-
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*** New Zealand in South Africa
- Thread starter James
- Start date
Langeveldt
Soutie
I have McCullum opening in Brian Lara Cricket on the PC..
He scored a breezy 30 the other day
He scored a breezy 30 the other day
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
Hello all
There've been a couple of posts on it already, but what does everyone think should happen to the NZ top order after their awful display at centurion? There's been a lot of talk about the weak opening combination and the inability of the bowlers to close out the saffies in their second innings, but these were always going to be weaknesses and everyone knew it.
IMO what really let us down was the experienced batsmen - Fleming, Styris and Astle.they should have been a strength but were instead a weakness scoring a grand total of 31 runs between them for the loss of 6 wickets.
Ironically the player most likely to be dropped (Marshall) managed to score 31 runs by himself! What an effort!
I think at least one of Papps/How should be and will be brought in for the next match, but I'm not sure how the rest of the top order should be rearranged. Some people suggest an extra batsman could be brought in for a bowler, especially if Bond returns - however I think this is asking for disaster given how injury prone he is, and if he doesnt play we will need all the bowlers we have to try to take 20 wickets.
I think Fulton deserves another chance, but maybe not as opener. I am a big fan of Marshall, but in all fairness Bracewell can't keep playing him until he starts scoring runs again; which he hasn't for the last 12 months. Also, having him play (and fail) as an opener won't do anything for his career when he wants to play in the middle order. But it seems lately that either you play as a makeshift opener or you don't play at all - see Vincent, Sinclair, even James Marshall.
As for what should happen to the underperforming experienced batsmen, I'm not sure myself - Fleming has probably played the worst of those three lately, which is something he needs to fix fast. Astle has just come back from being dropped and proved himself again when he did. As for Styris... I would be disappointed to see him dropped, but he does look vulnerable the way he plays alongside the ball and gets caught behind the wicket.
So anyway, this post seems to grown into quite a long one... What do you think?
There've been a couple of posts on it already, but what does everyone think should happen to the NZ top order after their awful display at centurion? There's been a lot of talk about the weak opening combination and the inability of the bowlers to close out the saffies in their second innings, but these were always going to be weaknesses and everyone knew it.
IMO what really let us down was the experienced batsmen - Fleming, Styris and Astle.they should have been a strength but were instead a weakness scoring a grand total of 31 runs between them for the loss of 6 wickets.
Ironically the player most likely to be dropped (Marshall) managed to score 31 runs by himself! What an effort!
I think at least one of Papps/How should be and will be brought in for the next match, but I'm not sure how the rest of the top order should be rearranged. Some people suggest an extra batsman could be brought in for a bowler, especially if Bond returns - however I think this is asking for disaster given how injury prone he is, and if he doesnt play we will need all the bowlers we have to try to take 20 wickets.
I think Fulton deserves another chance, but maybe not as opener. I am a big fan of Marshall, but in all fairness Bracewell can't keep playing him until he starts scoring runs again; which he hasn't for the last 12 months. Also, having him play (and fail) as an opener won't do anything for his career when he wants to play in the middle order. But it seems lately that either you play as a makeshift opener or you don't play at all - see Vincent, Sinclair, even James Marshall.
As for what should happen to the underperforming experienced batsmen, I'm not sure myself - Fleming has probably played the worst of those three lately, which is something he needs to fix fast. Astle has just come back from being dropped and proved himself again when he did. As for Styris... I would be disappointed to see him dropped, but he does look vulnerable the way he plays alongside the ball and gets caught behind the wicket.
So anyway, this post seems to grown into quite a long one... What do you think?
Smudge
Hall of Fame Member
It's staggering that the selectors (or at least Bracewell (who apparently makes almost all the decision making on the panel) saw fit to take two specialist openers over and then decided to use neither of them in the first test. The fact they took them suggests the management team was concerned about the combination at the top, yet when given the opportunity, they don't pick How or Papps.
Instead, they're now forced to fly Mason over as a back-up for Bond, when they could have brought a seamer over originally anyway (although not Mason as he was initially injured - there's a surprise for a Kiwi seamer). Comical Braces continues to baffle.
