**Official** South Africa in New Zealand

[Bahnz]

I think we're probably in agreement apart from the fact that I don't agree Guptill should be given longer than the series. He's been poor for a year and if we can get someone better in there we should, as soon as is reasonably possible. We also need to give that person the time necessary to both prove themselves and in the case of Latham give them experience against ODI attacks. There's little time remaining.

I would disagree that he's been poor. He was a solid contributor in the India series, and while he scored a bit more slowly than was ideal that really didn't matter given that he was surrounded by 4 batsman who all scored at an SR of 100+. Now that he's not surrounded by those guys, the benefits of having him in the side (helping to avoid early wickets and set a solid base) are potentially outweighed by the costs of having him in the side (slow run rate that puts pressure on his batting partners and himself).

But at least 2 of those guys will be back in a month (fingers crossed). What's more, whilst Ryder remains in the dog house we already have an opening spot to fill anyway. IMO, it makes little sense to bin Guptill on the back of a few poor performances when we already have an opportunity to test other (sensible) candidates like Latham and Watling anyway.

 

[hendrix]

Kane Williamson ruled out of SA ODI series | Stuff.co.nz

"Hesson said Jimmy Neesham would continue as an opener as they try to squeeze a sixth bowling option into the top-five.

Tom Latham will likely continue at No 5.

"It's the only way we're going to find out [about the batsmen]. We saw some really good signs from Tom and Dean and a little bit from Jimmy but we need to see more."

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I wonder if we're preparing to try another dibbly-dobbly-wibbly-wobbly for the upcoming CWC. McCullum and Vettori have the ability to strangle an innings and with perhaps Southee and Boult you still have great strike potential without express pace anywhere.

Not convinced that we have the luxury of dropping an opener who averages close to 40. Guptill will have to be in the mix for the CWC, at least.

Also not convinced by the obsession with having a bowling option in the top 5. If we play Anderson then we have enough cover given than N Mac, Vettori, Mills and Boult can all bat.

We might see:

1. Guptill
2. B Mac
3. Williamson
4. Taylor
5. Ronchi
6. Anderson
7. Vettori
8. N Mac
9. Southee
10. Boult
11. McClenaghan

 

[Prince EWS]

Playing two spinners would be insane IMO. I think it's pretty obvious that McCullum isn't going to open, but even if he did I'd bat Neesham at seven in that situation.

 

[Energetic]

South Africa are just too strong I'm afraid and there's just nothing New Zealand can do about it. The reason for that is that unlike New Zealand, South Africa have three world class players in their side in Amla, AB and Steyn. In that 1st ODI, it was AB who did the heroics and in order for New Zealand to stand a chance in the remainder of games then they really need to hope that all three of South African world class players fail otherwise its unlikely they win even if one of the three performs. Doesn't matter if New Zealand had Taylor, Ryder and Williamson playing, neither of them are world class and South Africa would still be favourites.

 

[hendrix]

South Africa are just too strong I'm afraid and there's just nothing New Zealand can do about it. The reason for that is that unlike New Zealand, South Africa have three world class players in their side in Amla, AB and Steyn. In that 1st ODI, it was AB who did the heroics and in order for New Zealand to stand a chance in the remainder of games then they really need to hope that all three of South African world class players fail otherwise its unlikely they win even if one of the three performs. Doesn't matter if New Zealand had Taylor, Ryder and Williamson playing, neither of them are world class and South Africa would still be favourites.

you're trolling right?

 

[Dan]

you're trolling right?

I think he's putting it somewhat trollish-ly, but the point is reasonably fair IMO.

South Africa is a ludicrously strong side on paper -- #6 and #7 are arguably weaknesses, but the specialists on either side of them are so damn good that they never really threaten to become a fatal flaw.

Williamson/Taylor/McCullum are class but not Amla/Faf/ABdV levels of class.
Southee/Boult/Mills/McCleneghan/Henry are class too, but not, as an ODI unit, Steyn/Philander/Morkel/McLaren/Abbott/Hendricks etc class.

NZ can obviously still beat them, and there's little stopping them. But I don't think it's unfair to say that if RSA play to their potential, they'd wipe the floor with any other ODI team in the world today.


I think the point being made is that even if you have South Africa 7/100 chasing 220, if Amla or De Villiers is still there, you don't feel completely safe. Even if you're only chasing 180, you don't feel safe with Dale Steyn running in at you with his angry eyes and knowing he's backed up by quality support seamers.

RSA has a plethora of players who can consistently take the game away from you in a period of 5 overs. Many other teams do as well, but they can't do so nearly as consistently as the South Africans.

 

[hendrix]

I think he's putting it somewhat trollish-ly, but the point is reasonably fair IMO.

South Africa is a ludicrously strong side on paper -- #6 and #7 are arguably weaknesses, but the specialists on either side of them are so damn good that they never really threaten to become a fatal flaw

I accept that Amla-ABDV is a ridiculous combination to have in the batting department and without a doubt it's a stronger batting lineup than NZ's. Bowling wise too, South Africa's lineup is very strong. I think that with ODI cricket more than with test cricket it makes sense to look at performances over the last couple of years rather than career wise.

