***Official*** Pakistan in New Zealand 2016/17

[Mike5181]

He takes the wickets but Kuggeleijn seems to get smacked around a bit at Plunket Shield level. Good enough to be ahead of Southee, Henry or Ferguson? You'd think he'd be more in the conversation for the CdG/Neesham/Anderson allrounder role.

I like the batting in that side though, I think I'd go with the same.

 

[NZTailender]

I imagine Kuggeleijn would have a lot of run out problems when his partner says no but he hears yes

 

[Mike5181]

darrrrrrrrrk

 

[OverratedSanity]

I imagine Kuggeleijn would have a lot of run out problems when his partner says no but he hears yes

Oh ****

 

[Flem274*]

I imagine Kuggeleijn would have a lot of run out problems when his partner says no but he hears yes

!

 

[Athlai]

I imagine Kuggeleijn would have a lot of run out problems when his partner says no but he hears yes

Holy ****.

 

[morgieb]

I imagine Kuggeleijn would have a lot of run out problems when his partner says no but he hears yes

Probably not the most appropriate but

 

[straw man]

Munro, I really don't know. A great eye and superb ball striking ability no doubt, but whenever I've seen him at the international level his shot selection has been atrocious. Still, I think an extended run in the one day side would add to NZ's options and give us an idea of how he might go at test level.

Agree with this; with the question marks over how Munro's game translates to international level, I'd like to see him succeed in ODIs first.

 

[Blocky]

I imagine Kuggeleijn would have a lot of run out problems when his partner says no but he hears yes

Knowing a few of the guys he knows, the situation is a little more than the "females never do anything wrong, personal accountability doesn't apply to them and we hate all men equally" media are letting on.

 

[Blocky]

He takes the wickets but Kuggeleijn seems to get smacked around a bit at Plunket Shield level. Good enough to be ahead of Southee, Henry or Ferguson? You'd think he'd be more in the conversation for the CdG/Neesham/Anderson allrounder role.

I like the batting in that side though, I think I'd go with the same.

And yes, the way that Southee and Henry have bowled, he'd add something they don't have to the attack. Ferguson is another Milne, straight up and down at pace that doesn't hurry the batsmen despite looking great on the radar.

 

[SteveNZ]

Agree with this; with the question marks over how Munro's game translates to international level, I'd like to see him succeed in ODIs first.

Fair enough that you see it that way, but I don't know why it would be relevant. Manu would be batting at 5 in ODIs, he might come in from overs 30 and later. He might be thrust into a powerplay straight away, he might be there to make hay for 5-10 overs and score 40 off 20 balls, he might be a lot of things. One thing he is, is in coloured clothing with completely different circumstances. In the longest form, he comes out to bat 99 times out of 100 able to play truthfully to his plan (which he now has, as he's matured). To me, Nicholls has a season to show he's worthy of 5, or it becomes Colin's if he has another good Plunket campaign (although I'm not sure how much he will play with NZ commitments).

 

[Immenso]

Not just NZ commitments for Munro though anymore is it? Didn't he miss much of last Plunket overseas as a t20 pro? He's missed a lot of this season already (don't know why).

Seems he's taken his eye off higher honours (in test cricket) just exactly as the places are opening up.

 

[SteveNZ]

Not just NZ commitments for Munro though anymore is it? Didn't he miss much of last Plunket overseas as a t20 pro? He's missed a lot of this season already (don't know why).

Seems he's taken his eye off higher honours (in test cricket) just exactly as the places are opening up.

Injury, this year. Off-season surgery. I don't remember him missing Plunket Shield for non NZ reasons, March onwards was T20 World Cup and previous to that he played Sri Lanka and Pakistan did he not? I'm pretty sure he's dead keen to play Test cricket.

 

[hendrix]

Knowing a few of the guys he knows, the situation is a little more than the "females never do anything wrong, personal accountability doesn't apply to them and we hate all men equally" media are letting on.

The media is releasing information from the courts.

If there is media bias in the actual information that's release I would be a little surprised. Sure, headlines may get a bit racey...but what they're reporting tends to come direct from the court. I find that a bit more reliable than information from his mates.

I'm a bit confused by your second paragraph. The quotation marks aren't making sense to me.

 

[Blocky]

Go look at the other high profile man vs female court cases recently like the one over in the Gold Coast and how the media presented the court facts, versus how the judge and lawyers presented them.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

As for Taylor, diabetes ****s with eyesight.

Got any evidence going that Taylor's eyesight problems are anything to do with diabetes, or is this another insinuation about Taylor based on rumour and innuendo rather than facts? I've had similar eye problems before, but certainly don't have diabetes.

