• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

**Official** New Zealand in Australia 2015

Hurricane

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
Fuller Pilch said:
Henry Nicholls has 4. Also talking openers I know that Jeet Raval gets written off on CW, but he does have 11 first class centuries.
Click to expand...
Great post. IF memory serves Guptil was first selected for the test side prior to tonning up in Plunket. Number of tons is something I am starting to put more emphasis on in my own punditry. Especially after watching Santner lose his way twice after getting a start.

I guess the come back to Raval is how many of them were scored away from home?
 
F

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
I know about the trouble against Brett Lee but the bloke averaged 51 after a 5-match odi series against South Africa. Considering the openers since RIchardson it is strange he didnt get more chances
 
NZTailender

NZTailender

I can't believe I ate the whole thing
We go to Brownlie and if he doesn't succeed we try Bracewell - and I'm sure Rutherford will continue to be in the mix for some time to come.

As far as middle order goes - Santner has all the making of a potentially fine Test batsman, but he needs to learn his craft. He reminded me more of Jimmy Neesham more than anyone else when he batted - in that he could play some technically correct and marvellous shots, but didn't have much outside of that, and then would try some stupid to counter. I would like that we develop some full batsmen for number 5 and even 6 though. Having Corey J and/or Neesham, Santner et all always makes me think we're playing half a batsmen who is a handy bowler. They could all surprise us but having only specialists 1-4 would do my head in.
 
Hurricane

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
NZTailender said:
We go to Brownlie and if he doesn't succeed we try Bracewell - and I'm sure Rutherford will continue to be in the mix for some time to come.

As far as middle order goes - Santner has all the making of a potentially fine Test batsman, but he needs to learn his craft. He reminded me more of Jimmy Neesham more than anyone else when he batted - in that he could play some technically correct and marvellous shots, but didn't have much outside of that, and then would try some stupid to counter. I would like that we develop some full batsmen for number 5 and even 6 though. Having Corey J and/or Neesham, Santner et all always makes me think we're playing half a batsmen who is a handy bowler. They could all surprise us but having only specialists 1-4 would do my head in.
Click to expand...
I like this post. As a cricket fan the reason I enjoy CW is the chance to read good posts.

I guess the jury is out on this though from a New Zealand perspective. We have tried 5 bowlers and Hamilton happened where Patel walked in at number 8 and Taylor got stranded on 120 when he could have made anything that day.

We have tried 6 batsman and Dan vettori complained about it and said that we really missed those ten overs a day from someone else.
 
NZTailender

NZTailender

I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Hurricane said:
I like this post. As a cricket fan the reason I enjoy CW is the chance to read good posts.

I guess the jury is out on this though from a New Zealand perspective. We have tried 5 bowlers and Hamilton happened where Patel walked in at number 8 and Taylor got stranded on 120 when he could have made anything that day.

We have tried 6 batsman and Dan vettori complained about it and said that we really missed those ten overs a day from someone else.
Click to expand...
It's interesting because I really liked the side when we had Brownlie at 6 and relied on Williamson for those extra overs - albeit chucky ones. But given just about every single side knocking about these days everyone seems to have an A/R at 6 or at 7 with keeper at 6, or at least flirts with that, we can't expect to go back to specialist L/O batsmen. I guess we can't all be the classic Australian side with specialists to 6 (Waugh's part timers notwithstanding), Gilchrist at 7 and 4 bowlers who would take you apart.

Honestly wouldn't mind seeing this dynamic post Brendon's retirement tbh: Bracewell/Brownlie, Latham, Williamson, Taylor, Brownlie, Young, Watling+, Santner/Craig/Astle, D. Bracewell/Wagner, Southee, Boult.
 
Last edited:
F

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
If we lived in a world where Ryder could play and function we'd have his medium pace and KW's offies in the top 6, then Watling and 4 specialist bowlers. If only
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
This is the tour I'd have backed Brownlie the opener to do well on tbh. He loves pace and bounce. Sideways movement? Jury is out.
 
Zinzan

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yup, seemed the obvious move given Brownlie looked one of the best bats on either side in the '11 series. If he was at the very least a back-up to Guptill, they would have been forced to give him the nod in Adelaide, and who knows what difference he could have made in a close-ish test.

The fact Guptill looks so much the part, is a great fieldsman and a fine team-man really does blind the selectors though, it's like an emotional attachment.

He won't be the first nor last batsman to be a better ODI bat than test one. Effectively the anti Michael Vaughan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top