New Zealand doom and gloom thread

[Athlai]

If Luke Ronchi wasn't 34 you'd probably back Watling to move to #5 and just bring in Ronchi when Baz goes.

 

[Prince EWS]

If Luke Ronchi wasn't 34 you'd probably back Watling to move to #5 and just bring in Ronchi when Baz goes.

Even aside from Ronchi's age, Watling's a better gloveman than Ronchi so it'd really be sacrificing something for no reason. I think what NZ are working towards is having Neesham and/or Anderson develop their batting enough to genuinely command a spot at five and then play both.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

If Luke Ronchi wasn't 34 you'd probably back Watling to move to #5 and just bring in Ronchi when Baz goes.

I reckon Ronchi could stick around another three years at least. He didn't make the move back to play for a year then quit, and his eye still seems to be good enough.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Even aside from Ronchi's age, Watling's a better gloveman than Ronchi so it'd really be sacrificing something for no reason. I think what NZ are working towards is having Neesham and/or Anderson develop their batting enough to genuinely command a spot at five and then play both.

Ronchi would be coming in as a specialist bat, I imagine.

 

[Athlai]

Even aside from Ronchi's age, Watling's a better gloveman than Ronchi so it'd really be sacrificing something for no reason. I think what NZ are working towards is having Neesham and/or Anderson develop their batting enough to genuinely command a spot at five and then play both.

That would be ideal but I'm not sure if I expect either to be better than a Test match #6.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah I don't see any of Anderson, Neesham or Ronchi being more than #6 without big advances to their batting.

Watling for #5 or a newbie imo. Guptill to seal the other opener spot, Brownliie to figure out spin bowling and be the #5. #wishful

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Michael Bracewell for no5 - need more back-up keepers

 

[Prince EWS]

Ronchi would be coming in as a specialist bat, I imagine.

Neesham at seven would make more sense in this case IMO. I figured Ronchi was only being advocated because having your #5 keep long term is considered to be somewhat taboo.

 

[Zinzan]

The only exception was the Pakistan series. They dealt with Australia and I've just been reminded of what they did to England a few years ago. The UAE is about as alien to New Zealand conditions as you can get. We got smashed in the first, almost won the second and then got them in the third.

That's the result that sticks out to me as being the best case for NZ being good rather than decent. That was a really really good win.

Not disagreeing with our progress, but let's not forget neither NZ or Pakistan wanted to continue that 3rd test after day 1 and it just so happened that we channeled our emotions following the death of Hughes better than they did.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Not disagreeing with our progress, but let's not forget neither NZ or Pakistan wanted to continue that 3rd test after day 1 and it just so happened that we channeled our emotions following the death of Hughes better than they did.

I think Pakistan just did a Pakistan as they regularly do. Doubt their lollapse had anything too much to do with the Hughes sitiuation.

 

[Days of Grace]

You can look at a perfect test team like this:

Opener
Opener
Premier batsman
Premier batsman
No.5
Batsman who bowls
Wicketkeeper
Bowler who bats
Bowler
Bowler
Bowler

Rattue in his Herald article acknowledged that we would lose overs from an allrounder if Ronchi and Watling played but then said simply that Williamson would bowl more overs. That's something I wouldn't like to see happen. We need 5 bowlers, or at least have a 5th bowler who is capable of taking 10-1-30-1 in a day's play. The one change I may make would be Watling moving to no.6 in front of the Batting allrounder.

 

[Dan]

Baz has lost his bottle, KW's been found out, Taylor's living on borrowed time and Southee is in terminal decline. Boult's going to get banned for beamers, Henry's gonna bowl length then get injured, Guppy's in a purple patch and still isn't that great, Latham suxxx and Craig shouldn't be playing anything above Hawke Cup, and the less said about the mediocre all-rounders the better.

Only Watling can save us, and the law of averages says he's going to average 13.2 for the next 30 Tests. Gonna be clean-swept at home by Bangladesh soon enough.



Am I doing this right?

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

If no Ryder then Munro should be given a chance at #6.

Best 6 batsmen available and Watling should be in the test team.

Having a number 5 or 6 batsmen who can bowl is a bonus, not a necessity.