I just think that NZ's bowlers have shown the ability to run through batting lineups that look just as strong as South Africa's and the batsmen have shown a propensity to deal with very good bowlers and score plenty of runs as well.

This was a shocking performance by the black caps top order, and we were missing our best ODI bowlers too, and still South Africa depended upon ABDV. Had Duminy been LBW when the score was 100/4, South Africa probably would have lost. (I know we were lucky to get to 230 after being 160/9...)

South Africa are the better side but there's no gulf in class here.

 

[Blocky]

Geez... six or so months ago I was telling you all that Guptill was a horrible option for any format other than T20 and everyone disagreed.... come back and my absence has obviously made you all a lot wiser with his inclusion in the team being questioned more.

ps... Jesse on 72* from 24 with Otago 80/3. Guptill would be 24 from 72 against the same attack. If NZ seriously want to win the world cup, they can't overlook Jesse. He's easily the best limited overs player in New Zealand when you combine his batting, fielding and bowling - at a time we can't use Williamson for any overs, he's a must have.

 

[Blocky]

Oooh, like it.

Ross Taylor re-tweets someone in the media saying "Jesse Ryder is trolling the black caps selectors"

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Tbf - Jesse probably saw Hira's heroics against Ireland the other day and thought he could do a bit of the same.

And if Jesse had been a realistic option on the table six months ago, I'd have been picking him. I'd pick him for everything BlackCaps if that was a possibility. The question isn't Ryder vs. Guptill, it's Guptill vs. someone else. At least for the moment.

 

[hendrix]

And if Jesse had been a realistic option on the table six months ago, I'd have been picking him. I'd pick him for everything BlackCaps if that was a possibility. The question isn't Ryder vs. Guptill, it's Guptill vs. someone else. At least for the moment.

yeah.

I suspect our best possible opening partnership would be either Ryder-Latham or Ryder-Guptill. Actually it would be Ryder-McCullum, but that's not happening. Neesham is our poor man's Jesse. But we're poor men until Jesse proves he can handle the jandal, which is nearly impossible in the time between now and the WC.

 

[Athlai]

I think he's putting it somewhat trollish-ly, but the point is reasonably fair IMO.

South Africa is a ludicrously strong side on paper -- #6 and #7 are arguably weaknesses, but the specialists on either side of them are so damn good that they never really threaten to become a fatal flaw.

Williamson/Taylor/McCullum are class but not Amla/Faf/ABdV levels of class.
Southee/Boult/Mills/McCleneghan/Henry are class too, but not, as an ODI unit, Steyn/Philander/Morkel/McLaren/Abbott/Hendricks etc class.

NZ can obviously still beat them, and there's little stopping them. But I don't think it's unfair to say that if RSA play to their potential, they'd wipe the floor with any other ODI team in the world today.


I think the point being made is that even if you have South Africa 7/100 chasing 220, if Amla or De Villiers is still there, you don't feel completely safe. Even if you're only chasing 180, you don't feel safe with Dale Steyn running in at you with his angry eyes and knowing he's backed up by quality support seamers.

RSA has a plethora of players who can consistently take the game away from you in a period of 5 overs. Many other teams do as well, but they can't do so nearly as consistently as the South Africans.

Amla and AB are a class above anyone we have. Faf? Na, he is as good as our best but certainly not a level above.

Reckon you're also overrating the SA ODI bowling unit, they're definitely not as strong in limited overs as they are in Test cricket. Primarily because the best thing about the SA attack is the strike power they have. But they can also go for a lot of runs. I'd only say that Steyn and Morkel are outright better ODI bowlers and the gulf between them and Southee and Millsy is nowhere as wide as it is in the Test game. I'd go as far to say as Southee is a better death bowler than Steyn more often than not.

In ODI the strength of having outright superior players is lessened. A bowler only has 10 overs to work with and a batsman is unlikely to be at the crease for more than 20 overs even on a good day. The finite time a player has to make a mark in an ODI means that a decent collabarative effort can overcome any individual one, which is why NZ has always been highly competitive in this form of the game even when we've had a far poorer side than we do currently.

I honestly think that T20 and Tests are far more dictated by the strength of your best player than an ODI. In Tests they have all the time in the world to impact the game, in T20, a strong impact by a single player can often make the asking total almost impossible.

In a one day game we're caught in the middle. Rarely is an individual performance or two going to completely remove the game from the opposition.

It's the game of the no-rounder and I love it.

 

[Mike5181]

yeah.

I suspect our best possible opening partnership would be either Ryder-Latham or Ryder-Guptill. Actually it would be Ryder-McCullum, but that's not happening. Neesham is our poor man's Jesse. But we're poor men until Jesse proves he can handle the jandal, which is nearly impossible in the time between now and the WC.

Things Jesse could do to convince the selectors:

- Continue to destroy opposition bowlers
- Upload photos of cute puppies on Twitter rather than his terrible taste in tv shows (The Walking Dead)
- Do a segment on Sticky TV where he's teaching kids how to play cricket

 

[Dan]

Amla and AB are a class above anyone we have. Faf? Na, he is as good as our best but certainly not a level above.

