Your New Zealand World Cup Squad if selected today...

[Zinzan]

Henry interviewed well by Radio Sport earlier today:
Matt Henry: Black Caps squad

Cheers, his attitude is awesome.

 

[Days of Grace]

I honestly would have left out McClenaghan. Not only do I always have trouble spelling his name, but his trolling of wickets comes at a very large economy-rate and we already have bowlers who can get probably the same amount of wickets at a cost of fewer runs. I watched his and Henry's opening spells in one game in the UAE and the difference in pitch maps was quite stark.

Basically, I think that if Henry had debuted two years ago and had the record he currently has, and Mitch debuted last season and has his current record, we would be going for Henry as the more senior of the two.

 

[Athlai]

I honestly would have left out McClenaghan. Not only do I always have trouble spelling his name, but his trolling of wickets comes at a very large economy-rate and we already have bowlers who can get probably the same amount of wickets at a cost of fewer runs. I watched his and Henry's opening spells in one game in the UAE and the difference in pitch maps was quite stark.

Basically, I think that if Henry had debuted two years ago and had the record he currently has, and Mitch debuted last season and has his current record, we would be going for Henry as the more senior of the two.

Spelling his name is easy, you just need to sound it out

Mc
Clen
enenenenen

 

[Kippax]

It's got very little to do with records tbh. Hesson sees Mills and Southee as highly dependable vanilla, so there's not much appeal to him of having Henry on the bench, seeing he never intends to field a trio of fast-medium outswing length hitters in one team.

Rightly or wrongly, Henry's tried really hard (in off-camera games) to bowl a lot more like Milne, and I'd agree with Hesson if he didn't see a very convincing audition either tbh. Intimidating lengths against Afghanistan that looked great on a very fast pitch, then got badly pumped by Ireland on a slightly slower one, and so on.

 

[SteveNZ]

I honestly would have left out McClenaghan. Not only do I always have trouble spelling his name, but his trolling of wickets comes at a very large economy-rate and we already have bowlers who can get probably the same amount of wickets at a cost of fewer runs. I watched his and Henry's opening spells in one game in the UAE and the difference in pitch maps was quite stark.

Basically, I think that if Henry had debuted two years ago and had the record he currently has, and Mitch debuted last season and has his current record, we would be going for Henry as the more senior of the two.

That's cool, but that's not the case in the swapped debuts. Mitch's outside Asia stats are bloody excellent - 44 wickets at less than 22. And at 5.5 an over, bowling up front and in powerplays, it's not bad. You can't leave out those figures. On the sub-continent, I'd go along with you.

 

[BeeGee]

I'm really looking forward to discussing the WC on this forum now that...

Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.

 

[Zinzan]

I see Bruce Edgar's rationale for Latham's inclusion was effectively that he's the back-up keeper.

Then in his next breath he talks about Henry being on stand-by should one of the pace bowlers break-down. Which raises the question, why couldn't Latham have been the stand-by keeper then (with McCullum needing to step-up if the injury happens on the day)?

Is there a special rule that a side must name a back-up keeper from the get-go or something?

Latham is definitely the luckiest in the squad... I mean averaging 25 with a SR of 75. Based on that rationale, wouldn't Watling be better?

 

[Athlai]

I see Bruce Edgar's rationale for Latham's inclusion was effectively that he's the back-up keeper.

Then in his next breath he talks about Henry being on stand-by should one of the pace bowlers break-down. Which raises the question, why couldn't Latham have been the stand-by keeper then (with McCullum needing to step-up if the injury happens on the day)?

Is there a special rule that a side must name a back-up keeper from the get-go or something?

Latham is definitely the luckiest in the squad... I mean averaging 25 with a SR of 75. Based on that rationale, wouldn't Watling be better?

Latham covers more than just Ronchi though, he also can be used as a back up opener.

I agree though. It's not like we'd have to fly Latham/Watling overseas if an injury did occur. Would have preferred keeping players who may actually play based on form than on injury in the squad.

 

[Zinzan]

Latham covers more than just Ronchi though, he also can be used as a back up opener.

I agree though. It's not like we'd have to fly Latham/Watling overseas if an injury did occur. Would have preferred keeping players who may actually play based on form than on injury in the squad.

Yet they didn't try Latham once as an opener in the UAE in spite of some other experimentation & Guptill being injured.

