-
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*** India in New Zealand 2013/14
- Thread starter BeeGee
- Start date
Blocky
Banned
I still think the answer is obvious, Ryder should open our batting across all formats and seek to play a Matty Hayden role for the side. He has a solid technique when he's not opening his hip and looking to slap everything either over mid wicket or over point. He is possibly the best of our batsman at playing late which sets him up well against fast bowlers and the moving ball, he has shown he can bat time at test level and he'll smash the **** bowling when he sees it. It solves our issue on where to place him and gives us a chance at establishing a dominant opening partnership with either Rutherford or Latham.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
nah. Jesse potentially has a good 4 years at number 5 once McCullum retires, by which time our goal should be to have 2 young openers well into their careers. Hopefully that's Latham and Rutherford so we don't have to mess around searching for players. I'm not really convinced about Rutherford tbh.
Blocky
Banned
If you look at Australia's MO for the last few years, they'll never have a young opener playing with a young opener - for every Warner they've blooded, they've had a more experienced player (domestically or internationally ) - even their move to Rogers was a concession that they wanted someone with a well bedded firm technique rather than a talented youth pairing. We need to do the same.
Blocky
Banned
Yeah, because dominating the previous #1 5-0 in a series is a bad example.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Also, Rogers is an opener, Jesse isn't.
It doesn't matter whether players are young or old, you simply need to pick the best players for their best positions as long as you take into account development and long term goals.
Long term we have a spot that will be available for Jesse in the middle order.
It doesn't matter whether players are young or old, you simply need to pick the best players for their best positions as long as you take into account development and long term goals.
Long term we have a spot that will be available for Jesse in the middle order.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
You're a very difficult person to have a discussion with. This is such a silly little sarcastic comment.
If you want me to address this:
a) England hadn't been #1 for a long, long time
b) England had been showing signs of massive decline for 2 years.
c) Johnson's selection was on the back of a Pattinson injury. It was nothing to do with Australian selectorial competence. It was very fortuitous.
d) They also selected George Bailey. Which was an awful selection. They've now picked Shaun Marsh.
e) In the previous series they picked Ashton Agar when Nathan Lyon had taken a 7 for in his last test.
f) They still think Shane Watson should bat in the top 3.
g) Xavier Doherty
h) Glenn Maxwell
i) Mitchell Starc plays a test. Mitchell Starc misses a test. Mitchell Starc plays. Mitchell Starc doesn't play.
do you want me to keep going?
They're inconsistent and have chanced upon a good team rather than getting their through any particular skill or method in selection. In the mean time, they've messed around some potentially very good players.
Last edited:
Blocky
Banned
Jesse opened all through his youth cricket and originally opened for Wellington. He was transformed into a middle order player because in his youth, he attacked everything. Ultimately, it's not even about "fitting him in" - it's about thinking where he could make the most impact for NZ. Ryder averaging 40 as an opening batsman in my view would be more important than Ryder averaging 45 at #5.
Blocky
Banned
1. England hadn't been #1 for about 240 days. That's not "a long,long time"
2. England had just beaten Australia at home 3-0, also beat India
3. Johnson was in the squad due to his performances in ODI cricket, even if Johnson had not played, the other bowlers weren't exactly performing badly
4. George Bailey came off the back of some amazing ODI form, worth a gamble on selection - they dropped him straight after
5. Pre Lehmann, post Lehmann.
6. He should, he has enough performances in that position to justify
7. Pre Lehmann
8. Pre Lehmann
9. Pre Lehmann
Yet, they selected Rogers, got him performing at #1. They re-selected Lyon when Agar wasn't a proposition - we still have Sodhi playing. They showed faith in Warner who is now returning it in dividends, they showed faith in Haddin who had as much impact on the series scoreline as Johnson did. Post Lehmann, they're going to the types of player they want in positions - they wanted Bailey at six because he could turn games if he found his batting form, he didn't - so they've dropped him within a series. Your comment about Starc is pretty funny, considering Lehmann kept the same bowling attack through the entire series.
England were expected to beat Australia and do it relatively comfortably when they first arrived. They now leave a completely broken team having been out thought, out planned and out played the entire series.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
They selected Rogers before Lehman took over. Mitchell Starc being ****ed around happened during Lehman's reign. George Bailey is not a Test cricketer. Lehman selected Agar. Australia have good bowlers. That's the point. It wasn't some magical genius selection policy that helped them to win the Ashes. It was the fact that they have good players.
