Your New Zealand World Cup Squad if selected today...

[NUFAN]

God imagine if there is a NZ/SL final in the Australian super stadiums. There will be more empty seats than at a Backstreet Boys reunion concert.

Yeah because Backstreets Back alright.

 

[hendrix]

Really happy with the squad.

- Elliot is an excellent middle order option and can easily cover half of Anderson's overs, which I think we'll need. I think he's a better 5 than Latham, especially since he's done some major work on his hitting ability.

- Good to see that Latham is considered as the backup opening option.

- The two "record" bowlers there are McCleneghan and Mills. Boult is the ***cier version of McG should that failure occur. Given that McG is a strike bowler not a containing bowler, I'm absolutely fine with Boult being his like-for-like replacement.

- Milne bowled first change in the UAE and none of them could score off him. Yes, Henry took the wickets but Southee, Mills and McG/Boult are more than capable of taking those early wickets.

Selectors' First XI:
McCullum
Guptill
KW
Taylor
Elliot
Anderson
Ronchi
Vettori
Southee
Mills
McCleneghan

Hendrix's First XI:
McCullum
Latham
KW
Taylor
Elliot
Anderson
Ronchi
Vettori
Southee
Boult
Milne

 

[Flem274*]

I'm all aboard Southee, Mills, Milne ftr

Nothing against Mitch I just needed to fit my boy Milne in somehow. Henry's dropping means I don't have to drop Southee to go in with my three faves.

 

[hendrix]

I think ultimately Milne is our best 3rd seamer in that squad, but it will need to be very carefully managed.

 

[Neil Young]

I'd give Southee a rest from the Sri Lankan series, maybe bring him back for the last game and against Pakistan - then the world cup. He's looking so tired.

Another thought - do you sacrifice against Sri Lanka and give guys like Anderson, Elliott and Williamson overs against them knowing you'll probably make a win harder to get, but get vital "in-competition" overs into the guys that will bowl overs for you in the world cup and could make a difference?

Yes, you do. In my view, anyway.

 

[marc71178]

I have this real fear that all my championing of Mills is going to come back to bite me. He has been ordinary his last few games, he is genuinely old for a fast bowler now, and he has seemed to be a yard or so down on pace. There are very, very vague signs that he might have just hit the decline.

Still, that simply doesn't come close to making it good selectorial logic to not pick him.

Surely if all those things are the case and there is a very viable alternative then the good logic is to not pick him?

 

[fishyguy]

Very disappointed and actually quite schoked at Neesham and Henrys ommission. What has Elliott done recently? And you have got to be kidding me with Henry after his UAE performance. Kyle Mills is not a good choice.

 

[Howsie]

Surely if all those things are the case and there is a very viable alternative then the good logic is to not pick him?

Nah it's not the NZ way. You just keep selecting the guy until he's literally being carried out onto the park.

 

[Meridio]

*Adds voice to those outraged at Henry missing out*

Definitely would have had him in for Boult - now, I wuv Boulteh as much as the next man, but he's never done anything in ODIs, even in Domestic cricket. Would've had Henry over Milne too myself, though I can see the logic in playing Milne as a middle-overs bowler given how well he bowled in the UAE. I'd pick Henry over McClenaghan too, now I think of it, though tbf at least he has an excellent record.

On the other hand, don't know where all the anti-Mills sentiment has come from. Not so much here, but all over Stuff, the NZ Herald, Facebook etc., people are bagging him left, right and centre. He's got a fantastic record - okay, didn't have a good year, but he's probably our 4th best ODI bowler ever (behind Hadlee, Vettori, Bond), and if used properly should still be in the team. Just keep him away from the death overs.

 

[Blocky]

*Adds voice to those outraged at Henry missing out*

Definitely would have had him in for Boult - now, I wuv Boulteh as much as the next man, but he's never done anything in ODIs, even in Domestic cricket. Would've had Henry over Milne too myself, though I can see the logic in playing Milne as a middle-overs bowler given how well he bowled in the UAE. I'd pick Henry over McClenaghan too, now I think of it, though tbf at least he has an excellent record.

On the other hand, don't know where all the anti-Mills sentiment has come from. Not so much here, but all over Stuff, the NZ Herald, Facebook etc., people are bagging him left, right and centre. He's got a fantastic record - okay, didn't have a good year, but he's probably our 4th best ODI bowler ever (behind Hadlee, Vettori, Bond), and if used properly should still be in the team. Just keep him away from the death overs.

Yeah, I've got to say it's quite weird hearing that the pick was between Mills and Henry, one of which has a career of performances and remains dangerous at the top of the order, the other who has recently come into the side and taken wickets for fun, meanwhile two completely unproven bowlers coasted in apparently in Boult and Milne who both haven't been economical and have both struggled to take wickets.

The only hope is someone gets "injured" in the next nine ODIs and they draft in Henry. They've already actually signalled the intent to play Henry and Neesham at some point during the next nine ODIs to rest and rotate their bowlers, personally that seems weird to me considering we should now be building ourselves up and getting our plans ready for the world cup with the 15 we selected.

