***Official*** New Zealand in the West Indies 2014

[Prince EWS]

Well in the current squad, who would you select instead? Ronchi is not a better batsman than Neesham. In fact, given that Neesham has a test century, he's probably worse.

Dwta. Neesham might improve a bit, but at the moment Ronchi is a significantly better batsman. Having said that, my comment on Neesham was more to do with Neesham batting above Watling in the order, rather than his selection in the first place.

Ronchi has achieved more with the bat domestically but Neesham adds more to the team, and you're not losing much if any batting prowess anymore. The Neesham who played in round one of last season is not the Neesham who will walk out to bat in this game.

Ronchi's injured anyway. The only alternative was Rutherford so Neesham was the right call IMO.

 

[Blocky]

Did you watch it?

I got up at 3am to do so, and while I agree that there were segments of good old fashioned cricket, this is not a good test wicket. There was very little bounce and carry for any of the pacers, and that was with Taylor cranking it up to 145. Any ball back of a length would die before reaching the keeper.

It did become a battle between bat and ball because of the turn, which I suppose is a saving grace, but this was too much about attrition. Batsmen weren't rewarded for good stroke play as the outfield was incredibly slow. Bowlers were unable to force the batsmen back into their crease because anything remotely short pitched just sat up. And not sat up as in there to hit, sat up in a slow, tennis ball way that's neither going to take a wicket nor be punished to the boundary.

While WI failed to produce edges, I'm tempted to say that most wouldn't carry anyway.

I mean it wasn't a completely rubbish wicket, but it's not what I'd call a good old fashioned test strip.

It's Sabina Park, the idea that it was going to be pacey and bouncy is really just a misconception around what Sabina Park has been for the last 15 years. As you can see both sides picking two spin options, this wicket is your classic sub continent style waiting game where the pace bowlers are only rewarded for metronomic line and length, getting the odd ball to nibble a bit. You rely on early movement with the ball and hopefully some reverse swing later on in the innings and outside of that, it becomes a grind them down or be ground down pitch until later periods where spin bowling will come into its own.

Neither side has what I'd consider a true match winning spin bowler, although Shillingford (pre review and pre Doosra ban) was the closest of that ilk, but ultimately a major issue for the Windies recently has been that the pitches they prepare no longer have the spice they used to and have ultimately become very sub continental in the way they play - i.e slow off the deck, consistently poor bounce, slow outfield conditions. This to me is just another example of that, only in this case, the pitch didn't go bad frmo Day 1 onwards and doesn't look likely to really go bad until about midway through Day 3.

He's only 3 centuries behind Stephen Fleming, who played 79 more Tests...

Let's see KWill step up and open the batting in response to having no other real option. KWill also has the luxury of a very established batting order around him as he's learnt Cricket. Fleming went through a period of having potential mentors to being the #1 bat in the side within about 3 years. Despite having a piss poor conversion rate, Fleming was the heart of an NZ side that was 2nd in the world off the basis of his captaincy and consistency as a batsman.

As for Neesham - to me, he's a big match player temperament. I think he'll bat much better for the Black Caps than he ever showed in first class cricket.

 

[hendrix]

Dwta. Neesham might improve a bit, but at the moment Ronchi is a significantly better batsman. Having said that, my comment on Neesham was more to do with Neesham batting above Watling in the order, rather than his selection in the first place.

Ronchi is not a significantly better batsman. I would give you even, even though I think Neesham is better.

I agree that Neesham is not yet a test 6. However, I also think Anderson is not yet a test 6 but we can get away with it with Watling at 7, so the point is moot.

 

[Bahnz]

Ronchi's injured anyway. The only alternative was Rutherford so Neesham was the right call IMO.

Yeah, I know and I agree that Nessham should be playing, especially given the decision to proceed with 2 spinners. But he shouldn't be batting at 6.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, I know and I agree that Nessham should be playing, especially given the decision to proceed with 2 spinners. But he shouldn't be batting at 6.

Anderson shouldn't have been batting six either; New Zealand are merely continuing with that tradition.

 

[hendrix]

Anderson shouldn't have been batting six either; New Zealand are merely continuing with that tradition.

Jinx, ****.

 

[Bahnz]

Let's see KWill step up and open the batting in response to having no other real option.

I honestly think that the best possible top 6 that New Zealand could field would be: Latham, KW, Taylor, Ryder, McCullum, Anderson. It'll never happen for obvious reasons, but I reckon that would represent a tough proposition for any team save Oz and SA.

 

[Mike5181]

Dwta. Neesham might improve a bit, but at the moment Ronchi is a significantly better batsman. Having said that, my comment on Neesham was more to do with Neesham batting above Watling in the order, rather than his selection in the first place.

Did you hear/read that he was batting above Watling from a particular source? I may have missed it, but the only thing I've seen suggesting he'll bat six is Cricinfo's order, and they quite often have it wrong. I agree with you about Wagner though.

Re: Ronchi vs Neesham. I tend to agree with the others, Hendrix. Neesham may have potential with the bat, but based on current abilities, it's a big call to rate him above Ronchi. Since he started playing in NZ, he's scored something like seven or eight first-class centuries.

 

[hendrix]

I honestly think that the best possible top 6 that New Zealand could field would be: Latham, KW, Taylor, Ryder, McCullum, Anderson. It'll never happen for obvious reasons, but I reckon that would represent a tough proposition for any team save Oz and SA.

Latham, Ryder, Williamson, Taylor, McCullum, Watling. (Anderson or Neesham at 7).

 

[Blocky]

I honestly think that the best possible top 6 that New Zealand could field would be: Latham, KW, Taylor, Ryder, McCullum, Anderson. It'll never happen for obvious reasons, but I reckon that would represent a tough proposition for any team save Oz and SA.