Anyway, just popping in. Great to see Jeet Raval go reasonably well in the first Test, but to those who are now making categorical distinctions between where his career trajectory will go in comparison with Martin Guptill's, let us not forget the heady path that Hamish Rutherspud took. Much like Icarus, Rutherford soared towards that 100 Watt lightbulb on the ceiling only to come crashing down and look distinctly poor. Obviously, I sincerely hope that Raval's career will be a step up, but I'll reserve judgement until he's played a few matches.

 

[SteveNZ]

Got any evidence going that Taylor's eyesight problems are anything to do with diabetes, or is this another insinuation about Taylor based on rumour and innuendo rather than facts? I've had similar eye problems before, but certainly don't have diabetes.

Anyway, just popping in. Great to see Jeet Raval go reasonably well in the first Test, but to those who are now making categorical distinctions between where his career trajectory will go in comparison with Martin Guptill's, let us not forget the heady path that Hamish Rutherspud took. Much like Icarus, Rutherford soared towards that 100 Watt lightbulb on the ceiling only to come crashing down and look distinctly poor. Obviously, I sincerely hope that Raval's career will be a step up, but I'll reserve judgement until he's played a few matches.

As much as I don't mind at all some of Blocky's work, some of it this diabetes horse **** makes the other stuff pale into insignificance. I've been diagnosed with surfer's eye before, and I went from being able to catch everything that came to me and seeing scoreboards across multiple fields, to wearing balls on the chest and failing eye tests for drivers license. I got mine most likely from not wearing sunglasses enough, as I'm sure Ross did too. It greatly affects depth perception, or at least it did with me over time. Fairly important asset in cricket, depth perception. You can get away with it when the ball's acting predictably, but as soon as slower balls, wrong uns etc come into the mix, you're ****ed. Equally, flat hard catches are okay because you act largely on instinct, but ones with more time to track always tended to go straight down for me.

Your reservation on Jeet is very much shared by me, incidentally. The poking outside off stump will reveal itself before too long, unless he's one of those very rare players who becomes a completely different proposition at a higher level.

 

[Zinzan]

Anyway, just popping in. Great to see Jeet Raval go reasonably well in the first Test, but to those who are now making categorical distinctions between where his career trajectory will go in comparison with Martin Guptill's, let us not forget the heady path that Hamish Rutherspud took. Much like Icarus, Rutherford soared towards that 100 Watt lightbulb on the ceiling only to come crashing down and look distinctly poor. Obviously, I sincerely hope that Raval's career will be a step up, but I'll reserve judgement until he's played a few matches.

See I don't think it's the actual runs Raval scored that has people bewildered in hindsight as to why we'd settled for someone so clearly below Test class as Guptill for so long. It's the fact Raval looked more suited to Test opening in both of those 2 innings than Guptill did in his whole Test career.

Nobody's saying Raval's the new left-handed Sunny Gavaskar, just that's it's nice to see a Test opener actually looking like a Test opener should... Something we never saw with Guptill.

Additionally, given we had the supposed world authorities & experts on NZ cricket telling us all Raval was a useless hack because he plays for Auckland, and how we should persevere with a below Test-class player instead, then of course a few feel it's worth vindicating that his selection was well overdue, even if he doesn't turn out to be that great.

The reality is he deserved this opportunity a long time ago, probably when Aust toured here last year.

 

[SteveNZ]

It's an interesting one. I said he should've played in India, or in fact should've been in bloody India to play. But he came back and got out in horrible ways, so I wasn't as keen anymore. Really, that was the selectors' fault for trying to be too smart, pretending Ronchi was a viable option as opener and that somehow Test cricket is a completely different beast in India.

Fortunately he showed more ability to leave outside off stump on debut, although they hardly made him do so for any period of time. Overall, he deserved the chance. He's a mature cricketer who's spent time crafting innings at FC level (who cares on what surfaces) and it's nice to be able to pick that sort of guy, as opposed to Tom who is still figuring out his game and has to do it at the top level.

 

[Athlai]

See I don't think it's the actual runs Raval scored that has people bewildered in hindsight as to why we'd settled for someone so clearly below Test class as Guptill for so long. It's the fact Raval looked more suited to Test opening in both of those 2 innings than Guptill did in his whole Test career.

Nobody's saying Raval's the new left-handed Sunny Gavaskar, just that's it's nice to see a Test opener actually looking like a Test opener should... Something we never saw with Guptill.

Additionally, given we had the supposed world authorities & experts on NZ cricket telling us all Raval was a useless hack because he plays for Auckland, and how we should persevere with a below Test-class player instead, then of course a few feel it's worth vindicating that his selection was well overdue, even if he doesn't turn out to be that great.

The reality is he deserved this opportunity a long time ago, probably when Aust toured here last year.

After Guptill scored a 156, 46, 50 and 1 against Sri Lanka? Definitely had a poor tour of AU but played a few good knows on his recall series in England the one prior. Guptill didn't deserve to be dropped when Australia tour here last. I'd definitely point the finger more at either before his recall in England or after Australia's tour here.