New Zealand doom and gloom thread

[CaptainGrumpy]

I guess the argument would be is he a better batsman than Anderson or Neesham at Test level? A lot would say no. Does he offer more or equal with the ball as those two? He doesn't. So unless they're both injured or he shows a compelling case particularly on A tours, he won't be picked.

No. The argument is whether he is a better batsman than any other batsman in the country at test level, including Anderson, Neesham, or anyone else regardless of their bowling ability or lack thereof.

Pick the six best batsman in the country with the best wicket keeper batsman. Then pick the four best bowlers in the country. The number 6 batsman does not need to be an allrounder with the ball.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I am without words.

That is how I feel about people saying Munro has been given a shot. Especially after all the runs he made in first class cricket last season.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

If you want to pick a specialist batsman at #6, there are better options than Munro.

Who?

 

[Riggins]

Are you Munro?

 

[Immenso]

Someone, maybe ZinZan, earlier up the thread mentioned they though Munro was a bit of a scapegoat for the SAF tour. But my abiding memories of that series are Jeets backing away and Munro v R Petersen. He was that bad IIRC.

But as I said earlier, Munro got left behind by his younger rivals on the A tour when he averaged 7 in SL and India, and from kippaxs videos that was a bad 7.

But, players can improve, but Munro has 2 younger rivals with better all round games and success at test level. I can't see an opening appearing tbh, and will need a better stage than smashing medium pacers and nude spinners 60m from the outer oval road onto Sandringham road,

I do like him as a white ball option, especially t20, but Elliott proved even in Isis you need your cake.

Anyway, fun diversion with a rained out test.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Someone, maybe ZinZan, earlier up the thread mentioned they though Munro was a bit of a scapegoat for the SAF tour. But my abiding memories of that series are Jeets backing away and Munro v R Petersen. He was that bad IIRC.

But as I said earlier, Munro got left behind by his younger rivals on the A tour when he averaged 7 in SL and India, and from kippaxs videos that was a bad 7.

But, players can improve, but Munro has 2 younger rivals with better all round games and success at test level. I can't see an opening appearing tbh, and will need a better stage than smashing medium pacers and nude spinners 60m from the outer oval road onto Sandringham road,

I do like him as a white ball option, especially t20, but Elliott proved even in Isis you need your cake.

Anyway, fun diversion with a rained out test.

Does everyone know that Elliott is in ISIS?

 

[Pratters]

Pretty sure I saw him play for Leicestershire v Durham the other day.

 

[Immenso]

Ha! Btw, hello NSA, I meant ODIs.

 

[SteveNZ]

No. The argument is whether he is a better batsman than any other batsman in the country at test level, including Anderson, Neesham, or anyone else regardless of their bowling ability or lack thereof.

Pick the six best batsman in the country with the best wicket keeper batsman. Then pick the four best bowlers in the country. The number 6 batsman does not need to be an allrounder with the ball.

Okay - so is Manu in the top six batsmen in the country equipped to play Test cricket? We'll call it the top 3-4 to bat in the middle order, given he's not an opener nor a 3. At the moment, definitely not. Will he be in 2-3 years when Baz is gone, Ronchi isn't there etc?

And if you deem him to be at least equal with Anderson or Neesham, of course bowling ability is relevant.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Okay - so is Manu in the top six batsmen in the country equipped to play Test cricket? We'll call it the top 3-4 to bat in the middle order, given he's not an opener nor a 3. At the moment, definitely not. Will he be in 2-3 years when Baz is gone, Ronchi isn't there etc?

And if you deem him to be at least equal with Anderson or Neesham, of course bowling ability is relevant.

Okay - so who in your view, outside of Neesham and Anderson, is the 6th best batsman in the country equipped to play Test cricket?

 

[Howsie]

Is Colin Munro Peter Ingram?

Is he Virender Sehwag or Adam Gilchrist?

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Is he Virender Sehwag or Adam Gilchrist?

Could be better.

 

[Dan]

Would take Anderson, Neesham, Carter, Young, Ronchi, Raval and Macewell from outside the XI ahead of Munro. Oh and Brownlie and Ryder, obviously.

Probably a few I'm missing too. 50/50 on Mitchell. Have Munro ahead of Spudderford though.

 

[Howsie]

tbh I'd probably call you out on a few of those names. Carter ended up being dropped seasons end and only just averages over 30 after that disastrous sophmore season, went the way of Daryl Mitchell. Raval too, you couldn't convince me he's a better batsman nor talent than Munro.

In saying all that I have Mitchell Santner in my top 10 so what would I know..

 

[Hurricane]

Munro shook his ass to a rap song while Mitch M lip synched. I think that summarises all there is to know about Munro.

