*Official* New Zealand in England 2015

[Flem274*]

i'm going to put it out there that i think ronchi is a better starter now than he was.

 

[Hurricane]

i'm going to put it out there that i think ronchi is a better starter now than he was.

*except in world cup finals or when the blackcaps really need him of course.

 

[hendrix]

Latham wasn't outstanding at wicket keeping to begin with and he hasn't been a live match keeper for how long?

You can piss around with part timers in JAMODIs but not in test matches in England with the duke ball. A part timer will drop the game.

Agreed. Most importantly though, Latham's role needs to be clearly defined. He's a specialist batsman opening the innings. That's all he needs to worry about, so forget the gloves. If Watling gets injured over there, we don't want Rutherford opening and Latham down at seven. Thankfully Hesson's smarter than that, so he picked a competent reserve.
.

1. Latham stays as opener even if he's forced to keep wicket. I agree that I want Latham to focus on being an opening batsman. That's what we need.

2. Just because swapping Ronchi for Watling is moving one player doesn't make it any less makeshift than Latham keeping. Neither scenario is ideal. Let's not pretend that Watling being injured doesn't severely screw our batting. The step down from Watling to Ronchi in both batting and wicket keeping is huge. Ronchi's keeping has regressed; he isn't significantly better than Latham.

It's obviously not ideal. But neither would a Williamson, a Taylor or a Boult injury be ideal. We need to accept that we don't have like-for-like replacements for these guys.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

 

[Flem274*]

Ronchi is much better with the gloves than Latham.

 

[Hurricane]

It depends what you want really. He'll be fine with the gloves but the thing about Ronchi is that he's a terrible starter; he's just never really had a grasp of the idea of building an innings early on by getting his eye in.

If you want your #7 to be able to really change games by scoring occasional hundreds then I think he's still the man to be Watling's backup, but if you just want someone to reliably build partnerships with set batsmen and be a cog in the wheel then I think de Boorder would be a better bet in England.

Ultimately I probably still would've gone with Ronchi just because I don't think changing the backup wicket keeper for each tour based on the conditions is a great way to build squad morale and continuity, but I do think de Boorder is probably the better pick for the conditions. Ronchi's more likely to make a batsman's contribution at seven but de Boorder is more likely to perform the #7 role, if that makes sense. Above all though, it's important that he isn't considered as specialist batting backup like he has been in a few other squads recently.

Derek looks the goods in domestix and plays with maturity and impressive innings management. Bats as high as 5 on occassion for Otago (which you already know).

 

[Mike5181]

1. Latham stays as opener even if he's forced to keep wicket.

An opener also being the wicketkeeper in test cricket is uncommon for a reason.

2. Just because swapping Ronchi for Watling is moving one player doesn't make it any less makeshift than Latham keeping.

Yeah, except the time he'd be spending wicketkeeping (and batting down at 6/7 come on) could be better used elsewhere. Like, you know, trying to succeed at being a test opener.

Let's not pretend that Watling being injured doesn't severely screw our batting. The step down from Watling to Ronchi in both batting and wicket keeping is huge.

No one's pretending because no one said that wasn't the case. Watling's world class, Ronchi isn't. He's still the second best in the country to fill that position though.

Santner Claus. I like it.

 

[hendrix]

An opener also being the wicketkeeper in test cricket is uncommon for a reason.
Yeah, except the time he'd be spending wicketkeeping (and batting down at 6/7 come on) could be better used elsewhere. Like, you know, trying to succeed at being a test opener.
No one's pretending because no one said that wasn't the case. Watling's world class, Ronchi isn't. He's still the second best in the country to fill that position though.

He might be the second best wicket keeper in the country but that doesn't mean he necessitates a place in the 15 man squad.

The 4 reserves:

Guptill/Rutherford
Wagner
Henry
Ronchi

I'd prefer an actual batsman there.

Who? Well, I don't know to be honest. Munro is the only one who springs to mind and that's a bit yuck. Hey, can't he keep too?

 

[Flem274*]

Swap Rutherford out for Brownlie and that's the best squad we can field imo. 15 man squads just can't cover everything - we're already all in on Craig bowling well and staying fit.

 

[Mike5181]

We have Matt Henry in the squad for once. Hype.

 

[Moss]

Squad thoughts:

-- Would have preferred Brownlie over Guptill given the difference in the amount of red-ball cricket each has been playing of late. Apart from that I just rate Brownlie as a better test batsman than Guppers (Hesson said Guptill can "bat anywhere in the order", well so can brownlie). While an inform and supposedly improved Guptill will keep me interested and Brownlie is far from indispensable, I'm a bit worried that the latter may eventually go the Kolpak route given that Hesson has never shown much faith in him. Think he'll be needed for the Australia tour.

