No, Astle had hitting zones that if you pitched the ball in, he'd throw everything at - i.e the cover drive/drive on the up and the cut shot. Outside of that, he'd generally rotate the strike and seek gaps in the early stage of his innings too. Gup really just needs to throw the bat at everything otherwise he has no point in this team. He even looks better as a batsman when he doesn't attempt to "play" and just goes T20.
Agreed. It was worth a shot, but I think we've seen enough now.
It is imo. Unlike Guptill, this isn't a question of form. This is an experiment and an experiment that is preventing us from trying other genuine openers in that position. I'd want us to go into the next game with Latham opening with Guppy.
Yeah agreed. But I'd keep Guptill instead of Neesham, and you'd likely go vice versa.
Guppy outside of a couple big innings early in his career and the knocks against England hasn't really been "in form" though. It's a perpetual myth solely based on his average that Guptill is "out of form" rather than "not good enough" - if Guptill is there as an attack everything opening batsman, I'm OK with that. If Guptill is there as a "Let's try to be an actual batsman" then he will fail, just as badly as his test career shows.
Yeah Latham is a much better option than Latham IMO. Latham just has more potential than Latham.
Disagree, Neesham has shown he can be consistent with the bat and also at a decent scoring rate in test cricket. He's actually shown a hell of a lot more aptitude than most of the prospects we've tried in the batting unit for ODI. But he can't do it if someone at the other end robs all momentum in the innings.
....so basically he's our best option? lol
