**Official** New Zealand in South Africa

[Bahnz]

Gutted that Guppy couldn't make a score, but not the least bit surprised either. I really don't want Watling moved up the order in tests, at least not yet. Opening at the top is obviously much tougher than sliding in at no. 6, and Watling's only just reestablished himself in the side in the last 3 or 4 months. Would've liked to have seen him open in the 2nd innings, just to give him a chance in a pressure free situation, but oh well.

Starting to worry about Williamson again. Deserves the home series against England to prove himself at the top, but if he fails, it might be time to slide him back down the order (or maybe give him a rest completely - hopefully he picks up a county contract so that he can work on his game over the winter).

Side v England

McCullum, ???, Williamson, Taylor, Brownlie, Ryder (yeah right), Watling, Martin, Bracewell, Southee, Boult

 

[Neil Pickup]

Bracewell will take him back to Gloucester, you'd think?

 

[Binkley]

Gutted that Guppy couldn't make a score, but not the least bit surprised either. I really don't want Watling moved up the order in tests, at least not yet. Opening at the top is obviously much tougher than sliding in at no. 6, and Watling's only just reestablished himself in the side in the last 3 or 4 months. Would've liked to have seen him open in the 2nd innings, just to give him a chance in a pressure free situation, but oh well.

Starting to worry about Williamson again. Deserves the home series against England to prove himself at the top, but if he fails, it might be time to slide him back down the order (or maybe give him a rest completely - hopefully he picks up a county contract so that he can work on his game over the winter.

Yep. I agree on all points. Guptill and Williamson are both having very poor tours. I think Williamson has struggled with facing such a new ball. Better protection in the way of an opener who can last 15 overs might help. Alternatively, he probably needs to drop down the order. But unfortunately, I don't think we really have anyone else with the talent to fill the number 3 spot at the moment (Ryder apart).

Surely Guptill's problems must just be mental? He did really well in the West Indies against some pretty decent opening bowlers - and when he is on form he certainly looks the part.

I have heard people suggest that both Brownlie and Watling be promoted in the order. But I think they should both remain where they are, and where they are scoring runs. Brownlie does have a good back foot technique (and sometimes looks shaky against the spinners), but I am not sure how well he will cope when the ball is swinging.

The options for the batting order from 1-3 look ridiculously slim.

 

[Prince EWS]

It sticks out like a sore thumb that Williamson is going to bat #3 for New Zealand in the long term and there are really no good alternatives anyway, so I really don't see the sense in jumping at the option to move him down the order whenever he's struggling. He may average 3 or 4 runs more at 5 right now than he would at 3 but, assuming Taylor comes back against England and Ryder may be back in the next couple of series, there's a far bigger need to plug a gap in the top three and, as I said, it's obviously he's going to be there long term anyway. It makes more sense to develop his skills there and help him work through the issues he faces; he'd be worth a lot more as a good number three than yet another technically loose lower middle order player down the track anyway.

You can't solve all your problems with selection, particularly in the way of shuffling the deck chairs. In fact, in New Zealand's case at the moment, very very few problems can be solved by selection. Williamson has been very poor on this tour and repeated dismissals off that forcing off side back foot drive he plays are worrisome, but that doesn't mean it deserves a selection response. He should have the coaching staff work with him on the problem and the hierarchy back him. We're often reluctant to offer up this sort of potential solutions as fans because we can't actually do them ourselves so to speak, but Williamson needs to be persevered with at 3 and just improve some aspects of his game. We're not talking about Guptill or Flynn here.

 

[BeeGee]

Yep. I agree on all points. Guptill and Williamson are both having very poor tours. I think Williamson has struggled with facing such a new ball. Better protection in the way of an opener who can last 15 overs might help. Alternatively, he probably needs to drop down the order. But unfortunately, I don't think we really have anyone else with the talent to fill the number 3 spot at the moment (Ryder apart).

Surely Guptill's problems must just be mental? He did really well in the West Indies against some pretty decent opening bowlers - and when he is on form he certainly looks the part.

I have heard people suggest that both Brownlie and Watling be promoted in the order. But I think they should both remain where they are, and where they are scoring runs. Brownlie does have a good back foot technique (and sometimes looks shaky against the spinners), but I am not sure how well he will cope when the ball is swinging.

