southern man
U19 Cricketer
When McCullum was picked as an opener he was opening for Otago.
-
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* NZ Domestic Season
- Thread starter chris.hinton
- Start date
Tim
Cricketer Of The Year
McCullum has changed his batting approach alot since his early days for Otago. For Otago, he was opening & pretty much blazing at anything. These days he's batting lower & taking a far more measured approach.
I wouldn't rule out McCullum as an opener in the future..but I think if we get better options over the next few years he'd be fine at #5 or #6 anyway.
I wouldn't rule out McCullum as an opener in the future..but I think if we get better options over the next few years he'd be fine at #5 or #6 anyway.
Richard Rash
U19 Cricketer
Are you the same Darrin that rings up Darcy on radio sport at night?Darrin said:
*Official*NZ Domestic Season
Incidentally i hear that 'Radio Sports' ratings have plummeted mostly with Devlins ratings slipping to 1.9% in the mornings. Whats your impression of Tony Veitch? Who is your favourite host? Interested to hear the replys.
No i tend to listen throughout the day but don't listen at nights. No it's not the same Darrin.Richard Rash said:
Incidentally i hear that 'Radio Sports' ratings have plummeted mostly with Devlins ratings slipping to 1.9% in the mornings. Whats your impression of Tony Veitch? Who is your favourite host? Interested to hear the replys.
Personally, I absolutely cannot stand Telfer. It's pretty obvious he knows nothing about cricket. John Morrison is my favourite, he's great to listen to.
Australia has a better selection policy than we do, largely because they have more players to chose from. Excluding their openers (a very specialist position), their batsman are all top-order batsman who can bat anywhere. If you look at NZ we have all middle-order players. Who are our top-order batsman now? I'm talking test matches. We have Fleming, Sinclair and no one else. Astle, Styris and McMillan are middle-order batsman. Fleming is capable as a test match top-order batsman and I still believe with time and confidence, Sinclair could become our best batsman, despite his technique.
So that's two top-order batsman in the team. We can't follow Australia's lead by placing our new players in the middle-order (like a Clarke), because players like Astle and McMillan aren't good enough (technically, psychologically - whatever reason may be) to bat up the order. So our new players have that pressure of batting up the order. I think we really need to look at 4 top-order specialist batsman (including openers), which means Styris has to drop down the order.
The opening positions are still a huge worry, but it looks like Sinclair will continue unfortunately. I still think Fleming is the best bet as the other opener. Which then leaves us with two other top-order batsman to find. Fulton, Vincent, Marshall (who batted in the middle-order for ND recently) and Ryder are the only names that really come to mind. Out of them Fulton is the only really good possibility. I went through the recent domestic games and NZ really has a huge lack of top-order batsman.
So to find another top-order player I think we need to look at the current test side. Oram and McCullum are the two that really stand out to me. Oram has huge potential as we saw with that wonderful hundred against the Aussies, but McCullum has more experience against the new ball.
1) *Fleming
2) Sinclair
3) Fulton
4) +McCullum
5) Styris
6) Astle
7) Oram
8) Vettori
9) Franklin
10) Tuffey
11) Martin
So we still keep that long batting lineup Bracewell seems to love and we still have the 5 bowlers I think we need to win tests. Unfortunately Astle and Styris are still together in the order though.
Australia has a better selection policy than we do, largely because they have more players to chose from. Excluding their openers (a very specialist position), their batsman are all top-order batsman who can bat anywhere. If you look at NZ we have all middle-order players. Who are our top-order batsman now? I'm talking test matches. We have Fleming, Sinclair and no one else. Astle, Styris and McMillan are middle-order batsman. Fleming is capable as a test match top-order batsman and I still believe with time and confidence, Sinclair could become our best batsman, despite his technique.
So that's two top-order batsman in the team. We can't follow Australia's lead by placing our new players in the middle-order (like a Clarke), because players like Astle and McMillan aren't good enough (technically, psychologically - whatever reason may be) to bat up the order. So our new players have that pressure of batting up the order. I think we really need to look at 4 top-order specialist batsman (including openers), which means Styris has to drop down the order.
