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

[straw man]

Wouldn't surprise me if it rained tomorrow morning and we had a delayed start. Don't declare tonight, see what the weather looks like in the morning. A lead of 280 would be nice but it will be an arduous task dismissing England on this wicket.

Nice problems to have though.

 

[Jezroy]

I fail to see how that's good news. You've shoehorned yourself into picking Peter Fulton or Martin Guptill every game now but if Ryder wants to play, there's no spot for him. This is not a good thing; this is a waste of resources.

It's good news because a few months ago, the cries were "Get Jesse back in there" because our batting line up looked so uncertain.

The fact that those calls have dissipated says more about a better confidence in our middle order than about how Ryder is going.

Williamson - has a lot of rope, not the most convincing #3 in the world, but the guy is damn young and you would hope is learning from his mistakes
Taylor - you wouldn't drop him for Ryder
Brownlie - a great debut series, solid domestic performances, and a 100 in SA mean that he would be ahead of Ryder at the moment
McCullum - you wouldn't drop the captain (plus he's looked more secure at 6 than he has for a long time)
Watling - Jesse can't keep, and the only person putting pressure on him is Ronchi

That's why I said unless Jesse wants to open, he doesn't get in the team. It would take a big drop in form from Williamson or Brownlie for Jesse to return. And it's Jesse's fault. He had every opportunity to be in this team and make a #5 position his own.

Would love him back in the ODI and T20 sides though. To open.

 

[centurymaker]

Question for Michael Vaughan: What do you call a great English cricketer? Myth?

LOOOOOL what a response. love it

 

[KungFu_Kallis]

Only NZ fans would think 235 is not enough of a lead

 

[KungFu_Kallis]

Question for Michael Vaughan: What do you call a great English cricketer? Myth?

Answer: South African

 

[Prince EWS]

It's good news because a few months ago, the cries were "Get Jesse back in there" because our batting line up looked so uncertain.

The fact that those calls have dissipated says more about a better confidence in our middle order than about how Ryder is going.

Williamson - has a lot of rope, not the most convincing #3 in the world, but the guy is damn young and you would hope is learning from his mistakes
Taylor - you wouldn't drop him for Ryder
Brownlie - a great debut series, solid domestic performances, and a 100 in SA mean that he would be ahead of Ryder at the moment
McCullum - you wouldn't drop the captain (plus he's looked more secure at 6 than he has for a long time)
Watling - Jesse can't keep, and the only person putting pressure on him is Ronchi

That's why I said unless Jesse wants to open, he doesn't get in the team. It would take a big drop in form from Williamson or Brownlie for Jesse to return. And it's Jesse's fault. He had every opportunity to be in this team and make a #5 position his own.

Would love him back in the ODI and T20 sides though.

Yes I get that, but it's still bad for the side that you've forced yourself into a position where if Ryder wants to play, you may have to leave him out for Fulton or Guptill anyway because McCullum has catted it. You can't just look at the middle order when considering the situation.

 

[KungFu_Kallis]

Yes I get that, but it's still bad for the side that you've forced yourself into a position where if Ryder wants to play, you may have to leave him out for Fulton or Guptill anyway because McCullum has catted it. You can't just look at the middle order when considering the situation.

The way Ronchi is playing in FC at the moment, averaging 70 something afaik, I wouldn't mind giving him a chance as a batsman, whether or not he keeps. Certainly ahead of Ryder. But the side is looking a bit unbalanced with Fulton opening and McCullum at 6, so hard to fit anyone else in the middle at the mo

 

[Mike5181]

It would be pretty hilarious if Ryder wasn't able to get back into the team tbh. He's such a ****. It's never going to happen though. If McCullum's not going to open, then one of Williamson/Brownlie will just be dropped.

 

[Jezroy]

Yes I get that, but it's still bad for the side that you've forced yourself into a position where if Ryder wants to play, you may have to leave him out for Fulton or Guptill anyway because McCullum has catted it. You can't just look at the middle order when considering the situation.

You can't bring Guptill or Fulton into the argument when it comes to picking Ryder again. He's not going to open in tests (I assume), so he has to fit in between #3 and #6.

