the test squad but has failed to apply pressure at crucial times (not a good sign for someone looking to step up a level) e.g. outbatted by Flynn and Brownlie in an A tour in Australia a while ago, then scored so few domestic runs last season that even when Brownlie was injured he couldn't be picked to fill the 6 position for the homes series v South Africa. I mean if he was a top order batsman then he would been in (and out) years ago but he's never quite presented a good enough case for inclusion down the order imo.

We definitely used to pick and drop domestic batsmen at a tremendous rate. I never liked it, however to my great disappointment, the pick and retain approach hasn't showed much success recently either (Guptill, even Williamson).

More A tours would be brilliant of course.

 

[jcas0167]

The reality with NZ's batting is they're struggling to get a regular lineup, and bat them in the same position. Picking duffers and hope they do a job, then shuffling the pack again, it's not going to work.

Watling is likely to be the guy that covers what's left. McCullum should be your opener. Kane at 3. Taylor and Ryder are your 4 and 5 (either way around it doesn't matter too much). Brownlie at 6. Ronchi 7.

That would be the strongest top 7 NZ can probably field. ...I can see Ronchi just coming straight in and playing as though he'd already played 50 Tests - doesn't mean he'll set the world alight, but he'll be a threat at 7.

Vettori and the will he won't he situation is disruptive. I generally don't think NZ should look to play him as part of a 4 bowler attack, but NZ need to sort out a pattern to what they're doing. 6 batsmen + Ronchi + 4 bowlers is the best fit when Ryder/Williamson can do 10 overs or so. Realistically Vettori won't be around much longer and he's injury prone, so NZ should plan for the future - even if they decide to pick Vettori at 8 when available in the short term.

Agree 100%. Ronchi is experienced and isn't going to be overawed coming into that role. He has a good strike rate and as you say, plays proper cricket shots. I think that line up would give us the best chance of getting consistent 300+ scores.

 

[straw man]

So, as our problems start at the TOP of the order, who do we think should be our openers for the England series? I think this is far more important than who keeps and if anything, should affect that decision rather than the other way round.

I'm not even going to talk about McCullum not opening because it's ludicrous. If that's really going to happen then there's just no helping us. I hope the comments made mean McCullum will bat more aggressively as opener - I wouldn’t mind that.

From vague rumblings from the NZ camp there are four options to partner McCullum: Guptill, Watling, Flynn, Fulton. Leaving aside other considerations, who do we think is the best bet for the two England series and beyond?

Guptill: Has been horrible for some time. I've seen people write that the problems are mental - I disagree. He clearly has technical problems, some of which can definitely be remedied and some that probably can't. He may also have simply reached the limit of his ability (though I don't usually favour that sort of self-defeating explanation). Almost without fail he scores runs when he drops down a level, whether it be to flat pitches in limited overs cricket, or to domestic cricket. I haven't looked in detail at the runs he scored in county cricket however I suspect many were on flatter wickets or against weaker attacks too. That doesn't point to his mental approach being the problem. Test opening may just prove to be a bridge too far. Suspect he’s not helped by constant switching between limited overs and test cricket, however he’s a fixture in the LO sides so that won’t change. Would some time away to work on things help? Not sure, though I hope so. Good slip catcher. Results point to him being dropped however I still reserve the right to call the dropping a conspiracy to get rid of Taylor supporters .

Watling: Current flavour of the month, which immediately makes me sceptical. Leaving aside whether he should keep wicket or not, is he really the best bet to partner McCullum? He seems to be a hard worker and has genuinely improved – he’d need to have considering he couldn’t score runs against Zimbabwe last time he opened. Or against Windies iirc. Has scored runs recently – even if they’re down the order or LO you can’t argue with runs. I wouldn’t say his defence is great by any stretch – doesn’t always defend with a straight bat, gets squared up by outswingers, has often in the past been guilty of the Williamson-like prod outside off, though perhaps less now. Is playing the ball later than he was. Got out to the new ball every time he faced it in SA (though so did everyone else). I get a few Guptill vibes with Watling tbh.

Flynn: Looks like he’ll not be required in our middle order with Taylor returning and Brownlie scoring runs. A terrible tour of SA, even if you forgive his first innings slog when batting with Martin. Still seems unsure what sort of batsman he wants to be – either gritty or more of a strokemaker. ‘Gritty’ Flynn would seem to match well with a more attacking McCullum at the top of the order. I don't usually put too much store in this but the fact he's a lefty, in our righty dominated lineup, against England's attack, should be a BIG advantage compared to our other options. Does defend with an angled bat though. However does play the ball reasonably late, which is good (apart from that half-front-foot slash away from his body, which he sometimes has the discipline to put away). Can play the short ball reasonably these days. Has been a standout domestic FC batsman last few years along with Brownlie. I still rate him quite highly and had hoped the couple of fifties in SL would be a turning point. Does he want to be an opener? I don’t know, and it’s important. Average fielder.

Fulton: Blurgh. Shouldn't even be considered unless he's moving like it's 2007, which I doubt because he's close to 34 now.

Others: Rutherford might be worth a debut in another 12-18 months if he scores domestic runs. Raval may have the best numbers of an untried domestic opener this year, however that's not saying much. Needs to be far more consistent.

Conclusion
Though there's not a lot between Watling and Flynn, and even Guptill in my mind, I would choose Flynn. But he has to want to open.

 

[Flem274*]

pick sinclair

and nice post straw man

 

[Bahnz]

pick sinclair

and nice post straw man

Sinclair has already said that if he were selected this season, he'd make himself unavailable.

 

[jcas0167]

I would stick with McCullum and Guptill. Guptill should read David Trist's comments about standing too upright and going hard at the ball.

If McCullum moves to the middle order, then Flynn can open with Guptill. Watling would shift to no7.