With Boult as a spear head with Southee and co in support, surely we can leave behind the dark days of bits and pieces cricketers.

If Neesham or Anderson want to play test cricket - become better bowlers who can bowl full spells of 20 odd overs a day. I am sure Munro or Ryder could bowl tidy short spells to rotate the main 4 bowlers.

Sobers is not the rule. And he made the team as a batsmen, regardless of his bowling. But think of it as him as the exception. The allrounder spot was more typically 8 (or 7 if batting ahead of the old school wicket keeper type - but now wicket keepers are expected to be far more proficient as batsmen than yesteryear). But if the team does not have an allrounder for #8 - then play a bowler.

That way you have the 4 best bowlers bowling 20 odd overs a day and the 6 best batsmen in the team. Here is food for thought on team balance - the 1980's was the decade of the great all rounders. The greatest team of that decade did not have one.

 

[Immenso]

If no Ryder then Munro should be given a chance at #6.

Best 6 batsmen available and Watling should be in the test team.

Having a number 5 or 6 batsmen who can bowl is a bonus, not a necessity.

With Boult as a spear head with Southee and co in support, surely we can leave behind the dark days of bits and pieces cricketers.

If Neesham or Anderson want to play test cricket - become better bowlers who can bowl full spells of 20 odd overs a day.

Sobers is not the rule. And he made the team as a batsmen, regardless of his bowling. But think of it as him as the exception. The allrounder spot was more typically 8 (or 7 if batting ahead of the old school wicket keeper type - but now wicket keepers are expected to be far more proficient as batsmen than yesteryear. But if the team does not have an allrounder for #8 - then play a bowler.

That way you have the 4 best bowlers and the 6 best batsmen in the team. Here is food for thought on team balance - the 1980's was the decade of the great all rounders. The greatest team did not have one.

Yip, you're definitely getting the spirit of this thread. Nothing would be gloomier than replacing either of 2 pretty good almost genuine all rounders at 6 with a bits and pieces cricketer like Munro.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Yip, you're definitely getting the spirit of this thread. Nothing would be gloomier than replacing either of 2 pretty good almost genuine all rounders at 6 with a bits and pieces cricketer like Munro.

You would almost select Corey Anderson as either a batsman solely or as a bowler solely in test cricket? I think you're reading his averages upside down.

Right now Anderson has lost his spot to Ronchi. When Watling is fit, Ronchi should lose his spot to the best batsman for the middle order available - unless Watling is to go gloveless in a Sanagakarra type move which yields better results. Wouldn't that be nice?

Munro is getting big runs in first class cricket and his average has ballooned to over 50. Form deserves reward. That said, Ryder would be my first pick.

 

[Immenso]

Coincidentally, I would rate Anderson about 6th best bat in the country.

In order;
Williamson
Taylor
McCullum
Watling
Latham
Anderson

Not sure yet on Neesham re: flukey start or genuine quality. But his play v spin put him below Anderson in the long term likely encumbent.

Brownlie and Guptill almost test quality, would rank next.

After that we are pretty much guessing.

But not Munro as a red ball batsman from what I've seen.

 

[Immenso]

Anderson and Munro's paths diverged on the A tour to SL and India about 2 years ago.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Coincidentally, I would rate Anderson about 6th best bat in the country.

Hahahahahaha. Brilliant trolling.

 

[Athlai]

Coincidentally, I would rate Anderson about 6th best bat in the country.

In order;
Williamson
Taylor
McCullum
Watling
Latham
Anderson

Not sure yet on Neesham re: flukey start or genuine quality. But his play v spin put him below Anderson in the long term likely encumbent.

Brownlie and Guptill almost test quality, would rank next.

After that we are pretty much guessing.

But not Munro as a red ball batsman from what I've seen.

I'd probably have Ryder, Guptill and Neesham ahead of Anderson.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'd probably have Ryder, Guptill and Neesham ahead of Anderson.

I don't think Ryder really counts. If he does it's hard to really place him.

I don't really have a preference between Neesham and Anderson as far as batting is concerned; if really pushed I think I'd lean towards Neesham but I don't really think there's much in it.

Guptill definitely doesn't count because you're Athlai.