• 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.

New Zealand doom and gloom thread

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
Thought about our side for the immediate future. Although I think people are romanticising a little how well Ryder would bat if he returned to the side, best case with bowling included he would make a big difference to the team. So, with Ryder and without Ryder.

With fully fit Ryder who can bowl:

Guptill
McCullum
Williamson for a few more tests
Taylor
Ryder (5)
Flynn
Van Wyk
Vettori (4) or sometimes a fourth seamer
Bracewell (3) for a few more tests
Southee (2)
Boult (1)

Ryder solves the balance problem. You might be surprised to see Vettori at 8. My judgement though is that with some wicket-taking ability in Boult/Southee, Vettori may be able to just do a job with the ball. He may even benefit from bowling a little more often when the opposition batting is under some pressure. It's not ideal but in looking at the alternatives I think this is best. Most days we will want to play a spinner and there's a part of me that wants to select Patel instead but I dismiss that as sentimentality. Vettori offers so much more with the bat in addition to averageness with the ball. Occasionally play a fourth seamer instead.

If Bracewell is at 9 then he's there purely as a bowler and IF he continues to struggle we can afford to drop him for anyone who we think is a better pure bowler. I don't know who right now - probably one of Gillespie, Milne, Wagner, Wheeler. With Vettori in the side Bracewell needs to be a wicket-taker.

Thought long and hard about Guptill and Williamson. For Guptill, I just think there is no-one else right now. And the chances of Guppy coming good, as little as they are, are still better than throwing Watling in there or someone like Rutherford.

Williamson needs runs soon though. I would very likely give him the South Africa series, and it might as well be at 3, but if he's still batting poorly it will be time to bring someone else in and give Williamson some time to clear his head and work towards a return. If Ryder is in the side I think we can afford to move Taylor up to 3 at that point (whereas I thinks it's too much of a risk with Ryder absent). So the new guy comes in at 4 - a Brownlie or Watling or someone who's doing well in domestix.
 
Last edited:

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
With Ryder absent:

Guptill
McCullum
Williamson
Taylor
Flynn
Van Wyk/ Watling
Vettori (4)
Wells/Neesham/Anderson/Carl Cachopa (5)
Bracewell/Patel (3)
Southee (2)
Boult (1)


This is more experimental because we need to make sure our bowling is not just 3 seamers plus Vettori with no part-timers - that's weakening the bowling too much where it should be our strength. It gets a bit ugly because there's no one who is quite there yet for the number 8 spot. Pick someone with potential and try grow them into the role (which may then cause them to be moved up the order).

In both this and my previous side, if Van Wyk has an extended period of failure then Watling comes in as keeper. But I'd keep Van Wyk for now. Though NZ does need to give Watling a signal on what he's meant be some time soon.

6/7/8 in the above side could be rearranged in any order.
 
Last edited:

Flem274*

123/5
Four seamers and the batsmen can go and **** themselves imo. Vettori doesn't play unless he is part of a five man attack, learns how to bowl awesomely again or bats in the top six.
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
Four seamers and the batsmen can go and **** themselves imo. Vettori doesn't play unless he is part of a five man attack, learns how to bowl awesomely again or bats in the top six.
Nah, reckon Jeets has earned a few more games. Even in New Zealand I reckon he's a better 4th bowling option than Wagner or even Martin.

God, saying Guptill should stay in the team is like drinking warm sick, but I guess I agree there aren't many other realistic options. Don't think any of the all rounder potentials have really earned a place yet.

Gulptill, McCullum, Taylor, Brownlie/Ryder, Flynn, Williamson/Vettori, van Wyk, Bracewell, Southee, Patel, Boult
 

Flem274*

123/5
Nah, reckon Jeets has earned a few more games. Even in New Zealand I reckon he's a better 4th bowling option than Wagner or even Martin.

God, saying Guptill should stay in the team is like drinking warm sick, but I guess I agree there aren't many other realistic options. Don't think any of the all rounder potentials have really earned a place yet.

Gulptill, McCullum, Taylor, Brownlie/Ryder, Flynn, Williamson/Vettori, van Wyk, Bracewell, Southee, Patel, Boult
Gillespie and Wheeeeeeler > jeets. we should stack the team with the only thing we can do at home (bowl and collapse).

