*Official* - Pakistan in New Zealand 2010/2011

[Xuhaib]

Umer Gul getting bowled's always makes me happy it seems the action is coming right for him.

 

[NZ Guy]

Would he? Because we've seen plenty of players struggle at the top level for New Zealand in the past couple of years, get dropped, go back to domestic cricket and pile on the runs, and still come back the same inept players they were when they left. Why is that likely to change with Guptill?

In an ideal world Martin Guptill probably would not have made his test debut yet, but he has, and in a sad way he's made a much better fist of it then a lot of others that have been tried before him by averaging 33 so far - albeit averaging 250 against Bangladesh. Stick with him as long as possible imo, even if it's mightly frustrating at the moment.

Yes. Yes. YES.

Marry me?

 

[Howsie]

Is Guptill going to be one of the 6 best Test bats in the country in a few years time though?

Definitely should be in there for limited overs, Tests I'm not so sure.

Perhaps, right now you'd have to think there's a pretty good chance he will be, of course I'm expecting improvement in his game when I say that, which we should all probably expect given his age and experience.

 

[Mike5181]

Would he? Because we've seen plenty of players struggle at the top level for New Zealand in the past couple of years, get dropped, go back to domestic cricket and pile on the runs, and still come back the same inept players they were when they left. Why is that likely to change with Guptill?

In an ideal world Martin Guptill probably would not have made his test debut yet, but he has, and in a sad way he's made a much better fist of it then a lot of others that have been tried before him by averaging 33 so far - albeit averaging 250 against Bangladesh. Stick with him as long as possible imo, even if it's mightly frustrating at the moment.

AWTA...time and time again we have gone back to players producing mountain loads of runs in domestic and they get found out on the international stage..Guptill hasn't done overly bad so why drop him.

 

[Hurricane]

Don't bat Franklin at 3 please.
I have a theory that experienced players like Franklin through force of experience, and confidence can score big runs at the FC level even if they have a dodgy technique (think Ingram) - but find it hard to replicate that same confidence at International level due to the higher standard of play and find that technique is more important.

All this said - I had reservations about McCullum opening because I thought he would play all sensibly/defensively and get himself out - and he came good. So maybe Franklin can surprise at 3. But I doubt it. If I was forced to pick between Guptil's and Franklin's technique I would pick Guptil. Both have deficiencies however.

 

[Flem274*]

The only two players we've gone back to who score mountains of runs are Sinclair and Fulton. None of the openers, Marshall or Vincent score truckloads year after year. I'm not sure even single opener averages over 40 domestically.

Guptill needs time in the middle and runs under his belt imo, and he's more likely to get that at a lower level.

I just find it amusing we're bending over backwards to protect a guy who has scored runs consistently at any level he's played in since hitting the scene, and in the process we're screwing over a young opener who hasn't even scored many runs domestically by batting him at three in tests, a position I doubt he's the best option for in the first place.

By that logic, Guptill is expendable despite being an opener, which has been a bastion of strength in the NZ side over the last five years.

Our domestic cricket may not be great, but if a guy can't score runs there then how is he going to score runs at the highest level? It's pick a random and hope for the best stuff, which is how we ended up picking Daniel Flynn, James Marshall and Ian Butler.

 

[Mike5181]

The only two players we've gone back to who score mountains of runs are Sinclair and Fulton. None of the openers, Marshall or Vincent score truckloads year after year. I'm not sure even single opener averages over 40 domestically.

Guptill needs time in the middle and runs under his belt imo, and he's more likely to get that at a lower level.

I just find it amusing we're bending over backwards to protect a guy who has scored runs consistently at any level he's played in since hitting the scene, and in the process we're screwing over a young opener who hasn't even scored many runs domestically by batting him at three in tests, a position I doubt he's the best option for in the first place.

By that logic, Guptill is expendable despite being an opener, which has been a bastion of strength in the NZ side over the last five years.

Our domestic cricket may not be great, but if a guy can't score runs there then how is he going to score runs at the highest level? It's pick a random and hope for the best stuff, which is how we ended up picking Daniel Flynn, James Marshall and Ian Butler.

Guptill was picked in the world ODI eleven the year he debuted...that is why he was picked in the test team.

 

[Flem274*]

Guptill was picked in the world ODI eleven the year he debuted...that is why he was picked in the test team.

Guptill is one of our best ODI batsmen available, I'm not disputing that.

But look at the difference between his List A and FC record for Auckland:

List A: The Home of CricketArchive

First Class: The Home of CricketArchive

I realise I'm in a minority by wanting guys to earn their call ups, and keeping ODIs and tests sort of separate. I didn't complain at the start of the Guptill test experiment because

a) he had some ODI runs
b) there's not much else when it comes to openers

But the two formats do present different challenges, and when the test experiment didn't work it was time to let him go back to Auckland and score some runs (but keeping him in the ODI side of course).

Runs and time in the middle are what he needs more than anything else imo, at least this is what I think from watching him. He has two centuries in FC cricket, and that's not enough long innings for mine to be confident he's up to speed with batting for that long and producing it on a consistent basis.

I think it's only a matter of time before he comes good in the long format, but he should spend that time at an easier level so it happens faster.

 

[_Ed_]

I do agree that he shouldn't have been selected when he was, but he's not really doing that badly at the moment - averaging 33 overall, and 27 in the series in India. I'm not sure there's anyone who could do that much better, especially if Ryder's not fit.

