***Official*** India in New Zealand 2013/14

[Flem274*]

ftr Martin Guptill 2011-2014: 42 matches, 1552 @ 44.34. 3 tons, 10 fifties. Striking at 81. Also the best fielder in the world.

Drop him

He isn't consistent because he throws away starts so often, but when he doesn't he is glorious. Huge asset to the team.

 

[Blocky]

lol the Guptill haters are kidding themselves. It's bizarre. When he was a terrible 4 day batsman for Auckland and the king of the flashy 40s in odis half the country was convinced he should get one more series because talent for years. Now he's a contender for being one of our ODI greats and is scoring 4 day runs he's a flake who should be dropped forever.

Only I've never been a fan, have always pointed out he has no strike rotation abilities and relies too much on hitting the ball hard and not enough on wondering about where the ball may be going. We simply don't need another hitter at the top of the order at the moment due to the depth of hitting we have. His entire career has been inconsistent, its why his average in First Class cricket struggles to stay above 30. He's just too hit and miss to be a guy we want at the top of the innings when we also have Ryder there, who is a more consistent and clean hitter but also likely to go cheap on occassion.

And 44.34 in ODI's on the back of two amazing not out innings in a row in England. Take those out of the equation and you're left with him putting NZ on the back foot in a bunch of innings.

 

[_Ed_]

And 44.34 in ODI's on the back of two amazing not out innings in a row in England. Take those out of the equation and you're left with him putting NZ on the back foot in a bunch of innings.

OK, take out the 189* - average of 38.94 since the start of 2011. I'd still take it.

 

[Blocky]

ftr Martin Guptill 2011-2014: 42 matches, 1552 @ 44.34. 3 tons, 10 fifties. Striking at 81. Also the best fielder in the world.

Drop him

He isn't consistent because he throws away starts so often, but when he doesn't he is glorious. Huge asset to the team.

So, pick him as a specialist fielder in a team that has a bunch of amazing fielders, admittedly only one or two near his class - ignore the fact that eight out of ten matches, he's going to put you under extreme pressure either through batting slowly and getting out, or getting out immediately and forget about becoming a team that has a high likelihood of winning three out of every five they play to win series, be happy with a one in every five amazing performance.

Sounds like you want to go back to 1996 and select that team again.

 

[Flem274*]

His weight of 4-day runs is pleasing too, but still wouldn't want him in the Test team at this stage. Hopefully he might go and play county again this winter and start to produce results there as well.

Yeah I haven't given up on him playing test cricket. He was a mess when he was finally dropped. When he first began playing tests he was pretty sound technically. His back foot defense needed work but other than that his biggest issue was he had no idea what he was meant to be doing because he never learned how to score runs and bat for ages in FC cricket. 30 (40) and caught out playing expansively was his game.

He decided to shelve his pull since he couldn't keep it down and improved his back foot defense, but it's started a downward spiral of shelving shots until he was solely a straight drive merchant and when that's your only scoring shot you're going to get out to the moving ball. That happened, he progressively lost confidence and by Sri Lanka 2012 he was a wreck. He was locking his knees when playing forward and his bat was way out in front of his body. His play against spin has fluctuated wildly too. Went from being tied down by Rehman, to being the only competent batsman to Narine in the Caribbean, and then back to being clueless against Swann.

He will come good though. He would sell his first born to be a good opening batsman in test cricket and continuously turns down the IPL dollar in favour of county cricket to pursue his goal. Peter Fulton is a classic case of determination and time in the middle overcoming technical flaws, so Guptill being in his late 20s has both the time to correct his flaws or at least lessen them and to bat and bat and bat. He is going to make it, even if it's as a 34 year old.

 

[Blocky]

And lets play the statistical game

Take out the minnows (Kenya, Zimbabwe, Canada), you've got 34 matches, an average of 34.44, with 18 losses, 14 wins, 2 no results.

Restrict it to the big three (India, South Africa, Australia) and you've got 10 matches, a high score of 58, an average of 10.4 and yet the team has managed 4 wins, 5 losses in that period - so ultimately, with exception to England if they get their **** back together, he hasn't performed against any of the teams likely to feature in the semi finals of next years world cup.

