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

[Skyliner]

I think it's entirely fair to judge Gup significantly on his first foray into the side, it was a lengthy 31 tests, in which he scored 5 ducks.
In the recent resumption of his test career he played 2 tests for 2 ducks. He had 2 opportunities to kick on to a century and he did not convert either one.
If he is really a better player now in test cricket - as opposed to one day cricket - I would have expected him to really dine out on an England attack in which Anderson and Broad seemed to have lost their mojo. I worry about how he will perform against better bowlers on quicker tracks in Nov.

 

[Skyliner]

Didn't Corey play his first first class game at the age of 16? He's clearly better than his first class average, in any case.

Brownlie does his pull-or-drive-like-ricky-ponting thing which looks ****ing great against pace but if you're batting 6 you have to be able to not have a heart attack when a spin bowler comes on.

That's why I would have him opening. But this is NZ, we don't do horses for courses when it comes to batting, Guptill is the incumbent so he will get umpteen chances (as Rutherford did even when he had become a walking wicket).

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Well I don't think it's fair because if you've been following his progress, he's clearly a better batsman now than he used to be.

I also don't think it's fair to criticise him for only scoring 70 twice in 4 innings and not pushing on - we're used to players averaging 25 in the opener's position. Even one 70 would have been good.

Some skepticism would be fair imo. But he shouldn't be dropped after two Tests in which he scored 2 fifties.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

There are 6 batting spots, Guptill can play and Brownlie open. Its not mutually exclusive.

 

[Skyliner]

His average is 29, so that is better than 25, but still miserable numbers.
We seem to be incredibly parochial about certain players here in NZ, our point of view is always around 'fairness' and 'is this fair'.
I remember a host on Radio Sport absolutely crying about poor Reece Young and how he hadn't had a fair chance and only needed longer and did he really deserve to be dropped. Bizarre really...what about the long serving provincial keepers that never even get the chance to play even one test. Some Aussie players only get one test and if they don't grab it with both hands, they are gone - no sorrow, no sentiment. Reece Young had his chances and didn't take them.
Gups had 33 tests and averages 29, so if he was dropped tomorrow and the replacement player gave NZ a better chance of winning, I would not care a wit. And he should have no complaints either. You can't say that he has been a success as a test opener.
Toms only a nipper and he's averaging 39, including vs PAK in the UAE. Why do we judge some young players on their early career, and not others if their numbers are bad?

Moreover, I am not a Gup 'hater'!!!
The team and the teams chances of winning are everything to me.
Brownlie was 'the next cab off the rank' as a test opener even before he scored his triple century, and he got bypassed by what a bloke did in ODI cricket.
Maybe Brownlie is the one who should feel aggreived(?)

 

[Skyliner]

There are 6 batting spots, Guptill can play and Brownlie open. Its not mutually exclusive.

We shouldn't select on the basis that we just must have Gup in the side somewhere.
Gup has not been a success in tests where he batted down the order.
If Brownlie therefore would have to bat 6 where he is coming up against a heap of spin, then I would not think that was a smart move.
But if he would give the side the best possible side as an opener on Australian pitches, then I would say pick him as an opener.
I think we need to win the series, and loyalty to incumbents be damned. Same with the bowlers, you have to pick the bowlers who you think will give you the best chance of winning on the pitches we will be presented with.
Some players pick themselves, Boult , Southee , Williamson , Taylor have been outstanding. So their places could never be in doubt.
If you are a player just hanging in there, I don't think you are owed some debt of loyalty, I think it is fair enough to go for another option if that option is deemed a better chance of success.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I think 6 batsmen is our best chance of winning. Corey detracts from our chances of winning. He could play a match winning innings. But he is less likely to than Guptill or Brownlie.

 

[Skyliner]

I think 6 batsmen is our best chance of winning. Corey detracts from our chances of winning. He could play a match winning innings. But he is less likely to than Guptill or Brownlie.

I'm just not sold on Guptill as a test cricketer. He scored 189 batting at 5 against the Banga's, but a duck vs India in his only test at 4, and 1 and 3 in his only test batting at 6 - vs England in 2013.

We've seen him play magnificent ODI innings's and been blinded by them.

 

[Hurricane]

I think 6 batsmen is our best chance of winning. Corey detracts from our chances of winning. He could play a match winning innings. But he is less likely to than Guptill or Brownlie.

Maybe you have a point with brownlie. Definitely not with Guptill.