Slightly different to me

1. Ryder
2. Williamson
3. Taylor
4. McCullum
5. Someone New. I'm thinking Mitchell.
6. Watling (k)
7. Anderson / Neesham,

I think in time, Anderson will become NZ's Lance Klusener where a couple of early performances in tests die away and he just becomes known as a savage hitter in limited overs. I think Neesham will come on and become NZ's premier all rounder until someone young/new comes up to displace him, not because I rate where Neesham currently is, but more so because I think he's got the right attributes and potential talent to make more of himself than Anderson.

NZ needs to stop selecting spinners if they're not performing better domestically than Kane Williamson. That should be our new benchmark. "Did you out perform KWill with the ball? No? Too Bad, So Sad, no spot for you"

 

[hendrix]

Did you hear/read that he was batting above Watling from a particular source? I may have missed it, but the only thing I've seen suggesting he'll bat six is Cricinfo's order, and they quite often have it wrong. I agree with you about Wagner though.

Re: Ronchi vs Neesham. I tend to agree with the others, Hendrix. Neesham may have potential with the bat, but based on current abilities, it's a big call to rate him above Ronchi. Since he started playing in NZ, he's scored something like seven or eight first-class centuries.

Watching Ronchi bat is like watching a (slightly) more refined Southee (who also has a recent domestic century). I know that others will point out that Ronchi has scored runs in difficult conditions against some good shield attacks...I still think he's barely better than a tail ender at test level.

 

[hendrix]

Blocky you don't rate Latham?

 

[Flem274*]

Slightly different to me

1. Ryder
2. Williamson
3. Taylor
4. McCullum
5. Someone New. I'm thinking Mitchell.

50/5

Even if KW opening works, Ryder isn't a test openers arsehole and Taylor is much better against spin than lateral movement so a move to three only hurts us. Mitchell isn't ready either.

The current side works best because everyone is in the position they know. Leave the middle order turned opener converts to the blokes on the fringes like Brownlie and Flynn, and develop openers from youth level all the way to the top like we're doing with Latham, Raval and Carter. We're not going to cute our way out.

 

[Flem274*]

Massively agree with the KW rule though on spinners.

 

[Blocky]

Blocky you don't rate Latham?

Nope. Suffers from NZ Openeritis - ultimately doesn't know where his off stump is and leaves his bat hanging outside the line far too much to become an effective test opener against the likes of Steyn, Broad, Anderson, Pattinson, Siddle, Johnson, etcetera. Two things on his side is how young he is and the fact that he wants to be an opening batsman. I'd suggest Mark Richardson boot camps for him and try to get him a county contract ASAP.

 

[Mike5181]

Anderson shouldn't have been batting six either; New Zealand are merely continuing with that tradition.

I kind of agree, but it depends how you look at it. Do you think Anderson's approach would change if he was moved to seven? I think there'd be more boundary chasing, and less proper batting. That can only hurt his development. Watling generally trusts his partners. I doubt Boult would have scored 50 recently had Anderson been batting with him. I'm not saying I'd definitely have Anderson at six, but it's just something to consider.

 

[Bahnz]

Watching Ronchi bat is like watching a (slightly) more refined Southee (who also has a recent domestic century). I know that others will point out that Ronchi has scored runs in difficult conditions against some good shield attacks...I still think he's barely better than a tail ender at test level.

Haha, dwta so much. Having watched a couple of Ronchi's FC hundreds I'd say he has the best backfoot game of any NZer after KW (and maybe Dean Brownlie - West Australians unite!). He's too aggressive for his own good sometimes, but to compare him to an uncultured slogger like Southee is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah I don't think Ronchi fits the Southee mould. He's very loose in defense but he's a very refined attacker once his eye is in and can bat with his head rather than his eyes. A top shelf Colin Munro or a beggars Gilchrist if you like.

 

[hendrix]

Haha, dwta so much. Having watched a couple of Ronchi's FC hundreds I'd say he has the best backfoot game of any NZer after KW (and maybe Dean Brownlie - West Australians unite!). He's too aggressive for his own good sometimes, but to compare him to an uncultured slogger like Southee is utterly ridiculous.

Aesthetically not similar, but the way they bat.

Actually, Brownlie is a good answer. It is a Western Australian thing. Drive everything on the up. Those guys get found out at test level, just like Brownlie has. Of course, it leaves them with the occasional awesome-looking innings, but they're useless on any pitch where the ball doesn't come onto the bat i.e. England, some NZ pitches, the subcontinent and WI. Pretty much everywhere but Australia and South Africa.

 

[Blocky]

50/5

Even if KW opening works, Ryder isn't a test openers arsehole and Taylor is much better against spin than lateral movement so a move to three only hurts us. Mitchell isn't ready either.

The current side works best because everyone is in the position they know. Leave the middle order turned opener converts to the blokes on the fringes like Brownlie and Flynn, and develop openers from youth level all the way to the top like we're doing with Latham, Raval and Carter. We're not going to cute our way out.

Meh, this whole thought on Ryder not being capable as a test opener forgets that his biggest strengths as a player is how incredibly late he hits the ball and how well he plays pace bowlers. I think with the right mental state and preparation, there is nothing stopping Ryder becoming a Hayden style of opener for New Zealand. He doesn't have the same degree of talent that Hayden had, don't get me wrong - but I think he could comfortably become a guy who could average between high thirties and low forties for NZ as an opening batsman at about strike rate of 60.

I think a lot of people just see what he's done in Limited Overs and not how he rebuilt his career at Otago in the first class season being a lot more circumspect. His performance hasn't been great for Essex which is a shame but I still think if we look at who we have available in the country and go on the basis of "What do we need to become a competitive side to the Top 4" - then Ryder is one of perhaps four players in the country I'd give good odds of sustaining an average over 35 as an opener.