Scott Styris

[Richard]

you cannot put a black mark against his test records because he gets in on flat tracks, someone has got to score the runs and it's credit to him that he cashes in on flat decks, flat wicket or not, the value of runs never changes no matter what the pitch is like.

Eh?
The flatter the pitch, the more runs you need.
That is why a century is not a good benchmark. On a poor pitch, 70 is a very good score; on an excellent one, 108 is not enough, 150 is maybe a bare minumum for the top-scorer.
And yes, if someone scores lots on flat wickets and fails lots when there's help for the bowlers, their achievements on flat pitches should be looked at in context.

 

[anzac]

of course, thats exactly why we can't do that. we don't have the luxury of throwing away a player good enough to average over 40 in test match cricket. and lets take a leaf out of australias book when it comes to styris. you wouldn't see australia (nor did you when ponting had a horror run a few years ago, or when martyn was struggling a year or two ago) dropping someone after 1 bad series, he scored a hundred in his last series against decent opposition, england (doesn't matter what the track was like, a test hundred is still a test hundred). Do we really want to go through the revolving door policy NZ employed in the 1990s where we give batsmen 10 or so tests then dump them? Or do we stick with a guy like Styris who is obviously up to it but is having a lean run. Like someone said earlier, sending him back to domestic cricket will do nothing for him. And someone earlier said that he's a bit arrogant.. GOOD. thats exactly the attitude you need to be successful and take on the best, and i for one think hes a very good test match cricketer.

I don't want to dump Styris - just drop him down the order - IMO he does not have the natural technique to bat as high as #4 on the international stage & I feel he would do better at #5...............

so far as resources go NZL simply has to look to expand their options - they missed a massive opportunity by only trying Marshall v BAN in the Tests - IMO these are the series where you SHOULD be open to blooding new players or experimenting with your order.............but NOT blooding players out of position & too high up the order where there will be extra pressure on them to perform................

hell even wonder boy Clarke bats down at #6...............as I said on another thread I find the arrogance of NZL selectors / selections absolutely mind boggling at times..........

 

[bryce]

Eh?
The flatter the pitch, the more runs you need.
That is why a century is not a good benchmark. On a poor pitch, 70 is a very good score; on an excellent one, 108 is not enough, 150 is maybe a bare minumum for the top-scorer.
And yes, if someone scores lots on flat wickets and fails lots when there's help for the bowlers, their achievements on flat pitches should be looked at in context.

yeah but it's like he is completely disregarding runs scored on flat pitches, what i was trying to say was either way runs have to be scored and you cannot always guarantee that your team are going to score the runs, flat deck or not.

 

[Richard]

I wouldn't completely disregard any runs (except those against Bangladesh, post-WC2003 Zimbabwe and all the other Associate nations), but I would always take runs in context.
Someone who fails consistently on bowler-friendly wickets and performs outstandingly on pancakes is not that good a player IMO.

 

[nzidol]

Styris is a good player. End of story. Hes had a poor series which was hampered by poor stability at the top of the order and weak bowling lineup. Also had an ear infection in last test, so discount that one. He'll be back over 40 by the end of the summer.

 

[Richard Rash]

Styris is a good player. End of story. Hes had a poor series which was hampered by poor stability at the top of the order and weak bowling lineup. Also had an ear infection in last test, so discount that one. He'll be back over 40 by the end of the summer.

What do you mean end of story?... it is not guarenteed that he will be back over 40 by the end of the summer, infact i would contenst that statement because if the selectors see sense he will not get another chance this summer and you can not blame the bowlers for his poor performance with the bat. The only person he has to blame for his poor performances is himself and if he makes excusses for himself then he will struggle in the future..its time for the NZ batsman to stop taking the softcock approach and put their hands up when they fail and say take responsibility and say they endeavour to correct their faults..Otherwise its just a continual cycle for NZ cricket

 

[nzidol]

What do you mean end of story?... it is not guarenteed that he will be back over 40 by the end of the summer, infact i would contenst that statement because if the selectors see sense he will not get another chance this summer and you can not blame the bowlers for his poor performance with the bat. The only person he has to blame for his poor performances is himself and if he makes excusses for himself then he will struggle in the future..its time for the NZ batsman to stop taking the softcock approach and put their hands up when they fail and say take responsibility and say they endeavour to correct their faults..Otherwise its just a continual cycle for NZ cricket

the only continual cycle would be the revolving door policy employed during the 90s. I dont mean his averaging over 40 is the end of the story, thats my contention. but i do think the fact that he has the talent to bat in the top 6 at int level is a closed book, again IMO.

from my experiences of playing cricket if you're openers can't put on more than 20 on the board then 3 and 4 struggle, especially against the best bowling attack in the world.

 

[tooextracool]

I would think scoring runs no matter the situation is doing your team a favour. Let's keep this in perspective, I was comparing him to Astle and McMillan who both have had poor runs of form (for much longer than Styris), including that England series.

averaging 40 because of your brilliant record is not quite doing your doing a favour. regardless id rather drop him now than drop him when his average falls down to the low 30s.

