***Official*** Pakistan in New Zealand 2016/17

[Blocky]

Just because his injury isn't the biggest deal, there's no need to take it to the other extreme considering it's not like we have Test class batsmen lined up ready to go.

If everyone is fit, of course you'd still pick Taylor.

How much longer for though? I'd argue Taylor hasn't been Taylor since the tail end of 2014, he's not been performing with the bat, he's dropping real bad chances almost every series in the slips and we seem entrenched into this idea that we have to keep selecting him. I'd hate to think what would happen if we ever had an Adam Voges situation.

 

[Blocky]

Domestically we don't even have guys really lighting a fire under Nicholls, we've got a surplus of options at 6 and 7 in our allrounder but the stock of guys 1-5 actually delivering isn't so hot at the moment. It's a shame because a year or two ago there were quite a few guys looking exciting but they aren't really delivering recently.

The top 5 runscorers domestically

Woodcock 427 @ 106.75 from 3 matches
Wilson 400 @ 80 from 4 matches
Rutherford 359 @ 59.84 from 4 matches
Guptill 335 @ 167.50 from 2 matches
Ellis 334 @ 47.71 from 4 matches

Brooms 6th there? Maybe him?

None of the above fill me with confidence and when we're talking about Neil Broom, theres a voice in the back of my head that says, maybe Guptill at 5 wouldn't be the worst idea.

There in lies the issue with an early start to the test cricket season though, you can't judge anyone on form from four matches... we needed these guys to be approaching eight matches as the test cricket season started.

 

[Dan]

I agree, but this era seems to be all about selecting ND players who don't really belong at test level.

Devcich. Latham to 4.

 

[Zinzan]

How much longer for though? I'd argue Taylor hasn't been Taylor since the tail end of 2014, he's not been performing with the bat, he's dropping real bad chances almost every series in the slips and we seem entrenched into this idea that we have to keep selecting him. I'd hate to think what would happen if we ever had an Adam Voges situation.

While there's still other top 5 NZ batsmen (who don't have his runs in the bank) averaging the same or worse in the last couple of years. See Athers stats. Not before they're replaced first.

 

[Athlai]

While there's still other top 5 NZ batsmen (who don't have his runs in the bank) averaging the same or worse in the last couple of years. See Athers stats. Not before they're replaced first.

TBF the allrounders have sort of been dropped on performances at times. It's just hard to remember because they're also always injured.

 

[Dan]

In all seriousness though, surely it has to be Tom Bruce?

 

[Blocky]

While there's still other top 5 NZ batsmen (who don't have his runs in the bank) averaging the same or worse in the last couple of years. See Athers stats.

They also don't have his experience, so it's not a very fair assessment to make.

Williamson was average to mediocre for quite a few seasons before he started turning the corner in all formats; it does take a little time to get used to the test environment and what's happening there. If you look at the Guptill fiasco, we kept him in there because we felt "no one else could do a better job" - yet we never gave anyone the chance to.

 

[Zinzan]

They also don't have his experience, so it's not a very fair assessment to make.

Williamson was average to mediocre for quite a few seasons before he started turning the corner in all formats; it does take a little time to get used to the test environment and what's happening there. If you look at the Guptill fiasco, we kept him in there because we felt "no one else could do a better job" - yet we never gave anyone the chance to.

We're not really comparing Guptill's path to being dropped with Taylor's are we?

 

[Blocky]

TBF the allrounders have sort of been dropped on performances at times. It's just hard to remember because they're also always injured.

You'd argue Neesham in particular has shown enough at test level to indicate he could turn out OK with the bat... what really baffles me is how England got so much out of Ben Stokes, to the point that Ben Stokes is now probably the premier all rounder in world cricket. The guy is little more than a Neesham/Anderson type who has put in the yards and applied himself to become what he is now.

It goes back to not having the right coaching available, not getting enough long format cricket in for the guys and being loathe to select guys on the basis of performance at domestic because we see our failing Black Caps like Guptill go back and treat it like kiddy cricket.

Some people rise to the occasion and get better with every level they play, we're never really assessing that in our setup.

 

[Blocky]

We're not really comparing Guptill's path to being dropped with Taylor's are we?

