Any updates on NZ's tour of Oz later this year?

[hendrix]

You discard Ronchi and its Neesham v Brownlie.

It's Neesh vs Brownlie vs Corey.

I'll take Corey.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I do not understand the Corey love for test cricket. At all.

 

[Hurricane]

He averages 31 with the bat and 38 with the ball.

The 31 is an underperformance from him. He deserves to average as high as 35. And he will once he settles into his batting a bit for an extended run.

The 38 with the ball perfectly assesses how good he is at bowling. He is definitely qualified to be a 5th bowler in any attack around the world.

I do think we need a batting allrounder if there is a half decent option available. So even if Brownlie or even Ronchi would do a better job I wouldn't be picking them.

Dan Vettori commented that once Oram retired that the team really missed his ten overs per day in tests.

 

[Howsie]

I do not understand the Corey love for test cricket. At all.

Well you're a Corey Anderson hater for one so that's probably the reason.

 

[straw man]

That being said, I'm taking Neesham. Issues against quality spin won't trouble him so much in Australia, while Coriander Son's hard hands pushing at length balls will find him out against high-class pace IMO. Will struggle against Haze, I reckon.

AWTA, though I'm overjoyed to have both Anderson and Neesham around and think they could both have a future in the side.

It's hard to say that Brownlie or Ronchi are better test batsmen than these allrounders at present, and we could really use that bowling for ten overs per day, so Neesham it is.

 

[Hurricane]

AWTA, though I'm overjoyed to have both Anderson and Neesham around and think they could both have a future in the side.

It's hard to say that Brownlie or Ronchi are better test batsmen than these allrounders at present, and we could really use that bowling for ten overs per day, so Neesham it is.

Ronchi for one is definitely not test match material.
I quote PEWS "Ronchi is a poor starter". That means he will fail alot and also have a fair few big scores. I get the impression he will go AWOL when the chips are down. ie he will be the opposite of Watling.

Brownlie would be solid. But doesn't offer bowling. Well he does but it is ****e bowling.

 

[hendrix]

That being said, I'm taking Neesham. Issues against quality spin won't trouble him so much in Australia, while Coriander Son's hard hands pushing at length balls will find him out against high-class pace IMO. Will struggle against Haze, I reckon.
.

Either of them would struggle. While Corey looks a little more obvious with his technical flaws, Neesham's relative elegance as a batsman doesn't make him any better against quality pace. I think Corey is straight up a better batsman though, so that's who I'd be picking.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Well you're a Corey Anderson hater for one so that's probably the reason.

I like Corey. One of the first names Id pick in an ODI team.

In a test team, I think he will fail more often. The Aussies will give him a hell of a time batting over there. He better spend the winter really working on his batting technique, or they will make him look foolish. I wouldn't pick him unless he was in the form of his life smashing big scores in the warm up games.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

AWTA, though I'm overjoyed to have both Anderson and Neesham around and think they could both have a future in the side.

It's hard to say that Brownlie or Ronchi are better test batsmen than these allrounders at present, and we could really use that bowling for ten overs per day, so Neesham it is.

Can get ten overs a day out of the golden boy Kane. That should not really be the basis of selection.

 

[hendrix]

I like Corey. One of the first names Id pick in an ODI team.

In a test team, I think he will fail more often. The Aussies will give him a hell of a time batting over there. He better spend the winter really working on his batting technique, or they will make him look foolish. I wouldn't pick him unless he was in the form of his life smashing big scores in the warm up games.

I think you're overrating the competition for his spot. Neesham isn't that good either, nor Brownlie, and certainly not Ronchi.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Neesham was the incumbent. He took the spot from Corey before getting injured.

Neesham did admirably against Sri Lanka. Cannot see what Corey did to take the spot in his sole England test since. I watched his 50 in England. It was not a great knock.

 

[hendrix]

really there's only one other NZ batsman not in the side who's categorically better, and he shall not be named.

 

[straw man]

Ronchi for one is definitely not test match material.
I quote PEWS "Ronchi is a poor starter". That means he will fail alot and also have a fair few big scores. I get the impression he will go AWOL when the chips are down. ie he will be the opposite of Watling.

Brownlie would be solid. But doesn't offer bowling. Well he does but it is ****e bowling.

Mostly agree, though
a) you have to give some credit to Sir Biffalot (Ronchi) for his debut runs vs England. It helped turn a strong position into a winning position. Neesham has also scored runs like that.
b) I'm disappointed Brownlie is continually ignored and I see him as an opener now. I'm happy to not see him again though if it means Latham and Guptill make a success of opening together.

 

[Skyliner]

I am very relieved. Unbeknowst to any of you I have been searching for news on Boult every couple of days. Without both him and Tim together we really stood no chance in the series.

Every couple of days? I was searching hourly, hence found it first.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Every couple of days? I was searching hourly, hence found it first.

Don't lie Skyliner, you were ringing every doctor in the Bay of Plenty region daily.

 

[Hurricane]

He scored 85, 15, 19

That is decent but inconsistent. Like I said if he gets a start he tends to go on with it. However he fails an awful lot because he isn't that good.

 

[Skyliner]

We need to select a big squad for the tour, like the AB's do, and then have a plethora of warm up matches so that our plethora of potential options can go head to head, with the most in form players securing the most contentious spots. I'm thinking a squad of 17, minimum.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Mostly agree, though
a) you have to give some credit to Sir Biffalot (Ronchi) for his debut runs vs England. It helped turn a strong position into a winning position. Neesham has also scored runs like that.
b) I'm disappointed Brownlie is continually ignored and I see him as an opener now. I'm happy to not see him again though if it means Latham and Guptill make a success of opening together.

Brownlie could bat 5 with McCullum batting 6. I like the rest of your post, though.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

He scored 85, 15, 19

That is decent but inconsistent. Like I said if he gets a start he tends to go on with it. However he fails an awful lot because he isn't that good.

And his wickets. Took 6 at 18 runs a pop.

 

[straw man]

Can get ten overs a day out of the golden boy Kane. That should not really be the basis of selection.

If you have a choice between a batsman who can bowl and another batsmen who you cannot say bats any better than the first, then yes that can be a basis for selection.

Also Neesham (and Anderson) are young and should improve.