What absolute rubbish. Not good enough? A test average of about 40, test centuries against West Indies, India, South Africa and England. He was out-classed by the Australians in his first test series against then and suddenly he's 'not good enough'? Many a player has not performed against Australia..

i dont know how long it will be before you realise that there have been several players who have had brilliant starts to their career and eventually just showed up as being not good enough. players like greg blewett come to mind, who btw averaged over 40 for his first 30 games.
and i like the way you bring up his century against england as though he was particularly brilliant against them, despite all of that he came out with an average of 31 for the series.

What do you mean 'and yet he strugged'? I thought he was out of form? What exactly were you expecting after an 80 odd against Bangladesh?..

no the sign of someone not being good enough is when they cant score runs when they are in form. as has been said he had 2 big scores in 2 our of his last 3 tests, that shows that he was in form.

Alright, Styris has scored test centuries this year, Astle has not. Styris even has an ODI century this year, Astle has one against USA. I can't be bothered stating you up, I have more important things to do, but I'm sure if you look (and I bet you do) Styris will have a better record over 2004. I'm not sure but 'a long time' seems longer to me than two test series (no Bangladesh doesn't count).?

err test matches please.....as ive said before i dont doubt that styris can average 35-40 odd on flat wickets, i know hes capable of that. but its not particularly helpful to the side if he fails against all quality opposition.

I wasn't aware I couldn't comment on other issues in one post, how silly of me. Should I post 5 or 6 times in a row instead?

once you quote someone, its fairly obvious that you are referring to his post. you certainly gave no indication as to shifting topic. AFAIC if you wanted to talk about something else, either you quote someone else on topic in the same post or actually mention that in your post.

 

[tooextracool]

you cannot put a black mark against his test records because he gets in on flat tracks, someone has got to score the runs and it's credit to him that he cashes in on flat decks, flat wicket or not, the value of runs never changes no matter what the pitch is like..

of course i can, if someone scores only on flat tracks its quite clear that hes not good enough.

actually styris had a very good south africa series when astle was injured and astle hasn't had a good series since india, sure astle had been injured but styris had been scoring big runs before the england tour and astle hasn't for over a year which goes in styris' favour, anyway i don't think either of them should be dropped yet.

and of course astle can be blamed for not playing against SA?
AFAIC they've both struggled in their last 2 series against test class opposition. of course the fact that astle has already proven that hes capable of batting against quality opposition suggests that he gets priority over a flat track bully.

 

[Richard Rash]

from my experiences of playing cricket if you're openers can't put on more than 20 on the board then 3 and 4 struggle, especially against the best bowling attack in the world.

Yeah fair enough thats why i don't like the idea of having Styris anywhere near the top 4. I think idealy he is a number five or six because he obviously cannot hack the pressure of coming in when they are two down with not many on the board.

 

[Macka]

averaging 40 because of your brilliant record is not quite doing your doing a favour. regardless id rather drop him now than drop him when his average falls down to the low 30s.

Tell me why exactly his average is going to fall that far? He's done it up until now, why will he fail in the future? Are the pitches around the world suddenly going to change?

i dont know how long it will be before you realise that there have been several players who have had brilliant starts to their career and eventually just showed up as being not good enough. players like greg blewett come to mind, who btw averaged over 40 for his first 30 games.
and i like the way you bring up his century against england as though he was particularly brilliant against them, despite all of that he came out with an average of 31 for the series.

Wow thank you for telling me that. I didn't realise people could start well in their careers then go downhill. Vincent, Vettori and Sinclair are recent NZ examples. What exactly makes you able to say his test record will end lower than it is now? Maybe it will, maybe he'll end up with an average of 45.87. Who knows. Styris has been in the team for quite some time now, I really can't see any reason why he would start performing worse than he has done.

He wasn't amazing against England. My whole initial argument was comparing Styris to McMillan and Astle. All I was trying to point out is while he was out of touch at least he managed to get some runs, unlike Astle and McMillan who have had extended runs of bad form without any decent innings between. As far as I'm concerned Styris has performed better than McMillan and Astle lately.

no the sign of someone not being good enough is when they cant score runs when they are in form. as has been said he had 2 big scores in 2 our of his last 3 tests, that shows that he was in form.

He averaged 31 against England, didn't he? What part of that makes him in form? A test series against Bangladesh certainly doesn't mean anything. I don't think he was in form at all before the Australian series, and nothing changed during that series obviously.

err test matches please.....as ive said before i dont doubt that styris can average 35-40 odd on flat wickets, i know hes capable of that. but its not particularly helpful to the side if he fails against all quality opposition.

I'm not sure how someone can fail against all quality opposition and still have quite a decent average. Certainly he hasn't dined out on the minnows like others. Yes he has failed against some quality opposition but certainly not against all quality opposition

once you quote someone, its fairly obvious that you are referring to his post. you certainly gave no indication as to shifting topic. AFAIC if you wanted to talk about something else, either you quote someone else on topic in the same post or actually mention that in your post.