Either way we have a winning formula at the moment and it includes an allrounder at 6. It is working. And if it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Dunno if we've been blinded by his excellence in ODIs, I think it's more like many people think someone averaging 40 in ODIs has to be at least decent in Tests. I'd be astounded if he finished his career averaging 40 in ODIs and less than 30 in Tests - it would be incredibly unusual considering it's usually the other way around.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Either way we have a winning formula at the moment and it includes an allrounder at 6. It is working. And if it ain't broke don't fix it.

This.

 

[hendrix]

Brownlie was 'the next cab off the rank' as a test opener even before he scored his triple century, and he got bypassed by what a bloke did in ODI cricket.
Maybe Brownlie is the one who should feel aggreived(?)

Nah, McHesson/Edgar spelled it out pretty clearly that Brownlie wouldn't be considered as an opener until he'd had more than a season at it.

 

[hendrix]

Well I don't think it's fair because if you've been following his progress, he's clearly a better batsman now than he used to be.

What evidence is there that he's a better test batsman? Perhaps he's realised that he has to attack spin; that's certainly helped.
As far as I can see, he hasn't changed. He's still poor at dealing with length and back-of-a-length deliveries.

But he's the incumbent, so he should keep his spot.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I admit he's yet to prove it in Tests. But having followed his ODI career I reckon he's simply a better allround batsman than he used to be. This opinion is shared by the selectors so isn't that controversial.

 

[hendrix]

I admit he's yet to prove it in Tests. But having followed his ODI career I reckon he's simply a better allround batsman than he used to be. This opinion is shared by the selectors so isn't that controversial.

He's always been a good ODI batsman though.

I want him to succeed and I'll consider an average of 30 as an opener as a success. Because I don't think we have any other options. It's probably too late in the game for Brownlie.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

That's the point, for me at least. He's always been a good ODI batsman, now he's an excellent ODI batsman. Some think that will translate to Tests, others don't. I'm in the former camp, but we'll have to wait and see.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Maybe you have a point with brownlie. Definitely not with Guptill.

Either way we have a winning formula at the moment and it includes an allrounder at 6. It is working. And if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Huh? Look at the last two tests. This statement is completely wrong.

That statement is just ridiculously wrong for the last test series.

I cannot believe you would even try to suggest what you have said as fact.

We had an allrounder at 6. We lost. He scored 67 of the cheapest runs ever when we needed him to anchor and save the match. He kept swinging to mid wicket and long on and Cook left it open for him to do so. He failed in the first innings. If anyone scored 76 runs in a test and failed, it was then.

We then play 6 batsmen and a keeper. We win. Yes the keeper and #6 batsman scored runs - thats the point. The same bowlers still took 20 wickets.

So if not playing an allrounder aint broke, don't fix it.

 

[Dan]

Look, I get the whole "don't pick an all-rounder" thing if you've got batsmen definitively better than him. But NZ don't.

Brownlie averages around 30 in Test cricket so far and can't play spin, but he has success in Australia and recent FC runs. But we're not talking Bradman v2 here. Ronchi played a good knock on debut, but yeah, he's a rubbish starter and the last time he played regularly in Australia he lost his spot in the state XI because he wasn't performing. Neither of these guys are superstars unfairly being kept out of the team by undeserving, useless pricks who can bowl a bit.

I think Neesham, while also flawed, is just about as likely to score runs as Ronchi or Brownlie. I think Anderson is behind him, but again, the difference from best to worst in this 4-man comparison is pretty small.

So then, you have to ask yourself, is having Corey or Neesham bowling 10 overs per day instead of Williamson valuable? If it is, is it valuable enough to overcome the difference between Corey/Neesham and Ronchi/Brownlie with the bat?

I think it is valuable, and I think it certainly overcomes any difference between Neesham and Brownlie with the bat. In Perth? Well, you might have an argument for playing both Ronchi and Brownlie for the sake of local experience

 

[Dan]

Huh? Look at the last two tests. This statement is completely wrong.

That statement is just ridiculously wrong for the last test series.

I cannot believe you would even try to suggest what you have said as fact.

We had an allrounder at 6. We lost. He scored 67 of the cheapest runs ever when we needed him to anchor and save the match. He kept swinging to mid wicket and Cook left it open for him to do so. He failed in the first innings. If anyone scored 76 runs in a test and failed, it was then.

We then play 6 batsmen and a keeper. We win. Yes the keeper and #6 batsman scored runs - thats the point. The same bowlers still took 20 wickets.

So if not playing an allrounder aint broke, don't fix it.

NZ's success goes further back than the England series, and it does feature an all-rounder at 6 in almost every game (2 of them in the UAE).

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

NZ's success goes further back than the England series, and it does feature an all-rounder at 6 in almost every game (2 of them in the UAE).

How long is a piece of string? I noticed an improvement without an allrounder in that test.