-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** New Zealand in Bangladesh & Sri Lanka 2013
- Thread starter Kippax
- Start date
Hurricane
Hall of Fame Member
This post is tough to agree with. If we dissected the reasons why the core has only played 70% it is probably due to reasons other than rotation (except for bangers where they said they wanted to rotate the seamers),
Flem274*
123/5
I'm quite happy for them to rotate the bowlers, even though only Southee is a test regular. I don't really care if they rotate the batsmen either. ODIs between world cups are just practice for the next world cup, and if Southee was bowled into the ground playing full time in all three formats it would be a waste.
What annoys me is the selections themselves. It's pretty obvious our best eleven is Guptill, Ryder, KW, Taylor, Watling (wk), McCullum (c), Anderson, NcCullum, Southee, Mills, Mitch. You can shuffle the order or swap one or two players but by and large that's the best team. I'm quite happy for guys to be rotated in and out of that team to build depth, because come world cup time we will want the comfort of knowing the 4 players outside the 11 have had some games. What annoys me though is the random refusal to pick Watling (we've had no indication he's now seen as a test specialist), picking blokes who clearly aren't good at ODIs (Rutherford, Bracewell), playing guys out of position (Ronchi, Elliott, sometimes Munro) or shouldn't be there in the first place (Devcich, Nicol, Ellis). 300-400 plays 300-400 happened almost every game in the Ford Trophy yet players who struggled to do anything at all on those roads while Kitchen teed off and Jamie How hit a double ton are getting games, and while he got tonked in the A games, Matt Henry was one of the select few bowlers to come out of the Ford Trophy looking good.
Pick the right depth players ffs. No one thinks Kitchen or How will set the world alight but Rutherford and Devcich is taking the mickey and I don't see why Ellis, as solid as he is, is needed when he's the fourth best allrounder in the country at best. Let Rutherford focus on tests and draft in someone who deserves it. Broom's champions league ton counts for more than Devcich's occassional Ford Trophy 40s.
What annoys me is the selections themselves. It's pretty obvious our best eleven is Guptill, Ryder, KW, Taylor, Watling (wk), McCullum (c), Anderson, NcCullum, Southee, Mills, Mitch. You can shuffle the order or swap one or two players but by and large that's the best team. I'm quite happy for guys to be rotated in and out of that team to build depth, because come world cup time we will want the comfort of knowing the 4 players outside the 11 have had some games. What annoys me though is the random refusal to pick Watling (we've had no indication he's now seen as a test specialist), picking blokes who clearly aren't good at ODIs (Rutherford, Bracewell), playing guys out of position (Ronchi, Elliott, sometimes Munro) or shouldn't be there in the first place (Devcich, Nicol, Ellis). 300-400 plays 300-400 happened almost every game in the Ford Trophy yet players who struggled to do anything at all on those roads while Kitchen teed off and Jamie How hit a double ton are getting games, and while he got tonked in the A games, Matt Henry was one of the select few bowlers to come out of the Ford Trophy looking good.
Pick the right depth players ffs. No one thinks Kitchen or How will set the world alight but Rutherford and Devcich is taking the mickey and I don't see why Ellis, as solid as he is, is needed when he's the fourth best allrounder in the country at best. Let Rutherford focus on tests and draft in someone who deserves it. Broom's champions league ton counts for more than Devcich's occassional Ford Trophy 40s.
Last edited:
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah Flem hit the nail on the head there. It's not the rotation, it's the weird selection policies that have had no rhyme nor reason. To list:
Henry non-selection
Ellis selection
Ronchi opening
Taylor batting at 6 or 7 (seriously, wtf)
McCullum keeping when Watling was in the team
Watling dropped
Ronchi opening...if you want an opener, pick How, Latham, Flynn etc. freaking any top order batsman not a pinch hitting wicket keeper.
Rob Nicol
Neil Broom absence
It looks like pie chart guy was responsible for the Munro selection, and despite what we know about his batting, at least we can't argue with the numbers (and actually at least he gets on with the job).
Henry non-selection
Ellis selection
Ronchi opening
Taylor batting at 6 or 7 (seriously, wtf)
McCullum keeping when Watling was in the team
Watling dropped
Ronchi opening...if you want an opener, pick How, Latham, Flynn etc. freaking any top order batsman not a pinch hitting wicket keeper.