-- On the other hand, happy that they continue to bite the bullet with Matt Henry, though I can't see him in the starting lineup for the Lord's test (Bracewell replaced Wagner for the 2nd test vs the Lankans, I doubt they'll want to change the third seamer once again). Of course there's the possibility of playing four seamers, but maybe Craig's batting ability is too good to ignore?

-- I'm OK with Ronchi in the ODI side where I believe he can still contribute but agree with those who say he shouldn't be in the test squad. It does make sense taking a backup keeper (NOT Latham) but, apart from the doubts about Ronchi's batting against pace and swing, the guy is 34 years old and just isn't a long term option for mine. de Boorder may not have banged the door down but could still be groomed as Watling's understudy (in the same way Haddin was for Gilchrist).

-- From now on I'd rather see at least one of Southee and Boult rested for the ODI's, they are simply too big an asset in tests to be wasted in the other formats. It's bad enough that they're playing in the IPL, so this means they have non-stop cricket going on another two months. Bennett/Duffy/Wheeler to come in to the ODI frame?

 

[Moss]

He might be the second best wicket keeper in the country but that doesn't mean he necessitates a place in the 15 man squad.

The 4 reserves:

Guptill/Rutherford
Wagner
Henry
Ronchi

I'd prefer an actual batsman there.

Who? Well, I don't know to be honest. Munro is the only one who springs to mind and that's a bit yuck. Hey, can't he keep too?

Any chance of Will Young or Michael Bracewell pushing for call ups? Brownlie would've been my choice. Don't know how Flynn has been going of late but his experience might be a reason for consideration.

 

[Howsie]

The good thing about Santner in ODIs is he provides proper batting, not bowling allrounder batting but allrounder batting, down at #8.

Hesson obviously rates his batting pretty highly too going by his comments yesterday. He believes he's good enough to provide batting cover for the top six. Sounds as though he'll get more responsibility with the bat playing for New Zealand then he would playing for Northern Distritcs.

 

[JediNudist]

Any chance of Will Young or Michael Bracewell pushing for call ups? Brownlie would've been my choice. Don't know how Flynn has been going of late but his experience might be a reason for consideration.

Daniel Flynn has been tried for 20 ODIs at an average of 15. He' s done and dusted , not good enough. I think its important to keep the current crop of players together . I believe this is the best squad we have and Hessen should only be bringing in younger players for real development . No sense in bringing back players like Flynn or even Rob Nicol who have been tried and not cut the mustard internationally unless a real injury crisis happens and even then players like Satner should be given the chance as they are the future.. The merry go round of players has to stop now.

 

[JediNudist]

Just been listening to RadioSport. They were discussing Brownlie missing out after averaging 70 in Plunket Shield . He misses out to Rutherford which is a shame,.Also saying Lathams latest figures are not that good and both Rutherford/Latham places are not secure,

So Latham and Guptil fighting for a place and Rutheford and Brownlie fighting for the other.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah no way. If Latham fails in both Tests then maybe we can start questioning his spot but he pretty much just came off the back of one of our best opening tours from someone not named McCullum in the last ten years.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah they're drunk if latham is under threat

 

[JediNudist]

Yeah its been decided if Guppy and Rudders opens then NZ could be be 10/2 as easily as 100/0. Both chase the boundary's,. Against a new red duke ball that could be fatal.

 

[hendrix]

Guptill's problem has always been that he just can't read length. Back-of-a-length bowling will have him driving at it which obviously hits the top part of the bat - any movement at all and it's caught in the covers, gully or slips. I'm not convinced he's fixed that and would be happier with Brownlie, but I don't mind the Guptill selection.

Rutherford stays leg side of the ball because he basically has only one shot. It's actually not the worst move in English conditions because bounce shouldn't be what finds you out (it's a very Australian thing to "get in line with the ball" but plenty of successful batsmen don't really do that), but the only having one shot thing means he uses it injudiciously.

 

[Moss]

Daniel Flynn has been tried for 20 ODIs at an average of 15. He' s done and dusted , not good enough. I think its important to keep the current crop of players together . I believe this is the best squad we have and Hessen should only be bringing in younger players for real development . No sense in bringing back players like Flynn or even Rob Nicol who have been tried and not cut the mustard internationally unless a real injury crisis happens and even then players like Satner should be given the chance as they are the future.. The merry go round of players has to stop now.

Thought we were discussing tests here? Not that Flynn's test record is flash but he has something of a past record in standing up to quality attacks (more so than Guptill notably). Wouldn't put him in the same bracket as Nicol anyway.

Agreed about the merry go round but NZ's batting stocks don't exactly run deep. Unless there are any young guns banging the door down (Young is the only one I'm aware of who comes close, those who follow the domestic game closely can correct me here) it's mix-and-match when it comes to the bench.