***Official**** Sri Lanka in New Zealand 2014/2015

[Zinzan]

I definitely agree that he hasn't taken his opportunity as yet but I strongly doubt whether anyone else would have done better. .

Well, Munro has done better in the limited opportunities he's had in the middle order...averaging 28 with a SR close to 100 IIRC, so you don't really need to theorise about it.

There's also often difference between what makes one a good test prospect & a good 'one-day' prospect (and T20 for that matter), and whilst Latham seems to have some great attributes for the test game ( good temperament, technique, shot selection & concentration) doesn't doesn't necessarily translate to the one-day game, which surely is fairly clear based on what he's delivered to date.

 

[hendrix]

[/B]
Well, Munro has done better in the limited opportunities he's had in the middle order...averaging 28 with a SR close to 100 IIRC, so you don't really need to theorise about it.

There's also often difference between what makes one a good test prospect & a good 'one-day' prospect (and T20 for that matter), and whilst Latham seems to have some great attributes for the test game ( good temperament, technique, shot selection & concentration) doesn't doesn't necessarily translate to the one-day game, which surely is fairly clear based on what he's delivered to date.

Latham 3 times as many shots as Munro. See my post above for a bit more of his power game.

Again, Munro will do a job but he's an extremely limited batsman and doesn't come close to the variety of innings that Latham can play.

 

[Zinzan]

Ridiculous post.

You post ONE innings where he executed some attacking shots and call my post ridiculous. You clearly win that battle. How ludicrous of me to actually judge him based on what he's achieved in ODIs so far, and he's had more than a couple of opportunities now.

I love Latham as a test player and as a general cricketing prospect, but right now, he's not a very good ODI batsman & I believe his selection was the least warranted in the squad by a long way, especially since Edgar didn't concur with the back-up opener thing, but instead just said he's a back-up keeper.

But don't let me stop the condescension.

 

[hendrix]

You post ONE innings where he executed some attacking shots and call my post ridiculous. You clearly win that battle. How ludicrous of me to actually judge him based on what he's achieved in ODIs so far, and he's had more than a couple of opportunities now.

I love Latham as a test player and as a general cricketing prospect, but right now, he's not a very good ODI batsman & I believe his selection was the least warranted in the squad by a long way, especially since Edgar didn't concur with the back-up opener thing, but instead just said he's a back-up keeper.

But don't let me stop the condescension.

chill out mate, wasn't calling you ridiculous, just the post. It was two innings, btw.

Other dubious squad calls:
- Milne
- Boult
- No Henry
- Injured, old Mills and Vettori
- Elliott

And you're calling the guy who's covering positions 1-5 + keeper the worst selection?

Milne and Boult's selection were no more warranted than Latham's. They're being picked because the selectors rate them. That may be unfair but it's pretty consistent with what they've been trying to do in the squad.

 

[Zinzan]

Just an aside, I'd still like to know if there's a special rule that a back-up keeper must be in the squad as opposed to just being available as a replacement.

If there is no such rule, it makes the Latham selection all the more nonsensical considering he or Watling could have been the back-up keeper (outside the squad) in the same way Henry is the no.1 back up for the pace bowlers.

The worst scenario then would be if Ronchi broke down mid game, McCullum would have to step up. Not ideal, I agree, but could be done and then either Latham (or I'd actually prefer Watling ) could be drafted in.

Again, I'm not clear on the rules around replacements.

 

[SteveNZ]

Fine to say he hasn't done much in his career as yet but he's very clearly the most talented batsman in the country who's not already firmly entrenched in the side. Fair enough if you want to pick the Elliotts or Munros or players that will do a job but Latham is covering wicket keeper plus the whole top order and he's doing that because he's a damn fine player.

I actually see his best position being #3, and we know that's not available. He just doesn't seem dominant enough to open, especially (and yes, no fault of his own) if it were to be with Gup in present all fours or all nothing form. Equally, he doesn't strike me as a #5 who can do required damage in a powerplay, at the death or turn the strike over regularly enough. I know his game looks like it should be as a strong single getter, but I'm not sure stats would bear that out.

But yeah, they invested in him at the back end of 2014, it hasn't really borne fruit and there's really nowhere else to go that looks any more promising.

 

[Zinzan]

chill out mate, wasn't calling you ridiculous, just the post. It was two innings, btw.

Other dubious squad calls:
- Milne
- Boult
- No Henry
- Injured, old Mills and Vettori
- Elliott

And you're calling the guy who's covering positions 1-5 + keeper the worst selection?

Milne and Boult's selection were no more warranted than Latham's. They're being picked because they're awesome players.

I'm chilled mate, just when I read 'ridiculous post' when it's clearly both a contentious & debatable point seemed a tad OTT.

 

[hendrix]

I actually see his best position being #3, and we know that's not available. He just doesn't seem dominant enough to open, especially (and yes, no fault of his own) if it were to be with Gup in present all fours or all nothing form. Equally, he doesn't strike me as a #5 who can do required damage in a powerplay, at the death or turn the strike over regularly enough. I know his game looks like it should be as a strong single getter, but I'm not sure stats would bear that out.

But yeah, they invested in him at the back end of 2014, it hasn't really borne fruit and there's really nowhere else to go that looks any more promising.

