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

[hendrix]

I suppose dropping Flynn and Jeets is justifiable, but it's not the call I'd be making.

I don't think Rutherford has done enough to deserve selection. Latham could be good but I don't see him as an opener.

 

[hendrix]

also, this means we won't be playing 4 seamers. bugger.

edit: not necessarily:

Another fast bowler will be added to the squad after New Zealand XI's four-day match against the tourists in Queenstown starting on Wednesday.

Mark Gillespie, who has been in wicket-taking form for Wellington, and left-armer Neil Wagner, who played in the second Test against South Africa in Port Elizabeth, are the leading contenders.

Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Bruce-Martin...5/articleID/287925/Default.aspx#ixzz2LlH7OcLQ

 

[Howe_zat]

What intrigues me about Rutherford is that he has an atrocious List A record.and a far better first class record despite apparently striking at 77 in the longer form.

 

[Bahnz]

Rutherford and Latham? Really? So are we just to assume that the main selection criteria for test cricket these days is how players perform in t20's? FMD.

 

[Mike5181]

Rutherford's fine. I just don't get the Latham selection.

 

[Bahnz]

Rutherford's lack of experience, his average returns this season and his complete failure against Anderson and Finn in the ODI's all suggest that he is not fine. But Latham is just taking the piss. The guy hasn't even been opening for Canterbury. He's been outscored by Tastle, ffs.

 

[Neil Young]

And Latham is challenging for an openers spot, despite Watling actually being an opener and Ronchi the best 'keeper in the country.

Arse about face.

 

[Immenso]

With Rutherford and his List A average.... Some context:

All his career averages were appalling (low teens), and from cricket palyed about 3 to 4 years ago - until he hit his purple patch about this time last year when he returned in Plunket Shield. The only List A games he has played since are these 2 v England. So expect it to go up if he gets to play in Ford Trophy this year.

But, yeah, It still is a bit of a risk picking him in ODI with no relevant List A cricket as a guide. As for the tests; I reckon he is still too rough and would go for the safer( but still mediocre) option of Flynn. And Latham hasn't opened in a FC game since September for NZ A?

 

[hendrix]

I like the idea of picking the very talented young players and letting them learn the game at international level, but by very talented I mean guys like Williamson. I just don't think Rutherford falls into that category.

 

[Cabinet96]

What intrigues me about Rutherford is that he has an atrocious List A record.and a far better first class record despite apparently striking at 77 in the longer form.

From the very little I have seen of him, he seems to strongly favour the off side. So I wouldn't be surprised if he's someone who slashes at width in FC cricket, meaning he scores quickly, but when things tighten up in List A cricket, he struggles. A bit like how Phil Hughes was one of the most aggressive test openers around when he debuted, but didn't play ODI cricket for four years.

Edit: Or what Immenso said

 

[jcas0167]

I think there are signs that he could handle the role. I was quite impressed when he came out in the washed out game on Monday and looked very composed against Finn & Broad. I thought he looked more organised that Rutherford. Also, it is a position the selectors obviously see him having potential in - he scored a century opening against India A for NZ A in their 'test'.

Obviously, it would help if he was opening for Canterbury rather than keeping & batting in the middle order.

Seems I'm on the same page as the selectors

 

[straw man]

What intrigues me about Rutherford is that he has an atrocious List A record.and a far better first class record despite apparently striking at 77 in the longer form.

I've come to realise why this happens, as plenty of NZ batsmen (not just Rutherford) score quickly in tests/FC and T20s but struggle in ODIs.

It's simply because their approach is Block/Bash.

There are more gaps to exploit in the longer form so they can hit boundaries, but are incapable of finding the gaps in the infield and accumulating singles in ODIs. Even Taylor up until a couple of years ago was like this - was hopeless through the middle in ODIs.

 

[straw man]

Anyway, once again all the media leaks and hints prior to the test squad turn out to be right on the money. Latham is a very very odd selection. Even moreso as a potential opener.

Also hard to see Rutherford scoring runs. Or Fulton for that matter though at least he deserves it.

Pleased they're at least adding one more bowler to the squad after the warmup match.

 

[Mike5181]

At least there's no **** **** allrounder like Ellis/Franklin/Munro. Would've preferred Ronchi/Broom instead of Latham.

 

[Cabinet96]

I've come to realise why this happens, as plenty of NZ batsmen (not just Rutherford) score quickly in tests/FC and T20s but struggle in ODIs.

It's simply because their approach is Block/Bash.

There are more gaps to exploit in the longer form so they can hit boundaries, but are incapable of finding the gaps in the infield and accumulating singles in ODIs. Even Taylor up until a couple of years ago was like this - was hopeless through the middle in ODIs.

David Warner was the same. He nailed his spot in the test and T20 teams before the ODI team.

 

[Bahnz]

At least there's no **** **** allrounder like Ellis/Franklin/Munro. Would've preferred Ronchi/Broom instead of Latham.

Ronchi's out injured, aggravated his hamstring injury from a couple of weeks back in the game against Otago.

 

[Mike5181]

Ronchi's out injured, aggravated his hamstring injury from a couple of weeks back in the game against Otago.

Ah, ok. Latham's selection isn't quite as bad as I initially thought then. I can understand Flynn missing out, he's had plenty of chances (24 test matches in fact). Broom must have pissed someone off though.

 

[morgieb]

Ah, ok. Latham's selection isn't quite as bad as I initially thought then. I can understand Flynn missing out, he's had plenty of chances (24 test matches in fact). Broom must have pissed someone off though.

I think the reason why Broom wasn't picked was because he was picked in the wrong format. He's not really a finisher.

Disappointed Ronchi got hurt ftr.

 

[Flem274*]

Guyz I agree with a lot of what has been said but Watling isn't an opener anymore and he sucks at it anyway, so can we stop using that to attack the selectors?

Latham is surprising but not too surprising I guess. Every time he's been picked for NZ A he's opened the batting and the selectors have been keen on him opening for a long time. What surprises me more is they didn't ask Canterbury to have him open this season for them.

Bruce Martin >>>>> Jeets so if we're going to have a spinner then fair enough.

No Flynn is surprising. I thought they were at the very least priming him to be the reserve opener to Guptill/Fulton and tbh he's a better batsman than everyone selected to open ahead of him so poop selection there.

Rutherford and Latham are too loose and flawed to open the batting at test level right now and Fulton is very reliant on his eye and timing. I know everyone else is meh too but Flynn would have been a better choice.

 

[hendrix]

I'm quite disappointed for Flynn and Jeets, tbh.

They both did basically everything they could to prove their credentials in that short space of time.

Jeets never had anything to bowl at in SA, and Flynn was far from the worst batsman.

Did they really need to pick both Latham and Rutherford?