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

[ohnoitsyou]

Disagree with this part, tbh. Anderson's natural length looks like it's on a good length or back of the length, and when he has bowled at the death he's been destroyed. Until he develops a yorker he shouldn't be used in the last 10 overs.

He is very good at bowling short and wide with a lot of slower balls. It's a tactic that tends to either come off really well or ends disastrously.

Obviously he needs to make his slower ball less obvious if he wants to make this tactic succeed at the international level.

 

[Blocky]

Disagree with this part, tbh. Anderson's natural length looks like it's on a good length or back of the length, and when he has bowled at the death he's been destroyed. Until he develops a yorker he shouldn't be used in the last 10 overs.

I agree with that, but I still think the potential is there, he possesses a good lifting bouncer which is becoming more and more useful in the final stages, he's working on his variation balls and has a slower ball coming out quite nicely although he does need a yorker, in fact looking at our bowling unit, Southee is the only guy with a history of finding that spot and even then, he's struggled to do it in recent times.

 

[Blocky]

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but reading between the lines, it seems like Blocky is unhappy with Guptill in the ODI team. I might be completely off base with this, just the vibe I've got from his last 50 posts.

I'm over attempting to educate a naive population on the way to win cricket games to be honest. If they think Guptill is doing a job, so be it. I can confirm through some conversations I've had that the scrutiny is on Guptill and he has some very clear orders around what they want to see from him in the ODI game - ironically probably part of the problem in him not delivering because he's a headcase who can't live with expectations.

 

[hendrix]

He is very good at bowling short and wide with a lot of slower balls. It's a tactic that tends to either come off really well or ends disastrously.

Obviously he needs to make his slower ball less obvious if he wants to make this tactic succeed at the international level.

I honestly think he's being over-utilised as a bowler in limited overs cricket. He's a guy who we can rely on for 6 or so good overs, and the rest should be taken up by Williamson and Ryder. That gives us a bit of flexibility where if he's having a good day he can bowl out, if not whoever's bowling best out of KW and Jesse can take the lion's share.

 

[hendrix]

I'm over attempting to educate a naive population on the way to win cricket games to be honest. If they think Guptill is doing a job, so be it. I can confirm through some conversations I've had that the scrutiny is on Guptill and he has some very clear orders around what they want to see from him in the ODI game - ironically probably part of the problem in him not delivering because he's a headcase who can't live with expectations.

none of us disagree that his place is under scrutiny or that he hasn't played particularly well in recent times. We just think that he's got enough in the bank to be given a few more chances, especially without anyone else really being in contention for his spot. He should get this full series at least, IMO. I'm sure you'll disagree with that but we've come to the point where it's just gotta be understood that we're disagreeing.

And I'm going to ignore the "educate a naive population on the way to win cricket games" comment. I'll just leave it to you to think about that and decide whether you want to keep posting like that.

 

[BeeGee]

I'm over attempting to educate a naive population on the way to win cricket games to be honest. If they think Guptill is doing a job, so be it. I can confirm through some conversations I've had that the scrutiny is on Guptill and he has some very clear orders around what they want to see from him in the ODI game - ironically probably part of the problem in him not delivering because he's a headcase who can't live with expectations.

Just out of interest, what are the orders? Score faster?

 

[Blocky]

none of us disagree that his place is under scrutiny or that he hasn't played particularly well in recent times. We just think that he's got enough in the bank to be given a few more chances, especially without anyone else really being in contention for his spot. He should get this full series at least, IMO. I'm sure you'll disagree with that but we've come to the point where it's just gotta be understood that we're disagreeing.

And I'm going to ignore the "educate a naive population on the way to win cricket games" comment. I'll just leave it to you to think about that and decide whether you want to keep posting like that.

Well, he can't not get the full series now that he's been selected for it in my view. I work in risk mitigation management strategies and personally, the risk reward on Guptill being able to contribute effectively during the world cup would mean I'd be blooding new players now instead.

 

[Blocky]

Just out of interest, what are the orders? Score faster?

Take a look at what I've been talking about and it's there - consistency and the ability to find runs when boundaries aren't flowing, i.e strike rotation.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Name one new player who's dominated first class more than Guptill this year and won't suffer from being thrown in the deep end to early a la Latham. Obviously List A sucess would be a more appropriate measure, but the tournament hasn't happened yet has it?

 

[Blocky]

Name one new player who's dominated first class more than Guptill this year and won't suffer from being thrown in the deep end to early a la Latham. Obviously List A sucess would be a more appropriate measure, but the tournament hasn't happened yet has it?

He dominated first class cricket, came back into the side and has looked absolutely out of touch and horrid. The only fluency he's had was in a T20 match where he just went at the bowling and got one away early. The guy also has a long history of inconsistent performances against top nations which I've shown in a number of ways in this thread so it's not just a case of him coming back into the team and struggling to get back to pace, this has been him for the last three or four seasons.