Rob Nicol
Neil Broom absence
It looks like pie chart guy was responsible for the Munro selection, and despite what we know about his batting, at least we can't argue with the numbers (and actually at least he gets on with the job).
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
A particular Hendrix bug bear; annoyed him so much that he mentioned it twice. Presumably because it meant Latham didn't play.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
t20 world cup. When we opened with Nicol. Was the stupidest idea ever.
Hurricane
Hall of Fame Member
Well if Latham can string together a couple of match winning knocks then Hendrix will be saying I told you so 6 months from now. I am a bit worried that he seems to play without belief in himself (Latham not Hendrix) and is often too tentative. But he's only 21 so time is on his side. Beyond being tentative my biggest concern with Latham is the fluency of his off side game. Never had any complaints with his ball striking though which is as pure as it gets.A particular Hendrix bug bear; annoyed him so much that he mentioned it twice. Presumably because it meant Latham didn't play.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Well I certainly see plenty of justification in not picking Latham. I.e. his record is not yet very good, he's too young, he needs to focus on batting big, other domestic batsmen have earned the right.
Except that none of these are consistent with the NZ selection policy.
e.g. Rutherford. Ronchi. No How, Broom, Watling etc etc.
The worst is the fact that he's also been asked to wicket keep as well as captain a domestic side. Ludicrous.
Except that none of these are consistent with the NZ selection policy.
e.g. Rutherford. Ronchi. No How, Broom, Watling etc etc.
The worst is the fact that he's also been asked to wicket keep as well as captain a domestic side. Ludicrous.
Flem274*
123/5
Hurricane we've debated this before iirc. Latham has an offside game, he just pulls out the cross batted leg side shots more often in limited overs.
What he doesn't have is a tight technique. I don't mind him opening in limited overs but the selectors seem to view him as a test opener which he isn't suited to really.
What he doesn't have is a tight technique. I don't mind him opening in limited overs but the selectors seem to view him as a test opener which he isn't suited to really.
wellAlbidarned
International Coach
yeah but we say that about ALL of our batsmen cos opening is hard
Last edited:
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
The reality is that Brendon McCullum was our best opener since Richardson, and it's not like he was without his technical issues or, more pertinently, mental issues.
Just don't turn Latham into a ****ing keeper ffs. The opening slot is far more important than having a swash buckling keeper-batsman. I would take a good opener and a solid 30y/o domestic keeper over **** openers and the-next-Gilchrist-but-not-actually any day of the week.
We need to have 4 opening options that can battle it out for the spot. Having Latham, Raval, Rutherford and an old hand (potentially Weerasundera in a couple of year) all vying for that spot is what we need. None of them should be encouraged to bat in the middle order. Openers are the premium.
Just don't turn Latham into a ****ing keeper ffs. The opening slot is far more important than having a swash buckling keeper-batsman. I would take a good opener and a solid 30y/o domestic keeper over **** openers and the-next-Gilchrist-but-not-actually any day of the week.
We need to have 4 opening options that can battle it out for the spot. Having Latham, Raval, Rutherford and an old hand (potentially Weerasundera in a couple of year) all vying for that spot is what we need. None of them should be encouraged to bat in the middle order. Openers are the premium.
Last edited:
Flem274*
123/5
Latham is 21; being an opener isn't make or break for him. He is still young enough to settle into his best possible role (middle order specialist batsman or wicketkeeper imo) and push for selection over the next few years. Fulton, Rutherford, Guptill and Raval are all specialist openers who want to be openers and guys like Flynn and Broom have changed their roles because time is running out for them. Brownlie may yet do the same. We have competition, so we don't need to manufacture it. Latham has spent his entire career swapping between opener, keeper and middle order batsman. We should let him pick his best role and stick to it, and imo it's not opening.
When Watling and Ronchi are gone Latham will be in his mid to late 20s, so if he thinks he's a keeper, he still has time to have a good test career. If he thinks he's a middle order bat, then with McCullum likely to go soon after the next world cup, Ryder being Ryder, and the number five spot not settled at all (not to mention Taylor is hovering near 30), he will still have time on his side when spots open up.
When Watling and Ronchi are gone Latham will be in his mid to late 20s, so if he thinks he's a keeper, he still has time to have a good test career. If he thinks he's a middle order bat, then with McCullum likely to go soon after the next world cup, Ryder being Ryder, and the number five spot not settled at all (not to mention Taylor is hovering near 30), he will still have time on his side when spots open up.
