New Zealand A Tour of India and Sri Lanka

[Mike5181]

NZ A aren't starting too badly. I see they kept the CD number three Cachopa opening after his ton there the other day and Devcich the ND FC opener or number 6 scored 39 off two seconds at number three.

I think they're just pulling names out of a hat for the batting order. That or they're looking at Chops as a possible test opener. Who knows.

There's not much point trialling a number three with the golden boy Kane Williamson around. Latham, Broom, Cachopa, Devcich etc are all basically being looked at as openers you'd think.

 

[straw man]

(Munro's batting figures)

There's a fairly clear trend there - does well against the military mediums, gets out to spin and bounce.

As an NZ limited overs prospect Munro could probably do ok in bullying the oppositions sub-par bowlers, while failing miserably against those bowlers with real quality or difference. But then we already have Guptill and Franklin to do exactly this.

 

[Bahnz]

Another 100 for Ronchi. Regardless of his failure as an lo opener, he's strongly asserted his position as a quality fc keeper batsman and perhaps even as a specialist bat.

 

[hendrix]

Another 100 for Ronchi. Regardless of his failure as an lo opener, he's strongly asserted his position as a quality fc keeper batsman and perhaps even as a specialist bat.

No thanks. May as well play Southee as a specialist bat.

I can't wait till one of Rutherford or Fulton is dropped so we can get Latham in the team.

 

[Flem274*]

Why?

Latham really hasn't shown anything to suggest he's currently a better batsman than either of the above. In fact I'd say his reputation relative to the other two is enhanced by not being in the test side and having ups and downs on international television.

I agree on Ronchi though.

 

[hendrix]

Latham doesn't have a technical deficiency or an inability to score in certain areas of the field. Basically, he has all the shots. This doesn't mean he has to play them all - shot selection is still very important, obviously.
I know having the Mark Richardson mental attitude of only playing at balls in 2 scoring areas can work for technically limited players, but Rutherford hasn't shown this.
The bowlers will always have a chance with those two at the wicket.

But I agree, that's the kind of logic that got Sodhi selected - we need to see the numbers before he displaces the incumbent. I'm hoping that he does eventually displace them though because it would be great to have a batsman at the absolute top of the order to whom there isn't a blindingly obvious plan for bowlers to work to.

 

[Flem274*]

I think Rutherford is just a good example of a young batsman who has worked on several scoring areas and has become really good at them, but to the detriment of other areas. He is only 24, so he has plenty of time to work on his legside game and when you're as good as he is through the offside you have a nice strength to keep you going while you work on the weaknesses in your game.

His advantage is his area of greatest strength is a popular area for bowlers to put the new ball, so while his strength on the drives will get him out early sometimes the bowler is taking a big risk pitching it up on or outside off because if they get it even marginally wrong they are going to the boundary.

Fulton has all the shots but defends far too wide because he steps across and forward with his front foot and his back foot stays on leg stump. At this stage in his career he can't change that movement so he basically just has to be very conscious anything threatening his off stump will probably hit his pad first, which isn't ideal but it's better than being bowled. When he's late on the ball he won't be able to get his bat around his front pad in time either to defend or flick it through leg, but at least bowling on his pads is dangerous due to him being so good through the legside. With him he just needs to put away that wide fend, and he's obviously working very hard at it since the progress was tracked through the home series here, but it will be very instinctive for him by now so I don't think he will ever truly crack it.

I don't think either batsman is doomed to fail provided they don't face their weaknesses with Mathew "my technique is fine" Bell-esque denial, but with the attitude of overcoming them.

 

[Prince EWS]

Why?

About 60% of hendrix's posts are about Latham. I'm supposed you're not used to it by now.

 

[Kippax]

Follow on target missed by 14 runs, is it.

 

[Mike5181]

I'm just happy we've got a 21 year old opener with a half-decent record running around. That being said, the Rutherford/Fulton partnership shouldn't be in too much trouble selection-wise for a series or two.

