• 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* Australia in New Zealand

T

trapol

U19 12th Man
The selectors have f$cked Broom....you must be kidding

He was proven in over 20 games that at this point he is out of his depth at the International level. He is dismissed in the same manner alot which will be even more greatly exposed in Test cricket (much like Ingram will be)

Surely by now you must realise that performances in Domestic Cricket arent any indication on whether you will succeed at the International level or not. eg Broom/Sinclair/Franklin/Bell/Cumming etc etc etc

The truth is i dont know what they do with Broom. He has shown glimpses and then gets out the same way time after time. (its not as if he has been caught slogging or trying to up the run rate) its genuinely dismissed mostly and you dont often see that in ODIs.

He seems too good for NZ 1st class but not good enough for International cricket
 
Howsie

Howsie

International Captain
Neil Broom's got to fix his front-foot play AFAIC, I have no idea why but that's really gone down the ****ter as of late. Why he's not seen as top-order cover I have no idea, he does bat at four for Otago afterall, just like Sinclair does for Central.

I'm really not liking our test team at the moment it must be said, I'm not the biggest fan of McIntosh but right now he's the least of our problems. I hope New Zealand cricket a building a plan right now with how they want our test team to look in 12-18 months.
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
Athlai said:
Ingram is going to fail miserably if he plays.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised-he'd hardly be the first to fail in his first real series, and against Australia too.

I'm just hopeful that if the likes of Ingram, Arnel, Watling and other newer players fail, they aren't written off immediately.

Even Hopkins improved given time, and the three listed above are to me, more capable than he.

Howsie: If they're picking Sinclair again I doubt they have a clue who they want in 12 months time. I understand it, so many ifs around atm.
 
Bahnz

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
Flem274* said:
I wouldn't be surprised-he'd hardly be the first to fail in his first real series, and against Australia too.

I'm just hopeful that if the likes of Ingram, Arnel, Watling and other newer players fail, they aren't written off immediately.

Even Hopkins improved given time, and the three listed above are to me, more capable than he.

Howsie: If they're picking Sinclair again I doubt they have a clue who they want in 12 months time. I understand it, so many ifs around atm.
Click to expand...
Good point. Afterall, O'Brien got absolutely murdered in his debut series against Australia, which unfortunately kept him out of the team for the next 3 years. Admittedly, for every O'Brien, there are at least three Sinclairs, but it's a bit harsh to banish a player for failing first up against truely top quality opposition.
 
James

James

Cricket Web Owner
Damn, looks like Sinclair won't play :(

"Mathew, 18 months ago, had an opportunity previously with five or six Test matches and it didn't quite work out for him," Greatbatch said. "At the time, the selectors said they were going to look at some other players. Time always moves on for everybody but Mathew has been in good form for the last year and a half, two years.

"He's the cover top-order batter for the Tests, so unless there's an injury he won't play, but it's nice to have him back in the environment. He's experienced, he's mature and he's got competitive juices so that's what we're going to require against these guys."
Click to expand...
Source - New Zealand put faith in Peter Ingram at No.3 | Cricket News | New Zealand v Australia 2009-10 | Cricinfo.com
 
Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
Dropping a guy because he isn't equipped to face up to a pace attack of 150km/h bowlers that make his technical problem look ******** isn't that harsh.
 
Days of Grace

Days of Grace

International Captain
If you drop Ingram before the Australian test series, then w.t.f. would you pick him in the first place to face Bangladesh?

Good form from the selectors, imo, but I have a feeling that Ingram will be made to look fairly foolish.
 
P

Polo23

International Debutant
trapol said:
The selectors have f$cked Broom....you must be kidding

He was proven in over 20 games that at this point he is out of his depth at the International level. He is dismissed in the same manner alot which will be even more greatly exposed in Test cricket (much like Ingram will be)

Surely by now you must realise that performances in Domestic Cricket arent any indication on whether you will succeed at the International level or not. eg Broom/Sinclair/Franklin/Bell/Cumming etc etc etc

The truth is i dont know what they do with Broom. He has shown glimpses and then gets out the same way time after time. (its not as if he has been caught slogging or trying to up the run rate) its genuinely dismissed mostly and you dont often see that in ODIs.

He seems too good for NZ 1st class but not good enough for International cricket
Click to expand...
So you're suggesting we never give Broom a chance in test cricket (a format where he is obviously more comfortable and subsequently better) because he has failed so far in ODI cricket? The selectors have done Broom no favours at all, whether he may or may not be good enough for test cricket is irrelevant, the point is he deserves a chance on weight of domestic runs.

