Loony BoB said:Fulton, personally. Why? He only averages 26.42 in tests, his high score is 75, which was his only 50 in 7 innings, which is not good enough His other scores are 17, 28, 14, 4, 36 and 11. Comparisons...
NZ vs. WI & SA
Fulton - 17, 28, 75, 14, 4, 36, 11 - one significant innings, average 26.42
Astle - 51, 13, 65, 4, 2, 50, 14 - three significant innings, average 28.42
Styris - 103, 5, 8, 17, 2, 11, 54* - two significant innings, average 33.33
Sums it up well enough for me.
EDIT: Interesting that people are keen to drop Astle on form, when he's passed 50 more times than both Fulton and Styris in the last two series.
I used Styris instead of Fleming, by the way, because the idea of dropping Fleming is quite frankly ridiculous.
Fair point, but patience with Fulton is likely to be rewarded in the long run while Astle appears to be declining a bit. His performances for Lancashire were abysmal.Loony BoB said:EDIT: Interesting that people are keen to drop Astle on form, when he's passed 50 more times than both Fulton and Styris in the last two series.
_Ed_ said:Fair point, but patience with Fulton is likely to be rewarded in the long run while Astle appears to be declining a bit. His performances for Lancashire were abysmal.
But he probably does still deserve to go out on his own terms...definitely in ODIs at least.
I think making such a call on Fulton after a measly seven innings is pretty harsh.Loony BoB said:Fulton, personally. Why? He only averages 26.42 in tests, his high score is 75, which was his only 50 in 7 innings, which is not good enough
Good call. Vincent is a no.4, possibly 5, depending on who else we have to fit in there.Loony BoB said:Dude, I'm not replacing him - I was asked which of those I'd "drop" for Vincent in tests, and that's who I chose. I don't consider it dropping so much as I consider it giving Vincent his rightful place, though. If Vincent was to score one 50 in his next seven test innings I'd drop him, too. But he scored a 200 and was then kept out in favour of someone who hadn't played a test at all. Fair? Hell no.
Franklin to open, can not be any worse than Fulton, Papps et cetera and because he is only useful with the new ball (when it's swinging) it won't be much of a burden for him.Matt52 said:Good call. Vincent is a no.4, possibly 5, depending on who else we have to fit in there.
Vincent shouldnt be opening. Everytime you see an NZ scoresheet with Vincent's name first, it just looks wrong.
I think its best to pick the sure things first in a test side....and put them in their best position or the best position for the side. Fit the "maybe's " in around them.
1. ?
2. ?
3. Fleming
4. ?
5. ?
6. ?
7. McCullum
8. Vettori
9. ?
10.?
11. Bond.
There we have it...all the certainties in the NZ test cricket team.
Who are the next best batsmen?????. The next best deserves preference of position. I think the next best is Vincent. He has more talent than anyone else possibly bar Fleming, has a bit of experience now and so should be given his prefered spot, which is no.4.
TT Boy said:Franklin to open, can not be any worse than Fulton, Papps et cetera and because he is only useful with the new ball (when it's swinging) it won't be much of a burden for him.
I'm disappointed to hear you say that, James. The bulk of the NZ sporting public doesn't care about cricket, full stop. In my experience, most cricket fans here consider tests to be infinitely more important than ODIs, which are generally thought of as a bit of a lark. Important, but not approaching the status of tests.James said:I think Bond must retire from Test cricket and first class cricket if we're to see the best out of him.
ODI cricket is what counts for New Zealand Cricket and the less cricket he plays up until the World Cup the better it is in my mind.
And let's face it, the bulk of the New Zealand public are not the least bit interested in how we do in Test cricket.