Neil Broom

[SpeedStar]

Pretty hard for a specialist batsmen to do anything of note when coming in at seven, he's pretty much doomed to fail.

So you think he'd do better up the order?


I believe McCullum's SR was around 85 from 2002-2007.

 

[Zinzan]

After two years of international cricket, McCullum averaged only 19.21.

I'm fairly sure his SR was below 70 at that time too, but unfortunately I can't check that anywhere.

It probably was after 2 years to be fair, but my point is apart from his first 2-3 games against Oz as a specialist bat (which led to him being dropped anyway, something Broom's apparently immune to), he's been a wicket-keeper ever since.

 

[NZTailender]

The question was of any OTHER International team.

There won't be many instances of other international teams doing it because they generally have a better talent pull. Those who are rubbish generally don't get as many as 16 innings in a short period of time. Shows that Broom is worth persisting with in some form, IMO.

 

[Flem274*]

Its only hype from opposition its true, but he has received praise from good A team opposition when he's represented our A side, and I recall him making good scores in the long format A fixtures (need to check the stats to back that up). Obviously that doesn't mean he's good, but he has scored the 4 day runs at both First Class and A level, and done it in impressive fashion.

He's a batsman to keep in mind.

 

[NZTailender]

he's been a wicket-keeper ever since.

Short term memory loss?

 

[SpeedStar]

There won't be many instances of other international teams doing it because they generally have a better talent pull. Those who are rubbish generally don't get as many as 16 innings in a short period of time. Shows that Broom is worth persisting with in some form, IMO.

Or it shows the stupidity of the Blackcaps selectors.

 

[Howsie]

So you think he'd do better up the order?


I believe McCullum's SR was around 85 from 2002-2007.

Yes, of course he would. From what I've seen of Broom over the last two or so years I'm really surprised he isn't in the test team, he's a lot more compact then the likes of Flynn and co, he'd do a far better job as New Zealand's number three imo.

As for the one day team, I probably wouldn't have him in the team. Daniel Flynn imo should be playing limited over cricket only at the moment, it's just that our selectors gave him the same treatment as Broom and didn't allow him to bat where he's best at. Flynn at three would be perfect for our one day team.

 

[NZTailender]

Or it shows the stupidity of the Blackcaps selectors.

We've had plenty of stupid selection choices over the years. Broom is another case of batsman being shafted by being played out of position and written off. It's a common thing with us.

 

[Flem274*]

Yes, of course he would. From what I've seen of Broom over the last two or so years I'm really surprised he isn't in the test team, he's a lot more compact then the likes of Flynn and co, he'd do a far better job as New Zealand's number three imo.

As for the one day team, I probably wouldn't have him in the team. Daniel Flynn imo should be playing limited over cricket only at the moment, it's just that our selectors gave him the same treatment as Broom and didn't allow him to bat where he's best at. Flynn at three would be perfect for our one day team.

I'm sorry but I don't follow you.

Broom hasn't batted much at three as far as I can recall and asking a guy that averages 16 in the format he's played most of to bat at number three in ODIs and tests is very shaky ground. No doubt he has disappointed those that have followed his long format exploits for NZ A and Otago, but we shouldn't blindly throw him up into the deep end.

Flynn, whilst impressing with his strike rate in one dayers domestically, has spent his test and former ODI stint stonewalling. Furthermore, Martin Guptill has performed very well at number three in ODIs. I wouldn't move him for Flynn.

 

[Zinzan]

Pretty hard for a specialist batsmen to do anything of note when coming in at seven, he's pretty much doomed to fail.

Try telling that to the like of Bevan, Hussey (who averaged 117 in 20 games at 7) or Klusener (who infact scored most of his runs at 9)

Joking aside, I accept it's not easy for most specialist batsman to come in at 7, which is why I'm questioning why they bother selecting him at all.

 

[NZTailender]

Yes, of course he would. From what I've seen of Broom over the last two or so years I'm really surprised he isn't in the test team, he's a lot more compact then the likes of Flynn and co, he'd do a far better job as New Zealand's number three imo.

As for the one day team, I probably wouldn't have him in the team. Daniel Flynn imo should be playing limited over cricket only at the moment, it's just that our selectors gave him the same treatment as Broom and didn't allow him to bat where he's best at. Flynn at three would be perfect for our one day team.

If Jamie How scores some List A runs this season then I don't see why he shouldn't come back in the top order. Was woefully out of form last year but he has the skill, as we've seen. You generally don't score 900 odd ODI runs at @ 35 or so by accident.

 

[Zinzan]

Short term memory loss?

Lol, no memory loss, but by the time he played as a specialist again, he'd well & truly had the form and runs in the bank to warrant it.

 

[Howsie]

I'm sorry but I don't follow you.

Broom hasn't batted much at three as far as I can recall and asking a guy that averages 16 in the format he's played most of to bat at number three in ODIs and tests is very shaky ground. No doubt he has disappointed those that have followed his long format exploits for NZ A and Otago, but we shouldn't blindly throw him up into the deep end.

Flynn, whilst impressing with his strike rate in one dayers domestically, has spent his test and former ODI stint stonewalling. Furthermore, Martin Guptill has performed very well at number three in ODIs. I wouldn't move him for Flynn.