Instead, they're now forced to fly Mason over as a back-up for Bond, when they could have brought a seamer over originally anyway (although not Mason as he was initially injured - there's a surprise for a Kiwi seamer). Comical Braces continues to baffle.
sirjeremy11
State Vice-Captain
I have a feeling I would like John Wright to either coach the test side or open for them.
Why not Marshall? He stuck it out alright, but the way he was out finally was similar to pretty much every recent dismissal of his I've seen. It was a disappointing end to his innings. I'm a fan of his, but he obviously has problems, and I don't think his opening is going to help him get over them.James said:Welcome to the forums straw man
I think the batting lineup will remain exactly the same for the 2nd Test. If you were to bring in How and/or Papps who would you drop? There's no way Marshall will be dropped and I somehow doubt Astle or Styris would be dumped.
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
I think Bracewell is damned if he does drop Marshall for How/Papps and damned if he doesnt. I personally am not sure... Just out of interest, if an opener was to be brought into the side... should it be How or Papps? I think Marshall should probably be left out - its the end of the season and too late to play himself into any form. Does anyone know if he's playing county cricket? Hopefully he'll fix up his game and play better next season.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Mark Richardson is over there commentating too. If we could conscript him into the team and somehow conjure up John Wright out of thin air that would be ideal. 30/0 after 20 overs would have been great in that second innings. Kill two birds with one stone - wouldnt have to listen to Richardson commentating any more either.sirjeremy11 said:
Smudge
Hall of Fame Member
TT Boy
Hall of Fame Member
From BBC Sport
South Africa have dropped experienced batsman Herschelle Gibbs for the two remaining Tests in their home series against New Zealand.
He made only six and two in the first Test at Centurion Park, a game South Africa won by 128 runs.
"We had a meeting and agreed that a break and a fresh start next season will do him a world of good," said chief selector Haroon Lorgat.
Hashim Amla may replace Gibbs for the second Test, which starts on Thursday.
It would be Amla's first opportunity since the home series against England over a year ago and a reward for domestic form, which saw him score over 890 runs in the Supersport Series at an average of 55.
South Africa have also left seam bowler Garnett Kruger out of the squad for the Tests at Cape Town and Johannesburg.
He had been in line to win his first cap in the opening game against New Zealand but a shoulder strain put paid to his chances.
"With the outstanding performances of Makhaya Ntini and Dale Steyn in that match, and with Andre Nel in reserve, we have decided to release him," Lorgat added.
"At the start of the series we carried an unusually large squad of 16 players. We are now able to reduce the squad to 14 players and will reduce it further to 13 for the last Test."
New Zealand, meanwhile, have called up seam bowler Michael Mason to provide cover for Shane Bond, who missed the first Test because of a knee problem.
South Africa squad: G Smith (capt), J Kallis, B Dippenaar, A Prince, AB de Villiers, J Rudolph, H Amla, M Boucher (wkt), S Pollock, N Boje, A Hall, M Ntini, D Steyn, A Nel.
Pretty drastic and stupid in my opinion dropping Gibbs, how can Ashwell Prince retain a spot and Gibbs can't also why is Rudolph still in the squad? Gibbs should have been slotted down the order to bat at five not dropped, AB was giving another go lower down and impressed Gibbs could have as well, very strange indeed.
South Africa have dropped experienced batsman Herschelle Gibbs for the two remaining Tests in their home series against New Zealand.
He made only six and two in the first Test at Centurion Park, a game South Africa won by 128 runs.
"We had a meeting and agreed that a break and a fresh start next season will do him a world of good," said chief selector Haroon Lorgat.
Hashim Amla may replace Gibbs for the second Test, which starts on Thursday.
It would be Amla's first opportunity since the home series against England over a year ago and a reward for domestic form, which saw him score over 890 runs in the Supersport Series at an average of 55.
South Africa have also left seam bowler Garnett Kruger out of the squad for the Tests at Cape Town and Johannesburg.