Last edited:
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
We will never be a good side without good openers. Therefore, we should never encourage young openers to do anything other than open, until it's been conclusively proven that they don't have the capability for it. If there's a player who we know has proven to be incapable of opening in test match cricket, it's Guptill. He's the one that should move into the middle order, not Latham. Test Latham and if he also fails in that capacity, sure do whatever you want with him. But the fact that he is an opener domestically and is 21 means we should put all our eggs into the opening basket with him, at least for the time being, because of how much of a premium the opening spot holds in NZ cricket - and really, world cricket.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I do think there's a danger though of essentially training all your best talent away from the opening position by seeing a raw but talented batsman and deciding he should be getting Plunket Shield time but needs protection from the new ball. He then becomes a "middle order batsman" through his experience, while one of the only twelve blokes in the country getting regular First Class cricket as an opener is Joey Yovich (I realise he's not playing anymore but the point stands). Nicol, Fulton and now Broom started opening domestically only because they'd been passed over as national middle order prospects while McCullum quietly slid down the order despite being a pretty successful opener the moment he got one of his mates in as coach. Albi's right in that it's a position everyone seemingly runs from in New Zealand and it's no surprise that you've had much better middle order players than openers for decades now. It'd be great IMO if Latham decided to actually have a crack as an opener from a young age and stuck with that instead of copping out.
Last edited:
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Yup.
If you're a young, talented guy and you've opened the batting, OPEN. Put everything into it. If it doesn't work out, that's fine, but it's a specialist position that we need to fill.
I admire Guptill and Rutherford for actually giving it a shot, because that's what's needed. The problem is they're just not good enough. We can say conclusively that Guptill has failed, and we're not far away from that conclusion with Rutherford. The others need to be tested.
BTW, Raval is undoubtedly miles higher up the pecking order than Latham (and Rutherford too, really).
If you're a young, talented guy and you've opened the batting, OPEN. Put everything into it. If it doesn't work out, that's fine, but it's a specialist position that we need to fill.
I admire Guptill and Rutherford for actually giving it a shot, because that's what's needed. The problem is they're just not good enough. We can say conclusively that Guptill has failed, and we're not far away from that conclusion with Rutherford. The others need to be tested.
BTW, Raval is undoubtedly miles higher up the pecking order than Latham (and Rutherford too, really).
Flem274*
123/5
Latham has always been a wicket keeper batsman who bats at five domestically. He has never opened for Canterbury iirc, only New Zealand A.
I agree young batsmen with good techniques should be encouraged to open the batting since everyone runs away from that position in school cricket, but while Latham might be young imo his technique isn't suited to it. If he sees himself as an opener then let him do it, but I don't see why it is a matter of national importance for Latham to open the batting. It's not like we have many wicketkeepers his age either.
And Guptill should never be considered for the middle order until his defense against spin includes more than wild lunges. He's definitely a life time opener for my money and I'd be very wary of putting him into the forever failed box for the position. He is very capable provided he adjusts a few things, including but not limited to making sure he's not locking his knees and bringing back his back foot shots so bowlers can't just bowl outside his drive zone all day. Time in the middle making big scores would be valuable for him too, because he never really got picked for tests based on first class output, just ODI runs and looking pretty. He's a bit like Callum Ferguson in that respect. In the past couple of years he looks to have arrived at FC level so if he can get some big tons under his belt in the Shield this season I think he would relax a bit more. His hard hands and playing in front of the body could be down to nerves more than intent.
I agree young batsmen with good techniques should be encouraged to open the batting since everyone runs away from that position in school cricket, but while Latham might be young imo his technique isn't suited to it. If he sees himself as an opener then let him do it, but I don't see why it is a matter of national importance for Latham to open the batting. It's not like we have many wicketkeepers his age either.
And Guptill should never be considered for the middle order until his defense against spin includes more than wild lunges. He's definitely a life time opener for my money and I'd be very wary of putting him into the forever failed box for the position. He is very capable provided he adjusts a few things, including but not limited to making sure he's not locking his knees and bringing back his back foot shots so bowlers can't just bowl outside his drive zone all day. Time in the middle making big scores would be valuable for him too, because he never really got picked for tests based on first class output, just ODI runs and looking pretty. He's a bit like Callum Ferguson in that respect. In the past couple of years he looks to have arrived at FC level so if he can get some big tons under his belt in the Shield this season I think he would relax a bit more. His hard hands and playing in front of the body could be down to nerves more than intent.
Last edited:
