NZ Test Opener

[chaminda_00]

Dempster ftw

 

[Flem274*]

Dempster ftw

Hell yes.

Dunno how Bruce Edgar gets rated ahead of him by so many people.

Suttcliffe did a bit of opening too but was best in the middle order. The Rutherford experiment didn't go too well as I recall...

 

[Somerset]

Maybe if Pakistan actually stuck with their openers for an extended period of time they'd put in better performances (it amazes me with the talent of Imran Nazir, Yasir Hameed, Taufeeq, Farhat, etc that they haven't been able to find a consistent pairing).

At least New Zealand have had the problem since the mid-1980s with the exception of Mark Richardson, so its nothing new when another pairing is dismantled.

 

[Leslie1]

How far back are we talking here in terms of a settled opening bat and when was the last time NZ batting looked better than its bowling?

When was the last "good" and "solid" batting lineup that puts fear into the opposition whenever we played? Or has it never happened before?

If it hasn't happened before, is it because it's only now after we've been through the minnow phase that we are starting to develop talent in batting?

I stress the phrase "starting to".

 

[Richard]

Maybe if Pakistan actually stuck with their openers for an extended period of time they'd put in better performances (it amazes me with the talent of Imran Nazir, Yasir Hameed, Taufeeq, Farhat, etc that they haven't been able to find a consistent pairing).

Hmm, never remotely rated Nazir, Hameed isn't even an opener, Taufeeq has some stuff to recommend him, likewise Farhat. But only the latter two are even worth a mention in the "why?" stakes for mine.

 

[Richard]

When was the last "good" and "solid" batting lineup that puts fear into the opposition whenever we played? Or has it never happened before?

The one that played in the Third Test in Australia in 1985/86 wasn't exactly bad:
John Wright
Bruce Edgar
John F Reid
Martin Crowe
Jeremy Coney
Jeff Crowe
Richard Hadlee
Ian Smith
John Bracewell
Bernard Lance Cairns
(Ewan Chatfield batted eleven, but he's the only one in the side not worth a mention)

 

[shortpitched713]

Why isn't Jesse Ryder being considered. Really like the look of that bloke.

 

[Bahnz]

Why isn't Jesse Ryder being considered. Really like the look of that bloke.

He's never opened in FC cricket, preferring the number 4 spot.

 

[Dick Rockett]

I still believe that Mathew Bell's the man for the job (along with How). He's been given a raw deal, as was Michael Papps before him.

 

[_Ed_]

I still believe that Mathew Bell's the man for the job (along with How). He's been given a raw deal, as was Michael Papps before him.

Agree.

Won't mind too much if Redmond's a revelation though. Good luck to him.

 

[Natman20]

This thread shows something. When I created it I suggested How and he didn't arrive to three years later. I think they wait to long to bring in some talent.

 

[Leslie1]

While I am neutral about Bell + Papps, the question has to be asked... It's not like the selectors didn't give the Matthew Bells and (arguably) Sinclairs, Cummings and Papps of this world enough chances at the top. But when as a selector, you select them on the basis that you hope they do well, and they do not return the same faith you'd shown in them, can you really blame them?

How many tests and innings do you give them for them to not crack under pressure, play like crap whenever they get to the crease, and get out playing stupid shots?

Taylor was a 50 50 when he got in, in fact, he only got in because Fulton is injured / out of touch with the bat. But the difference is, he took his chances to cement himself in that side for this tour.

What has Bell done over the Bangladesh series that's so spectacular that warrants him inclusion in this English tour even if he failed over the entire English series? I think we're too quick to condemn selectors for trying so hard to put out a competitive side, and too easy on the incumbents when they get dropped.

If you score runs, you won't get dropped. If you perform, you won't get dropped. Harden up.

 

[Retox]

While I am neutral about Bell + Papps, the question has to be asked... It's not like the selectors didn't give the Matthew Bells and (arguably) Sinclairs, Cummings and Papps of this world enough chances at the top. But when as a selector, you select them on the basis that you hope they do well, and they do not return the same faith you'd shown in them, can you really blame them?

How many tests and innings do you give them for them to not crack under pressure, play like crap whenever they get to the crease, and get out playing stupid shots?

Taylor was a 50 50 when he got in, in fact, he only got in because Fulton is injured / out of touch with the bat. But the difference is, he took his chances to cement himself in that side for this tour.

What has Bell done over the Bangladesh series that's so spectacular that warrants him inclusion in this English tour even if he failed over the entire English series? I think we're too quick to condemn selectors for trying so hard to put out a competitive side, and too easy on the incumbents when they get dropped.

If you score runs, you won't get dropped. If you perform, you won't get dropped. Harden up.

Agreed.

Redmond and How need 3-4 tests together though I feel

 

[Dick Rockett]

While I am neutral about Bell + Papps, the question has to be asked... It's not like the selectors didn't give the Matthew Bells and (arguably) Sinclairs, Cummings and Papps of this world enough chances at the top. But when as a selector, you select them on the basis that you hope they do well, and they do not return the same faith you'd shown in them, can you really blame them?

How many tests and innings do you give them for them to not crack under pressure, play like crap whenever they get to the crease, and get out playing stupid shots?

Taylor was a 50 50 when he got in, in fact, he only got in because Fulton is injured / out of touch with the bat. But the difference is, he took his chances to cement himself in that side for this tour.

What has Bell done over the Bangladesh series that's so spectacular that warrants him inclusion in this English tour even if he failed over the entire English series? I think we're too quick to condemn selectors for trying so hard to put out a competitive side, and too easy on the incumbents when they get dropped.

If you score runs, you won't get dropped. If you perform, you won't get dropped. Harden up.

In the cases of Bell and Sinclair in particular, a compelling argument can be made that the vast majority of the pressure on them comes from New Zealand Cricket. They get brought in, have a tough time and get dropped. Then, they either spend years on the outer or get brought in for the occasional game and told "by the way, every innings had better be spectacular or it's probably your last". Either way, the pressure on them - knowing that they have a severely limited opportunity to establish themselves - must be immense, and for that I blame NZC.

It seems that they have an entirely arbitrary policy on who gets real opportunities and who doesn't. In addition to Bell and Sinclair you get guys like Papps who've been discarded based on a mere 16 inning test career (incidentally all but two of those against South Africa), or Hamish Marshall who actually has a decent international record in relative terms despite being batted way out of position for the latter half of his career.

The fact is, these guys are the ones excelling at domestic level. They've scored truckloads of runs in recent seasons and deserve far more opportunity than those misers at NZC give them. Essentially they're being told that striving for excellence in the local game is meaningless and that you may as well not bother training, or even worse, retire and go earn some real money in the real world because selection for the Black Caps has everything to do with how good the selectors believe you could possibly be, not with how good you've proven you are.

 

[Flem274*]

So people, do we keep Redmond?

Unless the NZ A openers are absolutely outstanding on their tour, I say we keep him.

 

[_Ed_]

Yeah keep Redmond.

I'd like to see him given until the end of the next home summer. If he fails and someone like Papps racks up 1000 for the season then we can reassess.

 

[Craig]

I thought chopping and changing openers was a tradition in New Zealand cricketing circles, especially with the Black Caps as it is for the PCB to be useless. For one example in Nathan Astle's career, I lost count at one point the amount of openers he had open with him.

 

[NZTailender]

Keep him for Bangladesh. If he can't score runs against them and gain some international confidence, then he should be dropped.

Which would mean we'd go into the Australia series with a new opener, yet again.

 

[chaminda_00]

Don't understand why you don't open with Chris Martin. He would be as effective as any other opener you had recently.

 

[Craig]

Don't understand why you don't open with Chris Martin. He would be as effective as any other opener you had recently.

Haha could you be any less patronising?