Loony BoB said:
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.
whoa there pardner.........if you read my earlier posts you'll find that our ideas aren't that dissimilar - in reality I'm just expanding on this new tactic NZ seem to want to persue to 'advance the game'
1 - if McMillan / Astle / Styris is used to replace Cairns, then IMO that makes 6 batsmen...........
2 - agreed re balance - just commenting on Bracewell's comments re team over individuals & not sure Richardson can come to the party.............& I never advocated to have another 'allrounder' / 'slogger'........
3 - not advocating to follow AUS in every way - but they are the 'blueprint' as such. In my earlier threads I expressed my concern re McCullum at 6 because he isn't a Gilchrist........
4 - Richardson, Papps, Fleming, Styris, Astle, McMillan, McCullum, Oram = batting depth to 8 (Warne bats at 8 for OZ) - if Vettori plays we have batting down to 9!!!
5 - my point is that with the retirement of Cairns we don't need to replace him with another allrounder - unless we use a batsman who can provide another type of bowling option such as part time spin.........Oram I consider to be a bowling allrounder - not by his talent / background, but by the role he plays as first change seam bowler.....hence my assertion that he should be counted as a 'specialist' bowling option........
6 - re your edit - other options other than Sinclair - How, Fulton, Taylor or even Marshall & Vincent..........
7 - Actually NZ rarely wins more than 1 Test per series, if we did then I doubt that we'd be haing this converasation - that is part of the problem & more often than not the rot starts at the top of the order.....again if Papps fires up & Richardson can continue then again the point could become irrelevant........
I'm actually thinking along the lines of a "horses for courses' type approach to team / squad selections - pick the players best suited to achieve the task at hand - not necessarily those who are in the team now etc........use players 'strengths' & avoid their 'weaknesses' when possible......
during Howarth's Captaincy NZ used to select speicalists for where they were touring or even for the type of game / opposition. I remember J Reid being selected as opener v India because he was a good player of spin, yet being dropped for the subsequent tour to WI because of his vulnerability to pace (I think that was the tour K Rutherford got his berth).........
most teams do this nearly every match to some degree re their bowling selections - spin, swing etc, so for the life of me I fail to understand why we do not do this for the batting...........I understand we need continuity & consistency & I'm not advocating wholesale changes per match, but the current reality is that we do not have world class batting & our domestic pitches place us at a disadvantage when overseas...
eg - Sinclair, Vincent & Marshall appear to prefer the ball with pace & bounce - they prefer to be able to use the pace from the ball as opposed to needing to generate it themselves, Macca has been described as being the opposite - likes it a bit slow & low so he can get into & under it & use his power - the same perhaps can be said of Oram...
with a 5 man batting lineup I would not advocate this approach, but with 6 you can change your options re a player in your middle order by changing your squad - eg for this tour perhpas you'd leave out the likes of Sinclair / Vincent / Marshall from your squad consideration, but players like Fulton / How become more viable on 'fresh' pitches, yet the opposite could apply if the tour was in late summer.....same theory for where ever you are playing..........
other teams either have the class players and / or distinct advantages when playing at home - NZ currently has neither and must consider tactical options..
I'm very surprised Moody didnt strengthen the batting pre-season. Although a slight up note is we have (in my opinion) the best lower order in england, Bichel, Batty, Kabir, Hall and Rhodes can all play well with the bat.