Meant that as a unit, ftr.

Faf's fractionally below KW in my estimations, but ABdV and Amla take that core batting unit to the next level. Faf, and to a lesser extent de Kock, just underpin that as very, very solid contributers. IMO there is no better top 4 in ODI cricket -- as a complete unit -- than Amla/de Kock/Faf/ABdV.

Reckon you're also overrating the SA ODI bowling unit, they're definitely not as strong in limited overs as they are in Test cricket. Primarily because the best thing about the SA attack is the strike power they have. But they can also go for a lot of runs. I'd only say that Steyn and Morkel are outright better ODI bowlers and the gulf between them and Southee and Millsy is nowhere as wide as it is in the Test game. I'd go as far to say as Southee is a better death bowler than Steyn more often than not.

I don't disagree with you here, but again, as a unit I think SA comes out on top. I flat-out don't rate Mills that much, Boult is still a WIP in ODI cricket, and MitchM has random games where he leaks 8 an over too often for my liking.

The gulf isn't huge, no. But even with your rating of the SA bowlers, they come out a better unit IMO. Not by that much, tbf.

In ODI the strength of having outright superior players is lessened. A bowler only has 10 overs to work with and a batsman is unlikely to be at the crease for more than 20 overs even on a good day. The finite time a player has to make a mark in an ODI means that a decent collabarative effort can overcome any individual one, which is why NZ has always been highly competitive in this form of the game even when we've had a far poorer side than we do currently.

I honestly think that T20 and Tests are far more dictated by the strength of your best player than an ODI. In Tests they have all the time in the world to impact the game, in T20, a strong impact by a single player can often make the asking total almost impossible.

In a one day game we're caught in the middle. Rarely is an individual performance or two going to completely remove the game from the opposition.

It's the game of the no-rounder and I love it.

Ten years ago (or even 5 years ago), I'd agree with you completely. But now we've had things like Faulkner's finish in Brisbane and insane ABdV and Kohli knocks where they single-handedly win games in pretty quick time which tempers that somewhat.

Even still, it's not like South Africa are completely reliant upon ABdV h4x or an angry Steyn spell to win ODIs. They do the collaborative effort thing too.

I don't think they well-and-truly outclass New Zealand, but I think they're a stronger unit who should be considered favourites.

 

[Blocky]

New Zealand has an advantage over most teams in the pure hitting department, we have without doubt the highest amount of pure hitting options in our team and most of them tend to come off more often than most big hitting players. We also have two very good spin bowlers (if Vettori retains his fitness) and three very good ODI pace bowlers (Southee, Boult on his upwards movement and Mills as long as he doesn't fall away completely ) - that combines with an inventive captain and a well drilled world beating fielding unit.

Which other team could boast hitters all capable of 50 from 25 quite frequently like we have?

1. Ryder (when/if he's selected)
2. Anderson
3. Neesham
4. McCullum
5. Ronchi
6. Taylor (in beast mode)
7. Guptill (when he remembers he can't actually rotate the strike and just goes into T20 Mode)

As well as a tail order with hitting power in Southee, Boult and NcCullum, Vettori too if he gets his **** back together.

The thing we need to do is strategise how to turn that into our advantage and work out game plans that take into account we have a lot deeper hitting in our unit, how we build around the Williamson's (who I'd have opening with Ryder) and Taylors with the explosive hitters will be how we win/lose world cup.

My 11 for the World Cup on current form and talent

1. Ryder
2. Williamson
3. McCullum
4. Taylor
5. Anderson
6. Neesham
7. Ronchi
8. NcCullum
9. Vettori
10. Southee
11. Boult

That's why it's essential Ryder plays - because we need him in order to balance the bowling unit, if he doesn't play, you need to drop a batsman

1. Neesham
2. Williamson
3. McCullum
4. Taylor
5. Anderson
6. Ronchi
7. NcCullum
8. Vettori
9. Southee
10. Boult
11. McCleneghan

 

[hendrix]

Blocky needs to start rating Latham and then I'll heart him.

 

[Blocky]

Blocky needs to start rating Latham and then I'll heart him.

I do rate Latham, problem is I don't rate him ahead of Neesham, Anderson or Ronchi and they're the spots he has to compete with. He's in my test squad without question

Note, Neesham and Anderson solely due to their bowling. I actually think by the end of the season, Anderson won't be as strong of a choice as he currently is. I think Neesham will become a better player.

 

[hendrix]

I don't agree with the NcCullum selection tbh. I think we're better off picking an extra batsman

Latham
Ryder
Williamson
Taylor
McCullum
Anderson (5)
Watling/Ronchi
Neesham (6)
Vettori (4)
Southee (1)
Henry (3)
Boult (2)

 

[Blocky]

He’s only behind McCullum as our best ground fielder (tied with Gup), generally gets through his overs pretty tidily with a habit of picking up a handy wicket and has pulled his own weight with the bat. I think ultimately you need two spin options available in todays game and we don't have Williamson as a bowler anymore. So again it comes down to Ryder and whether he's there to add some slower bowling (and offspin if needed)