*Official* Group B Discussion - South Africa, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, England

[straw man]

What a joke. One tournament-ending injury per match before or during each match currently - wonder who will be next to break something.

The herald article said Redmond will arrive 7 hours before the next match after flying 24 hours. Bat first, tell him to hit out for a quick 50 and then he can have a nap and we'll get Patel to field . Please let Butler be healthy too.

 

[straw man]

Just for fun, how about an 11 excluding Redmond if he's not up to it and Butler (who according to cricinfo has lost 7-8kg).

Guptill
McCullum
Broom
Taylor
Elliott
Vettori
Franklin
Diamanti
Mills
Patel
Bond

Wow, dire.

 

[Hurricane]

A 70% Butler is probably still better than Diamanti.

Who should we call in for Tuffey?
O'Brien? Southee? N.Mac?

The bleeding heart part of me is feeling sorry for Diamanti. He went over to SA with the understanding that he was a back up player. Then he got passed over in favour of Hopkins when Oram got injured. Then he got passed over in favour of flying in Franklin all the way from England. Now he is going to be passed over in favour of playing a 70% fit player Butler. This is not a good ego boost for him. And now with Tuffey down we are talking about flying in another bowler who will also be selected ahead of him for the semis should we reach that stage.
He should not have been picked for this tour if we weren't ever going to use him.

I agree that we should have picked a backup batsman for this tour and said that right at the start.

 

[Days of Grace]

Is it just me or is playing in South Africa a curse for New Zealand?

Anyone remember the most injury-hit tour in history in late 2000?

How about late 2007?

It is a curse, I know it.

 

[nz0003]

Just for fun, how about an 11 excluding Redmond if he's not up to it and Butler (who according to cricinfo has lost 7-8kg).

Butler should be right, but it doesn't affect the fact that we have no more decent top order batsman to pick. I'd be in favour of batting Vettori at 3, he's in awesome form and always puts a price on his wicket. Someone like Broom wouldn't last there, and Taylor I think is better at 4, because of his late order hitting.

1. McCullum
2. Guptill
3. Vettori
4. Taylor
5. Elliot
6. Broom
7. Franklin
8. Mills
9. Diamanti
10. Butler
11. Bond

Still ****, but I still don't rate England. Should be an interesting game.

 

[Hurricane]

Butler should be right, but it doesn't affect the fact that we have no more decent top order batsman to pick. I'd be in favour of batting Vettori at 3, he's in awesome form and always puts a price on his wicket. Someone like Broom wouldn't last there, and Taylor I think is better at 4, because of his late order hitting.

1. McCullum
2. Guptill
3. Vettori
4. Taylor
5. Elliot
6. Broom
7. Franklin
8. Mills
9. Diamanti
10. Butler
11. Bond

Still ****, but I still don't rate England. Should be an interesting game.

I wouldn't be surprised if they went back to Hopkins again. Or has he ruined it for himself after his poor last showing.

 

[Days of Grace]

I'd rate Anderson very highly with the new ball against Vettori coming in at no.3.

 

[straw man]

Butler should be right, but it doesn't affect the fact that we have no more decent top order batsman to pick. I'd be in favour of batting Vettori at 3, he's in awesome form and always puts a price on his wicket. Someone like Broom wouldn't last there, and Taylor I think is better at 4, because of his late order hitting.

1. McCullum
2. Guptill
3. Vettori
4. Taylor
5. Elliot
6. Broom
7. Franklin
8. Mills
9. Diamanti
10. Butler
11. Bond

Still ****, but I still don't rate England. Should be an interesting game.

Don't agree with Vettori at 3 - like DoG says someone like Anderson will rip him out and then who will partner Elliott to save our bacon later? Would rather they sacrifice Broom up there. Or hell, Patel or ****kins if we have to play them.

 

[Athlai]

McCullum
Guptill
Taylor
Elliott
Broom
Franklin
Vettori
Mills/Diremanti
Butler/Mills
Patel/Butler
Bond

If we want hitting go to Diamanti, if we think the pitch will spin we need Patel.

 

[Days of Grace]

Whichever way it goes, Franklin will have to take responsibility batting at no.6.

Broom will never have a bigger opportunity to state his case.

I don't want Taylor at no.3. We are not Australia so we cannot afford the luxury of our best batsmen potentially going out in the first 5 overs.

 

[Uppercut]

Taylor's very reliant on boundaries to score quickly so it makes sense to bat him at 3 so he's in for the boundaries.

I find Taylor very underwhelming. Don't rate him much higher than someone like Paul Collingwood. If he's your best batsman you're in deep ****.