The options for the batting order from 1-3 look ridiculously slim.

Brownlie can't stay where he is, he's batting four which is Taylor's position.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's interesting in that I don't think I'd get many (any?) disagreements at this point if I said the best seven batsmen in New Zealand were (in no real order) Taylor, Ryder, McCullum, Williamson, Brownlie, Watling and Vettori. Given there's a wicket keeper and a couple of players who can bowl in that lot it should make picking the team pretty easy, but there are still so many problems with that.

• Convincing Taylor to play
• Convincing Ryder to play
• Getting Vettori fit
• Finding two players who aren't keeping wicket to open
• Finding someone to bat number three
• Finding the best way to actually develop Williamson's talents

It means we'll probably see quite a different mix of players for the foreseeable future.

 

[Bahnz]

I agree that shuffling the deck chairs won't help much. Our problem is that while that top 7 looks pretty decent, none of them are openers. In Taylor, Brownlie, McCullum and Ryder we've got 4 batsmen that are ideally suited to batting in the 4/5 spot, but whom would probably (no probably about it in McCullum's case) struggle if they were elevated to an opening position.

I also really don't think the captaincy is helping McCullum's batting at all. Having to bat with responsibility has always been anathema to him, and now that he's being forced to do so he's not coping with it at all well. The difficult thing is that he's still clearly the best opener we have, even if he is only averaging in the high 20's. I think McCullum himself is really starting to tire of the opening experiment, but with Guptill surely about to be dropped from the test side (surely...) can the side afford him to drop him down to number 6? Raval and Brodie to open, anyone? The return of Sinclair the opener possibly?

It's good to see Brownlie putting up runs against the best seam bowling attack in the world. Really hope he continues the form against England, but Graeme Swann will provide a much sterner test of his technique against spin than Robin Peterson did (although Swann's lack of a doosra may make things a bit easier for him).

 

[NZTailender]

BJ & Brownlie, what guns. Don't think Watling should go up the order, still. If he can keep doing this then he'll be very valuable at 6, far more than Vettori IMO. Have a few headaches for the England series, though, mostly regarding openers and the compisition of the middle order when Taylor returns to 4...

 

[straw man]

It sticks out like a sore thumb that Williamson is going to bat #3 for New Zealand in the long term and there are really no good alternatives anyway, so I really don't see the sense in jumping at the option to move him down the order whenever he's struggling. He may average 3 or 4 runs more at 5 right now than he would at 3 but, assuming Taylor comes back against England and Ryder may be back in the next couple of series, there's a far bigger need to plug a gap in the top three and, as I said, it's obviously he's going to be there long term anyway. It makes more sense to develop his skills there and help him work through the issues he faces; he'd be worth a lot more as a good number three than yet another technically loose lower middle order player down the track anyway.

While I agree there's no point moving Williamson down the order there's also no guarantee he will be successful in the long term at 3 either. He's often compared to a young Martin Crowe however I wonder at times if Ken Rutherford will end up being a more appropriate comparison - another undeniably talented batsman selected young, who liked to cut a lot and had real problems prodding outside offstump.

Having problems with judging the moving ball on and outside off and deciding which to play and which to leave are not going to be an easy-fix. It's noticeable that even in Williamson's two centuries to date he's played and missed quite a lot and edged some that didn't quite go to hand - so he needs luck to get through that first period.

Still only 22 and a lot of guys develop a lot around 23-24 where they really take ownership of their own games, so next couple of years are crucial if he's to avoid the Rutherford path.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

McCullum
Watling
Williamson
Taylor
Ryder
Brownlie
Ronchi
Vettori
Bracewell
Southee
Boult

 

[jcas0167]

For England series:

Guptill/Rutherford (depending on respective form before series)
McCullum
Brownlie
Taylor
Williamson (better equiped to handle Swann & Panesar than Brownlie)
Watling
B Martin (assuming Vettori is unavailable)
Bracewell
Southee
Boult

12th Man: McCleneghan

 

[Bahnz]

McCullum
Watling
Williamson
Taylor
Ryder
Brownlie
Ronchi
Vettori
Bracewell
Southee
Boult

Looks a decent team, but:

a) I don't think Watling should open until his position in the side is well established (at least a full year of cricket).

b) It looks increasingly likely that Ryder won't be coming back anytime soon.

c) Reckon Vettori's just about past it.

