6th June - Group A - England v New Zealand

[straw man]

Well obviously, Guptill is a class act but besides him this team is full of scrubs (Ronchi, Broom and Anderson) or a plodder in Ross Taylor who still plays ODI cricket like it's the year 2000.

Yes, aside from the fact that our batting outside our best 3 is rubbish, Taylor's struggles to score at a strike rate of more than about 70 through the middle overs is a minor but notable concern. He's been that way for a while now, but is currently getting out as soon as he tries to attack more.

 

[straw man]

De Grandhomme even getting an ODI was another wtf selection. Now admittedly I think from this squad, he should be in the eleven as a slightly better #7 batsman than Anderson, but at the time of his ODI selection his domestic batting average was 25 and his bowling was 41. It was strange enough that he got a test debut but at least had good domestic numbers to back it up.

The selectors however seem determined to play the same players across all formats rather than selecting specialists for each format. See also: Latham.

 

[Daemon]

The problem is that there isn't any more talent in NZ. You're searching for something that isn't there. It's what India did with fast bowling all rounders and Australia does with wicket keepers.

Just wait for that Hong Kong kid to get a bit better then you'll be good to go. Until then just cop it. Drop Broom though, dude's a spud.

 

[straw man]

The problem is that there isn't any more talent in NZ. You're searching for something that isn't there.

Says who? There are several young batsmen or wicket-keeper batsmen performing domestically that could have been brought into the side over the last 12 months. They wouldn't all have succeeded but a couple might have.

 

[thierry henry]

It appears it's still unfashionable here to call for Munro's selection, but I really feel he is being absolutely robbed of a career.

In an era where we are shamefully weak from numbers 5-8, we are refusing to select by far the most destructive LO batsman in NZ because he has some shortcomings against a certain type or level of bowling.

This might make sense if we were picking dependable but unspectacular back ups, but instead we are picking guys (at least Broom, arguably Anderson and Neesham) who are also technically lacking, fallible against high quality bowling and not consistent runscorers.

Munro is being left out for guys that have just as many weaknesses as he has. The only significant differences I can see are that Munro has more domestic form on the board and more of an upside when he gets going.

I swear the only reason I can think of for not picking him is that he has the biggest gap between his best and his worst- never mind that his worst is no worse than what we already have.

 

[thierry henry]

Re: Ross Taylor- I feel like I have been making variations on this same post for about 4 years now but it just becomes more and more true.

Some time around 2013ish, when he came back from losing the captaincy, Taylor seemingly lost the ability to consistently play big shots. He became much more restricted in the way he played. This appears to have been the result of some combination of trying to tighten up his game, particularly his test game (which has had some excellent results) and to counteract some deterioration in his "eye"- both in the general "I'm getting older and my reflexes are waning" sense and in that he actually has had some legitimate eye issues.

Right now he looks to me to be as technically sound as I have ever seen him and also as incapable of going through the gears as I have ever seen him. He is going to make 40(60) or even 40(70) for you. He just is, nothing you can do about it and we aren't in a position to complain.

At this point I would actually prefer him to just keep playing his game and let anyone and everyone else accelerate. He can accelerate gently just playing his normal shots. We could have won last night with 80(110) from Ross and 130(110) from Kane. At this point Kane is vastly more effective at accelerating than Ross. Ross making 40(60) and then getting out as soon as he tries to mow a 6 is just a waste.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Looks like England are playing South Africa in the semi finals. We all know how that one goes

 

[quincywagstaff]

NZ lack of depth beyond the top 4 is really starting to show. Theres only so much the bowling can do.

Indeed. Didn’t see their batting today but against Oz how they went from a Top 4 playing the bowling with ease to the rest being totally clueless and intimidated against all the pace (and especially short bowling) was quite startling to see.

 

[Howsie]

De Grandhomme even getting an ODI was another wtf selection. Now admittedly I think from this squad, he should be in the eleven as a slightly better #7 batsman than Anderson, but at the time of his ODI selection his domestic batting average was 25 and his bowling was 41. It was strange enough that he got a test debut but at least had good domestic numbers to back it up.

The selectors however seem determined to play the same players across all formats rather than selecting specialists for each format. See also: Latham.

Selection, for a long time now has been absolutely *********. I honestly don't believe it will improve until Hesson and the Pizza Boy are handed there walking papers but New Zealand will struggle big time if it doesn't get better. The Luke Ronch situation is just bizarre, I've never seen anything like it in professional sports. Latham isn't and proved he wasn't good enough to open the batting in ODI cricket, and yet we all know he'll be there come the next series. Broom, old and never any good, why waste your time picking him? Patel likewise. de Grandhomme just has nothing going for him at this level, again just a waste of space. Southee has been terrible in this format since the World Cup too, and yet he'll be one of the first picked come next series.