Jeets...omg can't believe I'm saying this...Jeets is showing he might be a decent bowler and may possibly deserve to be the spinner on decks that suit.

yuck.

edit: I suppose we could tell watling to open (again) or pick Rutherford and get his 20 from 25 balls instead of 50, but that would be a dick move on either so nah.
 
Last edited:

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
God, saying Guptill should stay in the team is like drinking warm sick
:laugh:

Gulptill, McCullum, Taylor, Brownlie/Ryder, Flynn, Williamson/Vettori, van Wyk, Bracewell, Southee, Patel, Boult
I'm uneasy with the idea of moving Williamson again. Even though it's generally expected that batting at 6 would be easier than batting at 3. It just seems to me that every time you change a batsman's role in the side that screws with their head a bit more. Plus it would feel like a real backwards step to go hide at 6.

Might work... I guess
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
I want Taylor at 3, Ryder at 4.

Reason being that Ryder takes pressure off Taylor and McCullum, and they each take pressure off each other. They know there's no need to force the runs and "be positive". Also, a top 4 containing McCullum, Taylor and Ryder is a nice prospect

With Ryder:

McCullum
Guptill (noone else, unfortunate)
Taylor
Ryder
Williamson
Flynn
van Wyk/Watling
Bracewell
Southee
Boult
Patel

Without Ryder:
McCullum
Guptill
Taylor
Flynn (need a left hander in the top 4)
Williamson
Brownlie
van Wyk/Watling
Bracewell
Southee
Boult
Patel.

So it's just Browlie for Ryder, but a bit of variety needed in the top 4 so Flynn leapfrogs Williamson.
 
Last edited:

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
I want Taylor at 3, Ryder at 4.

Reason being that Ryder takes pressure off Taylor and McCullum, and they each take pressure off each other. They know there's no need to force the runs and "be positive". Also, a top 4 containing McCullum, Taylor and Ryder is a nice prospect
So what happens to Vettori? Misses out completely? Personally I don't think we can afford to do that.
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
:laugh:



I'm uneasy with the idea of moving Williamson again. Even though it's generally expected that batting at 6 would be easier than batting at 3. It just seems to me that every time you change a batsman's role in the side that screws with their head a bit more. Plus it would feel like a real backwards step to go hide at 6.

Might work... I guess
We've got to keep sending the message that we know he's good enough, moving him to six is a **** idea. You only get good at batting in the top order by batting in the damn top order.
 

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
We've got to keep sending the message that we know he's good enough, moving him to six is a **** idea. You only get good at batting in the top order by batting in the damn top order.
Yeah I tend to think you can start off a new top order batsman at 6 and then move them up when you think they're ready. But after they've moved up, that's it. Can't go back to 6 unless they're out of the side for a while (like Flynn).
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
So what happens to Vettori? Misses out completely? Personally I don't think we can afford to do that.

In the subcontinent I might pick him ahead of Bracewell.

He cannot be selected ahead of Patel at the moment. It just wouldn't be a fair selection.
 

Flem274*

123/5
Well aside from KW, the number 3s around the country as of last round were;

Reece Young
James Marshall
Carl Cachopa
Stephen Murdoch
Shanan Stewart
Michael Bracewell

So yeah, Williamson stays for the time being. Only one of those guys has staked a claim and he isn't a fan of the short ball, so taking him to SA would be a brave move.
 

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
Interview by heath mills on Radio sport today was a must listen for a NZ fan. I will see if I can find a link.
 

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
So yeah, Williamson stays for the time being. Only one of those guys has staked a claim and he isn't a fan of the short ball, so taking him to SA would be a brave move.
Would almost certainly take Williamson to SA. If he fails AND is playing poorly then hopefully Ryder is back for the England tour, at which point I'd suggest Taylor moves up to 3 and can bring someone else in at 4.
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
In other news, Tim Seifert hit his 9067th 100 of this week or whatever it is against a bowling attack of superstars featuring yours truly
 

Flem274*

123/5
Can't believe you let someone from ND ton up, especially since you're an ND bowler and therefore good. Kill yourself.
 

Top