Athlai
Not Terrible
Right above Steve Smith and KP. Nice.
-
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* Sri Lanka in New Zealand 2022/23
- Thread starter G. S. Kohli
- Start date
The Hutt Rec
International Vice-Captain
I always knew a Kiwi was better than Smith ... at something!
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If you want Bracewell, just pick Santner.
thierry henry
International Coach
I wouldn’t expect others to agree really, but I am getting really worn down listening to McMillan talk in a professional capacity. Almost everything he says is faintly idiotic in some way and he has a completely ridiculous accent for anyone from our nation. Then there’s the retrospectively infuriating fact that this guy was in the national coaching set up for so long despite the fact that he batted like an idiot, sounds like an idiot, and says idiotic things. He’s like the dumb bloke in a group of mates where you smile and nod when he’s talking and put up with him because he seems pleasant enough. You’re not actually obliged to give that guy a lifetime commentary gig.
thierry henry
International Coach
ok
Athlai
Not Terrible
MUAHAHAHAHAHAA
jcas0167
International Regular
I think that allowed Wagner to return to the side against England in 2013. He had been fairly lackluster prior to that series but Bracewell's injury created an opening and he performed well
Immenso
International Vice-Captain
Hes also got basically the best strike rate in nz test history for a spinner, for now.
He's obviously not a ' tie up an end' option , but he's not a passenger.
Why is it ridiculous?
What would Henry Nicholls average if he was forced to be a Test opener? Before this week, he averaged the same at No.4 as Will Young had as an opener, so I suggest the answer to that would be lower than 25.
The ridiculous part was asking one guy to open the batting, when the other guy had scored 200 on debut in that position.
His career shouldn't be over, no. It should be 30 Tests in. But at the moment, he's in danger of not playing too many more Tests given his team-mates are a similar age, which if you're saying Will Young plays 15-18 Tests and averages 25, that is a waste of a talent and deserves hand wringing.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
But Young hasn't done anything of note, anything to justify breaking in on the occasions he has played. He hasn't had a long, uninterrupted run like a young prodigy because he isn't that good. It's not just the fact that he's been faffed about, he's looked genuinely bad technically and just far too loose. This sort of ties into my point about fans over rating depth. Batsmen who average 35 in tests don't grow on trees and it's a tough pill to swallow that Henry Nicholls is about as good as they've got. There are <10 NZ batters who averaged over 40 over a decently long career, ever. NZ is much better off with Nicolls finally scoring than otherwise.
Moss
International Captain
The issue is Young is a no.4 batsman in the mould of Taylor (not in Taylor’s class or with his hitting ability, but that’s not the point), and him opening the batting has gone about as well as Ross opening the batting would have. Post WTC 2021 the most obvious change NZ needed to deal with was Taylor’s replacement; Nicholls getting first dibs was fair enough but he was very lucky to be allowed a long enough rope to score the 200. The lean trot dates back to 2019, barring a couple of drop-filled centuries at home). Even on those lifeless wickets in Pakistan he tended to look pretty clueless after the top 3 would get on top of the bowlers.
Whether Young would go better with those sorts of chances is open for debate (leaving aside the relevance of NZ’s historical batting output to this discussion) but I would have preferred to find out sooner instead of denting his confidence by playing him out of position AND not selecting him in ODIs either. He did come close to scoring centuries in England and India FWIW.
Last edited:
G. S. Kohli
International Vice-Captain
Why sri lanka let Oshada to open in 4 innings while Debutant N. Maduska regular opener sends at # 8
Migara
International Coach
Oshada is pretty good against moving ball compared to all youngsters. However the proper opener will be Pathum Nissanka when he comes back.
But you can't make him open the batting and then say he hasn't done anything of note. By that metric, most batsmen wouldn't do a lot to justify their inclusion.
To us NZ posters (a lot of us) he is good. Would Will Young average more at 4/5 at Henry Nicholls? That's not my argument. He's been able to bat in his natural spot of No.4 in a solitary Test, then got dropped. And it'll likely never been seen, because they won't pick him again (barring injury), after they butchered his career. Nicholls is a 5, Young is a 4. It should have been that way since he debuted, and now they can't shoehorn him in because they're picking a part-time spinner who bats in the top 7 but doesn't score runs.