 

[Zinzan]

SA

Tad childish for the VP isn't it?

 

[Flem274*]

In tests he's pretty underwhelming, nothing wrong with him in ODIs though. Who would you rate our best bat in ODIs?

Spose you could say Elliott, but he's pretty new tbh.

My team would be:

McCullum
Guptill
Taylor
Broom
Elliott
Franklin
Vettori
Diamanti/Patel
Mills
Butler
Bond

Have I missed anyone that wont be half asleep (Redmond)?

Broom given a go at four to see what he's like away from the number six possie. May even be in during the powerplays. According to commentators Elliott is known for saving Wellingtons bacon on numerous occassions (certainly does it for us) so he stays at five as either the accummulator or the arse saver.

Redmonds selection is not the right one imo. He's not very good at List A at all. Sure records can deceive (like Ryder's) but an average of 23 when the likes of Watling have come off good seasons and have better records is a strange call. I could understand if this was a test match but I don't get this call.

EDIT: and alternative (that will never happen) is:

Guptill
Redmond
Taylor
Broom
Elliott
McCullum
Franklin
etc

 

[Days of Grace]

McCullum coming in at no.6 and no.7 makes that lineup look so much better. It means we get two good bites of the cherry to score quickly at the start and end of the innings.

Mills won't come off every time. It would be foolish to rely totally on him to hit the boundaries at the end.

 

[DIRK-NANNES]

Redmonds selection is not the right one imo. He's not very good at List A at all. Sure records can deceive (like Ryder's) but an average of 23 when the likes of Watling have come off good seasons and have better records is a strange call. I could understand if this was a test match but I don't get this call.

He would have been selected because he has been training and playing cricket with Otago in Oz, and has international experience along with regular A team experience.
Plus he can bowl a few overs of legspin.

The chance of throwing someone like Watling in at the deep end coming off well is too small to risk.
Plus, they would have hoped Redmond had arrived earlier

 

[Zinzan]

I find Taylor very underwhelming. Don't rate him much higher than someone like Paul Collingwood. If he's your best batsman you're in deep ****.

Pretty condescending comment tbh given he has a better ODI batting record than every English player with the exception of Pietersen (who a birdy once told me wasn't actually English...jokes). Averages around 38 has a strike rate of around 83 & has score 2 of his 3 hundreds to date against SL & Aussie attacks.

Whether he's clearly our no.1 is debatable with some possibly suggesting Guptill or even Ryder, but if not no.1, surely amongst to top 2-3. Not sure we're really in deep **** if he's our best.

Who do you think is NZ's best ODI batsmen atm then?

 

[Flem274*]

You do realise Uppercut's going to claim his legitimate Irishness?

 

[Uppercut]

In tests he's pretty underwhelming, nothing wrong with him in ODIs though. Who would you rate our best bat in ODIs?

Ryder's miles better than Taylor.

Taylor's scored a few runs against the West Indies, and very occasionally, Australia. Horrendous flop everywhere else. Record only marginally better than that of (for example) Paul Collingwood, I'd say he's no better than decent. He's benefited from being one of the more talented young players in a weak side, but what makes him so underwhelming (as opposed to just bad) is that he doesn't seem to be improving in the slightest.

 

[Uppercut]

Pretty condescending comment tbh given he has a better ODI batting record than every English player with the exception of Pietersen (who a birdy once told me wasn't actually English...jokes). Averages around 38 has a strike rate of around 83 & has score 2 of his 3 hundreds to date against SL & Aussie attacks.

Whether he's clearly our no.1 is debatable with some possibly suggesting Guptill or even Ryder, but if not no.1, surely amongst to top 2-3. Not sure we're really in deep **** if he's our best.

Who do you think is NZ's best ODI batsmen atm then?

Haha, you Kiwis don't like criticism of your players huh.

I haven't much interest in the stats of ODI batsmen because they're so easily skewed, but Taylor averages 32.75, SR 79 against test nations minus Bangladesh. Compare to, say, the much-maligned Owais Shah, who after a similar number of matches batting in similar positions averages 31.75, SR 79. I think they're really quite similar players.

The difference is that Taylor is younger, so people expect him to improve. Unfortunately, he's been around for a while now and shown no signs that he's getting any better. The other difference is that Kiwis tend to get behind their players whereas the English tend to criticise theirs heavily and unfairly. Net result, Taylor's overrated and Shah's underrated.

But at least he doesn't run his partner out all the time.

 

[Uppercut]

You do realise Uppercut's going to claim his legitimate Irishness?

Haha, indeed, where does this impression of me as an England fan even come from?!