The opening positions are still a huge worry, but it looks like Sinclair will continue unfortunately. I still think Fleming is the best bet as the other opener. Which then leaves us with two other top-order batsman to find. Fulton, Vincent, Marshall (who batted in the middle-order for ND recently) and Ryder are the only names that really come to mind. Out of them Fulton is the only really good possibility. I went through the recent domestic games and NZ really has a huge lack of top-order batsman.
So to find another top-order player I think we need to look at the current test side. Oram and McCullum are the two that really stand out to me. Oram has huge potential as we saw with that wonderful hundred against the Aussies, but McCullum has more experience against the new ball.
1) *Fleming
2) Sinclair
3) Fulton
4) +McCullum
5) Styris
6) Astle
7) Oram
8) Vettori
9) Franklin
10) Tuffey
11) Martin
So we still keep that long batting lineup Bracewell seems to love and we still have the 5 bowlers I think we need to win tests. Unfortunately Astle and Styris are still together in the order though.
I don't really plan on waking up to Tony Veitch any time soon. I know TV1 are keen to tell us he was junior tennis player of some note, but he still strikes me as simply a kid who grew up watching sport on the couch, and isn't about to offer me any great insights. Devlin was able to get around any lack of knowledge with irreverence and humour, but I don't think Veitch is funny enough to do that.Darrin said:
Telfer seems like a jaded old fool whenever I listen to him lately! It's embarrassing the number of times he's not listening - asking a question when the person already mentioned the answer to about 30 seconds earlier. As Macca said he knows nothing about cricket, but that doesn't stop him pompously cutting anyone off if the dare to disagree with one of his opinions. Rather than increase his knowledge, it seems like after so many years he just does his job on auto-pilot these days.
I enjoy Graeme Hill but Phil Gifford seems like a soft touch, and I've only got a passing interest in rugby so I generally give his show a miss. D'Arcy seems to be a cricket nut, but I'm not often listening to radio during his timeslot.
Last edited:
how can it be a genuine long batting lineup with only 5 'specialist' batsmen, 2 of whom are 'converts' and 2 of whom are batting out of their preferred position/s, and there are NO specialist openers?????????????Macka said:
and you have 6 genuine bowling options counting Styris..................too many IMO - 2 could be part time options..............
I put the blame squarely at the selection panel...............if they hadn't been so preoccupied with.......Macka said:
* 'converts'
* allrounders
* replacing / inroducing new players only when they had to thru injury / retirement,
* a 5-5 split thus allowing for only 5 'specialist' batting positions
then IMO we'd be able to intro new batsmen lower in the order like AUS & allow them a series in the lower order to find their feet..............
well guess what boys - you have to do something drastic now....................
agreed - a bit like Daniel in the lion's den...........Darrin said:
I have no problem with McCullum being promoted as high as #4 provided it is not in lieu of selecting another specialist batsman - i.e we are not just moving him from #7 to #4...............
in fact given the current situation in the team I'd even look to do it asap while bringing in the new faces b4 AUS................
I should of added I'm not even happy with what I chose. I just don't see other options. Can you suggest who else is a top-order option? I don't see NZ chosing two new openers, so however you pick the team there will be someone out of position. Oram and McCullum are better batsman than almost anyone else in the NZ domestic scene. Peter Fulton is the only person who I think really deserves a spot in the team looking at his domestic performances. What I'm trying to show here is: there are no other top-order options around. If there were another top-order batsman who deserved their sport in the team, then sure NZ does need another top-order batsman.anzac said:
Regarding the openers: I don't want Sinclair to open, but it looks like he probably will. Who else is there to open? Papps isn't in form and I have reservations about his technique. How has thrown his name in with 3 centuries in two games, but would anyone have seriously considered him before that? From memory he didn't do that well against SA A and has been ok domestically, without being outstanding. Horne/Bell are old school, chosing them would be a backwards step. Vincent is a possibility, but he doesn't even open for Auckland anymore. Cumming seems to a very poor starter for an opener to me.