Mathew Sinclair, Chris Harris, Mat Bell - all guys who absolutely dominated in first class cricket year in year out, at the end there, Harry was averaging 90 in pretty much every season he played. Could he do it in test cricket? No. Domestic form gets you to the party, but not being able to convert that into international form should mean that your domestic performances are taken with a grain of salt from that point on - something they've done now with Franklin, who still continues to be a beast domestically (and coincedentally offers a more consistent performance in the black cap than Guptill has)

I've already suggested names based on domestic form, the NZ A tours and their future potentail who could be tried ahead of a tried and failed proposition like Guppy.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

He dominated first class cricket, came back into the side and has looked absolutely out of touch and horrid. The only fluency he's had was in a T20 match where he just went at the bowling and got one away early. The guy also has a long history of inconsistent performances against top nations which I've shown in a number of ways in this thread so it's not just a case of him coming back into the team and struggling to get back to pace, this has been him for the last three or four seasons.

Mathew Sinclair, Chris Harris, Mat Bell - all guys who absolutely dominated in first class cricket year in year out, at the end there, Harry was averaging 90 in pretty much every season he played. Could he do it in test cricket? No. Domestic form gets you to the party, but not being able to convert that into international form should mean that your domestic performances are taken with a grain of salt from that point on - something they've done now with Franklin, who still continues to be a beast domestically (and coincedentally offers a more consistent performance in the black cap than Guptill has)

I've already suggested names based on domestic form, the NZ A tours and their future potentail who could be tried ahead of a tried and failed proposition like Guppy.

So if i admit that Guptill is a failure at international level (which i don't), who is there to replace him, who WILL singlehandlely win a series for us? Or would you throw us back a few years when players were brought in for a series or two, failed and were dropped.

Guptill's issues are all mental (as flem pointed out, most of his technical deficiencies are due to a poor headspace) Ie, give him a decent run in the side and theres a good chance that he will come right.

 

[Blocky]

Just to illustrate a point.

Franklin, who came in down the order and had a job of hitting NZ to wins or chasing down targets - if we exclude Zimbabwe and take a look at his last 25 innings (removing DNBs) versus the analysis I did on Guptill's last 25 innings, Guptill averaged about 33 and had a median of 7.5 at an average strike rate in the seventies.

Franklin averages 33, at a median of 16, with an average strike rate in the 80s. Franklin also provides the utility of bowling and is a serviceable outfielder, but he wasn't considered consistent enough for New Zealand to persist with. Franklin had less opportunities to build an innings, quite often coming in and being asked to strike immediately - in which he had a few notable performances where his strike rate was in excess of 150.

And believe me, I don't believe Franklin should ever represent NZ again in any format, but his results in ODI cricket have been more consistent than Guptill and I'd argue he's played more match winning innings than Guptill in that time period.

 

[Blocky]

So if i admit that Guptill is a failure at international level (which i don't), who is there to replace him, who WILL singlehandlely win a series for us? Or would you throw us back a few years when players were brought in for a series or two, failed and were dropped.

Guptill's issues are all mental (as flem pointed out, most of his technical deficiencies are due to a poor headspace) Ie, give him a decent run in the side and theres a good chance that he will come right.

No one will win a series single handedly for us, that's the entire point. If you look at the changes and transformation Taylor has gone through recently to increase the strike rate and consistency of his performances, he's betting on the idea that he doesn't need to hit 80 from 40 balls in order to get New Zealand into winning positions. A guy that was seen as heavily boundary dependent recently showed that he can still score at a reasonable clip, get himself a fifty and only hit one boundary.

You've got Williamson, McCullum and Taylor who are all showing a consistency of performance (median in the high 20s, approaching their average in the mid 30s). Ronchi is starting to develop some consistency and Anderson can be argued as a consistent success at late order hitting if he comes off 1 in 3 innings, the idea then is if he's coming off in 1 of 3 innings as a hitter and we've also got Ronchi, Nathan McCullum and Brendon McCullum capable of that job, we'll likely get that outcome ticked.

Ryder needs to find some more consistency in the one day side, but even in this series, he's put on several scores and has constantly put NZ into a good position to start off with, he's turned the strike over, generally found early boundaries and there is enough there to suggest that he's not going to be dependent on the four ball to find his runs.

Why are South Africa so successful in world cricket in recent years? Why do they never drift outside the top four and spend most of their time in the top two?