I quoted you and said what I had to say on that topic, then I moved on. If people read your quote it was quite obvious to see what you had to say and what I said in return.

 

[Macka]

I agree they should drop him.. but not discard him. He has too much ability to be discarded. You must agree that if they can get him back and playing with the full face of the bat, nz cant afford to be without him.

If NZ can somehow get the most out of McMillan that would be great. At some stage he is just going to have to be dropped however.

 

[Richard]

Styris is a good player. End of story. Hes had a poor series which was hampered by poor stability at the top of the order and weak bowling lineup. Also had an ear infection in last test, so discount that one. He'll be back over 40 by the end of the summer.

I must say I seriously doubt that if Murali plays and Chaminda is on a good spell.

 

[tooextracool]

Tell me why exactly his average is going to fall that far? He's done it up until now, why will he fail in the future? Are the pitches around the world suddenly going to change?

no, he was extremely fortunate to have been able to play on the flattest wickets at the start of his career and have his average boosted by them. and the pitches already have changed in his last 2 series, and in both of them hes been miserable bar the occasional flat wicket where he got his 100.

Wow thank you for telling me that. I didn't realise people could start well in their careers then go downhill. Vincent, Vettori and Sinclair are recent NZ examples. What exactly makes you able to say his test record will end lower than it is now? Maybe it will, maybe he'll end up with an average of 45.87. Who knows. Styris has been in the team for quite some time now, I really can't see any reason why he would start performing worse than he has done.

because if you've been watching closely, his average has already fallen by about 8 runs in the last 7 tests,its now below 40. a trend that i expect will follow till his average goes down to 30ish

He wasn't amazing against England. My whole initial argument was comparing Styris to McMillan and Astle. All I was trying to point out is while he was out of touch at least he managed to get some runs, unlike Astle and McMillan who have had extended runs of bad form without any decent innings between. As far as I'm concerned Styris has performed better than McMillan and Astle lately..

mcmillan should be dropped ahead of styris, that i agree with you on. astle has had the same number of bad series as styris and hes a proven test class player. styris is not.

He averaged 31 against England, didn't he? What part of that makes him in form? A test series against Bangladesh certainly doesn't mean anything. I don't think he was in form at all before the Australian series, and nothing changed during that series obviously...

err the fact that he got a 100 and an 80 in his most recent performances suggests that hes right back in form, if he was ever out of form in the first place.
a test series against bangladesh might not mean anything, but surely you cants deny that someone who scores runs against them is in form.

I'm not sure how someone can fail against all quality opposition and still have quite a decent average. Certainly he hasn't dined out on the minnows like others. Yes he has failed against some quality opposition but certainly not against all quality opposition...

how many times do i have to say it, his average is going to fall. hes failed against the 2 best bowling attacks in the world, id drop him now, let him at least score a few runs at the domestic level and show some improvement and then bring him back. you cant just keep picking someone just because his average is over 40.

I quoted you and said what I had to say on that topic, then I moved on. If people read your quote it was quite obvious to see what you had to say and what I said in return.

except that you brought it out as though i was suggesting that mcmillan was a better player. if you are going to quote someone then either you quote someone else when you change topic or say that you have because its obviously not as obvious to people as you say it is.

 

[nzidol]

Yeah fair enough thats why i don't like the idea of having Styris anywhere near the top 4. I think idealy he is a number five or six because he obviously cannot hack the pressure of coming in when they are two down with not many on the board.

Ideally, Flem is a number 4, always has been, but unfortunately we don't have the calibre of players to have him there, never have done, and probably never will. Pig is as good an option as we will have at 4 over the next few years.

 

[nzidol]

If NZ can somehow get the most out of McMillan that would be great. At some stage he is just going to have to be dropped however.

Yeah he wont get too many more chances I think. AND damn him, too much watching him on tv has made me open the face on my defensive shots and make me drive through point rather than through covers!

 

[nzidol]

Styris actually plays offspin pretty well, when he gets his feet going he can really take spinners apart. He actually played

 

[nzidol]

a pretty good knock against them in the world cup. He also plays left arm seamers pretty well, so I think he'll go well against Sri Lanka.

 

[Richard]

Ideally, Flem is a number 4, always has been, but unfortunately we don't have the calibre of players to have him there, never have done, and probably never will. Pig is as good an option as we will have at 4 over the next few years.

I much prefer Fleming at three, myself. In Tests, anyway - four in ODIs.

 

[nzidol]

I much prefer Fleming at three, myself. In Tests, anyway - four in ODIs.

I think we have become accustomed to Flem at #3 in tests, and he does do it well averaging nearly 44 with 5 tons from that spot, but its generally been the way to have your best strokemaker at 4; vaughan, lara, tendulkar, martyn, crowe is also a good example. I have always agreed with that theory, 4 is a great spot to bat and should be filled by your most gifted shotmaker - which Flem is. Unfortunately we don't have a good 3, so we've had to move flem there. As for the one dayers i think it wouldn't be a good idea to move flem from opening just when hes getting a good feel for it - hes really hit his straps there recently.