Pretty much agree with all of this, which is why he should be in the squad. If Williamson or Taylor go down, Latham is the best replacement. If one of the openers goes down, Latham is the best replacement.

McCullum-Latham opening partnership would be nice to see but it won't happen.

 

[Zinzan]

chill out mate, wasn't calling you ridiculous, just the post. It was two innings, btw.

Other dubious squad calls:
- Milne
- Boult
- No Henry
- Injured, old Mills and Vettori
- Elliott

And you're calling the guy who's covering positions 1-5 + keeper the worst selection?

Milne and Boult's selection were no more warranted than Latham's. They're being picked because the selectors rate them. That may be unfair but it's pretty consistent with what they've been trying to do in the squad.

I've expressed my massive disappointment in Henry missing out already in the other thread and how I would have much preferred him over Boult.

And if you really believe they seriously view Latham as 'cover' for positions 1-5, don't you think they would have tried him at least once as an opener in the UAE instead of wasting time with Brownlie & Devcich?

 

[SteveNZ]

Just an aside, I'd still like to know if there's a special rule that a back-up keeper must be in the squad as opposed to just being available as a replacement.

If there is no such rule, it makes the Latham selection all the more nonsensical considering he or Watling could have been the back-up keeper (outside the squad) in the same way Henry is the no.1 back up for the pace bowlers.

The worst scenario then would be if Ronchi broke down mid game, McCullum would have to step up. Not ideal, I agree, but could be done and then either Latham (or I'd actually prefer Watling ) could be drafted in.

Again, I'm not clear on the rules around replacements.

I'm not H.Lorgat (he still in charge?) but surely there's no distinction by the ICC between a replacement that wears gloves and one that doesn't. And I agree with you.

 

[Jimbo the giant]

Elliotts innings wasn't that bad to be fair. I've seen tons of worse innings. Guptill starts worse than that every game these days.

Im backing one of Latham or Elliott to get in decent form by the start of the WC. They don't have to be superstars they just have to play the role of strike rotator who can get the odd boundary. One of them will surely be able to make that role there own. They will both get more than enough opportunities.

 

[Jimbo the giant]

I don't really like the idea of playing to our strength and and batting nmac at 7. It really would put xtra pressure on the top order and I still rate Latham/Elliott a level or 2 above nmac. I don't think NMacs bowling would add that much extra we could just bowl Kane more.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Power Papps to open and B Mac to 5 obvs.

 

[Hurricane]

Elliotts innings wasn't that bad to be fair. I've seen tons of worse innings. .

Elliott should head straight to the team psychologist's office to debrief about that inning because a normal coach wouldn't know where to start dissecting what was wrong with that knock. I guess he got an ok sweep shot away to fine leg for a single but even that was ill advised given how long he had been out there for.
Let me do some mental calculations here. I was out of the country for 15 years so although I am in my 40s I have only seen about 17-18 years of cricket. Each year I would watch about say 10 tests, 20 ODIs and 10 T20 matches from all around the world. That is 90 innings - lets call it an even 100 innings for ease of calculation. 100 innings X 6 top order batsman = 600 top order innings X 18 years = 10 800 top order innings in my life of watching. That Elliott innings was the worst out of 10 800 innings. Second worst goes to Suresh Raina when he was bowled by Patel in a test trying to slog a six when singles were fine.

Even when jamie howe scored 3 off 40 balls in an ODI before getting bowled he played some good looking defensive strokes.

 

[GGG]

Why would McCullum move to 4? Latham replaces Williamson at 3, everyone else stays in their normal position (Elliot stays at 5).

Because he is a opener whereas McCullum can bat in the middle and would slot into number 5 when Williamson comes back. If he comes off it solves the problem.

 

[GGG]

I'm not buying Latham. He's played 21 innings, and only one of them has been of any real quality - and it was a 23-over game. I don't want him anywhere near our best XI.

I agree, he shouldn't have even been in the squad but he is there so should be given a chance at the top.

 

[Howsie]

Elliotts innings wasn't that bad to be fair. I've seen tons of worse innings. Guptill starts worse than that every game these days.

Hmmm, I wonder.....

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Elliott should head straight to the team psychologist's office to debrief about that inning because a normal coach wouldn't know where to start dissecting what was wrong with that knock. I guess he got an ok sweep shot away to fine leg for a single but even that was ill advised given how long he had been out there for.
Let me do some mental calculations here. I was out of the country for 15 years so although I am in my 40s I have only seen about 17-18 years of cricket. Each year I would watch about say 10 tests, 20 ODIs and 10 T20 matches from all around the world. That is 90 innings - lets call it an even 100 innings for ease of calculation. 100 innings X 6 top order batsman = 600 top order innings X 18 years = 10 800 top order innings in my life of watching. That Elliott innings was the worst out of 10 800 innings. Second worst goes to Suresh Raina when he was bowled by Patel in a test trying to slog a six when singles were fine.

Even when jamie howe scored 3 off 40 balls in an ODI before getting bowled he played some good looking defensive strokes.

What about Jeets' craven effort in South Africa?

 

[Hurricane]

Hmmm, I wonder.....

His join date is Jan 2014, I wondered as well.

 

[Hurricane]

What about Jeets' craven effort in South Africa?

Of recognised batsman.