** Official ** Sri Lanka in New Zealand tour

[anzac]

Anzac i don't agree with you, the reason for our recent poor performances in tests (apart from this test) has been our bating is way too negative and we simply focus and occupying the crease.
The days we play more strokes, we win those matches.
Also bowlers have been more at fault than batsmen anyway.

I don't think the tactic has been to simply occupy the crease - it may have become that as a stalling tactic to try and play out time (esp v AUS & when they are in trouble in the 2nd innings).............

I still maintain that prior to Oram's injury we mainly used a 5-5 split - with Rigor opening at 1 end this placed a lot of pressure on the other opener to score at a good pace, & usually that role fell to a 'convert'..........then the 3 man middle order had Flem, Styris, Astle or Macca - for me they are all aggressive batsmen, but IMO only Flem has the technique to bat above #5,

& it has been this lack of technique that has bogged down the batsmen as they do not have the skills (or chose not to use them) to rotate the strike & work the ball for singles rather than 'stand & deliver'...........

then you get into the balance of the lineup & batting order - too many players of the same type in succession from #4 Styris down to #7 McCullum - yes there are differences but IMO the similarities outweigh these & it becomes too easy for the opposition to work their game plans...........

and then we can talk about domestic pitches with the intnl pitches provided being of a better standard than the players are normally accustomed to IMO..............

lastly this season has seen enforced changes & AUS, both of which will have had unsettling effects - as such they probably didn't get into the groove until the 2nd Test v SRL.........

 

[psxpro]

"but IMO only Flem has the technique to bat above #5, "

Styris has proved he is good enough at 4.
He came in at 12/2 and got 170. It was better than any test innings ive seen fleming play

 

[meatspx]

I like the looks of H Marshall batting at #3 in tests & ODIs, moving him up to open in tests and moving him down in ODIs to 5-6 would be a bad move. Currently he comes in (usually after the first few overs) and has lots of time to craft an innings, moving the ball around the park picking up singles. Fleming needs to be given a break, batting when the side is 100-2 is good for him as he is more involved in the development of the innings/game. This could also help his captaincy.

The problem once again is that we have too many middle order batsman (Astle, Styris, Vincent). Perhaps Vincent will have to bite the bullet on the head and start opening again in tests - he could do this if he's in form and has the "right" mental approach, but it's a risk. I'd say keep the batting order as it is, and look to change when either Cumming or J Marshall stop scoring runs.

In the ODI side I think we need a change at the top. Here's a possibility: lets throw one of our many middle order batsman into the opening position with Astle.

Either Styris, Cairns, McCullum or Vettori.

I'd go with Styris, he likes to hit the ball over the top, and likes to face fast bowling (too many times he unsuccessfully tries to slog spinners, re: Giles. Boje). Perhaps Cairns is an option is he doesn's start contributing with bat. Even Vettori would be a good movel; quite clearly he's a WASTED batting talent down the order.

Also interesting that you guys are intested in having the 4 specialist bowlers in tests, with Oram as a third seamer. I really think we need another bowler, as we have struggled to dismiss sides of late.

 

[psxpro]

I don't think having 5 bowlers is going to improve our chances really

 

[Ming]

Saying that Fleming is the only one with the technqiue to bat above 5 is ludicrious, seeing he got exposed opening and batting at 4 during the summer. Hamish Marshall has shown he has the technique to bat 3. Having 5 bowlers will increase our chances of taking 20 wickets of course, why do you not think so?

Styris can hit spinners, and I've seen him many a time hitting over the top over mid on region.

Meatspx, why do we need a change at the top of the order in ODIs? Astle and Fleming gives us a solid foundation along with Marshall to work from.

What's the point of moving Vincent to opening? Stupid idea. He's a middle order batsman, and has shown and said it's his best position by scoring 999 runs this summer. By far his best season in his life, yet people consider moving him back to open where he had moderate success. Odd.

 

[Will Scarlet]

When are people going to realise that make-shift openers are not the solution. We will still be looking for openers in a few years time if we fail to select specialist openers. IMO How, Cumming, J Marshall, and Gaffeney are the only players worth looking at to fill the role at present.

And would people stop harping on about Styris' 170 versus SA last summer on a fairly flat track. If NZ wants middle order batsmen who are capable of playing on bouncy tracks in SA then Fulton and Sinclair - who were the best performed batsmen in the SA 'A' series - should be considered.

 

[Ming]

Yep Scarlet. Also Cairns and Oram smacked centuries on that deck as well. Had it not been for Martin's swing bowling on that morning, there wouldn't have been a result in that Test.

 

[Blaze]

Yep Scarlet. Also Cairns and Oram smacked centuries on that deck as well. Had it not been for Martin's swing bowling on that morning, there wouldn't have been a result in that Test.

Oram didn't get 100

 

[Somerset]

When are people going to realise that make-shift openers are not the solution. We will still be looking for openers in a few years time if we fail to select specialist openers. IMO How, Cumming, J Marshall, and Gaffeney are the only players worth looking at to fill the role at present.