You can't seriously be telling me that they're good selectors. They're halfwits. Boof in particular. They're just lucky that they have some good players.
Even Boof didn't try converting a good middle order batsman into an opener.
You can't seriously be telling me that they're good selectors. They're halfwits. Boof in particular. They're just lucky that they have some good players.
Even Boof didn't try converting a good middle order batsman into an opener.
Blocky
Banned
How did Lehmann select Agar when he wasn't the original coach of the tour that Agar was involved in and didn't coach the team until the third game in the series, at which point Agar had already played his matches?
And Watson was attempted many times as an opening batsman and really only shifted to three because Australia had some success with Warner and a few other players there. Previously they felt Warner may have to play six in test cricket but recanted on that, knowing what a destructive batsman could do in the top of the innings.
Not only did Australia select the right players, they had in-depth plans on how those players would be used and how they'd target the opposite numbers and nullify the late innings form that England had basically lived on to beat them in the last series. You're seemingly saying "Johnson was a lucky choice only because of injury" - he'd been selected and talked about in the pre-amble as being a reformed bowler and someone they couldn't wait to unleash at England after his success in the ODIs. And then when they played him, they had perfect plans for Trott, Bell, Prior and Swann which basically removed them from the series - three of them literally.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Boof selected Agar over Lyon for the first test of the series.
We're talking about selection here, not bowling plans. Had Pattinson, Bird, Cummins or Starc been fit Johnson would not have played.
We don't have David Warner. We have Jesse Ryder.
We also have two young promising openers.
We're talking about selection here, not bowling plans. Had Pattinson, Bird, Cummins or Starc been fit Johnson would not have played.
We don't have David Warner. We have Jesse Ryder.
We also have two young promising openers.
Blocky
Banned
The squad was already selected prior to Boof getting the coaching gig, when he got the coaching gig, he probably had the first team laid out for him. Lyon has been impressive in this recent series against England but he came into the series with huge doubts over him as a spin bowler and future player, the same doubts existed and were the reason so many other spinners have been tried, because Lyon hadn't exactly set the world on fire with performances until very recently.
Yes, comparing two stout left handed batsman who have the ability to dominate bowlers, as well as play long innings due to their tendency to play the ball late and under their eyes should never be compared. Warner who also started his career at #4 for his domestic side and was initially tried in test cricket as a middle order player has no comparison what so ever to Ryder. You're about as right as people who think Guptill played a magnificently paced one day innings the other day.
As for our promising openers, one hasn't done anything since his debut and the other hasn't played a test yet.
Blocky
Banned
And if you knew anything about the reason Mitchell was given another shot at ODI cricket and then given a spot in the test squad, you'd stop arguing about the "Boof was lucky to have him" theory - Boof wanted him, Boof was the reason he got called out of international wilderness.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
I can use sarcasm just as well (read: poorly) as you. But I choose not to.
It doesn't matter how young or old the openers are, if they're good enough in the medium term and are going to provide a long term opening solution it's better than converting a 29 year old middle order bat into a Test opener.
And that's where I'll leave the discussion.
It doesn't matter how young or old the openers are, if they're good enough in the medium term and are going to provide a long term opening solution it's better than converting a 29 year old middle order bat into a Test opener.
And that's where I'll leave the discussion.
Blocky
Banned
I'm more interested to see if India win the toss and field first again and also whether or not NZ will persist with their most stupid tactic I've ever seen attempted - bowling four bouncers an over. I do get the feeling whoever chases in this match will probably win, due to the Hamilton pitch being a lot friendlier to chases than other NZ wickets and also due to recent rain fall probably spicing up the wicket a bit for the opening stages.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
The bouncer thing was pissing me off so much. Especially when they went for wides. It's just such a low percentage ball, especially when it was patently obvious that Jadeja is incapable of driving through the off side. All they had to do was bowl full outside off and it would've been game over.
Blocky
Banned
Only their performances (Rutherford) indicate they're not good enough, and when stacked up to the performances of the 3,4,5,6,7 players in the side - they're absolutely not good enough. We have two positions in the side that are open during this series in my view, 1 and 2. Ryder is not only the next best player off the rank, he's probably the best player in the side when he is there, If he feels comfortable opening (protip, I know he is) - then he should open.