*Official* New Zealand in India 2010

[Athlai]

Hay goes into number 5 on the grounds of two strong seasons in domestic cricket to Daniel Flynn's one. I'd prefer to wait a year before blooding him, but all the other left field selections have worked this season, so why not one more?

Oddly prophetic considering this was months before his "blooding"

 

[Matt79]

Relax Matt. I made a joke about ANZAC and only your fellow mod Prince EWS got the joke. Flem got all uppity about the meaning.

I posted Styris stats, which I made the effort to look up, in a discussion on a cricket board. I cannot understand all the browbeating about him, because as the stats clearly show, he is no world superstar.

You made a derogatory joke, then posted the stats with a snide comment. Got no problem with banter, but generally to be considered banter rather than ****-stirring you need to be providing something constructive to proceedings as well.

 

[lockton2skipper]

styris would improve the current test team, end of.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Yeah reckon Styris will be a handful on those slowish pitches.When are New Zealand going to name their squad?Can't be long now with the first test starting in ten days.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah reckon Styris will be a handful on those slowish pitches.When are New Zealand going to name their squad?Can't be long now with the first test starting in ten days.

Today.

 

[NZTailender]

Flynn is ****house and is simply lauded for being a gritty cricketer because a ball hit him in the mouth. The amount of determined or "gritty" knocks he has played for NZ can be counted on one hand. I've always liked the look of Jamie How, flatters to deceive but he looks a cricketer who could go on. The likes of Flynn, Fulton, Ingram, McIntosh, Guptill et cetera are complete non-entities.

Agree with the others but Fulton is actually a very good batsman and his selection would not be unfounded. He's another classic example of being jerked around with his batting role and cut despite having the runs to back him up domestically.

Then you have guys like Flynn, Guptill, the Marshalls and plenty of others who do relatively **** all domestically, **** all internationally but still manage to get a run in the side for far longer than they should.

 

[Hurricane]

I used to be a big supporter of Fulton until I was watching that last test series - his foot movement was technically deficient. He can't play at test level unless he gets some batting coaching.
It is a concern to me that he is able to be successful at domestic level with his technique. And even though he is a lot better technique wise than Ingram. And I don't mean to lump them together. I will make the point that it seems to be that you can get away with a lack of technique at FC level in NZ. Same goes for Franklin.

I am not sure what the solution is - we need better bowlers at FC level to test the batsman.

 

[Athlai]

Fulton's feet didn't move because he was lacking in confidence. A lot of these blokes only really get going when confident, Franklin too.

 

[Woodster]

I used to be a big supporter of Fulton until I was watching that last test series - his foot movement was technically deficient. He can't play at test level unless he gets some batting coaching.
It is a concern to me that he is able to be successful at domestic level with his technique. And even though he is a lot better technique wise than Ingram. And I don't mean to lump them together. I will make the point that it seems to be that you can get away with a lack of technique at FC level in NZ. Same goes for Franklin.

I am not sure what the solution is - we need better bowlers at FC level to test the batsman.

With all due respect I think even the most technically proficient players in the NZ domestic league would have a challenge in coming upto scratch at the highest level, I don't think Fulton should be villified because of it. The problems clearly run deeper.

 

[Hurricane]

If its not lack of technique amongst our players - what is the problem that causes them to succeed domestically and then not step up. Athlai seems to think it is confidence...do you agree.

@ Athlai - my knee jerk reaction is to say that you shouldn't need confidence to have technique. It should be automatic from practising in the nets.

The only confidence issue I saw with my own eyes for sure - was Sinclair against Bangers a couple of years ago. He made 40 odd at the basin but got dropped multiple times. He just didn't commit to his shots properly. While Fleming played with authority and scored 80.

 

[Athlai]

Not trying to say he has a perfect technique, but it isn't as poor domestically as he has thus far displayed internationally.

 

[Bahnz]

If its not lack of technique amongst our players - what is the problem that causes them to succeed domestically and then not step up. Athlai seems to think it is confidence...do you agree.

@ Athlai - my knee jerk reaction is to say that you shouldn't need confidence to have technique. It should be automatic from practising in the nets.

The only confidence issue I saw with my own eyes for sure - was Sinclair against Bangers a couple of years ago. He made 40 odd at the basin but got dropped multiple times. He just didn't commit to his shots properly. While Fleming played with authority and scored 80.

I'd say its more a lack of talent and ability. It sounds harsh, I know, but lets look at the facts. New Zealand has a tiny player pool, and conditions that don't exactly foster the ability to play bounce and turn. Throughout its history (with the exception of the 1980's and the early 2000's when we had a healthy number of competent batsmen), New Zealand's never had more than a few international class batsmen in the team at any one time. That's the case now. We've got Taylor, Ryder, McCullum and Vettori (and maybe one day Williamson). But outside of them there's just no one else with the natural skills to take their game to the next level.

 

[BeeGee]

I'd say its more a lack of talent and ability. It sounds harsh, I know, but lets look at the facts. New Zealand has a tiny player pool, and conditions that don't exactly foster the ability to play bounce and turn. Throughout its history (with the exception of the 1980's and the early 2000's when we had a healthy number of competent batsmen), New Zealand's never had more than a few international class batsmen in the team at any one time. That's the case now. We've got Taylor, Ryder, McCullum and Vettori (and maybe one day Williamson). But outside of them there's just no one else with the natural skills to take their game to the next level.

