*Unofficial* New Zealand Black Caps Thread

[RMBolton]

No Conway?

Ravindra doesn't belong in the squad. Unless someone's injured, he certainly doesn't belong in the XI.

 

[jcas0167]

so, what are your first 11's lookin like for the t20 wc

for me its

Allen (wk)
ravindra
mitchell
philips
chapman
neesham
bracewell
santner (c)
henry
ferguson
boult

with a restraining order filed by the t20 format against kane and southee

Allen (wk)
Conway
Williamson
Mitchell
Phillips
Chapman
Bracewell (c)
Santner
Henry
Ferguson
Southee

 

[Moss]

Similar problem to the ODI World Cup where Mitchell, Phillips and Chapman are all suited to no.4 or 5, but not ideal for no.6 where going berserk from ball one seems to be the order of the day. Chapman in particular is wasted if he doesn't get to bat at no.5 or higher. So Neesham would probably get my vote for no.6. Good thing Bracewell is back, he'll be extremely crucial as the finisher and will probably be a more consistent winner with his bowling than Sodhi over the course of the tournament.

 

[NZTailender]

Munro has officially called it quits on his international career. Looks like he was waiting for the WC squad announcement.

 

[Moss]

Munro has officially called it quits on his international career. Looks like he was waiting for the WC squad announcement.

Think he was about 5 years ahead of his time (10 years given NZC’s attitude to selection). Tended to be very rocks and diamonds when turning out for NZ, but would have been an asset in the last few years seeing how NZ have been indexing on T20s. Can feel justifiably miffed at the difference in treatment from Boult or Neesham, when it comes to national selection while being a T20 mercenary. And yeah, too bad we’ll never find out how his FC 50 average would have translated to tests (Phillips is providing some hints).

 

[jcas0167]

Dylan Cleaver on Munro:

That being said, you can compare him to others and make a strong case that he was treated poorly. The guy averaged more than 50 in first-class cricket, but got just one test on a horror tour to South Africa (it was the all-out-for-45 tour, though he didn’t play that test), nicked out first ball in the first dig, got 15 in the second, both batting at No 7, and was never tried again. Tough gig.


Knowing he was always on the periphery, Munro made the decision to be a T20 gun for hire and has done that, for the most part, exceedingly well. Certainly well enough to have played for his country in the past four years. His last seven T20I scores were 30, 46, 59, 26, 14, 64 and 15. That’s 254 runs at a strike rate of 143.


Even at 37, he’s a better T20 player than some who are going to the Caribbean.

Back to the bad old days

The Week That Was features Colin Munro and the Weekend That Will Be forecasts misery on the horizon.

dylancleaver.substack.com

 

[RMBolton]

If not for the fact that I'd have Seifert ahead of him due to wanting a proper keeping option, I wouldn't have minded having Munro in the T20WC squad. Certainly a better top order option than Ravindra.

A question: who would've had to make way for Munro to get a run in the Test side?

 

[Moss]

A question: who would've had to make way for Munro to get a run in the Test side?

From late 2013 to early 2016 he may have been eyeing the spot for which Anderson and Neesham were battling it out. Both started so well in test cricket he was probably an afterthought for the selectors. I guess they ‘looked the part’ more than he did too, and were better bowlers.

In theory McCullum retiring in 2016 would have been the perfect time to bring him in as a similar sort of player but they went for Nicholls, which did pay off at least till 2020 or so. Can remember Ronchi playing as a specialist batsman in India in 2016 (and doing well), that was also another opportunity missed.

 

[ashley bach]

From late 2013 to early 2016 he may have been eyeing the spot for which Anderson and Neesham were battling it out. Both started so well in test cricket he was probably an afterthought for the selectors. I guess they ‘looked the part’ more than he did too, and were better bowlers.

In theory McCullum retiring in 2016 would have been the perfect time to bring him in as a similar sort of player but they went for Nicholls, which did pay off at least till 2020 or so. Can remember Ronchi playing as a specialist batsman in India in 2016 (and doing well), that was also another opportunity missed.

Post 8888 which just follows page 444 @SillyCowCorner1

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah...I'm about as big a fan of Colin as there is, and I can't exactly remember - there might have been squads he should have been in. But 'he averaged 50 in FC cricket, should have played more' ignores the fact our Test side was at immense strength through the period he dominated FC, and there wasn't a spot. He started his FC career as a No.11 who bowled seam up, and dropped the bowling to become the batsman he became...unfortunately for him, that meant he was never a long form all-rounder, which was his only chance at a spot.

Again, I love the guy but I'm not sure he would have made a winning run of it. He certainly wouldn't have batted higher than 6. His technique wasn't that of a CdG, Nicholls, Neesham etc. His eye was unreal, and he absolutely butchered 120-130km bowling, but I never saw enough evidence he could play quality spin or pace for long periods of time. To be fair, he never really had the chance to in whites.