I don't regard Styris a genuine bowling options in test matches. He's useful and a very good ODI bowler. If the pitches are seemers then sure, but hopefully they won't be.
Well there was his stand with Danny Morrison, and his great innings in Perth. Frankly though I'm a bit disappointed I can't think of more innings where Astle clearly altered a test in NZ's favour. I even have to credit McMillan with two (74* at the Basin in a 4th innings chase v India, 142 in Colombo).Darrin said:
A friend of mine describes Astle as "McMillan in sheep's clothing". He's always banged on to me that despite being a nice guy plagued by injuries, Astle still lets us down quite a bit, and is actually no greater hero to NZ in tests than a certain reckless oaf.
Astle's test record is good by NZ standards historically, although IMO he's played during a period where the pitches and attacks have been pretty kind, and most of the world's batsmen have taken it up a notch.
If the likes of Scott Styris (hardly a batting prodigy) now expect a test average of 40+, I certainly wouldn't start telling Astle he's safe until retirement. With a guy like Fulton almost 26 y.o. with a 43 FC average, he's matched the apprenticeship Astle served and then some.
Last edited:
I see where you are coming from, but I also think that the 'failure' of domestic top orders is as much to do with the type of pitches we have had as opposed to anything else - hence the proliferation of middle & lower order players scoring runs once the ball gets on a bit...............Macka said:
On another thread I guess you could say I've actually taken a bit of an opposite tack & have looked to 'stack' the batting with top order players........Macka said:
primarily I have gone for those players who have shown good concentration by posting big tons (would have faced the entire bowling attack in the process), reasonable averages (given they face the new ball attack & fresh pitch), and they are still scoring runs over the past couple of seasons.........
these include the likes of Papps, How, McIntosh, Cumming, Vincent, Fulton, Gaffaney...........not all of them would make it depending on what balance & tactics you wanted..........on current form I actualy had something like..................
Fleming, Cumming, Sinclair, How, McCullum, Fulton, Styris, Oram..........with McIntosh & Gaffaney for consideration as well..........
*Official* NZ Domestic season
The depth that keeps being talked about on here is not quite there-never has been. I heard it described once well by Allen Macca- the cricket and league commentator saying 'Australia have a depth of talented players, we have SOME talented players'. I think that is well said.
Nathan Astle has scored 9 test centuries and 13 or 14 ODI centuries, we just cant afford to throw all that away because of some lofty notion or the latest theory thats been going the rounds. In my opinion, and i have always been a big Astle fan he happens to be our second best batsmen.
You guys keep banging on about players like mcintosh, gaffeney, cumming, ryder, taylor-the list goes on. But just because you score a century once in a while or show some 'promise' does not make you close to test consideration. What we need from those players is a greater maturity, knowing how to score a century, knowing how to get through difficult spells at the crease rather than flailing the bat and giving it away. Let me state that most of the players mentioned are talented but are young and have not matured yet.Kent said:
The depth that keeps being talked about on here is not quite there-never has been. I heard it described once well by Allen Macca- the cricket and league commentator saying 'Australia have a depth of talented players, we have SOME talented players'. I think that is well said.
Nathan Astle has scored 9 test centuries and 13 or 14 ODI centuries, we just cant afford to throw all that away because of some lofty notion or the latest theory thats been going the rounds. In my opinion, and i have always been a big Astle fan he happens to be our second best batsmen.
Will Scarlet
U19 Debutant
Not a bad team but I'd have How opening with Fleming, Sinclair at 4, Astle at 5, and McCullum at 6. Thus, leaving Styris out as he is not an all-rounder in test matches. And as was already said, "Five bowlers is enough".Macka said:
If you need part-time bowlers to rest the strike bowlers, then How and Fulton could potentially fill this. Not really there to break partnerships, as Styris doesn't.
No doubt Styris is a useful bowler. However I don't think he is good enough to be our 5th bowler, although I did think he bowled very well against England. If NZ is to look at winning tests I think we need 5 bowlers. I don't think we have the quality of bowling that is needed to have only 4 'strike' bowlers. Actually Wiseman could be pushing for that 5th bowler's sport.anzac said: