Scott Styris

[Richard]

Averages 37.80 since the last time he promoted himself there (West Indies, in 2002 - since then he's not batted anywhere but at the top of the order), yes, you're right about that.
The theory about having your best strokemaker at four is, for me, a generalisation, and IMO it's much better to treat each circumstance by itself.
IMO Fleming is best at three for the current New Zealand Test-side.

 

[nzidol]

Averages 37.80 since the last time he promoted himself there (West Indies, in 2002 - since then he's not batted anywhere but at the top of the order), yes, you're right about that.
The theory about having your best strokemaker at four is, for me, a generalisation, and IMO it's much better to treat each circumstance by itself.
IMO Fleming is best at three for the current New Zealand Test-side.

yeah no, if you read my last post thats what i alluded to. i think he would be a better number 4, but we don't have anyone who can bat 3, and like i said hes performed there so as is the case with the ODIs don't tinker round with it because he's comfortable now.

New tangent = I think Vaughan is the best example of a versatile batsman who can play in a number of positions in a batting order. Of course there are those bits and pieces players who can bat in a number of possies without excelling at any. But Vaughan, IMO, and I don't know the stats i'm just going by his technique and the way he looks, is both an outstanding opener and a wonderful number 4, that is pretty rare, i mean it just wouldn't seem right if damien martyn opened the innings even as good as he is. But I wouldn't have too much trouble seeing Vaughan there.

God I hope he fires against the AUssies!!!!!

 

[nzidol]

I think he started as a 6 anyway, and even that looks kind of cool on paper!

 

[Richard]

I think Vaughan is the best example of a versatile batsman who can play in a number of positions in a batting order. Of course there are those bits and pieces players who can bat in a number of possies without excelling at any. But Vaughan, IMO, and I don't know the stats i'm just going by his technique and the way he looks, is both an outstanding opener and a wonderful number 4, that is pretty rare, i mean it just wouldn't seem right if damien martyn opened the innings even as good as he is. But I wouldn't have too much trouble seeing Vaughan there.

God I hope he fires against the AUssies!!!!!

Same here.
If you ask me Vaughan the opener is distinctly overrated and flattered by his scorebook-average. He's much better at four IMO.

 

[Macka]

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.

That's a really good point. Up until this year players like Vincent and Sinclair (maybe Horne?), when in the team, have often batted higher than Fleming. Which leads me to question his intention in leading from the front. He's the captian, if he wanted to be batting at 3 I believe he would have been. He is really pushied into being in the top-order because of NZ's lack of batsman.

 

[nzidol]

yeah, it just looks right having him at 4. i still think he was a decent opener, but the way he plays is more that of a 4 so he probably feels more comfortable there himself.

 

[nzidol]

by the way i meant that about vaughan, not flem. def not a test opener, stop gap measure when we were walking round like dads army.

 

[Macka]

Same here.
If you ask me Vaughan the opener is distinctly overrated and flattered by his scorebook-average. He's much better at four IMO.

I always thought Vaughan got out early edging to the slips when he opened, a lot more than other openers. Once he got going though he was money in the bank. Flattered by his scorebook-average? Well I don't know, I always thought Vaughan was a very good player since I saw him against Australia. I think he hasn't quite performed at that level since though.

 

[Richard]

That's a really good point. Up until this year players like Vincent and Sinclair (maybe Horne?), when in the team, have often batted higher than Fleming. Which leads me to question his intention in leading from the front. He's the captian, if he wanted to be batting at 3 I believe he would have been. He is really pushied into being in the top-order because of NZ's lack of batsman.

Horne's never been aught but an opener, has he?
Fleming IIRR batted at four ever since 1999\2000 (after the England 2-1) and went back there - not to be moved, except to open - in the Third Test of the 1-1 against... England.

 

[Richard]

I always thought Vaughan got out early edging to the slips when he opened, a lot more than other openers. Once he got going though he was money in the bank. Flattered by his scorebook-average? Well I don't know, I always thought Vaughan was a very good player since I saw him against Australia. I think he hasn't quite performed at that level since though.

He played two good innings in Australia (146 at MCG, 187 at SCG) but both were on very flat pitches; the MCG one was when the game was basically lost and the SCG one was against a very, very poor attack (Gillespie was injured, and Lee, MacGill and Bichel haven't exactly been inspiring, have they?)
He'd actually have looked like he nicked into the slips (and elsewhere) rather more often if the catches had been taken in 2002. The luck of 2002 dried-up in 2003 and though he managed a 156 and a fantastic game in Kandy, he didn't do a thing else.