And when Doull specifically asked Edgar whether the selection had anything to do with opening, he only mentioned the back-up keeping thing.

It's lost me..

 

[SteveNZ]

I see Bruce Edgar's rationale for Latham's inclusion was effectively that he's the back-up keeper.

Then in his next breath he talks about Henry being on stand-by should one of the pace bowlers break-down. Which raises the question, why couldn't Latham have been the stand-by keeper then (with McCullum needing to step-up if the injury happens on the day)?

Is there a special rule that a side must name a back-up keeper from the get-go or something?

Latham is definitely the luckiest in the squad... I mean averaging 25 with a SR of 75. Based on that rationale, wouldn't Watling be better?

Hard to argue with this, yet his selection has hardly been mentioned. I've said it before though, Latham is giving you nothing BJ won't. Only plausible explanation is they don't want to tinker with BJ's ridiculously good Test game.

 

[Athlai]

Hendrix has nudes of Hesson imo.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah Watling > Latham but you knew I'd say that

 

[Immenso]

Latam lucky? He covers 5 batting positions plus keeper.

He's incumbent number 5, but admittedly probably about to lose this spot to Elliott due to Elliott's bowling/team balance.

Despite Hendrix prostrations Latham's skills are well suited to the middle overs v spinners ( as is Elliott). Both can work the ball in middle overs and have good slog sweeps, Latham's slog sweeps the best I have seen from an NZer though in those T20 warm ups v England at Cobham Oval a few years ago.

 

[Zinzan]

That's all well & good, the only problem is his record after 16 games is decidedly ordinary; poor average & SR.

 

[otagoman]

Interesting to see who would come in if there were injuries, i would say it would likely be the following

Henry - Southee, Boult, McClenaghan, Mills, Milne
Neesham - Anderson, NMcCullum, Vettori
Watling - Latham, Ronchi
Brownlie - BMcCullum, Guptill, Williamson, Taylor


Grant Elliott's backup is harder, could be Munro, Brownlie, or Neesham

 

[hendrix]

I see Bruce Edgar's rationale for Latham's inclusion was effectively that he's the back-up keeper.

Then in his next breath he talks about Henry being on stand-by should one of the pace bowlers break-down. Which raises the question, why couldn't Latham have been the stand-by keeper then (with McCullum needing to step-up if the injury happens on the day)?

Is there a special rule that a side must name a back-up keeper from the get-go or something?

Latham is definitely the luckiest in the squad... I mean averaging 25 with a SR of 75. Based on that rationale, wouldn't Watling be better?

If that's Edgar's rationale then Latham is indeed extremely lucky to be there.

McCullum has said that he's the backup opener though, so I think he's covering pretty much numbers 1-5 as well as the keeping.

Watling could arguably do the same job but for whatever reason the selectors don't rate his batting.

 

[santhosh683]

New Zealand Team will be going to rock this time, because New Zealand team is very stong and young energetic Team now. We hope for coming world cup 2015, the new zealand team team will rock

 

[Zinzan]

Quite amazing how much I've had to bash my starting XI around in the last 60 odd days due to a combination of form, Jesse being Jesse, selections & bizarre tactics with the playing XI in UAE. (Devcich and Brownlie opening).

So my latest attempt at a starting XI based on the 15 we're stuck with (assuming a typical NZ/Aus wicket favouring pace) is;

Guptill
BMac
KW
Taylor
Elliott (5)
Anderson (6)
Ronchi
Vettori (4)
Southee (1)
Milne (2)
McClenaghan (3)

For me it's crucial Elliott finds form with the bat because although Latham has more natural talent with willow in hand, I think we desperately need some overs out of Elliott so Anderson's not obliged to bowl his full quota of 10.

Mills will need to be outstanding in the lead up to get in ahead of Southee, Mitch & Milne in my eyes, but let's wait and see. Happy to see him there if he's good enough in the lead up games.

Anyone else prepared to throw their XIs out at this stage?

 

[hendrix]

Crowe things Latham and Elliott will rotate, probably with Latham playing the spin-heavy sides and Elliott playing the Aus, SA and England. Not a bad strategy. Elliott playing also means we could play 2 spinners vs the SAffers if need be.

 

[Zinzan]

Comfortable enough with that approach on slower decks provided;

1) KW shows he's still good enough to bowl on par with his career ER of just over 5s or;

2) Both Vettori and NcCullum play in those 'slower wicket' games as well.