 

[Mike5181]

Any thoughts on Raval? His statistics are pretty good and he is only 22. Another year or two of Macintosh and he might get a shot.

 

[NZTailender]

Without Guptill:

Baz
Mc'Tosh
Broom
Taylor
Ryder
Williamson
McGlashan
Vettori
Southee
Boult
Arnel

There, I said it.

 

[_Ed_]

Any thoughts on Raval? His statistics are pretty good and he is only 22. Another year or two of Macintosh and he might get a shot.

Still has a lot to prove.

If he makes a ton on a Basin greentop, I'll start to get a bit excited.

 

[Mike5181]

I always liked the look of Broom but he is more of a 4/5/6 batsmen and that is the only positions in the side we are fine tbh. His FC record is good as well.

 

[Mike5181]

Still has a lot to prove.

If he makes a ton on a Basin greentop, I'll start to get a bit excited.

I could probably see our batting order looking something like this in a couple of years.

1. McCullum
2. Raval
3. Williamson
4. Taylor
5. Ryder
6. Guptill
7. Vettori
8. Wicketkeeper+
9. Southee
10. Wagner
11. Milne

Just mucking around with the bowlers only really Southee and maybe Wagner will be there.

 

[Howsie]

.The only two players we've gone back to who score mountains of runs are Sinclair and Fulton. None of the openers, Marshall or Vincent score truckloads year after year. I'm not sure even single opener averages over 40 domestically

Every single player that gets dropped forces his way back into the team through domestic performances, whether or not they average 100+ plus it doesn't matter, they score runs to get back into the team. What bothers me is that seems to be the only criteria, should they not have to improve technically as well? In recent times there have been a lot more then just two players who've been dropped from the team, scored runs domestically, and brought back into the team only to still have the same weaknesses in their game.

Guptill needs time in the middle and runs under his belt imo, and he's more likely to get that at a lower level.

He's more likely not going to be tested at that level either and get away with some of his current deficiencies.

Our domestic cricket may not be great, but if a guy can't score runs there then how is he going to score runs at the highest level? It's pick a random and hope for the best stuff, which is how we ended up picking Daniel Flynn, James Marshall and Ian Butler.

Funnily enough Daniel Flynn is probably one of the better batsmen to have come into this New Zealand team in the recent past, going by stats anyway. His average during the time he played really does put a lot of the heavy run scorers to shame.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I'd still take Graeme Aldridge over Brent Arnel. Especially in home conditions.

 

[Bahnz]

He's more likely not going to be tested at that level either and get away with some of his current deficiencies.

Given that he averages under 30 in FC cricket, I'm gonna say its challenging enough for him as things are. An average of 24 against non Bangladesh countries after 12 matches isn't hard to improve upon either.

 

[Flem274*]

Every single player that gets dropped forces his way back into the team through domestic performances, whether or not they average 100+ plus it doesn't matter, they score runs to get back into the team. What bothers me is that seems to be the only criteria, should they not have to improve technically as well? In recent times there have been a lot more then just two players who've been dropped from the team, scored runs domestically, and brought back into the team only to still have the same weaknesses in their game.

They certainly should improve technically if there is a deficiency there.

Who are these blokes btw? It's been mainly Sinclair, Franklin and Fulton on the roundabout in the recent past.

He's more likely not going to be tested at that level either and get away with some of his current deficiencies.

That is a risk, but I'd prefer that to his current situation. At least if he smashes it domestically and struggles on recall he'll deserve to be persisted with. At the moment we're batting an opener with very few domestic runs at three, with questions over his shot selection and backfoot defense, and we're hoping he'll learn how to get past these deficiencies while still scoring some runs in the hardest level of cricket. I don't think it's fair on the bloke.

Funnily enough Daniel Flynn is probably one of the better batsmen to have come into this New Zealand team in the recent past, going by stats anyway. His average during the time he played really does put a lot of the heavy run scorers to shame.

Flynn had one big season and little else prior to call up. I can't recall off the top of my head what he's done after being dropped but he did have a lean patch after his dropping iirc.

In any case, unless the players name is Taylor, Ryder, Vettori, McCullum or Williamson, being one of the better batsmen in the NZ test side doesn't mean much. If you're talking FC then I disagree, he wasn't one of the better batsmen there either.

Flynn showed potential, but his technique slowly unravelled along with his confidence and I suspect a large part of it was he was called up too early.

 

[Flem274*]

New Zealand v Pakistan: Daryl Tuffey replaces Andy McKay in Test squad | Cricket News | New Zealand v Pakistan | ESPN Cricinfo

Wish the selectors would make their minds up on Tuffey. Didn't they just drop him?

Anyway, it appears the selectors aren't willing to punt on Milne in tests as well as 20/20s just yet.

Boult and Aldridge must be getting close to the test side seeing as they're popping up in NZ A and practice games a lot.

EDIT: Hasn't Tuffeh taken bugger all wickets this year?

 

[Bahnz]

Flynn showed potential, but his technique slowly unravelled along with his confidence and I suspect a large part of it was he was called up too early.

I don't think it was just getting called up. He handled some tough jobs at number 6 against Australia and England with a great deal of competence. It was only when he was unwisely elevated to number 3 that everything fell apart. Should serve as a good warning not to get too cute with Kane Williamson whilst he's still in the very early stages of his career.