-
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** England in New Zealand
- Thread starter James
- Start date
Flem274*
123/5
Why don't you rate Ryder Rich? Is it his domestic List A record?
Personally think he'll get found out as an opener and in time will move into the middle order where he should be. How, as much as I like him for his stoic anchor innings, will in time be pushed out by the likes of Guptill and Watling.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Dunno, isn't Ryder actually an opener? That seemed to be what I'd read from various sources.
The reason I still don't rate Ryder is, yes, his domestic record is exceedingly poor (23 or summat, isn't it?) and he's so far played 3 innings at the ODI level. He got a single big one, yes, but wouldn't have done had Owais Shah been able to catch. The jury would remain out after just 3 innings anyway, but right now the verdict is poised on "poor" rather than "good".
How has simply looked awful near enough every time I've seen him TBH. Last season against Sri Lanka - albeit in a Test rather than ODI - I've rarely seen anyone look worse. Compared to Matthew Horne, the best New Zealand opener I've ever seen, he's shocking. And no, I never rated Richardson that much.
The reason I still don't rate Ryder is, yes, his domestic record is exceedingly poor (23 or summat, isn't it?) and he's so far played 3 innings at the ODI level. He got a single big one, yes, but wouldn't have done had Owais Shah been able to catch. The jury would remain out after just 3 innings anyway, but right now the verdict is poised on "poor" rather than "good".
How has simply looked awful near enough every time I've seen him TBH. Last season against Sri Lanka - albeit in a Test rather than ODI - I've rarely seen anyone look worse. Compared to Matthew Horne, the best New Zealand opener I've ever seen, he's shocking. And no, I never rated Richardson that much.
Flem274*
123/5
Ryder: If Sinclair doesn't get his act together in the domestic scene then I wouldn't mind the big Jesse getting the number 5 spot.In domestic ODs he has underachieved greatly but for NZ A I think someone said he averaged around 48 in limited overs games.
How: In ODIs he's shown he can bat but its the consistentcy and the strike rotation that let him down. His 80s could be 100s if he found the gaps for singles more often. I think he'll come right in a couple of years but then he'll have Guptill and Watling breathing down his neck waiting for their international opportunity.
As for not rating Richardson, you're wrong IMO. Sure he was a stonewaller as opposed to a dominator but he got the job done whilst Papps and Cumming etc failed. You can't argue with his record.
I do miss Matt Horne though, he's only 37 too IIRC. Why did he retire so darn early?
Taranaki Daily News gave Greg Hay a good write up today, I found an article by an ex U-19 skipper Marc Elli-something or other and he reckons Hay is the real deal and should be in ahead of certain players. Perrsonally think he should play out this season in domestic cricket and debut against the WI next year but if everything goes to poos then perhaps accelerate him a bit but yeah, I'll finsh my fanboyism now.
Matt52
U19 Vice-Captain
Daniel Flynn has been picked for the next two games. I guess theyre going to play him as if they just wanted someone to carry the drinks then why woud they take a young guy out of domestic cricket where he might learn a bit more, but you never know.
If Flynn plays then the whole batting order would be changed again. One of the batsmen would have to go to make room for him. My guess is either Fulton or How. Styris hasnt done that well but our team needs a bit of experience,
If How goes then I hope this happens
McCullum
Ryder
Taylor
Fulton
Styris
Flynn
Oram
If Fulton goes then who knows
Flem274*
123/5
Interesting, they obviously want to persist with Flynn.
I'd go with the same batting order but my full team would be:
McCullum
Ryder
Taylor
Fulton
Styris
Oram
Flynn
Vettori
Mills
Mason
Patel
I don't think the selectors are capable of such sensible selections however.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Why bat Flynn so far down the order, when he plays at number 4 for his province? He's a top order bat, not a middle order slogger, and shouldn't be shoehorned into such a role, especially not at this stage of his career. I presume he's been brought into a team as a potential replacement if Ryder doesn't recover in time for the rest of the series, so the batting lineup would look something like
McCullum
How
Taylor
Flynn
Styris
Fulton
McCullum
How
Taylor
Flynn
Styris
Fulton
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Flynn is in to cover for Ryder who has an ankle injury.