 

[Flem274*]

Legend has it if you remove Bradman's good innings he averages less than 40 too.

 

[jonbrooks]

I'd persevere with Guptil. He seems a bit out of form but he'll come good.

 

[Flem274*]

he averages thirty whatever in all FC because he sucked, got picked for tests while sucking and sucked harder, and only now he has the chance to play FC heaps is gunning it. Averages 40 odd for Derbyshire and about a billion post dropping in the shield.

 

[Flem274*]

lets say we drop guptill - who comes in?

 

[Blocky]

Legend has it, Bradman was actually a consistent batsman who performed against all nations he played against and compiled innings that counted more often than not.

If you want to go and pick a guy that basically guarantees New Zealand never have a consistent top order in the ODI format and a guy that you can't plan around, because he has no concept of consistency in the way he plays then you're really condemning us to the type of ODI cricket we've played pretty much since 2006 where despite having a very competitive side on paper, we've not received anywhere near the consistent results we achieved with lesser teams at the 96, 99 and 2003 world cups and the knock out tournament successes we had then too. On the back of a consistent top order (Astle, Fleming, Twose) who had consistent styles of play, meaning you could set plans for the type of innings you'd expect Chris Harris, Chris Cairns and a few others in the lower order to play.

 

[Hurricane]

lets say we drop guptill - who comes in?

Anton or Latham

 

[Blocky]

lets say we drop guptill - who comes in?

Four options, all of which would be a net gain for NZ

A: Watling into the side to open the batting and provide energy in the field, not as explosive as Guptill in the field but still one of the better fielders in NZ
B: McCullum moves back to the opening spot, creating room for any number of middle order talent we have available ( Neesham, Munro, Latham)
C: Williamson moves to open, similar to other players of his ilk like Clarke who made it their job for a while with a hitter at the other end
D: Papps on the back of his recent domestic form (better than Guptill's) is given another chance after years out.

 

[_Ed_]

Four options, all of which would be a net gain for NZ

A: Watling into the side to open the batting and provide energy in the field, not as explosive as Guptill in the field but still one of the better fielders in NZ
B: McCullum moves back to the opening spot, creating room for any number of middle order talent we have available ( Neesham, Munro, Latham)
C: Williamson moves to open, similar to other players of his ilk like Clarke who made it their job for a while with a hitter at the other end
D: Papps on the back of his recent domestic form (better than Guptill's) is given another chance after years out.

A. Watling averages 21 opening (8.5 against your 'big three'). Also, his strike rate of 68 is OK, while Guptill's 81 is too slow?
B. None of those three would contribute as much as Guptill, IMO. And McCullum opening against your 'big three' - average of 25.28 from 34 matches, no centuries.
C. Williamson's strike rate is lower than Guptill's.
D. Yes, Papps is averaging slightly higher (109 v 102), but has four not outs to Guptill's one - a statistic you were happy to hold against Guptill with his England centuries.

 

[Blocky]

My personal preference and based on wanting to see our test side develop and prosper, is that Watling is good enough to be a ODI batsman in amongst the hitters that we have and that either he or Williamson would make a great foil for Ryder at the top. At the moment, Ryder is generally trying to push the pace because he has a partner at the other end who isn't scoring strongly, isn't rotating the strike and is getting stuck. This means Ryder feels he has to hit hard for the team and thats his job in the top order. I'd much rather see Ryder paired with a guy that he knows he can turn the strike over with, change his scoring game to attack the ball on his pads and look to hit the offside ball for singles instead of fours.

Failing that, there is one guy who is starting to build an undeniable case for an NZ spot based on his consistent performances in the NZ A series and his ever improving batting in both limited overs and first class - Daryl Mitchell. He's 22 years old, he's shown improvement every single year as a batsman while in the ND squad and he offers some useful medium pace. He's got cool calm composure and he's shown this year in T20 that he's starting to build all round adapability into his game, where previously it was felt he couldn't score quick enough for that form of the game.