For right or wrong, McCullum is not an opener now, and he looks pretty good down the order so it would be a dumb move (for him) to go back to the top of the order.

 

[ajdude]

 

[Mike5181]

McCullum's move down the order was only good if his run scoring there + Guptill's/Fulton's at the top > McCullum opening, and Ryder in the middle-order. You'd have to say that's probably not going to happen in the long term. Fulton/Guptill are bound to fail again. I believe the middle-order is the best position for Baz, but not for the team.

 

[Prince EWS]

You can't bring Guptill or Fulton into the argument when it comes to picking Ryder again. He's not going to open in tests (I assume), so he has to fit in between #3 and #6.

Yes, and that's why it's not good for the side. That's my whole point. You've got yourself into a silly situation where if one of your best batsmen makes himself available again then he might not be picked, even though he's clearly better than someone else, all because your opener thought it might be cool to bat 5.

If Pietersen took indefinite leave and Cook decided #4 seemed pretty cushy only for Carberry or whoever to stink up the order order, no-one would be saying how good it was for England that Pietersen might not actually be needed in the middle order when he gets back.

That you've managed to take a good player out of one position to fill Ryder's and replace that good player with a walking wicket does mean Ryder is no longer needed. You've not got yourself into a healthier position; you've just tricked yourself into thinking you have. It's far more likely that Ryder will make himself available again in the short-term than it is you'll find another Test standard opening batsman. You're not only robbing Peter to pay Paul, but putting yourself in a situation where you'll keep robbing Peter for no gain even once Paul is back on his feet.

 

[KungFu_Kallis]

McCullum's move down the order was only good if his run scoring there + Guptill's/Fulton's at the top > McCullum opening, and Ryder in the middle-order. You'd have to say that's probably not going to happen in the long term. Fulton/Guptill are bound to fail again. I believe the middle-order is the best position for Baz, but not for the team.

+1

Only NZ opener averaging over 28 (he averages 35) in the past 7 years. And no shortage of middle order options so just suck it up and do it.

And not just coz of the average. His positive starts would help a lot too. Not going to happen though ofcoz

 

[Jezroy]

McCullum's move down the order was only good if his run scoring there + Guptill's/Fulton's at the top > McCullum opening, and Ryder in the middle-order. You'd have to say that's probably not going to happen in the long term. Fulton/Guptill are bound to fail again. I believe the middle-order is the best position for Baz, but not for the team.

So, if McCullum averaged 50 batting at 6 from here on in, that wouldn't be good for the team?

Considering he averages 35 as an opener.

Also, if McCullum was still an opener, Rutherford wouldn't have played this test, so it was good for the team (that's my Hesson-like argument).

 

[hendrix]

1. Would Ryder make a better middle order bat than McCullum?

2. Would McCullum make a better opener than Fulton?

1: Yes, pretty clearly, Ryder is a more talented batsman (actually slightly debatable given how Ryder clearly hasn't really given a crap about his wicket in domestic cricket, but purely on talent it's reasonably clear)

2: less clear, but McCullum has been the number 1 opener since Richardson, so I'd say Yes to this as well.

IMO, this means that McCullum should be opening.

As it stands if McCullum will not be opening, then Brownlie will be dropped on Ryder's readmission. Not the worst outcome, but not the best.

 

[Jezroy]

Yes, and that's why it's not good for the side. That's my whole point. You've got yourself into a silly situation where if one of your best batsmen makes himself available again then he might not be picked, even though he's clearly better than someone else, all because your opener thought it might be cool to bat 5.

If Pietersen took indefinite leave and Cook decided #4 seemed pretty cushy only for Carberry or whoever to stink up the order order, no-one would be saying how good it was for England that Pietersen might not actually be needed in the middle order when he gets back.

That you've managed to take a good player out of one position to fill Ryder's and replace that good player with a walking wicket does mean Ryder is no longer needed. You've not got yourself into a healthier position; you've just tricked yourself into thinking you have. It's far more likely that Ryder will make himself available again in the short-term than it is you'll find another Test standard opening batsman. You're not only robbing Peter to pay Paul, but putting yourself in a situation where you'll keep robbing Peter for no gain even once Paul is back on his feet.