On a serious note - he is not technically sound. He has a damn good eye though and can smack around even 150 kmh bowling if it is in his slot. Not many people can do that so he is ahead of the likes of CDG for example.

Munro may have the worst technique in the country amongst specialist batsman. I probably haven't seen enough of the Plunket shield vault to say that definitively though. Certainly amongst the specimens I see on the HRV cup (the name lives on) most if not all are better than him except for tailenders.

He is a decent and fine bowler though and I only wish that he was more canny as he could be a very very good all rounder in pajama cricket for the blackcaps. His greatest asset is the fact he isn't afraid of getting out and that he is a team man. He prioritises the team winning far above padding his personal stats with red ink or getting an average boosting run a ball fifty. Those assets (team play, and being selfless with his batting approach) score major points with me and hopefully the selectors for limited overs cricket.

 

[Flem274*]

I want to write Munro off instinctively, but not only does he keep scoring ridiculous runs at a ridiculous strike rate, he broke Munro's Law last season and scored runs at #4. Like Peter Ingram he is genuinely good at Shield level at least and can't be ignored. If they do pick him I hope they give him a fairer chance than they gave the "improper" Ingram.

When McCullum retires there is a strong case for Watling to keep the gloves and bat #5. That would present the chance to retain one allrounder and either develop a young successful "proper" batsman with an eye on him moving up the order in a few years, or playing two of Anderson, Neesham and Munro. By the time McCullum retires I suspect Ronchi will be gone or close to it as well, so there's a bit more depth eroded.

There are two other options. The conventional option would be to keep Watling at #7 and play the newbie or recallee at #5. The other less valid idea would be to make Watling a specialist batsman if a keeper is hammering down the door domestically so hard we think the fluffing around is worth it.

If a miracle happens and Jesse wants to both play for New Zealand and take Shield cricket seriously, he would slot in at #5 or #6. If we had Jesse Ryder 2009 we would be sitting fair right now.

 

[Dan]

tbh I'd probably call you out on a few of those names. Carter ended up being dropped seasons end and only just averages over 30 after that disastrous sophmore season, went the way of Daryl Mitchell. Raval too, you couldn't convince me he's a better batsman nor talent than Munro.

In saying all that I have Mitchell Santner in my top 10 so what would I know..

I really rate Carter.

Oh and I'd probably pick Santner > Munro too. Even if only so NZ can play a Southee-Boult-Henry-Wheeler attack of ***iness.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Would take Anderson, Neesham, Carter, Young, Ronchi, Raval and Macewell from outside the XI ahead of Munro. Oh and Brownlie and Ryder, obviously.

Probably a few I'm missing too. 50/50 on Mitchell. Have Munro ahead of Spudderford though.

Ryder is a pipe dream. Dare we dream?

Brownlie may well deserve another shot.

Macewell has the bonus that he could add wicket keeping cover as we are short of them.

Carter? Is this a joke?

 

[NZTailender]

Until Munro proves he's a bit more than he is, I wouldn't him in the side, for the same reasons I wouldn't want Franklin or Ellis in the side just to satisfy a need for an all-rounder. I think we're at an interesting point internationally where just about everyone has an all-rounder of varying degree in their side. I agree that the top 6 should also be the 6 best batsman (to some degree - I'm not for shoehorning a middle order player to opening just coz) and if one of those is an all-rounder - awesome! But balancing your bowling attack so they don't get over-tired is also important. I think losing Chukane Williamson the bowler necessitated playing Anderson, Neesham et al recently but if he can do what he did yesterday (today?) I'd be more than happy with a specialist at 6. That said, Anderson can fight and Neesham can score unlikely runs and are both in the top 10 of batsmen in the country right now. It's really more of a question without an answer because 1) Neesham and Anderson are hampered by injuries and it's not really putting the position beyond doubt and 2) we've got such a fall away in batting depth - like some other international Test teams going round - that an obvious replacement is just...not obvious. The tour to Sri Lanka on the way home will be interesting, but as I alluded to in the domestic thread it won't help until the younger specialist batsmen in the country start knocking the door down (you could argue Bracewell, maybe) AND have some of them playing at 5 and 6 for ****s sake instead of wicketkeepers and Ellis-esque all-rounders.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

NZC is yet to release its summer schedule for inbound tours by Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Australia, before the World Twenty20 tournament in India in March. A draft schedule being circulated is understood to have Sri Lanka down for two tests, three ODIs and three T20s starting in December; Pakistan for five ODIs and three T20s in January and Australia for two tests and three ODIs in February.

Taken from Basin Reserve set to host first one-day cricket international in 11 years | Stuff.co.nz

I'm annoyed about losing an Australian test, but why are we having another SL test series? I'd prefer it if Pakistan plays tests and SL just white ball, especially if YK is still playing.