If Flynn is supposably a good enough batsmen to bat at three for New Zealand in test cricket, then the selectors should have no problem picking Neil Broom to bat at three. Flynn is so far of being test quality it isn't funny, but he's an outstanding one day batsmen. The year he made the BC's he was just killing it for ND in the one day comp, but for some reason the selectors decided to bat him at 6-7 trying to get him to play the role of a finisher.

As for Guptill, without looking at his stats I'm fairly certain he has a better record when opening for New Zealand (his 100 helps of course) but I'd just move him up and play:

1.McCullum
2.Guptill
3.Flynn
4.Ryder
5.Elliott
6.Taylor

 

[Flem274*]

If Flynn is supposably a good enough batsmen to bat at three for New Zealand in test cricket, then the selectors should have no problem picking Neil Broom to bat at three. Flynn is so far of being test quality it isn't funny, but he's an outstanding one day batsmen. The year he made the BC's he was just killing it for ND in the one day comp, but for some reason the selectors decided to bat him at 6-7 trying to get him to play the role of a finisher.

As for Guptill, without looking at his stats I'm fairly certain he has a better record when opening for New Zealand (his 100 helps of course) but I'd just move him up and play:

1.McCullum
2.Guptill
3.Flynn
4.Ryder
5.Elliott
6.Taylor

Flynn has done a lot more in tests than ODIs.

Flynn, whilst limited at first by playing down the order, got a chance to play at five. He showed none of his ability to manoever the ball around it all, hitting the ball to fielders and blocking.

Taylor at six is a waste.

 

[Zinzan]

Yes, of course he would. From what I've seen of Broom over the last two or so years I'm really surprised he isn't in the test team, he's a lot more compact then the likes of Flynn and co, he'd do a far better job as New Zealand's number three imo.

As for the one day team, I probably wouldn't have him in the team. Daniel Flynn imo should be playing limited over cricket only at the moment, it's just that our selectors gave him the same treatment as Broom and didn't allow him to bat where he's best at. Flynn at three would be perfect for our one day team.

Seriously warped logic there, the only specialist bat to perform worse than Broom in ODI's in recent years (after a decent no of games) is Flynn, so you'd have him batting 3 in ODI's.

Also, when you refer to Broom as being compact, I can only assume you're referring to some FC cricket you've seen.

From what I've seen of him at International level (which is really the only relevant level for this argument), he's been the opposite to compact, and not just when he's in slog-mode either, he's even regularly missed straight balls when trying to defend.

 

[Howsie]

Flynn has done a lot more in tests than ODIs.

Flynn, whilst limited at first by playing down the order, got a chance to play at five. He showed none of his ability to manoever the ball around it all, hitting the ball to fielders and blocking.

Taylor at six is a waste.

Taylor at six wouldn't be wasted, at this stage of his career he'd probably perfrom best batting lower in the order.

And tbf Flynn has done pretty much nothing in test cricket other then his 90 odd against the Windies last year, if he'd been given this sort of chance in the one day team he'd probably of established himself as one of our better one day players.

 

[NZTailender]

If Flynn is supposably a good enough batsmen to bat at three for New Zealand in test cricket, then the selectors should have no problem picking Neil Broom to bat at three. Flynn is so far of being test quality it isn't funny, but he's an outstanding one day batsmen. The year he made the BC's he was just killing it for ND in the one day comp, but for some reason the selectors decided to bat him at 6-7 trying to get him to play the role of a finisher.

Must be why he averages 33 in Tests and 15 in ODIs.

 

[Howsie]

Seriously warped logic there, the only specialist bat to perform worse than Broom in ODI's in recent years (after a decent no of games) is Flynn, so you'd have him batting 3 in ODI's.

Also, when you refer to Broom as being compact, I can only assume you're referring to some FC cricket you've seen.

From what I've seen of him at International level (which is really the only relevant level for this argument), he's been the opposite to compact, and not just when he's in slog-mode either, he's even regularly missed straight balls when trying to defend.

Yes. But I'd be selecting Flynn on the back of his domestic one day record (his record from 2006-07). I saw quite abit of Flynn that year, I watched his 149 live and it was quite brillant. Yes he was given a decent shot for New Zealand, but he's the type of player that needs boundaries to get going, coming in at 5/6 makes this quite difficult.

 

[Howsie]

Must be why he averages 33 in Tests and 15 in ODIs.

He isn't good enough at the moment to play test cricket because he doesn't have the right mental attitude to score big runs. He has four FC 100's and his highest score is 110, and how many times has he got out for 49 or 50 for New Zealand so far, at least three times irrc. His game is set-up to play one day cricket, if he's given a decent shot I'm fairly sure he'll prove this.

 

[Zinzan]

Yes. But I'd be selecting Flynn on the back of his domestic one day record (his record from 2006-07). I saw quite abit of Flynn that year, I watched his 149 live and it was quite brillant. Yes he was given a decent shot for New Zealand, but he's the type of player that needs boundaries to get going, coming in at 5/6 makes this quite difficult.

You've really got to understand that the "He's performed well at domestic level, therefore he'll be successful at International level" argument doesn't always apply. There are endless examples of this.