What do you suggest we select our test team on if not FC performances?
 
andyc

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
trapol said:
The selectors have f$cked Broom....you must be kidding

He was proven in over 20 games that at this point he is out of his depth at the International level. He is dismissed in the same manner alot which will be even more greatly exposed in Test cricket (much like Ingram will be)

Surely by now you must realise that performances in Domestic Cricket arent any indication on whether you will succeed at the International level or not. eg Broom/Sinclair/Franklin/Bell/Cumming etc etc etc

The truth is i dont know what they do with Broom. He has shown glimpses and then gets out the same way time after time. (its not as if he has been caught slogging or trying to up the run rate) its genuinely dismissed mostly and you dont often see that in ODIs.

He seems too good for NZ 1st class but not good enough for International cricket
Click to expand...
Please don't avoid the filter, trapol. If you're going to swear just let the filter take care of it.
 
P

Polo23

International Debutant
Days of Grace said:
On the ability to handle the pressures of international cricket, and to be able to handle international-class bowlers, of which he has failed miserably (so far).
Click to expand...
So in other words if someone performs in our ODI or T20 team, then they would make a good test player? That's rubbish. There are numerous players who have succeeded at test level but been poor ODI players, and vice versa.

FC cricket is the closest game we have to test cricket, i'm surprised you'd argue otherwise.

As I said before, regardless of if Broom is good enough or not, he deserves a chance in the test team.
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
Polo23 said:
Because he's better than Ingram, and he has a future at the international level.
Click to expand...
Funny, he seems to get outdone at the FC level by Ingram considerably. You're the one who wants to pick on FC career records.

Ingram looks horrible when he fails, he's always going to look like that when he does. Sometimes though I think no technique at all is better than a flawed or half assed one.

For example, Fulton puts his front foot forward slightly in an uncertain manner. He gets into no mans land as a result. Ingram just stays still and whacks it. Sometimes simple is better.

Ingram stays nice and still and balanced. He works with about four shots and no foot movement, he just goes with timing, balance and waiting for the ball to go in his areas.

In ODI cricket, his limited shot range will always hamper him, in tests he can wait for them to stuff up.

I can use the same argument for Ingrams test selection that you use for Broom's test selection. :p
 
Halfpast_Yellow

Halfpast_Yellow

U19 Vice-Captain
Polo23 said:
So in other words if someone performs in our ODI or T20 team, then they would make a good test player? That's rubbish.
Click to expand...
That's a huge logic fail :)

It's not 'in other words' at all.

Yes it's rubbish that good limited overs performance is not entirely indicative of good test performance (though some skills are obviously transferable).

But you can't just apply that idea to the reverse case which is Brooms bad ODI performance implies he won't be able to step up to test level.

Why I don't like Broom for tests isn't just that he's had no returns for his ODI performances, but the analysis of why he's had no return.

Missing nothing straight deliveries, technique issues, failing when he's come in and had time to bat through the innings, and just plain looking awful against international strength bowlers.

I would put more stock in this for estimating his worth as an international test player than some scores in NZ's weak 4 day domestic comp.

No-one should ever 'deserve' an international callup to the BC's based purely on run aggregate in our domestic comp. They deserve a call-up if the selector's think they can hack it against international bowlers, and runs in domestic comp is not the be-all and end-all as other posters have alluded to, and it's why the selecting job is not as easy as 'let's look at the domestic scores for the season and chuck in the high-achievers disregarding those with 2+ previous international fails'.

PJ Ingram is dangerously close to being an 'I told you so' prime example for this point.
 
Last edited:
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
PJ Ingram is in his second test if he plays. Hardly a great sample size.

If we're not picking off weight of runs/wickets, what are we going to use? Talent? Talent is in the eye of the beholder, and tends to ignore results (look at WindieWeathers posts for an example).

I would prefer to pick players who have shown they are good somewhere rather than players that might be good in a few years.

Often they go hand in hand e.g. Ryder had bucketloads of FC runs behind him and he was a success. Taylor had a good List A record and an average FC record, and after a few failures at test level made some adjustments and became a better batsman.

Williamson will probably be like Ryder. I hope.

The Mathew Sinclairs and Peter Fultons shouldn't scare us off picking players with good records. If the two above batsmen did some homework I think they'd succeed and succeed well at test level. Sinclair won't change now, or he already would have. Fulton might yet. Who knows.
 
Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
My problem with Ingram is that if a guy like Johnson bowls at his legs 6 times in a row, Ingram will probably hit him for 3 boundaries and miss the other 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top