If Ryder is "clearly better" as an option then someone else, I have no doubt that he will get another chance. At the moment, I don't think he is a "clearly better" option. If Ryder can't get back into the team ahead of Brownlie or Williamson, that will hardly be all McCullum's fault for batting 5/6.

And McCullum has moved. It's sort of like when he stopped wicketkeeping. A lot of people may not like it, but he is still too valuable a commodity to this team to have a Vincent/Bracewell "Open or else" stand off.

Plus Hesson is his mate.

 

[Mike5181]

So, if McCullum averaged 50 batting at 6 from here on in, that wouldn't be good for the team?

Considering he averages 35 as an opener.

Also, if McCullum was still an opener, Rutherford wouldn't have played this test, so it was good for the team (that's my Hesson-like argument).

McCullum averaging 50 at number six sure is great. Possibly a tad unrealistic, so let's push that number down to 40-45 though. But if Ryder can do the same there, the gap between McCullum as an opener, and Fulton as an opener still exists. He would have to score enough runs at six to ensure that we aren't losing out on total runs that could be scored if we had the Baz/Ryder combo. If he does? I couldn't care less about Ryder being in the team tbh. Maybe I wouldn't mind seeing Ryder open if there's no other way in the team, and McCullum is going crazy in the middle-order. It's never going to happen though. Williamson/Brownlie would just be dropped.

 

[Prince EWS]

If Ryder is "clearly better" as an option then someone else, I have no doubt that he will get another chance.

Not if it's Peter Fulton though ffs.

I'm out. This is going in circles.

Essentially my point is this - if you move all your best players into the positions Ryder is realistically in line for and then fill the other position with prank cricketers, the fact that Ryder can't make the side is not an advertisement for the depth in New Zealand cricket. It is an advertisement for your selectors being insufferable. It would be an absolute joke if he made himself available and he (or Brownlie for that matter) was left out for Fulton so McCullum could average 3 runs more batting down the order. An absolute joke.

Ryder should not necessarily have to be one of the best four middle order batsmen in New Zealand to make the side; if he's fifth and one of those four is also one of your best two openers then he bloody well should be playing.

 

[straw man]

I'm sceptical that Ryder will ever play another test for NZ tbh. McCullum batting down the order has worked this match, but that's because our expectations of our new opening pair were subterranean and their results were somewhere in the outer rings of Saturn.

We'd probably still be better off with McCullum opening even if Ryder doesn't come back, not least because I'd quite like to fit in the Vettori + Anderson/Neesham/allrounder combination at 7/8 when possible. Or failing that, there's Ronchi to consider too.

Right now though I'm going for a bit of happy clappy self delusion and will imagine a world in which our opening pair continue to score runs and average 35+ (even in this world, I doubt one of those openers could be Fulton). A world in which we bowl the #2 side in the world out for 167 and then lead by 200+, where McCullum can come in at 6 and cash in.

 

[Jezroy]

McCullum averaging 50 at number six sure is great. Possibly a tad unrealistic, so let's push that number down to 40-45 though. But if Ryder can do the same there, the gap between McCullum as an opener, and Fulton as an opener still exists. He would have to score enough runs at six to ensure that we aren't losing out on total runs that could be scored if we had the Baz/Ryder combo. If he does? I couldn't care less about Ryder being in the team tbh. Maybe I wouldn't mind seeing Ryder open if there's no other way in the team, and McCullum is going crazy in the middle-order. It's never going to happen though. Williamson/Brownlie would just be dropped.

I was just playing Devil's Advocate - I would say it's far more probable McCullum will average 40 at #6 than 50.

In my opinion, I think the best order for us is:

Rutherford
Another (Guptill/Fulton obvious choices at the moment)
Williamson
Taylor
Ryder
McCullum
Ronchi

With Brownlie and Watling floating around as middle order back up, there i a lot of strength there. Real lack of depth still with spin bowling and openers. But middle order and medium/fast bowling looking good.