I'd quite happily see him come in to McCullum's #5 slot, look to push Williamson into open and alternate McCullum or Taylor at 3 depending on match situation and requirement. Again, on the ideal that we should be looking to strengthen ourselves in Test and ODI cricket first and foremost.

 

[Blocky]

A. Watling averages 21 opening (8.5 against your 'big three'). Also, his strike rate of 68 is OK, while Guptill's 81 is too slow?
B. None of those three would contribute as much as Guptill, IMO.
C. Williamson's strike rate is lower than Guptill's.
D. Yes, Papps is averaging slightly higher (109 v 102), but has four not outs to Guptill's one - a statistic you were happy to hold against Guptill with his England centuries.

Watling hasn't had a consistent chance back in the ODI unit since his remergence to the test team, in which time he's been one of NZ's best players often coming in down the order, being able to bat with composure, still keep the scoring rate high and turn over the strike.

Williamson might have a lower strike rate than Guptill, but he has a consistent batting method that you can plan around. You also know that he can feed strike to Ryder on a consistent basis when required. Something Guptill fails to do, which places unfair pressure on Ryder when he feels he needs to go at the only two balls he gets to see in an over.

Papps has been consistently scoring runs since moving to Wellington in all formats without being given a chance to see how he performs against top sides. He's also the only player mentioned that doesn't have the benefit of batting against Wellington - a side without great bowlers who haven't had a representative player since Gillespies last stint.

After further thought, MItchell is the guy I'd bring in and ask to bat at 5. I'd either push Taylor up one or bring McCullum to 3. What we lack in the field, we'll make up with a more consistent approach at the crease. But I can understand that you've both been brought up on inconsistent NZ sides that challenge the best teams on their day through stand out performances by singular players, rather than a team that can consistently find ways to win like we used to have in the late 90s.

 

[Hurricane]

Give Guptil this whole series vs India rather than evaluating him now - he deserves an extended run.

I do agree with Hendrix - stop fluffing around out there Guptil and play your shots - you look poor when batting sensibly.

 

[SteveNZ]

Only I've never been a fan, have always pointed out he has no strike rotation abilities and relies too much on hitting the ball hard and not enough on wondering about where the ball may be going. We simply don't need another hitter at the top of the order at the moment due to the depth of hitting we have. His entire career has been inconsistent, its why his average in First Class cricket struggles to stay above 30. He's just too hit and miss to be a guy we want at the top of the innings when we also have Ryder there, who is a more consistent and clean hitter but also likely to go cheap on occassion.

And 44.34 in ODI's on the back of two amazing not out innings in a row in England. Take those out of the equation and you're left with him putting NZ on the back foot in a bunch of innings.

I get sick every time I hear the 'take this out, take that out' complete and utter rubbish. It was him batting though, right? Against a fair, not amazing, but fair England side - one a very well paced chase at Lord's no less and an even better knock the second time around. Why that should be 'taken out' makes me laugh. He didn't pull those innings out of a coupon book.

Daryl Mitchell? My favourite part about him is his consistent average of 30 and under, at domestic level - probably at a worse strike rate than Gup. Never mind - I just saw your location. Dazza from Hamilton gets the tick. Duane Monkley in the frame as well

 

[Flem274*]

Four options, all of which would be a net gain for NZ

A: Watling into the side to open the batting and provide energy in the field, not as explosive as Guptill in the field but still one of the better fielders in NZ
B: McCullum moves back to the opening spot, creating room for any number of middle order talent we have available ( Neesham, Munro, Latham)
C: Williamson moves to open, similar to other players of his ilk like Clarke who made it their job for a while with a hitter at the other end
D: Papps on the back of his recent domestic form (better than Guptill's) is given another chance after years out.

all of these options are terrible. watling sucks opening and should be lower down, mccullum sucks at opening especially if we play the remove this and that game you started, williamson is our boy at number three and would mean we need a new one who is still a better batsman than guptill and papps is a front foot hero who suffers from the same strike rotations issues.

 

[Flem274*]

Legend has it, Bradman was actually a consistent batsman who performed against all nations he played against and compiled innings that counted more often than not.

well he isn't if you remove all his good knocks like you do with guptill.