 

[SteveNZ]

As for the T20I stuff, honestly, I feel like he chose franchise cricket at a time where it was very obvious you wouldn't be selected for NZ. McClenaghan, Devcich, Munro, those guys were on the periphery and started to play in competitions that overlapped with representation for their provinces...and chose the cash. Completely fair enough, but I don't feel it was ever miscommunicated to them as to where that left them.

Then yes, that's changed under a new regime. I don't see unfairness in that.

Is Colin a better top order bat than Ravindra? Probably for the last couple of years he has been, yeah. Is he better than Seifert? For certain. Ask any franchise who they rate higher. So on that basis, he could have been picked for our T20I side.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

From late 2013 to early 2016 he may have been eyeing the spot for which Anderson and Neesham were battling it out. Both started so well in test cricket he was probably an afterthought for the selectors. I guess they ‘looked the part’ more than he did too, and were better bowlers.

In theory McCullum retiring in 2016 would have been the perfect time to bring him in as a similar sort of player but they went for Nicholls, which did pay off at least till 2020 or so. Can remember Ronchi playing as a specialist batsman in India in 2016 (and doing well), that was also another opportunity missed.

Great post this. Succinct and provides a pretty reasonable answer without me even having to think about bothering with any fact checking. Nice one, Moss.

Yeah...I'm about as big a fan of Colin as there is, and I can't exactly remember - there might have been squads he should have been in. But 'he averaged 50 in FC cricket, should have played more' ignores the fact our Test side was at immense strength through the period he dominated FC, and there wasn't a spot. He started his FC career as a No.11 who bowled seam up, and dropped the bowling to become the batsman he became...unfortunately for him, that meant he was never a long form all-rounder, which was his only chance at a spot.

Again, I love the guy but I'm not sure he would have made a winning run of it. He certainly wouldn't have batted higher than 6. His technique wasn't that of a CdG, Nicholls, Neesham etc. His eye was unreal, and he absolutely butchered 120-130km bowling, but I never saw enough evidence he could play quality spin or pace for long periods of time. To be fair, he never really had the chance to in whites.

Well, if Steve "Munro" NZ says this, then I guess that's the line drawn under the argument that Munro would have been a success. I'm happy to run with this.

 

[thierry henry]

It's reasonable to give the selectors some leeway on being a bit slow on the uptake with Munro, given the dramatic shift from bowler who could bat, to all-rounder, to basically the most devastating batsman in the domestic game. When a guy hasn't come through the pathways as an elite batsman, hasn't come into the FC game as an elite batsman, and doesn't pass the eye-test either, then it's understandable that it does take a lot of evidence to accept that he is.

I think that explains the early career dabbling with him as an all-rounder, and then preferring Anderson/Neesham - particularly when we had Williamson/Taylor/McCullum and there wasn't a spot for him as a batsman.

However, I think he can feel rightfully miffed that Nicholls beat him for a test spot in 2015/16. Munro clearly had a stronger case on performance grounds and Nicholls fails the eye test just as badly as he does. It was essentially a hunch selection which worked surprisingly well before fizzling out. Some will call that a harsh appraisal of Nicholls, but I think it would be equally exaggerated to say he was a roaring success. Ultimately, the guy has been all but discarded in what would otherwise be close to his prime years, due to sustained poor performance.

Would Munro have done better than Nicholls? I'd lean towards probably not, but not confidently. Nicholls is a guy who is very poor in a lot of situations and dominates in his preferred conditions. Hell, you could also say that McCullum was technically flawed and had the most success by bashing his way out of trouble. They both averaged high 30s. I could definitely see Munro having elements of both and a similar level of success.

Overall, probably not a massive loss for our test team, but as an individual he can rightfully feel miffed and deserved more chances.

 

[thierry henry]

In terms of his T20 career, I don't know all of the ins and outs of whether he genuinely wasn't picked because of NZC rigorously sticking to a policy of not picking guys who weren't playing in NZ. What I do know is it was a harsh decision to not give him a central contract in 2020. This isn't comparable to the guys who declined a central contract - Munro was an incumbent T20I player who was only offered a domestic contract. Even if the intent wasn't to force him out, it was pretty inevitable in those circumstances. I also think that not offering him a central contract could easily be seen as hinting to him that he was no longer first choice in T20I.

I think he was always one of our better T20I batsman and dropping him was absolutely not warranted on performance grounds. Not that I want to turn this into a whinge about one of my favourite whipping boys, but Munro has effectively been replaced by Allen in the BOSH role. He is well within his rights to be pissed off at being like-for-like replaced by someone who is pretty much less accomplished in every way.

 

[_Ed_]

Munro has effectively been replaced by Allen in the BOSH role. He is well within his rights to be pissed off at being like-for-like replaced by someone who is pretty much less accomplished in every way.

Yep, and what really stinks about that for me is that Munro's been such a monstrous performer for Trinidad & Tobago in the Caribbean Premier League since 2016. And where are three of our four Group C games in the T20 World Cup? Trinidad!

