*Official* Bangladesh in New Zealand

[Nate]

Don't stop Deshis!

 

[_Ed_]

Crikey, that was a close one.

Well done to Bangladesh. I didn't see much of the game, but I'm guessing they put in a far better performance than we've seen from them so far this tour.

 

[African Monkey]

Crikey, that was a close one.

Well done to Bangladesh. I didn't see much of the game, but I'm guessing they put in a far better performance than we've seen from them so far this tour.

I f anything, they should be disappointed they didn't win that. another 30-40 runs at the end and they would have gone really close.

 

[Somerset]

Far closer than I expected and if Bangladesh hadn't blown a good platform to launch in the final ten overs, it could've been embarrassing for New Zealand. Really quality bowling performance from Shakib, though I also wonder how much closer Bangladesh could've made it with someone like Mortaza at Shakib's disposal.

 

[Somerset]

I am truly happy to see Imrul Kayes get the ton. I had written him off a few days ago..and it makes me happy when a player proves me wrong with a good performance.. Well done son!

Yeh I thought that might've been a bit harsh and commented so, as he looked good in Napier and was unluckily run out in Dunedin. I think even he would admit that he had some luck along the way today, several outside and inside edges resulting in boundaries but he applied himself well and definitely deserved his century.

 

[thierry henry]

epic BroomtardLOL

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Only saw the end (after Vettori's dismissal). Brrrrooom's innings was a bit poor. Was it me, or was he attempting the back away to leg and try to cut shot far too much to the spinners?

 

[Athlai]

Franklin (Y)
Broom (N)

In all honesty Bangers should have been playing like this throughout.

 

[cbuts]

Only saw the end (after Vettori's dismissal). Brrrrooom's innings was a bit poor. Was it me, or was he attempting the back away to leg and try to cut shot far too much to the spinners?

well was not bad by Brooms standard i thought... He reached double figures

I dont think McCullum would be wsated at 8... You couldnt bat him any higher.

Or you bat Vetorri at 6, McCullum at 7 - leave out Broom and go the extra bowler

 

[lockton2skipper]

can't see any point in going in with the extra batsman. by the sounds of it guptill will bat 5. personally i'd like to see mckay and southee play along with jeets. we all know what martin and tuffey can do.

 

[African Monkey]

So if Guptill fails at 5, will he continue to be moved around the order or will he be dropped from the test team ?

 

[bryce]

I don't care what anyone says, but Guptill batting outside of the top three in any form just doesn't seem right. Actually maybe number four, but obviously Taylor has that covered. I guess it would just be strange to see him coming out and facing spin from the start. Leave Guptill out and get him hungry I reckon, they could even use Broom at three( to the haters 566@94.33, lol) and play four seamers and two spinners if they wanted - though that would possibly be a tad extreme...

McIntosh
Watling
Guptill/Ingram
Taylor
Broom
McCullum
Vettori
Tuffey
Southee
McKay/Patel
Martin

 

[Zinzan]

I don't care what anyone says, but Guptill batting outside of the top three in any form just doesn't seem right. Actually maybe number four, but obviously Taylor has that covered. I guess it would just be strange to see him coming out and facing spin from the start. Leave Guptill out and get him hungry I reckon, they could even use Broom at three( to the haters 566@94.33, lol) and play four seamers and two spinners if they wanted - though that would possibly be a tad extreme...

McIntosh
Watling
Guptill/Ingram
Taylor
Broom
McCullum
Vettori
Tuffey
Southee
McKay/Patel
Martin

That's not such a bad suggestion. Despite the fact Taylor's probably our best batsman, reckon he's pretty well suited to 5....my top 7 of those players you've mentioned above would be;

McIntosh
Watling
Ingram
Guptill
Taylor
Vettori
McCullum

 

[bryce]

Yeah I like the idea of Taylor at 5 too, he doesn't necessarily need to be in the top order because of his scoring rate, plus he's more likely to settle into an innings quicker against an older ball...

 

[Howsie]

That's not such a bad suggestion. Despite the fact Taylor's probably our best batsman, reckon he's pretty well suited to 5....my top 7 of those players you've mentioned above would be;

McIntosh
Watling
Ingram
Guptill
Taylor
Vettori
McCullum

Would you dare play that line-up against Australia?

 

[Days of Grace]

The problem is that none of the seamers is a capable number 8 batsman.

Playing with only 4 capable bowlers vs. Bangladesh is fine, but with Australia you need a 5th bowler. That's why Oram's loss is so huge.

Basically the top 5 is set, apart from the Ingram/Watling debate.

If you play, from number. 6
Vettori
McCullum
Tuffey
Southee
McKay/Patel
Martin

Then you have a lower order resembling England '99 vintage.

If you play, from number 6:
Broom
Vettori
McCullum
Tuffey
Southee
Martin

Then you have too few bowlers to do the job if things get iffy, which they will, against Australia.

Which option would you take?

I would personally go with option A. McKay should play since he's a left-armer and offers variation and pace. Martin/Southee/Tuffey on a flat deck against Australia might turn into a nightmare. The tail starting at number 8 will also send a message to the top 5 to step up.

I would be disappointed if we don't go option A against Bangladesh. Against Australia, unless there is rain, there will be no draws. You must take 20 wickets, and playing McKay plus 4 other bowlers is a must.

 

[bryce]

The problem is that none of the seamers is a capable number 8 batsman.

Playing with only 4 capable bowlers vs. Bangladesh is fine, but with Australia you need a 5th bowler. That's why Oram's loss is so huge.

You make a great point. Lets take a really in-depth look at this aspect with a fixed regards toward the Australian series.
We all know we need to play 5 bowlers against Australia. And we know that we do not want Tuffey or Southee batting at 8.
This leaves NZ(imo) with one foregone conclusion.
Batting positions 6, 7 & 8 all need to be allround cricketers. One of those positions belong to Vettori. Another belongs to McCullum.
So who are possible candidates for this third position that Oram previously occupied? The answer - only Elliott and Franklin

 

[Days of Grace]

Elliott is injured and Jimmy is out of the running at this stage - otherwise they would have selected him for the Bangladesh test.

So basically we are either going to be a batsman short or a bowler short for the Australia test series. As I said before, unless there is rain, there will be no draws, so best just to suck it up and go for the win (i.e. five bowlers and one batsman short).

 

[Days of Grace]

And Franklin is slowly but surely being turned into a classic bits and pieces player for ODIs. He neither bowls 10 overs or bats in the top 5/6 it seems.

 

[bryce]

So basically we are either going to be a batsman short or a bowler short for the Australia test series

Yep. Think it logically has to be a bowler short too