His conversion rate at FC level was always the knock on him (14 tons v 41 half tons) but there was not ever any doubt amongst players and spectators that he was a cut above as a batsman, that he'd become a successful Test player if he sorted out his mental approach to batting long periods. Then they threw him into opening, which was a dopey idea because a) he's not technically tight as a drum, it was never going to work and b) they had a guy who scored 200 on debut there, and the fact they've gone back to him opening proves they got it wrong.
Will Young would have averaged 35+ at No.4, I'm certain of it. You could have a Test batting order of Latham Conway Williamson Young Nicholls Phillips Mitchell Blundell *seamer* Southee Henry in NZ conditions, that is a powerhouse. And he should be in the ODI side but they ****-canned him there, too.
You can argue the toss as to whether he's good or not, and your opinion is valid. But I can't see how you can argue against the treatment of him at international level as being some of the most dire we've ever put a decent talent through. 13 Tests, 10 as an opener, a solitary one at No.4 then binned. 8 ODIs, 2 centuries (yes, Netherlands I know), a couple of failures and he's gone. He better play in that format next week.
Immenso
International Vice-Captain
Here's a fun fact.
Macewell in this home season of 4 tests has already taken as many wickets as all the other NZ (non-part timer) spinners combined in the previous 5 home summers.
Macewell in this home season of 4 tests has already taken as many wickets as all the other NZ (non-part timer) spinners combined in the previous 5 home summers.
| Player | Span | Mat | Inns | Overs | Runs | Wkts | Ave | Econ | SR |
| MG Bracewell | 2023-2023 | 4 | 8 | 83.5 | 330 | 9 | 36.67 | 3.93 | 55.80 |
| Others | 2018-2022 | 10 | 15 | 235.4 | 581 | 9 | 64.56 | 2.47 | 157.11 |
Attachments
Flem274*
123/5
Exactly. Here's my 2c as a fan of both players. Trundler I agree serviceable test batsmen don't grow on trees, and as a Henry Nicholls fan myself I've been more supportive than most. He has been in nightmare nick for 2 years however, so fans were justified in considering other options. We were playing with 10 men with no evidence it was going to get any better.
Young (in nick, not the twig he's batting with in Shield atm) bats like a poor mans KW. His 80 against England in 2021 or the innings in India is a better example of how he bats than his fending on NZ green decks as a pretend opener. I wish we had footage of his List A knocks for NZ XI vs Australia immediately before the WC but ah well. Young is known for playing late, being a strong driver and puller, a decent player of spin and being an LBW candidate to the new swinging ball. Of course, I'm going to assume Trundler that you've seen him bat in more than 1-2 games and already knew this.
We have a large sample size of Nicholls and Young at the lower level because Nicholls doesn't play T20 or many ODIs for NZ, so he plays a fair amount of Shield. They are direct competitors in the same competition.
Henry Nicholls - 54 matches, 3207 @ 36.44. 3 hundreds and 22 fifties (amusingly, over half of his test + FC runs were scored at 2 grounds).
Will Young - 73 matches, 4795 @ 41.69, 9 hundreds and 28 fifties.
At A level Nicholls has the advantage from less games however Young spent a lot of his A level cricket opening.
Henry Nicholls - 5 matches, 469 @ 78.16, 2 hundreds and 2 fifties.
Will Young - 12 matches, 636 @ 45.42, 2 hundreds and 3 fifties.
Young also passes the eye test a lot stronger than Nicholls, who has had people who are completely wrong on his back since debut because he doesn't bat pretty.
I don't think Young would be more than serviceable (35-40) at test level until he sorts his conversion rate, which has improved since he stepped down from the Central captaincy. CdG was taken into the test team with the hope that the higher level would make him pay attention on 35* more and I think a similar approach with Young in the middle order should have been pursued.
If Will Young was from Canterbury or Northern Districts, played under 19s with the right boys, or he was related to some 80s or 90s player, he'd have 30 tests to his name even if he averaged 20 dead.
Flem274*
123/5
It's amazing what happens when you show a little faith tbf. KW was a pretty skeptical captain of spinners unless they were Mitchell Santner.
I don't rate Macewell but I rate Southee/Stead showing faith in a spinner they pick.
How does he compare to Mark Craig? Craig had a couple of solid home performances iirc.