 

[RMBolton]

In terms of his T20 career, I don't know all of the ins and outs of whether he genuinely wasn't picked because of NZC rigorously sticking to a policy of not picking guys who weren't playing in NZ. What I do know is it was a harsh decision to not give him a central contract in 2020. This isn't comparable to the guys who declined a central contract - Munro was an incumbent T20I player who was only offered a domestic contract. Even if the intent wasn't to force him out, it was pretty inevitable in those circumstances. I also think that not offering him a central contract could easily be seen as hinting to him that he was no longer first choice in T20I.

I think he was always one of our better T20I batsman and dropping him was absolutely not warranted on performance grounds. Not that I want to turn this into a whinge about one of my favourite whipping boys, but Munro has effectively been replaced by Allen in the BOSH role. He is well within his rights to be pissed off at being like-for-like replaced by someone who is pretty much less accomplished in every way.

The thing with the NZ contracts is that they don't value T20 specialists. The way it's weighted, if you want to be a one-format specialist, you choose Tests, & the T20 side is still treated as a feeder for the ODI side, sort of. Once you get pigeonholed as a T20 specialist, you're on your way out.

In addition for Munro, him leaving opened up a place for Conway, & after his first summer, they just never looked back.

 

[SteveNZ]

However, I think he can feel rightfully miffed that Nicholls beat him for a test spot in 2015/16. Munro clearly had a stronger case on performance grounds and Nicholls fails the eye test just as badly as he does. It was essentially a hunch selection which worked surprisingly well before fizzling out. Some will call that a harsh appraisal of Nicholls, but I think it would be equally exaggerated to say he was a roaring success. Ultimately, the guy has been all but discarded in what would otherwise be close to his prime years, due to sustained poor performance.

From memory, Nicholls was picked off the back of a Sri Lanka A series, where he scored one big, quick ton (did he score two? Maybe not) and Manu didn't make any significant runs.

Nicholls scored 5-6 high quality Test tons (nine overall). I'm just not sure Manu had that in him v a very good SA attack, or against England...but it would have been nice to have found out. It just wasn't his time. Similar could be said of Tom Bruce - averaged over 50 at FC level (47 now) and might've done a job, but couldn't crack our side, had to make do with T20Is.

I dunno, I love Colin Manu like few others. Maybe it's because I saw the raw player he was at 16-17, and just making it to play for NZ, let alone have this much conjecture about your career seems to me to be incredibly note-worthy. But weirdly, I just don't see the same 'unfairness' or 'oh what a waste, F you NZC' that others see about his career.

I do, however, think it speaks volumes of the guy that he's made heaps of franchise cash, and will continue to - he's set up his family for life - but the narrative he takes out at the moment is one of bitterness that he couldn't have played more for NZ. He always loved playing for NZ and it was always his biggest desire. I hope he's not part of a dying breed of T20 players who feel that way.

 

[thierry henry]

The thing with the NZ contracts is that they don't value T20 specialists. The way it's weighted, if you want to be a one-format specialist, you choose Tests, & the T20 side is still treated as a feeder for the ODI side, sort of. Once you get pigeonholed as a T20 specialist, you're on your way out.

In addition for Munro, him leaving opened up a place for Conway, & after his first summer, they just never looked back.

Yes and he was only a T20 specialist because the selectors refused to give him a chance in tests and because he had just been ditched in ODIs that season (which was fair). It may not have been some sort of concerted anti-Munro campaign, but there was definitely a succession of selection decisions which all went against him and which culminated in him losing his contract. In those circumstances I never even really perceived him as ditching NZC, it seemed like a no-brainer for him to be a freelancer when he wasn't offered a central contract.

 

[thierry henry]

Nicholls scored 5-6 high quality Test tons (nine overall). I'm just not sure Manu had that in him v a very good SA attack, or against England...but it would have been nice to have found out. It just wasn't his time. Similar could be said of Tom Bruce - averaged over 50 at FC level (47 now) and might've done a job, but couldn't crack our side, had to make do with T20Is.

I mean - in both cases, it "wasn't their time" because the selectors chose a guy with a lesser record over a guy/guys with outstanding records (or continued to pick someone while a different guy was killing it in domestics). Choosing to ignore the best performed guys is pretty much the essence of a dodgy selection. Dodgy selections are sometimes proved right (I don't think Nicholls conclusively falls into this category) but that doesn't mean the selectorial logic can't be called out. This wasn't like the 90s Australia team where outstanding FC batsman missed out to other outstanding FC batsman - we decided to pick and stick with a notably lesser performer who turned out to be ok but not great.

There are reasons to believe Munro wouldn't have been great at test level but that's the whole thing right - he might've done well and he deserved the chance. Hell, there were also a million eye-test reasons, reasons which have actually played out at test level, to think that Nicholls wouldn't do well. Nicholls is right up there in the "doesn't look the part" stakes too.

 

[ataraxia]

Michael Rae gets a surprise call-up for Warks (Div 1).