He had been in line to win his first cap in the opening game against New Zealand but a shoulder strain put paid to his chances.
"With the outstanding performances of Makhaya Ntini and Dale Steyn in that match, and with Andre Nel in reserve, we have decided to release him," Lorgat added.
"At the start of the series we carried an unusually large squad of 16 players. We are now able to reduce the squad to 14 players and will reduce it further to 13 for the last Test."
New Zealand, meanwhile, have called up seam bowler Michael Mason to provide cover for Shane Bond, who missed the first Test because of a knee problem.
South Africa squad: G Smith (capt), J Kallis, B Dippenaar, A Prince, AB de Villiers, J Rudolph, H Amla, M Boucher (wkt), S Pollock, N Boje, A Hall, M Ntini, D Steyn, A Nel.
Pretty drastic and stupid in my opinion dropping Gibbs, how can Ashwell Prince retain a spot and Gibbs can't also why is Rudolph still in the squad? Gibbs should have been slotted down the order to bat at five not dropped, AB was giving another go lower down and impressed Gibbs could have as well, very strange indeed.
Quotes from Fleming and Vettori.
Taken from here:
"That was my decision," said Fleming. "It was such a bizarre game and Kyle's such a defensively sound player that we thought we had nothing to lose by pushing him up the order.
A better technique than Fleming? I wasn't aware of Mills having top-order experience at the international level, let alone facing the new ball or even on a pitch like that.
"He's wasted at 10, and we felt that if he could help us get through what was the most difficult stage - it could create better opportunities for the guys who followed."
Another huge misconception we have in this country. Kill Mills is not wasted at 10 in our batting line-up. All players above him are better batsmen, and hence they should be batting higher. It's really that simple.
"We made the call purely from the point of view that we felt the toughest time would be against the new ball," Vettori said. "Most of our batsmen are middle-order batsman and putting Kyle in at No 3 had the effect of pushing everyone back into their normal positions."
I had this strange thought of, I don't know... playing top-order batsmen in top-order positions instead of middle- and lower-order players. I know it's way out there, but humour me by thinking about it for a second.
These comments coming from our captain and Vettori are excuses for their coach's inept, inconsistent selection policy. And what's more, they're excuses hiding the fact that Fleming is unwilling, and probably incapable, of standing up as a batsman in our Test side.
Taken from here:
"That was my decision," said Fleming. "It was such a bizarre game and Kyle's such a defensively sound player that we thought we had nothing to lose by pushing him up the order.
A better technique than Fleming? I wasn't aware of Mills having top-order experience at the international level, let alone facing the new ball or even on a pitch like that.
"He's wasted at 10, and we felt that if he could help us get through what was the most difficult stage - it could create better opportunities for the guys who followed."
Another huge misconception we have in this country. Kill Mills is not wasted at 10 in our batting line-up. All players above him are better batsmen, and hence they should be batting higher. It's really that simple.
"We made the call purely from the point of view that we felt the toughest time would be against the new ball," Vettori said. "Most of our batsmen are middle-order batsman and putting Kyle in at No 3 had the effect of pushing everyone back into their normal positions."
I had this strange thought of, I don't know... playing top-order batsmen in top-order positions instead of middle- and lower-order players. I know it's way out there, but humour me by thinking about it for a second.
These comments coming from our captain and Vettori are excuses for their coach's inept, inconsistent selection policy. And what's more, they're excuses hiding the fact that Fleming is unwilling, and probably incapable, of standing up as a batsman in our Test side.
oz_fan
International Regular
Yet they continue to stick with Smith who has failed all summer. You would think by now that the SA selectors would either drop him from the team so he can regain his form or take away the responsibility of being captain. Kallis did an ok job in the third test against Australia, maybe that is the better option for SA.
Even Gibbs has failed throughout the year in tests so have many SA batsmen (Gibbs, Prince, Smith, Rudolph). I am suprised that they continue to stick with Prince when Gibbs is an experienced member of the team. Anyway at least they have made some changes. It will be good to see how Amla goes.
Last edited: