***Official*** Zimbabwe in New Zealand 2012

[Spark]

I think 2020 has no bearing on a player's success in test cricket, positive or negative.

EDIT: The only exception being when playing 2020 limits the the player's availability for tests or FC games.

Well said IMO.

 

[Hurricane]

I think 2020 has no bearing on a player's success in test cricket, positive or negative.

EDIT: The only exception being when playing 2020 limits the the player's availability for tests or FC games.

Well said IMO.

Let me see who shall I go with your opinions or Ross Taylor's

"People say it's easy to change up from Twenty20 to Test cricket. But I disagree. It is a lot harder than you think. It's more a mindset change than technique.

"For me, personally, you get into bad habits playing Twenty20. Little things creep into your game. That's the good thing with a warm-up game and the nets with the red ball. You get a chance to iron out those flaws."

Richard Hadlee also had a quote about how he had to bowl different lines in ODIs vs Tests and that he imagined it was different again for T20s - and that it must take time to get into the right swing of things for tests. Something about bowling to cramp the batsman for room in ODIs but encouraging the batsman to be more expansive in tests.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I think 2020 has no bearing on a player's success in test cricket, positive or negative.

EDIT: The only exception being when playing 2020 limits the the player's availability for tests or FC games.

Like choosing the IPL over playing in the CC?

 

[straw man]

So what's the consensus on the keeping issue? Did everyone catch the many articles in the Herald on the subject? I don't agree with all of it (Paul Lewis in particular seems to have some dodgy logic), but it's nice to see the coverage about cricket - must be because Super-something rugby is yet to start...

My own view is that it doesn't really matter who they go with. I suspect whoever is picked will average in the mid-to-high 20's in the long term, and be a decent-though-not-brilliant keeper. I personally would pick van Wyk, as I think he's earned it through several good seasons at the first class level and if any of the bunch are going to average 35-40, I think it might be him. Mind you, I would have also said that about Young 6 months ago and I wouldn't really have complained if Young had been given the rest of the summer.

Pretty much agree with the bolded bit. We need to just pick one and stick with him for a few series. Think you're being optimistic about Van Wyk's batting though - looked fairly suspect the times (yes, in T20 ) I've seen him bat.

 

[straw man]

I think 2020 has no bearing on a player's success in test cricket, positive or negative.

EDIT: The only exception being when playing 2020 limits the the player's availability for tests or FC games.

Dunno if I'd go that far. If you're spending all your time practising yorkers and slower balls in the nets then you're going to be a bit rusty when you're trying to bowl a 135-140 outswinger just short of a good length. Not to mention mentally being content to bowl 6 near identical balls on or about the same spot in a test match, after getting used to bowling 6 different change-ups in a T20.

Some people probably do overplay the impact of T20s on tests though, so half agree.

 

[Prince EWS]

Pretty much agree with the bolded bit. We need to just pick one and stick with him for a few series. Think you're being optimistic about Van Wyk's batting though - looked fairly suspect the times (yes, in T20 ) I've seen him bat.

van Wyk has been immense in the Plunket Shield over the last few seasons though; if you'd watched him playing then scoring all those runs you'd probably not that he looked that bad - it's hard to look rubbish averaging 60 or so.

 

[_Ed_]

Zimbabwe in New Zealand 2011-12: From SA to NZ - Kruger van Wyk chases Test dream | Cricket Features | New Zealand v Zimbabwe | ESPN Cricinfo

On Thursday, he may make his Test debut for New Zealand and will probably not have the gloves on when he does.

Whaaaaat?

There is so, so much wrong with that. I don't even know where to start.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

0.o

What the actual ****?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

van Wyk has been included in New Zealand's squad to play Zimbabwe and will likely play as an opening batsman.

?????

 

[SteveNZ]

Rubbish reporting. He was made an opener for the warm-up match to simulate an effectiveness against the 2nd new ball (which also seems ridiculous to me, but that's a story for another day). He won't play, neither will Wells.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

That makes a ****load more sense. Thanks.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Rubbish reporting. He was made an opener for the warm-up match to simulate an effectiveness against the 2nd new ball (which also seems ridiculous to me, but that's a story for another day). He won't play, neither will Wells.

Yeah, exactly.

Never trust Firdose Moonda, she's talking out her arse.



Opening with two wicketkeepers in McCullum and van Wyk, then having Watling keep and bat at 7?
Yeah, that's what's happening.

 

[Days of Grace]

Rubbish reporting. Does the writer only look at scorecards?

 

[Flem274*]

You never know, Wright might think van Wyk has the goods to open so Moonda might fluke a bullseye. The second new ball theory of Steve's is hopefully the right one, but the only logical alternative theory is Wright wants him to open. Surely someone in the media would have dug that up by now though if he did.

Rubbish reporting. Does the writer only look at scorecards?

Well if she did actually check scorecards, she would have seen CFK van Wyk (wk) batting at number six or seven for CD and Canterbury, so...

 

[Days of Grace]

I have to admit that two wicketkeepers opening and an opening batsmen taking the gloves for a ****ING TEST MATCH!!!! would be hilarious.

 

[Prince EWS]

CricInfo's previews and likely sides are notoriously bad.

On New Zealand's last tour of India, the team for the second Test was supposed to feature a batting allrounder at #10, batting behind Jeetan Patel but opening the bowling as part of a two-man pace attack. Even in the days when Franklin actually was a bowler (and these days were long gone by that tour), he would never bat behind Patel.

And in the end Patel didn't even play. Neither did Franklin.

 

[Mike5181]

You never know, Wright might think van Wyk has the goods to open so Moonda might fluke a bullseye. The second new ball theory of Steve's is hopefully the right one, but the only logical alternative theory is Wright wants him to open. Surely someone in the media would have dug that up by now though if he did.



Well if she did actually check scorecards, she would have seen CFK van Wyk (wk) batting at number six or seven for CD and Canterbury, so...

I might have just imagined this but did he do a bit of opening when he was in South Africa?

van Wyk has been immense in the Plunket Shield over the last few seasons though; if you'd watched him playing then scoring all those runs you'd probably not that he looked that bad - it's hard to look rubbish averaging 60 or so.

There's plenty of guys that have just adapted to playing in the Plunket Shield after years of playing. Peter Ingram always looked like he would fail if he played test matches despite averaging 50-60 for the four or five seasons before he was picked.

 

[_Ed_]

Kruger does comment in the article about playing but not keeping - "I would obviously prefer to keep as well but I'm going to support BJ and give it a full go with the bat." But I assume that's just referring to the warm-up game.

 

[straw man]

You never know, Wright might think van Wyk has the goods to open so Moonda might fluke a bullseye. The second new ball theory of Steve's is hopefully the right one, but the only logical alternative theory is Wright wants him to open. Surely someone in the media would have dug that up by now though if he did.

Haha that would be funny :/ And then the NZ team management can inform Watling that he is going to move to CD and keep wicket while Van Wyk will open for them. Seeya Pinga

 

[Flem274*]

Peter Ingram always looked like he would fail if he played test matches despite averaging 50-60 for the four or five seasons before he was picked.

He didn't really get a chance to fail. First low score and he was gone. Was basically the selectors wishing he would just go away after pretending he wasn't the best batsman in domestic cricket for four years prior.

I don't think he would have been a definite success, but he did smack around bowlers who are in our current test side.