I am, because both are being selected on what they did in the past and the potential they have.

Guptill more so on his ODI form, but Taylor hasn't performed that much better than Guptill over the past three years.

 

[Zinzan]

I am, because both are being selected on what they did in the past and the potential they have.

Guptill more so on his ODI form, but Taylor hasn't performed that much better than Guptill over the past three years.

Wrong, Guptill was never up to test class, whereas Taylor's been an ATG NZ Test batsman & a record up with some of the best who have played the game. He has a lot more credit in the bank than Guptill.

 

[Blocky]

Wrong, Guptill was never up to test class, whereas Taylor's been an ATG NZ Test batsman & a record up with some of the best who have played the game. He has a lot more credit in the bank than Guptill.

I completely agree, but how long do you ride out the idea that Taylor will return back to that form when it's not been evident consistently since 2013?

Let's say he goes away and gets an eye treatment done, comes back into the side and bullies Bangladesh in NZ conditions, but struggles completely against South Africa - not getting a single score/contribution in the entire series; is he still undroppable? At what point do you say "That's enough bud, we're going another way"

Keep in mind, Popli is only a couple of scores away from turning his season around and if he can finish this season like he did last year, he becomes much more likely as a pick for test cricket.

 

[Dan]

They also don't have his experience, so it's not a very fair assessment to make.

Williamson was average to mediocre for quite a few seasons before he started turning the corner in all formats; it does take a little time to get used to the test environment and what's happening there. If you look at the Guptill fiasco, we kept him in there because we felt "no one else could do a better job" - yet we never gave anyone the chance to.

Conversely, Taylor's Test experience could be in his favour -- he's actually done it at Test level before, his 290 > anything Nicholls has done and they've been equally bad for the most part anyway. Taylor's a handy senior name, of whom Williamson can bounce ideas off.

There aren't many young batsmen who've put up any sort of performances to demand an opportunity; Carter had awful second year syndrome, Popli looks to be falling into that too. I mean, you're basically talking about taking a Maddinson-esque punt on Will Young here. And I don't think that's a good idea when you've already got one of those selections in the team, in Nicholls.

As for the 'Guptill Fiasco', they did give opportunities to Rutherford and Fulton tbf. And they failed to take them despite being the top domestic performers in that role. I can't blame them for giving Guptill another run on the basis of his domestic runs, that they thought he'd changed since his last stint, and how unspeakably awful all other non-Latham openers had been. That being said, I agree they gave him too long -- Raval should have debuted in Zimbabwe, and I would have binned Guptill off ahead of the home series vs Australia.

 

[Athlai]

They also don't have his experience, so it's not a very fair assessment to make.

Williamson was average to mediocre for quite a few seasons before he started turning the corner in all formats; it does take a little time to get used to the test environment and what's happening there. If you look at the Guptill fiasco, we kept him in there because we felt "no one else could do a better job" - yet we never gave anyone the chance to.

Under Hesson (July 2012)
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Have excluded Zimbabwe from those figures as they're a joke TBH.

Superficially you'd say that Guptill did certainly get a lot more Tests than Fulton and Rutherford while averaging the same, but it's worth remembering that Rutherford debuted with that 171 and Fulton got both his hundreds in his first series as opener. They then proceeded to be a margin shitter than Guptill who would occassioncally score an unexpected 50 or hundred against SL, England and India.

Still probably fair enough to say that Raval deserved a chance sooner but the job Guptill was doing was marginally better than what we got from the "norm" we have from the reigns of Fulton and Rutherford after their debut series.

 

[Zinzan]

I completely agree, but how long do you ride out the idea that Taylor will return back to that form when it's not been evident consistently since 2013?

.

I'd say a long time considering 1) our existing middle order bar KW are all worse & 2) It's not like anyone is knocking the door down.

It's one thing to say missing Taylor based on his recent form isn't the end of the world & quite another to suggest he be dropped at this stage.

 

[Zinzan]

You'd argue Neesham in particular has shown enough at test level to indicate he could turn out OK with the bat... what really baffles me is how England got so much out of Ben Stokes, to the point that Ben Stokes is now probably the premier all rounder in world cricket. The guy is little more than a Neesham/Anderson type who has put in the yards and applied himself to become what he is now.