Flem274*
123/5
Its not ideal but we have an abundance of players that are good at batting 3-5 and no one apart from our wicket keeper who can bat at 7 now that Adams has gone and Franklin is injured. I definitely don't want Fulton at 6, he'd be worse than anyone else. Ideally I'd have Ryder or McCullum down there but McCullum has been great at the top of the order recently so putting him back down would make the opening stint a big waste of time. I can't see Ryder going down the order either and really his role shouldn't be changed so dramatically this early in his career, not that he's a number 6 anyway. Styris could maybe do it but why waste our best ODI batsman down there?
James Marshall, Hamish Marshall and Lou Vincent are the only three specialist batsmen suited to number 6 but unfortunately one is useless, one has turned their back on NZ and Vincent is in no mental condition for international cricket. Its a fustrating problem. Personally I think it was wrong to upset the balance of the side just so Ryder could open but now we've put him there chopping and changing the bloke will just undermine him.
sportychic33
State 12th Man
Why are some of you leaving Fulton in and taking How out?
How has more to offer to the team whereas Fulton looks completely out of place and is costing runs in the field. Domestically How hasn't been in too bad of touch and looked adequate in the Wellington game and the Christchurch Twenty20.
How has more to offer to the team whereas Fulton looks completely out of place and is costing runs in the field. Domestically How hasn't been in too bad of touch and looked adequate in the Wellington game and the Christchurch Twenty20.
Flem274*
123/5
Fulton hasn't been out of form, he just hasn't had a chance. Basically, we have three openers in the team, someone has to go. If a middle order player were to go I'd pick Taylor who has averages something like 29 since the carribbean. But of course he's the exciting young golden boy of NZ cricket..
For the sake of balance, either Ryder or McCullum must go down to 7 and we know that won't happen, or we drop one of Ryder or How and bring in Flynn or someone, or one of Taylor, Styris and Fulton is dropped.
Flem274*
123/5
To demonstrate our messed up balance:
1. Brendan McCullum number six, number seven, experimental opener
2. Jesse Ryder number three, number four, number five, number six, experimental opener
3. Jamie How opener
4. Ross Taylor Number three
5. Scott Styris number four, number five
6. Peter Fulton number three, number four
7. Jacob Oram number six
Quite a messy order. In order to fit all those players in the order would have to be:
Jamie How
Jesse Ryder
Ross Taylor
Peter Fulton
Scott Styris
Jacob Oram
Brendan McCullum
But can anyone see McCullum at seven again anytime soon after averaaging 5o odd opening? Thought not.
1. Brendan McCullum number six, number seven, experimental opener
2. Jesse Ryder number three, number four, number five, number six, experimental opener
3. Jamie How opener
4. Ross Taylor Number three
5. Scott Styris number four, number five
6. Peter Fulton number three, number four
7. Jacob Oram number six
Quite a messy order. In order to fit all those players in the order would have to be:
Jamie How
Jesse Ryder
Ross Taylor
Peter Fulton
Scott Styris
Jacob Oram
Brendan McCullum
But can anyone see McCullum at seven again anytime soon after averaaging 5o odd opening? Thought not.
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Oram is a good enough finisher for us, and so is McCullum, but he is opening now and doing somewhat a good job of it (though most of it has been at home).
The problem is, nearly everyone in the New Zealand side is batting out of their natural position, or where they are the most effective.
McCullum seems to have taken to opening, so he may as well continue. God knows we need a consistent opener.
How, when facing the very first ball of the innings, averages 59.25 (yet if he's #2 he averages just 18). His natural game is being an opener. Simply put, he should open. Though, his stint at number 3 has been alright, averaging 34.
Taylor is somewhat surprising. I thought his stats at 3 would be vastly better than 4 but it's not the case. He's played 12 innings at each position, scoring 5 more runs at 4 than 3. He's scored only 2 fifties at 4, while he's made both of his centuries and a 50 at 3. The problem is with him batting at 3 is that he's very inconsistent compared to batting at 4.. So, given that he seems to be vulnerable coming in at 3, I think he should continue batting at 4 for the time being.
Peter Fulton averages a whole 12 runs more at 4 than he does at 3 (49 compared to 37) but this is skewed by 2 not outs, without which he would average 38. I think he's got more experience and a better technique than Taylor to handle the number 3 role.