 

[Binkley]

I didn't see much of the SA innings, how did Wagner bowl?

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Sorry to bust your bubbles guys but the team we will field wont be anything along those lines. This isn't a troll i legitimately believe something like this will happen.
Fulton
Watling
Williamson
Taylor
McCullum (he doesnt want to open remember)
Brownlie
Ronchi
Bracewell
Southee
Boult
Patel (unless Vettori recovers)
The only problem with this is that there is no room to fit to fit Franklin in .

 

[Immenso]

For England series:

Guptill/Rutherford (depending on respective form before series)
McCullum
Brownlie
Taylor
Williamson (better equiped to handle Swann & Panesar than Brownlie)
Watling
B Martin (assuming Vettori is unavailable)
Bracewell
Southee
Boult

12th Man: McCleneghan

You'd rather play with 10 players than select Franklin, Munro or Guptill?

 

[Blain]

Looks a decent team, but:

a) I don't think Watling should open until his position in the side is well established (at least a full year of cricket).

b) It looks increasingly likely that Ryder won't be coming back anytime soon.

c) Reckon Vettori's just about past it.

You might be right about Vettori, but he stills offers a hell of alot more than Patel does. Martin does't fill me with confidence either, but a fit Vettori would easily be our best spinning option, and it would be nice to have him batting at No 8. Especially in home conditions where pitches aren't great normally for spin anyway.

Re Watling, I dont think he should be opening either. He has moved away from the role with ND also, 5-6 seems to work for him. Why change if it aint broken (even though the rest around him is). Rutherford isn't ready for tests, would love to see him in the one dayers. Hopefully he can get a few nice scores in FC cricket to get his average back up. Raval has been in good touch, though ditto as Rutherford.

If Vettori is fit and Ryder wants to smash England, I would like to see;

McCullum
Guptill.......
Williamson
Taylor
Brownlie
Ryder
Watling
Vettori
Bracewell
Southee
Boult

Milne
Munro
Ronchi
Wagner/Gillespie (if he is fit and firing, which is unlikely)

 

[wellAlbidarned]

nooooo not three seamers and ****ing vettori again. Dan has to play in a five man attack, he's too unthreatening. One thing in common with all our recent victories (yes, there's two) is a lack of Vettori and the prescence of four full time wicket-taking quicks. Not Franklin, not Munro, but four real bowlers.

 

[Prince EWS]

nooooo not three seamers and ****ing vettori again. Dan has to play in a five man attack, he's too unthreatening. One thing in common with all our recent victories (yes, there's two) is a lack of Vettori and the prescence of four full time wicket-taking quicks.

You didn't play four quicks against Sri Lanka tbh.

 

[straw man]

I think the difference is that now I'm reasonably confident in the three seamers that we have, they're not completely hit-and-miss like Gillespie and 12-months-ago-Southee and we're not leaving anyone like Boult on the sideline. It's still not ideal I agree and surely depends too on who that 4th seamer would be. A fully fit Gillespie might tempt me back to 4 pure seamers. Maybe even Milne though it's hard to be confident of his fitness.

More likely, we'd prefer a bowling all-rounder. As there aren't really any of those I would bracket Ryder, Munro and perhaps Neesham together as the batsmen-who-bowl of varying levels - so the 4th seamer most likely to be one of them.

Stealing Blain's team and modifying slightly:

McCullum
Guptill....... Flynn
Williamson
Taylor
Brownlie
Watling
Vettori
Ryder/ Munro/ Neesham/
Bracewell
Southee
Boult

Not that Ryder would bat at eight of course, even if he returns as a lower-order slogger. But that's the sort of role we need. Would like Watling to remain at six and Vettori at seven.

With great reluctance I'd send Flynn up to open. Though have been very disappointed with him this SA series.

Of course probably neither Vettori or Ryder will be there so that throws out the balance again.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

You didn't play four quicks against Sri Lanka tbh.

True. We did have four genuine attacking bowling options though, so Astle can be considered an erratic quick. Point is we didn't play with the standard three seamers and one defensive spinner setup which has never really delivered much in the way of batting or bowling imo.