BINGO! You can have the best technique and all the confidence in the world, but if you don't have the natural talent you will NEVER be a top class player.
People keep saying that the problem with NZ cricket is that our domestic competition isn't strong enough. That's not the problem, it's just a symptom of the problem. The real problem is that there aren't enough highly talented sports people being attracted to the sport of cricket in NZ.

 

[Flem274*]

If it was a size issue, then the West Indies would never have been as good as they were. The population vs talent pool argument is just an excuse we can pull when we play ****house and a way for Channel 9 and some Sky UK commentators to be patronising.

Fulton used to have very good foot movement. It was pretty Flemingesque actually. Go watch his batting in 2007 in ODIs. He was fine technically.

**** knows what happened after that. I suspect it was confidence loss.

Anyway, here's the squad to India.

Test Squad:Daniel Vettori (capt), Brent Arnel, Hamish Bennett, Martin Guptill, Gareth Hopkins, Chris Martin, Brendon McCullum, Tim McIntosh, Andy McKay, Jeetan Patel, Jesse Ryder, Tim Southee, Ross Taylor, BJ Watling, Kane Williamson.

http://www.cricinfo.com/india-v-new-zealand-2010/content/story/483282.html?CMP=chrome

I'm fine with most of it, but would not have taken Guptill or Martin.

 

[Flem274*]

Actually, the front foot hero might be a semi-decent pick. Not much backfoot play against fast bowling will be needed in India, so Guptill's front foot camping might be semi-effective.

However, there's other batsmen who should be on the plane before him.

 

[Prince EWS]

Actually, the front foot hero might be a semi-decent pick. Not much backfoot play against fast bowling will be needed in India, so Guptill's front foot camping might be semi-effective.

However, there's other batsmen who should be on the plane before him.

Guptill's back foot failings are vastly over-stated - he does have issues there but his technique isn't why he fails .. it's his shot selection and the fact that he has absolutely no idea how to construct an innings properly. Even if he played in a world where any ball that bounced above waist height was called a no-ball I still don't think he'd average more than 30 odd in Tests. A terrible pick regardless of the conditions and regardless of how good he looks.

 

[Flem274*]

Guptill's back foot failings are vastly over-stated - he does have issues there but his technique isn't why he fails .. it's his shot selection and the fact that he has absolutely no idea how to construct an innings properly. Even if he played in a world where any ball that bounced above waist height was called a no-ball I still don't think he'd average more than 30 odd in Tests. A terrible pick regardless of the conditions and regardless of how good he looks.

Those are issues as well, but if he was fine off the back foot he'd stay in long enough to actually construct an innings, rather than back foot flicking straight to the catcher.

Would benefit greatly from some time with Auckland.

But How, Sinclair or even bloody Flynn should have been on the plane ahead of him. There's no need for four openers in the side unless you're thinking of batting one in the middle order or at three (like How did in ODIs).

Martin Guptill will become the next Hamish Marshall if the selectors don't let him learn his game at FC and A team level.

 

[Prince EWS]

if he was fine off the back foot he'd stay in long enough to actually construct an innings

DWTA.

Guptill has stacks of potential but until he learns how to construct an innings properly he will never make consistent runs, regardless of whether or not he learns how to defend off the back foot. It frustrates me greatly when people talk about Guptill's back foot problems as if they are the root of all evil and he'd average 45 without them.

 

[Flem274*]

The top three is ****ed in terms of structure. McCullum needs to define how he's going to play. If he wants to try and be a Gayle/Sehwag/Jayasuria then he should open. If he wants to bat "properly" he goes at three.

I'd rather him open, rather than come out at 20/1 and try and hit sixes. That will make me facepalm. Plus, he's better at offense than defense so let him have a go at hitting, though it ****s Watling over because he'll have to bat at three and he's not exactly suited to it.

Williamson the obvious number three in the squad but I think he should bat six for a year or so, though since Sreesanth and Ishant are in **** form he only has Zaheer to combat if he batted three, so could be worse.

Vettori needs to bat seven to avoid the mother of all tails. Patel can sit it out because he's dire.

1. McIntosh
2. McCullum
3. Watling (ick)
4. Taylor
5. Ryder
6. Williamson
7. Vettori
8. Hopkins
9. Southee
10.Arnel
11.Bennett/McKay

Won't happen though. Martin will play, probably ahead of Arnel who is the vastly superior bowler. Patel will also play.

 

[Flem274*]

DWTA.

Guptill has stacks of potential but until he learns how to construct an innings properly he will never make consistent runs, regardless of whether or not he learns how to defend off the back foot. It frustrates me greatly when people talk about Guptill's back foot problems as if they are the root of all evil and he'd average 45 without them.

I think he'd stay in longer at the FC level (and test level) if he wasn't so ****house off the back foot. Then he'd have a much better foundation to learn how to construct an innings.

Was it Iain O'Brien who said everyone domestically knew to bowl short at him? Now that people know his weakness he won't stay in long enough most of the time.