Guptill is getting worse at international cricket the longer his career goes on, all the hallmarks of a guy who probably has a stress disorder and just can't get his headspace over the line in the international game and unlike players like Trescothick and Trott, he's not got any history of consistent performance to fall back on. I think it's almost cruel to select the guy knowing how hard he's probably taking these failures.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Some good points there, but still who do you replace him with? No one is putting there hand up who would average 38 even if they had more than their fair share of minnow bashing and large not out scores. Eventually the likes of Latham and Mitchell will be legitimate options, but they deserve the chance to properly develop their games before being put under pressure in the international stage,

 

[Bahnz]

Guptill is getting worse at international cricket the longer his career goes on, all the hallmarks of a guy who probably has a stress disorder and just can't get his headspace over the line in the international game and unlike players like Trescothick and Trott, he's not got any history of consistent performance to fall back on. I think it's almost cruel to select the guy knowing how hard he's probably taking these failures.

Seriously? That's a pretty big leap to make based on nothing more than Guptill struggling for form this season. Or is this something you've heard during the same conversations that you've had about Guptill's place being under scrutiny?

 

[Blocky]

Some good points there, but still who do you replace him with? No one is putting there hand up who would average 38 even if they had more than their fair share of minnow bashing and large not out scores. Eventually the likes of Latham and Mitchell will be legitimate options, but they deserve the chance to properly develop their games before being put under pressure in the international stage,

Pick one of the following to enter the NZ side

Neesham
Mitchell
Watling
Latham
Papps
Munro
Rutherford

All of the above options have either not had enough of a chance in the NZ ODI uniform to indicate how they'd perform, or have had extended absences away from the ODI uniform and have a weight of domestic runs or runs in other formats (Papps, Watling)

If you select a middle order player, you already have an opening batsman in the side who averages more than Guptill in the opening position, at a higher strike rate, with more consistency of performance and a better set of combination statistics with our other incumbent in Ryder.

In the case of Watling, you're not really sacrificing anything in the fielding and you're giving him more international cricket to keep his skills sharp for the test game, something Richardson failed to do when he was overlooked for limited overs cricket.

Guptill can still be in the squad, solely for his fielding and should still be selected in T20 where his performances are more consistent for that format.

 

[Blocky]

Seriously? That's a pretty big leap to make based on nothing more than Guptill struggling for form this season. Or is this something you've heard during the same conversations that you've had about Guptill's place being under scrutiny?

Just a gut feel based on what I've seen from other cricketers who struggle to handle expectations at the next level, he is completely clueless out there in most of his innings and has an almost pale faced look of anguish and despair when he walks off following a cheap dismissal, considering he's struggled in every format he's played (even domestically in first class) to be consistent, it's not a huge leap to think that he has some major mental flaws and anxiety issues which stop him performing.

Players like Richardson were good enough with process and planning to get through their own crippling anxiety. Guptill, after seven seasons as an international cricketer, is not.

I'll never question the pure hitting ability that Guptill does possess and how good his peak performances can be when he comes off. He is one of the cleanest strikers in cricket and when it comes off, probably has one of the best lofted straight drives in the game and one of the most elegant pull shots to boot. On pure hitting talent there is no debate.

On ability to handle match situations, bat to a plan and be consistent? The jury should find him guilty, convicted to never representing NZ outside of T20 again.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Pick one of the following to enter the NZ side

Neesham
Mitchell
Watling
Latham
Papps
Munro
Rutherford

All of the above options have either not had enough of a chance in the NZ ODI uniform to indicate how they'd perform, or have had extended absences away from the ODI uniform and have a weight of domestic runs or runs in other formats (Papps, Watling)

If you select a middle order player, you already have an opening batsman in the side who averages more than Guptill in the opening position, at a higher strike rate, with more consistency of performance and a better set of combination statistics with our other incumbent in Ryder.

In the case of Watling, you're not really sacrificing anything in the fielding and you're giving him more international cricket to keep his skills sharp for the test game, something Richardson failed to do when he was overlooked for limited overs cricket.

Guptill can still be in the squad, solely for his fielding and should still be selected in T20 where his performances are more consistent for that format.

Richardson overlooked for limited overs cricket

Watling failed as an opening batsmen. Sure it was a small sample size, but he looked all at sea. As a lower middle order batsman is a completely different story though.

The only other decent candidate to open the batting is Williamson. However Williamson's best position is 3 and hes also by and large the best number 3 we have. The thought of Taylor pushed up to 3 makes me really uncomfortable and i cant see baz moving up the order.

I am really keen to see Munro in the side, just not if it means shunting someone up to open. Neesham isn't top 7 material yet, Rutherford was even worse than Guptill and Papps will no better either.

Not one person on that list would average 38, even with regular series against Zimbabwe opening the batting, or give enough of an advantage in the middle order to offset someone else losing out by opening

 

[Prensel]

Yay batting first

 

[nsniks]

Hows the pitch?