It goes back to not having the right coaching available, not getting enough long format cricket in for the guys and being loathe to select guys on the basis of performance at domestic because we see our failing Black Caps like Guptill go back and treat it like kiddy cricket.

Some people rise to the occasion and get better with every level they play, we're never really assessing that in our setup.

Incidentally, Woakes will be a better bowling all-rounder than Stokes will be a batting all-rounder by the time they finish up.

 

[Athlai]

Under Hesson (July 2012)
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Have excluded Zimbabwe from those figures as they're a joke TBH.

Superficially you'd say that Guptill did certainly get a lot more Tests than Fulton and Rutherford while averaging the same, but it's worth remembering that Rutherford debuted with that 171 and Fulton got both his hundreds in his first series as opener. They then proceeded to be a margin shitter than Guptill who would occassioncally score an unexpected 50 or hundred against SL, England and India.

Still probably fair enough to say that Raval deserved a chance sooner but the job Guptill was doing was marginally better than what we got from the "norm" we have from the reigns of Fulton and Rutherford after their debut series.

Also a point on this is that I think a lot of even Guptill's big detractors can admit he is a fairly talented player, you can imagine the sort of flak that blokes like myself would be launching at Hesson and co. if they didn't attempt to foster Guptill's abilities in the longest form.

I'd say his tenure as opener for NZ was equally holding out hope that he'd find his Test game and low expectations from our other domestic options.

Though at this stage, no one can say they didn't give Guptill a chance to prove himself in Test cricket.

And I for one look forward to Luke Woodcock's debut next year.

 

[Blocky]

The biggest issue with Guptill there is that you've got 6 ducks and a further 10 single figure scores out of 43 innings. The same again with Taylor, he's had half his innings end in single figures or ducks over the past three years.

I'd say our top order, let's give these guys a chance for the next couple of years. Latham and Williamson are obvious, as much as Latham is frustrating and Raval has a double of doing OK in tough conditions against a decent seam attack, as well as finding a way to retain an average over 40 in domestic cricket if you park the "Well those runs shouldn't count because they're at a ground we think everyone scores at" line of thought

Let's say Santner continues to develop as a batsman and can nail down the 6 spot, Watling finds a run of form and claims 7.

You've got 4 and 5 that you need to fill. You've got a few middle order players who should at the very least be given a chance there to see what they can muster.

You've still got to find a seam bowling all rounder to fulfill the #8 spot and hope that Southee refinds form of the past, or get someone in to replace him.

I'd much rather see us rotate through some youth at 4 and 5 than keep sticking to old guns; because old guns didn't help us in South Africa, nor India.

 

[Athlai]

The biggest issue with Guptill there is that you've got 6 ducks and a further 10 single figure scores out of 43 innings. The same again with Taylor, he's had half his innings end in single figures or ducks over the past three years.

I'd say our top order, let's give these guys a chance for the next couple of years. Latham and Williamson are obvious, as much as Latham is frustrating and Raval has a double of doing OK in tough conditions against a decent seam attack, as well as finding a way to retain an average over 40 in domestic cricket if you park the "Well those runs shouldn't count because they're at a ground we think everyone scores at" line of thought

Let's say Santner continues to develop as a batsman and can nail down the 6 spot, Watling finds a run of form and claims 7.

You've got 4 and 5 that you need to fill. You've got a few middle order players who should at the very least be given a chance there to see what they can muster.

You've still got to find a seam bowling all rounder to fulfill the #8 spot and hope that Southee refinds form of the past, or get someone in to replace him.

I'd much rather see us rotate through some youth at 4 and 5 than keep sticking to old guns; because old guns didn't help us in South Africa, nor India.

Who would be your top couple picks in those roles?

Outside of Neesham as a possible #5 and maybe Henry or Milne or someone at #8 there aren't too many guys that strike me as particularly attractive feasible options.

 

[honestbharani]

Why the hell is Henry not being played? He was absolutely awesome in India and in these conditions, you would expect he will only be that much more effective. And he can be that handy #8 bat too, if I am not mistaken about his abilities with the bat.