 

[Flem274*]

since they cbf with astle's leg breaks i wonder if it would be worth sending him out to open the batting if we get another bat. every other **** has opened on this tour and his returns with the ball have gotten progressively worse.

 

[Kippax]

There's a fairly clear trend there - does well against the military mediums, gets out to spin and bounce.

As an NZ limited overs prospect Munro could probably do ok in bullying the oppositions sub-par bowlers, while failing miserably against those bowlers with real quality or difference. But then we already have Guptill and Franklin to do exactly this.

The apparent overall vault figures on Munners (since Oct 2011):

FC:

vs. pace: 775/6 (770 balls)

vs. pace (short) 296/2 (182)
vs. pace (length) 217/2 (432)
vs. pace (full) 262/2 (156)

vs. spin: 92/4 (205 balls)

vs. spin (short) 23/0 (12)
vs. spin (length) 46/3 (131)
vs. spin (full) 23/1 (62)

List A:

vs. pace: 541/9 (410 balls)

vs. pace (short) 122/2 (81)
vs. pace (length) 182/2 (183)
vs. pace (full) 237/5 (146)

vs. spin: 208/4 (224 balls)

vs. spin (short) 19/0 (14)
vs. spin (length) 97/3 (133)
vs. spin (full) 92/1 (77)

Quite a realistic home library they provide for the teams itbt, unfortunately it's dusty and far from good site design as Flem said earlier. The day there is an upgrade, we'll see the hole in the fence was also mended.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm just happy we've got a 21 year old opener with a half-decent record running around.

I think it's worth mentioning that he's only ever scored one Plunket Shield hundred and that was at number 4, though. I think in general he's better down the order which is a little unfortunate as the obvious medium-term route for him into the side is as opener. He did score a ton for New Zealand A as an opener against India A last season to be fair but it wasn't what you'd call a particularly challenging set of circumstances.

 

[Kippax]

One of the early filter efforts that vid, jumps back and forward in his knock.

 

[Kippax]

Yeah, you better be scared of our spinners in a 4th innings chase, you safety-first Lankans.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, you better be scared of our spinners in a 4th innings chase, you safety-first Lankans.

Cricinfo seemed to be suggesting they were playing with a 200 follow on mark rather than 150 for some reason. It wouldn't surprise me if they were just straight up wrong though.

 

[Mike5181]

I think it's worth mentioning that he's only ever scored one Plunket Shield hundred and that was at number 4, though. I think in general he's better down the order which is a little unfortunate as the obvious medium-term route for him into the side is as opener. He did score a ton for New Zealand A as an opener against India A last season to be fair but it wasn't what you'd call a particularly challenging set of circumstances.

Fair point. He definitely needs to get a few scores in the Plunket Shield as an opener, which he hasn't really done. There's two rounds in the Shield before the home test series against the West Indies starts, so he should be looking to score heavily in those. Overall in his career though he's shown the ability to score runs anywhere in the order. With a rough check, he averages just over 35 as an opener in first-class cricket, where most of his runs were scored in games against India A (home and away), Sri Lanka A, and a 48 against a strong England XI bowling attack.

We kind of limited our options up the top by not taking Raval on this A tour. Other than those two, it's back to Daniel Flynn.

 

[Flem274*]

I'm not sold Flynn will have much success at the top of the order. I hope he does but considering the opening bowlers set up camp with the new ball on the line and length he doesn't touch he won't be a threat to them so they can just probe around offstump with a swinging new ball until he nicks off.

edit: I also think the selectors have just flat out stated they don't rate Raval or Flynn with their selections for this tour. They have basically said Latham and Cachopa/Broom/Devcich are better.

 

[Maximas]

Yeah, you better be scared of our spinners in a 4th innings chase, you safety-first Lankans.

tbf Sri Lanka are trying to blood young batsmen as well

 

[Hurricane]

edit: I also think the selectors have just flat out stated they don't rate Raval or Flynn with their selections for this tour. They have basically said Latham and Cachopa/Broom/Devcich are better.

Missing the caveat "at this stage"

A double century by Raval or Flynn will change their tune.