 

[Macka]

Horne's never been aught but an opener, has he?
Fleming IIRR batted at four ever since 1999\2000 (after the England 2-1) and went back there - not to be moved, except to open - in the Third Test of the 1-1 against... England.

I have a feeling he has batted 3 before with Fleming at 4. I could be wrong though. I think Fleming has played at 4 more than at 3.

 

[nzidol]

yeah thats my point, if we had a real 3 (and im not so sure sinclair or marshall are capable) then flem could go 4, nath could go 5 (i'd leave him there, 5 is a good spot for him.) and have pig at 6. but alas, we do not and rigor will be going soon too. then we've got real problems.

how bout after rigor, for the next few yrs (astle has how many left, 2.. 3, i hope 5!):

vincent(but is he an opener?)/mcintosh
papps
fleming
styris(or 6)
astle
fulton(if he proves himself maybe 3/4?) / marshall (not convinced)
Oram
mccullum
vettori
tuffey
butler

mills (he'll come right)
mcmillan (as above)
franklin (please gain SOME pace)
bond (heres hoping)

 

[Richard]

I have a feeling he has batted 3 before with Fleming at 4. I could be wrong though. I think Fleming has played at 4 more than at 3.

Horne opened in all but one of his last 56 innings (batted at five).
In his first 9 he batted three 8 times and eight ( ) once.

 

[Richard Rash]

Unless NZ unearths some class young players this year in domestic cricket then the signs don't look good post astle, fleming and richardson...

Bangladesh.. Zimbabwe.....New Zealand

 

[Macka]

It's something NZ are seriously going to have to consider. Vincent has said he wants to bat in the middle-order and I don't think he opens for Auckland anymore. While Papps is a fighter and a decent cricketer, I really don't see him performing as an international opener but I hope I'm dead wrong about that.

When Rigor retires it's going to be a huge blow to NZ cricket. We haven't found on person to partner him since he's been playing. I just don't see two openers coming along by June if he does decide to retire.

 

[nzidol]

in saying all of that, i am in favour of a 5-5 split, especially with the batting capability of oram, mccullum and vettori. oram or mccullum could go 6, the other 7, vettori 8, and then all our tailenders... well, aren't really tailenders, they all bat more than usefully. the reason for this is that we will always need 5 bowlers to bowl teams out, the australian model of 6 specialist bats only works for them because they have an outrageous bowling lineup.

i forgot to add these names:

tommy martin
paul wiseman
andre adams ( he would be good to get back in there, even if he is a sour bugger)

 

[Macka]

Horne opened in all but one of his last 56 innings (batted at five).
In his first 9 he batted three 8 times and eight ( ) once.

Alright I was wrong then but I'm pretty sure Fleming has played at 4 more than 3

 

[nzidol]

yeah, having played with a lot of the young guys (jesse ryder, ross taylor) i can tell you they can, and like, to hit the ball. but they're reckless really, and i dunno if they have the right "mindset/mental makeup" to cut it. I hope they do , but i have my reservations. You see, clarke has that kind of talent, but to me it looks like hes harnessed it without harnessing it, i know that doesnt make sense, but its just a feeling i get. that he could go up even one more gear if he wanted at times, but doesnt wanna throw his wicket away. I much prefer a fulton or a mcintosh personally, even a rob nicol if he makes runs in the next 2 years (bit biased cos he plays for my club in akl).

 

[nzidol]

do you guys favour a 5-5 split, god, if we could have (for upcoming aus series)

rigor
papsicle/skippy
hock
pig
romeo
jake
barrie
danny
tuffers
bondy
buts

then we could actually compete, i know tuffey at 9 doesnt fit with nz's (take into account their batting if they are a specialist bowler) theory, but he can actually bat and so can bond and butler.

god wouldn't that be a good lineup. i don't care about this ******** about line and length, i want strike bowlers.. who actually STRIKE. Butler, bond.. YEEEEEEHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH>

 

[Macka]

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree tooextracool. I think Styris is better than you think. His average also dropped (below 40 I think) after the Pakistan series, but a good series against SA pushed his average right back up there. His 170 was a great innings and I don't see any reason why he won't continue to perform, or why he can't do it again. Yes he's a had a few average series and he's not the best number 4 going round but I don't see him being dropped nor should he be in my view.