Scott Styris has played the bulk of his career at 4, 60 matches there compared to 25 at 5. His average in both positions is nearly exactly the same though, and given that he's more than likely to save an innings compared to Taylor or Fulton who are better suited to trying to set one up, he should bat at 5.
Oram is a bit of a tough choice. He's a big hitter and lately has placed some great innings. But when it comes down to it, I would rather have him at 7 than 6, if you were going to have a specialist batsman at 7 simply because apart from McCullum there is no one in the country who has the experience or the power to finish an innings like Oram.
So, I think Ryder should pay his dues at 6. So far watching him, he is obviously talented and I think he can find the gaps and also hit 4's when required. A prolonged run here would do him good IMO.
So on that, we should have:
1. How
2. McCullum
3. Fulton
4. Taylor
5. Styris
6. Ryder
7. Oram
8. Vettori (Franklin when fit)
9. Mills (Vettori^)
10. Patel (Mason when fit. Mills to bat here if Franklin also fit)
11. Martin (Mason if Franklin fit)
The problem is, nearly everyone in the New Zealand side is batting out of their natural position, or where they are the most effective.
McCullum seems to have taken to opening, so he may as well continue. God knows we need a consistent opener.
How, when facing the very first ball of the innings, averages 59.25 (yet if he's #2 he averages just 18). His natural game is being an opener. Simply put, he should open. Though, his stint at number 3 has been alright, averaging 34.
Taylor is somewhat surprising. I thought his stats at 3 would be vastly better than 4 but it's not the case. He's played 12 innings at each position, scoring 5 more runs at 4 than 3. He's scored only 2 fifties at 4, while he's made both of his centuries and a 50 at 3. The problem is with him batting at 3 is that he's very inconsistent compared to batting at 4.. So, given that he seems to be vulnerable coming in at 3, I think he should continue batting at 4 for the time being.
Peter Fulton averages a whole 12 runs more at 4 than he does at 3 (49 compared to 37) but this is skewed by 2 not outs, without which he would average 38. I think he's got more experience and a better technique than Taylor to handle the number 3 role.
Scott Styris has played the bulk of his career at 4, 60 matches there compared to 25 at 5. His average in both positions is nearly exactly the same though, and given that he's more than likely to save an innings compared to Taylor or Fulton who are better suited to trying to set one up, he should bat at 5.
Oram is a bit of a tough choice. He's a big hitter and lately has placed some great innings. But when it comes down to it, I would rather have him at 7 than 6, if you were going to have a specialist batsman at 7 simply because apart from McCullum there is no one in the country who has the experience or the power to finish an innings like Oram.
So, I think Ryder should pay his dues at 6. So far watching him, he is obviously talented and I think he can find the gaps and also hit 4's when required. A prolonged run here would do him good IMO.
So on that, we should have:
1. How
2. McCullum
3. Fulton
4. Taylor
5. Styris
6. Ryder
7. Oram
8. Vettori (Franklin when fit)
9. Mills (Vettori^)
10. Patel (Mason when fit. Mills to bat here if Franklin also fit)
11. Martin (Mason if Franklin fit)
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I would not pick Tuffey in a month of Sundays. Not these days anyway. He's not been the same player since his last injury. I would personally have Bond, Franklin and two out of Mason, Mills, Martin and Southee; depending on the situation. Ideally, Mason wouldn't ever be required and Martin has improved out of sight over the last 12 months, and appears to be a bit more injury resistant than your average Kiwi bowler. And I have NO doubts that O'BRIEN would have done better than Hitchcock.
Maybe until you are a better player than O'Brien you might want to consider stopping calling an excellent First Class bowler 'O'Diren'. Not only does it include the cliquey-ass 'Dire' but puts down an excellent servant to Wellington cricket; totally uncalled for.
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Yeah as much as I don't rate O'Brien he is far better than Hitchcock in my book.
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Tbf, I coined the term O'Diren because of his continued selection for the Black Caps despite the fact he's not international class.
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Not international class... yes. 'Dire'... no. And much, much better than Hitchcock as a bowler - regardless of how many wickets Hitchcock has 'bought' on the cheap in List A.
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Dire at international level, yes.
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
No (and I know what Richard's reply to this will be). He bowled well against Bangladesh in a test match at the Basin Reserve. Better than 'Dire' at international level, but not by much.