The likes of Sodhi, Henry, Nicholls and Munro are barely given half a series before being dropped, and yet we cop certain players for years like Luke Ronchi.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

The selectors seem to have placed huge importance on winning this tournament, which has lead to a bunch of journeymen and established (but non-performing) players being included in the side. The obsession with all rounders has also hurt. Honestly I don't think I've seen a more poorly picked NZ side.

It would have been far better to say ok, we might not win this tournament, but we're going to give some younger promising players a go with an eye to the World Cup in two years.

I know we'll be in the semis if England beat Aus and we beat Bangladesh, and maybe that will be seen as a success, but it really seems to me like we don't deserve it ... and I almost hope we don't make it, because it will just be papering over some very big cracks.

 

[Athlai]

The selectors seem to have placed huge importance on winning this tournament, which has lead to a bunch of journeymen and established (but non-performing) players being included in the side. The obsession with all rounders has also hurt. Honestly I don't think I've seen a more poorly picked NZ side.

It would have been far better to say ok, we might not win this tournament, but we're going to give some younger promising players a go with an eye to the World Cup in two years.

I know we'll be in the semis if England beat Aus and we beat Bangladesh, and maybe that will be seen as a success, but it really seems to me like we don't deserve it ... and I almost hope we don't make it, because it will just be papering over some very big cracks.

We had Australia on the backfoot and have lost one game to England, we deserve it just fine.

 

[SL Bada]

Obviously Williamson and Taylor had to take them close to win with that shaky middle order.

 

[Daemon]

Says who? There are several young batsmen or wicket-keeper batsmen performing domestically that could have been brought into the side over the last 12 months. They wouldn't all have succeeded but a couple might have.

Hehehe

 

[straw man]

It appears it's still unfashionable here to call for Munro's selection, but I really feel he is being absolutely robbed of a career.

In an era where we are shamefully weak from numbers 5-8, we are refusing to select by far the most destructive LO batsman in NZ because he has some shortcomings against a certain type or level of bowling.

This might make sense if we were picking dependable but unspectacular back ups, but instead we are picking guys (at least Broom, arguably Anderson and Neesham) who are also technically lacking, fallible against high quality bowling and not consistent runscorers.

Munro is being left out for guys that have just as many weaknesses as he has. The only significant differences I can see are that Munro has more domestic form on the board and more of an upside when he gets going.

I swear the only reason I can think of for not picking him is that he has the biggest gap between his best and his worst- never mind that his worst is no worse than what we already have.

I'm not sure myself whether Munro is a solution or a problem, though if he's scoring runs domestically, which he is, then he should absolutely get a decent chance for NZ. Otherwise we risk another Matthew Sinclair situation. Agree that others have received more rope than Munro.

I see his LO batting as very similar to Anderson - looks like he's batting aggressively but actually struggles to rotate the strike and score at a decent SR against good bowling. Powerful on the pull. Demolishes mediocre bowling (though Anderson hasn't even done that lately). However he's less easily tied down than Anderson imo. And also, while this will sound like is the worst of talkback armchair psychology, Munro is a bit of a ****, is up for a fight and seems to have enormous self confidence. While Anderson doesn't seem to have the swagger to go with the swashbuckling way he's supposed to play. Yeah I know, I'm going to go shout at clouds about the gummint now.

 

[Spark]

India 2011 showed us that you don't need a great bowling attack to win tournaments if you've got an excellent batting lineup.

India's 2011 bowling attack had peak Zaheer though.

 

[Athlai]

India's 2011 bowling attack had peak Zaheer though.

Fun fact from that tournament, Yuvraj Singh ended up 4th equal highest wicket taker with Murali.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

We had Australia on the backfoot and have lost one game to England, we deserve it just fine.

I guess I should wait until Australia play England, but right now I'd back them to be far more competitive in a semi than we would.

 

[straw man]

Aus have a surprisingly weak-looking batting lineup, not dissimilar in its lopsidedness to ours. You could make a great Anzac top order by picking from both sides though.

Godly:

Guptill
Warner
Williamson
Smith
Taylor
Maxwell (I guess)

and the Spudlys:

Ronchi
Finch
Henriques
Broom
Neesham
Head

 

[Athlai]

Taylor would be better at 4 or not at all I reckon. Hes still a great partnership builder but lacks the ability to really close out games these days, Smith would definitely be able to adapt better to that role.

Guptill
Warner
Williamson
Taylor
Smith
Maxwell
Head
Wade (+)
Starc
Hazlewood
Cummins/Boult/Milne/Southee

Smith, Maxwell, Head and Williamson would need to bowl 20 odd overs which is a tad jammy IMO, team ANZ needs one of Henriques, Neesham or Anderson to actually produce some consistent results.

 

[hendrix]

Munro should absolutely be an option in limited overs cricket.

Neesham is promising but the amount of times he's been injured just means he hasn't played enough cricket to develop properly - and that needs to happen at the domestic level show he should be dropped until he can dominate a domestic season.

I've got more tolerance for Anderson because he has legitimately won us matches, with both bat and ball. He's underperforming, sure, but at least he's shown that he can perform.