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

[Kippax]

Elliott also averages something like 43 in Australasia and 17 in Asia.

 

[Days of Grace]

Yeah, Elliott timed his run perfectly. Also provides some cake whearas Jimmy is seen as icing.

Latham vs. Elliott for no.5 will be interesting.

I expect the pace bowlers will all be rotated with none of them being a certain selection.

 

[thierry henry]

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.

 

[thierry henry]

I expect the pace bowlers will all be rotated with none of them being a certain selection.

Yeah, as has been the case for a while now. To keep harping on the point- it has bugged me over the last few years that Mills hasn't been an auto-selection, but I think it's a pretty established strategy now. There really is no "number 1" bowling line-up.

 

[SurgeInWelly]

Listening to GE's i/v with Wads he also mentioned being a Top 5 batsMAN who can bowl so I'm thinking he's in at five ahead of Latham which makes sense as we have no other top order bat who can bowl after JR and JN didn't take their respective chances for varying reasons.

 

[SurgeInWelly]

I might have had Henry ahead of Boult but I get the logic behind it (variation and balance) so no complaints... that aside I think they've done a pretty good job and picked a squad that could win a WC (not that they really couldn't to be fair lol).

 

[bill8164]

Also, Elliott mentioned that his partner/wife was having their second child at the time of the NZ A tour otherwise he would have been there.

 

[BeeGee]

After a second viewing of the squad, I'd guess Latham.

When McCullum was asked on the radio who the backup opener was, Latham was the first name he mentioned.

 

[anil1405]

Wasn't henry bowling a tad more better than Milne in build up to the WC?

Haven't seen these guys play domestic cricket but the numbers suggest Henry is more effective compared to Milne. Obviously numbers aren't everything but they do tell us one side of the story.

 

[Grasshopper]

Listening to GE's i/v with Wads he also mentioned being a Top 5 batsMAN who can bowl so I'm thinking he's in at five ahead of Latham which makes sense as we have no other top order bat who can bowl after JR and JN didn't take their respective chances for varying reasons.

Sugar Kane?

 

[SurgeInWelly]

Sugar Kane?

Yeah I thought the same... not sure with his new action - but even prior rarely saw him give us 5-10 overs in an ODI as we know GE can.

 

[Grasshopper]

Yeah I thought the same... not sure with his new action - but even prior rarely saw him give us 5-10 overs in an ODI as we know GE can.

We'll probably be in a spot of bother if we need that many overs from him, to be fair.

 

[vandem]

Wasn't henry bowling a tad more better than Milne in build up to the WC?

Haven't seen these guys play domestic cricket but the numbers suggest Henry is more effective compared to Milne. Obviously numbers aren't everything but they do tell us one side of the story.

Watched some of the UAE games, Milne was the best middle innings / powerplay bowler. Henry got important early inning wickets, but this job will go to Southee / Boult / Mills.

 

[Zinzan]

When McCullum was asked on the radio who the backup opener was, Latham was the first name he mentioned.

Which again makes an absolute mockery of the fact Latham wasn't tried once as an opener in the 5 games in the UAE in spite of Guptill being injured for most of that series.

This coupled with the fact Boult didn't play in the UAE ODIs at all just defies logic for me, which is surprising given how calculated McHessgar (bmac, hesson & edgar) have been in the last 12-18 months.

 

[anil1405]

Watched some of the UAE games, Milne was the best middle innings / powerplay bowler. Henry got important early inning wickets, but this job will go to Southee / Boult / Mills.

Henry would be effective in middle phase of the innings too. Plus he has wickets to show.

 

[Flem274*]

Henry missing out for Boult was a big logic stuff up. It can't even be the "best test players = best ODI players" reasoning used to get Chris Martin and James Franklin in the ODI team back in the day because otherwise Watling, Wagner and Rutherford would be in there. They've made a gamble. Boult should be sixth in line by performance and skill set wise he should be sixth too. Along the wicket at brisk pace will be easy to hit once the swing goes, especially since he doesn't have an off cutter or the like and reverse swing isn't going to be a thing.

I hope it works though and that I get egg on my face because it sounds like he's the number two behind Southee since he got the UAE rest.

I think the Elliott selection was clever. Latham hasn't made #5 his own and Elliott both provides someone with proven ODI performances with bat and ball, meaning he covers Anderson's 10 overs. Elliott is very good at rotating the strike and his weakness against spin won't be exposed when their weapons are reduced to what they can do in the air.

I'd be giving Boult, Milne, Elliott and Latham as many games as possible before the World Cup. We need as much experience or reintegration as we can. Playing both Boult and Milne consistently also means we can give Southee and Vettori a nice rest and figure out the pecking order.

Lastly, I completely agree with TH and Kippax about Mills on fast pitches. I was coming in here to say the same thing.

 

[SteveNZ]

All in all you can see the logic - ie if Mitch doesn't fire, Trent is his back-up as a left-arm option (or as I see it). I don't think he would've made the squad if he bowled with his right arm, given his career statistics.

 

[Blocky]

Elliot is a good pick, unquestionably.

Not having Henry there flies in the face of "Put performances on the board and we'll pick you" and I don't like that, I understand why they like the idea of Milne with his pace and such, but he's been ineffective in comparison to Henry. Likewise, I understand why they like the idea of Trent Boult being able to bowl fast swing in an ODI, but he's been ineffective in comparison to pretty much every pace bowler in the Top 30. It's just theory crafting, "We think in this match situation, that this type of player can help us" - reminds me of England in their hunt for all rounders with guys like Ealham, Erani, Clarke, Bopara, etc.

 

[SteveNZ]

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.

He might well, but being an experienced campaigner and proven performer he has to be there. If he doesn't perform well, it doesn't make it a bad selection. It's been made on performance over a long period of time, and even recently fairly decent.

He'll perform. He loves our decks and we can set fields very comfortably to him, which is what Baz loves about him. He knows exactly what he'll get. Henry, he might get 4-30 but he also might get him being hit into a lot of areas he can't defend.

 

[Zinzan]

Slightly unrelated, but I'm assuming they're exclusively using this 15 man squad for the SL one-dayers. I mean how annoying will it be now if they play Henry and he kills.