SIX specialist batsmen?! No thanks! Same for four specialist bowlers, actually. Five and three fits me, and an all rounder and wicket keeper to make the total.
Specialist batsmen: Richardson, Papps, Fleming, Astle, (McMillan), Styris
Specialist bowlers: Bond, Tuffey, Martin
Wicket keeper: McCullum
All rounder(s): Oram, (Cairns)
Cairns and McMillan are bracketed due to Cairns leaving at the end of the series.
Richardson and Papps really need to be kept as a duo. Advancing the game is one thing, but knocking off the batsman that is regarded as our finest test batsman by PwC and is probably our most consistent batsman for a long time... that's just unthinkable. Advance the game, yes. Kick the bucket, no. It's not like we have to field an ODI team - remember, when they say they want to advance the game, they don't mean to throw away steadiness altogether. Balance is the key. If we wanted to go strictly for advancing, we'd have Adams in our lineup - listed as an all rounder!
Also, we aren't following Australia in every way. We don't have those players, you can't do that. We don't have a Gilchrist - and don't even think about saying that McCullum or Nevin is capable of scoring in the way that Gilchrist does, because there has been nothing to support that at all. If we had a Gilchrist, it would be a different story. Also, our specialist bowlers don't bat as well as Aussie's do. Look at Warne - he can make a good knock if required. Can Tuffey, Martin, Bond? Hell no! We just don't have that stuff. Can Oram? Yes! Can Oram also take wickets? Yes! Unless Vettori reverses in a miracle that all NZ'ers hope for, back to his wicket-taking state, we will not have someone who can compare with Warne as a true strike bowler who can bat amazingly. Well, we have Cairns, but he's going out soon. Oram, in my opinion, can be classed in this way, though. He's a slightly better batsman than Warne and a less talented bowler, but it's an even trade.
To say we need to put power into our batting is correct. The way to do this is not to remove our all rounders and to not have a massive tail that is incapable of holding it's own. Batting down to #8 is good, batting down to #7 just doesn't cut it. Not when you don't have a truely world class batsman in your team, like a Lara or a Dravid or a Hayden. We can't make that kind of sacrifice. NZ is made up of a team - and all the people in the team play their roles, and they play them well. We need aggressive batsmen, yes, but we can't dismiss defensive batsmen altogether. We have good bowlers, yes, but you can't throw away your all rounders. We're doing wonderfully recently - why make such a change when you've found out what works for you? We don't need changes anymore! ...er, unless Vettori buggers around too long. Then we can throw him out. Eh heh. He doesn't work, he needs fixing. The rest of the team works - don't fix 'em.
EDIT: And I agree with PY - I'll say it again, dropping someone for their inability to convert 50's to 100's is crazy when they make that many 50's in the first place. Would you rather have someone who hardly ever fires and when they do, they pull it off big time? Like Sinclair? Okay, think series-wise. Sinclair makes one double century, the match is won. He gets 20 and 0 in the next two matches - we lose the series. Richardson make 80, 70 and 30. We win two matches, we lose one, we win the series. Consistency is invaluable. Of course, one player doesn't win a match, but you get the idea.
I'd like to see Papps and Richardson develop into the recognised opening partnership.