 

[Binkley]

Like most, I would have had Henry in for Boult. Fantastic test bowler that Boult is, those lethal lengths that he bowls in the 5 day game are just not suited to the one day game.

I can see the logic behind the Elliot pick. I feel really sorry for Neesham because I rate him as a high quality player - and a better quality player than Elliot. But Neesham's strengths are already well-covered in the rest of the squad. Elliot does bring a couple of new dimensions to the team - a nurdler (although he can shift gears if he needs to) in the lower-middle order and a change of pace with the ball. With Neesham, Southee, Boult, Anderson, McClenaghan and Mills all operating at between 125-140 kph there is a danger that batsman might get into a groove against that kind of pace. Elliot will at least force batsman to adjust their approach.

 

[GGG]

Well I am going to go out on a limb and say that Boult will bowl better than everyone bar Southee in the Sri Lanka series. And by better I mean wickets and a lower average as he may go for a few.

 

[Blocky]

Well I am going to go out on a limb and say that Boult will bowl better than everyone bar Southee in the Sri Lanka series. And by better I mean wickets and a lower average as he may go for a few.

I expect Henry will have better figures than Milne, Boult, Mills and McCleneghan, because they're actually going to play him in the Sri Lanka series.

 

[jcas0167]

Happy with the Elliot selection, he always impressed me as having a good head on his shoulders. Feel somewhat sorry for Neesham has he didn't really have much opportunity to crack the opening role (a couple of innings against Steyn & Philander), although perhaps that was always a long shot. Also, he just seems like an x-factor player, but ultimately it seems he was competing with Anderson for one spot and his bowling isn't that convincing.

Really sorry for Henry who is the form ODI bowler. Would have had him in for Boult.

Unlucky, but it happens. He's young enough to get a 2nd and 3rd chance. Some good ODI players didn't make it. Chris Pringle (64 ODIs) didn't play in a World Cup. Bryan Young (74 ODIs) didn't play in a World Cup, despite being incumbent ODI keeper and then ODI opener the seasons before the 92, 96 and 99 cups.

And some with very average records have gone to previous World Cups. Crowe was saying on Twitter that in his view Pringle was the best ODI bowler along with Larsen, but the selectors didn't consult him. They went with Murphy Su'a who had gone ok in the test series vs England. Robert Kennedy & Carl Bulfin also went to World Cups, which I suppose highlights the unique level of the depth they have now.

 

[jcas0167]

So, thought I'd listen to Radiosport talkback and only got to the first caller before switching off:

"I won't be supporting the Black Caps this World Cup. For one, they have two Dad's Army members in Mills and Vettori. And they are captained by a guy who staged a coup to get the captaincy."- racist 50-something white farmer, National-voting rugby fan.

Yes, those racist white farmers. Maybe we should start murdering them like they do in South Africa.

Have to say I was actually pleasantly surprised by the knowledge of the couple of callers I heard this morning, both outlining why Henry was hard done by and one pointing to the difficult task Neesham had been assigned opening the batting against Steyn & co. That said, the quality of Radiosport talk-back can be infuriating.

 

[SteveNZ]

Well I am going to go out on a limb and say that Boult will bowl better than everyone bar Southee in the Sri Lanka series. And by better I mean wickets and a lower average as he may go for a few.

Very good chance he might, and I hope he does. I've said it before - I rate him really highly as a bowler, but I know nothing of him in ODI cricket because he hasn't played any, or ever taken more than 2-for in the few he has. It's a selection made on other formats, which I didn't have the current management down as doing.

 

[Zinzan]

I've been mulling over this nonsensical selection of Boult over Henry, especially with the former not even playing in the UAE, and the only think I can think of is the McHessgar's must really rate his death bowling.

I'm not convinced Boult is that great at the death, but I just can't think of any other rationale given the 2 bowlers respective records and the fact Henry swings the new ball beautifully.

 

[Flem274*]

Boult has always had an excellent yorker, right from when he played in that Under 19s v Masters game.

 

[SteveNZ]

Boult has always had an excellent yorker, right from when he played in that Under 19s v Masters game.

Has he proven it lately? Honest question, I've never seen him do it. I always thought he'd be very skiddy and hittable at the death, with not a great amount of an array of slower stuff. Again I stress I've seen none of his ODI/list A/T20 work, and my concern with his selection was lack of ODI exposure, nothing else

 

[thierry henry]

Surely if all those things are the case and there is a very viable alternative then the good logic is to not pick him?

No.

If you're talking about Henry? Maybe. But for me it's very much Mills v Boult.

The things I mentioned (essentially a few average games where he looked below his best) are nowhere near enough to displace Mills yet. This is not because I subscribe to some theory that you need to hold onto the oldies forever, far from it. I just don't see how on any sensible analysis there's enough evidence yet that Mills has deteriorated as an ODI bowler.

If you're comparing him to Boult, Boult isn't a "viable alternative" at all, because he isn't on the same planet as Mills as a 50-over bowler.

Really I probably just have a tendency to second-guess myself and fear-monger. Mills has proved hittable from time to time in his career but has generally been excellent. Any of our other seamers are potentially hittable too. It's really just that I've gone out on such a limb supporting Mills and am now questioning myself because it's in my nature.