And would people stop harping on about Styris' 170 versus SA last summer on a fairly flat track. If NZ wants middle order batsmen who are capable of playing on bouncy tracks in SA then Fulton and Sinclair - who were the best performed batsmen in the SA 'A' series - should be considered.

Matthew Sinclair also has experience of playing test cricket in South Africa, and during the last tour managed 150 runs. But unless injuries occur he won't be selected even with your theory about bouncy tracks - ditto with Peter Fulton.

 

[Somerset]

Yep Scarlet. Also Cairns and Oram smacked centuries on that deck as well. Had it not been for Martin's swing bowling on that morning, there wouldn't have been a result in that Test.

As Blaze pointed out, Oram failed to score a century but still finished with a respectable 90 runs. But Cairns was also able to make 158, which does give you some sort of idea about the pitch.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

When are people going to realise that make-shift openers are not the solution.

It's only going to get worse, what with the success of Sehwag.

 

[psxpro]

When are people going to realise that make-shift openers are not the solution. We will still be looking for openers in a few years time if we fail to select specialist openers. IMO How, Cumming, J Marshall, and Gaffeney are the only players worth looking at to fill the role at present.

And would people stop harping on about Styris' 170 versus SA last summer on a fairly flat track. If NZ wants middle order batsmen who are capable of playing on bouncy tracks in SA then Fulton and Sinclair - who were the best performed batsmen in the SA 'A' series - should be considered.

Sinclair should not be considered.
Styris is a better batsman.
You can say whatever you like about the pitch but we were 12/2.
Makeshift openers are better than openers like cumming who take 150 balls to score 32 runs...

 

[Ming]

"We were 12/2" doesn't mean anything if the pitch was as flat as road. It just means the two batsmen got out on a lifeless pitch.

What's wrong with Cumming scored 32 off 150 balls? Because he never did. You sound like a child sometimes with your comments.

 

[Will Scarlet]

Sinclair should not be considered.
Styris is a better batsman.
You can say whatever you like about the pitch but we were 12/2.
Makeshift openers are better than openers like cumming who take 150 balls to score 32 runs...

IMO, and most who have seen him bat, Sinclair is a far superior batsman. Unfortunately he is a confidence player and tends to be boom or bust. Their comparative FC records say a lot, but I appreciate Styris' has improved a lot since he worked on his batting more.

Sinclair's Record
M I NO Runs HS Ave 1 00 50
110 186 20 7845 268 47.25 17 42

Styris' Record
M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50
79 131 14 3647 212* 31.17 6 16

I agree with your disapproval of Cumming's scoring rate. You can't win matches without scoring runs, and the faster the better. For this reason I would promote How or Gaffeney to the BCs ahead of him. His very limited range of strokes contributes to this.

 

[Ming]

What shot does How have that is suitable to the Test level that Cumming doesn't have?

 

[Will Scarlet]

What shot does How have that is suitable to the Test level that Cumming doesn't have?

I've never seen How bat, unfortunately, but I'd guess he plays more than Cumming since he scores at a run a ball, which is more than twice the speed Cumming does.

Cumming no doubt has better concentration at this time, as How doesn't seem to last more than 150 balls.

 

[Ming]

No point in having more shots if you can't select the time to use them very well. Crowe and Smith have said this about How - he's got a full range of shots, but his shot selection is very suspect.

 

[psxpro]

IMO, and most who have seen him bat, Sinclair is a far superior batsman. Unfortunately he is a confidence player and tends to be boom or bust. Their comparative FC records say a lot, but I appreciate Styris' has improved a lot since he worked on his batting more.

Sinclair's Record
M I NO Runs HS Ave 1 00 50
110 186 20 7845 268 47.25 17 42

Styris' Record
M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50
79 131 14 3647 212* 31.17 6 16

I agree with your disapproval of Cumming's scoring rate. You can't win matches without scoring runs, and the faster the better. For this reason I would promote How or Gaffeney to the BCs ahead of him. His very limited range of strokes contributes to this.

Sinclair doesn't perform at test level unless the attack in suspect.
The only innings that i have really enjoyed of his was 150 in sa.

Styris can play match winning innings.
He is a better test and a one day player

The records you posted are first class, not tests.

 

[Ming]

Styris is arguably a flat track bully as well.

 

[Will Scarlet]

Styris the flat track bully

Sinclair doesn't perform at test level unless the attack in suspect.
The only innings that i have really enjoyed of his was 150 in sa.

Styris can play match winning innings.
He is a better test and a one day player

The records you posted are first class, not tests.

The test records are fairly similar, except Sinclair has played more tests; Sinclair 37 and Styris 40.

Styris is a better ODI player; no dispute.

Sinclair can definitely be a match winner in tests, and has on several occasions.

Styris has only scored hundreds on flat tracks, as three to six other centuries have been scored in each match he scored one (vs SA, India, WI, and England). I think this is fairly telling of his true ability. The only time he has scored a century in a match and we won was against SA, and it was Martin who won us the game.