And Neesham, if that's the case then we need to be testing this out against India.Can only happen if they think Williamson and Munro can be relied on for 6-10 overs
I'd argue that is an issue because we havent had a chance to actually do it yet. I'd feel way more comfortable getting 10 out of Neesham/CdG/Munro/Kane rather than just 3 of them.Boult - 10
Southee/Henry/Ferguson/other frontline 10
Ferguson/Henry/Southee/other frontline 10
Santner 10
so you make up 10 more with Neesham or CDG + Munro and Kane
It's really not an issue in the slightest. The issue is the top 3 bowling positions not delivering the goods.
I hope not. Unless the Nicholls version we see is the one from the other day. That version I can get on board with.Yes but once again he is assuming that Latham will bat at 5 and Nicholls at 6. I just can't see that happening.
Getting the balance of the XI right is going to be important. I like the idea of 2 spinners, 3 frontline quicks and 1 batting allrounder from 5 onwards, covers all bases with regard to bowling while still providing enough hitting power down the order. The team sheet would then read:Don't know too much about English conditions but been hearing/reading likely both Sodhi and Santner will play. Considering the inconsistency our regulars have been bowling with we'll probably need to aim for 60 overs worth of options
Southee, Boult and Ferguson. Only need 10 overs from Neesham/Williamson/Munro
Boult & Southee. Around 20 overs from Neesham/Williamson/Munro + CDG if you prefer over Nicholls
Santner a better bat and bowler than both, Sodhi a better bowler than both too. SA's problem there is they picked two NcCullum type players and didn't come off. Don't think we should be that concerned tbh.The flip slide to this is, thinking back to the 2011 QF South Africa went with something similar and the lower half had Johan Botha at 7 and Robin Peterson at 8, and we know how that ended. Can definitely see NZ facing similar issues if the top order leaves the job unfinished.
That sounds like he doesn't know his game.The recipe for a good one day side is, consistent but aggressive openers. One quick bowler that picks wickets up front, 2 very good spinners to chip in with wickets, couple of big hitters at no.7 and no.8 to finish the job if required. Most countries middle order is generally sorted as most experienced players play in the middle order and they are usually consistent. Then go out and play fearless cricket. Easier than said to get this mix but we do have resources available to put together a team of this kind. Munro can only be a short term solution in my opinion. Recently I read he now wants to play like a proper player in the one day and string big runs. Now that surely will cause some confusion and unfortunately his batting isn't necessarily good enough to be able to do this. If he was 24, sure he can go back work on it and slowly build it up but he's 31, playing two formats for NZ and leagues around the world. He's barely going to find time to work on his batting in his own time and change it to suit the one day game. If he hangs around a little bit longer than 10 overs scoring at less than run a ball he will hole out and waste his ability to attack up front.
If we have our opening players in form and firing all cylinders we will have a great chance this world cup. It's very tough to say we can win it but we will make the semis and from then on it will be anyone's game.
Today I learned Baz's ODI centuries came against Canada, Ireland, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe.That sounds like he doesn't know his game.
We have 3 guys who can go out and string together big scores, plus two who look like they might add to that (Latham, Nicholls).
Baz, towards the end of his career, wasn't about big scores. It was about 50 (20) so there was less pressure on Guptill, Kane and Taylor.
Actually, most of his ODI career was like that.
If you look at his ODI bowling summary on cricinfo, there's actually only been two calendar years that he's averaged under 30 for ... his average vs Aus is 62, India 35, South Africa 65, England a good 28 (although he got a fifth of his wickets vs them from 20 matches in one game). There should be massive concerns.think it's a bit generous to call it "poor form". When you average 40+ for three years on the trot that aint form that's just ineffectiveness.