View Full Version : New Zealand's fickle top order
XFactor1979
22 Mar 2010, 12:37
this has been an ongoing trend for quite some time now with relation to the new zealand cricket team
not just the test team either, be it odis, or even twenty20s new zealand's never had a reliable top order to be considered a tough ask comparing it to australia, india or south africa's
just looking at the current top order right now: watling, ingram, guptill, you have vettori is coming in at 6 (for crying out loud!), this doesnt bode well for the remaining specialists in the new zealand first class arena. the only player that belongs there is ross taylor but he lacks discipline. the top order is possibly worse than bangla desh's
the other positives are mcintosh is a matthew richardson clone (a blocker), but the other possibilities are ryder (where is he?), but they keep bringing up the name of mat sinclar, but hes as useless as a screendoor on a submarine!
and what happened to lou vincent? he was a gun fielder as well. or the marshall twins?
Think you're a bit harsh on Guptill there, he's been a good ODI batsman for a while and is now developing nicely as a Test player. Together with Taylor you've got the makings of a solid middle order.
It's the top 3 that needs some work, but at the moment it's probably down to a sheer lack of options. Ingram is a bit of a spud but he's an experienced FC player and in a young side, that's what they need at first drop right now. Watling - there's some promise there.
Hardly a team of worldbeaters, but it's not all bleakness across the pond. I'd certainly prefer to have them batting for my life than the Bangas.
Plugger35
22 Mar 2010, 13:08
Ryder is coming back from injury, he's started training again so might be back for the 2nd test. They could definitely do with him as he is one of their few test class batsmen.
Vincent defected to the ICL but I think is back playing domestic cricket in NZ now. Hamish Marshall is playing county cricket and his twin brother James, who was the lesser of the two, is still playing NZ domestic cricket. Not sure any of those three would be better than the batsmen they already have now though.
NZ have definitely struggled in recent times to put together a decent top order. They've relied more on a strong middle/lower order to make the bulk of their runs, just as they have done in this current innings. Unfortunately injuries, defections and retirements haven't helped them and they don't really have the batting depth Australia has to cover them.
What happened to Flynn? Weren't they backing him as no 3 about 12-18 months ago?
KiwiRoo
22 Mar 2010, 13:45
this has been an ongoing trend for quite some time now with relation to the new zealand cricket team
not just the test team either, be it odis, or even twenty20s new zealand's never had a reliable top order to be considered a tough ask comparing it to australia, india or south africa's
just looking at the current top order right now: watling, ingram, guptill, you have vettori is coming in at 6 (for crying out loud!), this doesnt bode well for the remaining specialists in the new zealand first class arena. the only player that belongs there is ross taylor but he lacks discipline. the top order is possibly worse than bangla desh's
the other positives are mcintosh is a matthew richardson clone (a blocker), but the other possibilities are ryder (where is he?), but they keep bringing up the name of mat sinclar, but hes as useless as a screendoor on a submarine!
and what happened to lou vincent? he was a gun fielder as well. or the marshall twins?
Vettori has averaged in the mid 40's the last 3-4 years..so should be batting six..
Ryder is class & will make a difference
Watling needs some time..its a tough gig opening in test cricket..plus was a little unlucky in the second dig.
Vincent & the Marshalls are a long shot to make it back..just not consistent enough
We desperately need a class no 3..cant see ingram do that
What happened to Flynn? Weren't they backing him as no 3 about 12-18 months ago?
I think they dropped him for the Bangladesh visit. He'd been averaging under 30 for quite a while so I can't say I blame the selectors.
Gazza_11
22 Mar 2010, 14:53
Why not swap their top order with their lower one? ;)
Bomber Bears
22 Mar 2010, 21:36
Have the makings of a solid middle order with Guptill, Taylor, Ryder and Williamson. Openers are aweful, however, and always have been it seems. Desperately need a solid player up the top
Ebert80
22 Mar 2010, 21:46
Bring back that gun Blair Pocock :cool:
Fancy a country with only 3 million people having talent depth issues.
If they can sort out their top 3 I think there may be some light at the end of the tunnel. Taylor, Guptil, Vettori and McCullum have the potential for a pretty solid middle order, but more often than not they are 3 down for not many and these guys are placed under a lot of pressure.
Ryder I'm not convinced on... has talent but no application and cannot be relied upon. Probably still better than the spuds they've got in the current top order though.
you have vettori is coming in at 6 (for crying out loud!)
Averaging mid 40s for a while now, so cannot knock that decision... also made 40 odd and 70 odd this test to justify the selection.
XFactor1979
23 Mar 2010, 08:14
Why not swap their top order with their lower one? ;)
yes with chris martin opening up
after 0.1 overs (the first ball bowled by ryan harris)
the score is 1 for 0 :confused:
XFactor1979
23 Mar 2010, 08:16
theyve picked plenty of top order players in that time, and alot of them on the basis of their technique or estimating how they could go against types of opposition
redmond
how
no such luck
western royboy
23 Mar 2010, 10:02
I would take How, Flynn, Fulton over Ingram any day of the week. You cannot not move your feet at that level.
Ryder
McIntosh
Flynn
Taylor
Guptill
Fulton
McCullum
Vettori
Tuffey
Southee
Arnell
Anyone but Martin
that's got to be better than what they are currently dishing out.
Bond and Oram would make a big difference.
Plugger35
23 Mar 2010, 16:54
Ryder I'm not convinced on... has talent but no application and cannot be relied upon. Probably still better than the spuds they've got in the current top order though.
Ryder made a test hundred and double hundred against India last year so he has shown he has the application to be a good test batsman, he isn't just a bash crash merchant.
I'd probably rate him ahead of Taylor as NZ's most talented batsman and he has been a big loss with his injury lay off.
I would take How, Flynn, Fulton over Ingram any day of the week. You cannot not move your feet at that level.
Fulton has been next to useless at international level, don't know why the NZ selectors persisted with him for so long. If they have any sense he won't ever be selected again.
Flynn definitely has potential as a test batsman though so hopefully he gets another opportunity.
How looked quite good when he first came into test cricket but fell badly out of form and was dropped. Not sure what his form is like in domestic cricket but I'm surprised he hasn't been seen since.
Probelm with NZ is the players they are picking avaergae mid 30's in domestic cricket. And their domestic competition isnt very good. So when you come into test match cricket with these averages from and average competition, you will always struggle.
Taylor is their best but throws his wicket away too often going for quick runs. Vettori is a no.6 batsmen in that side, no doubt. Probably their 2nd most consitent batsman. McCullum hasnt delivered on his potential as he also throws his wicket away trying for the quick runs.
City Blues
24 Mar 2010, 11:02
NZ need to sort out that top order, but I guess Ryder leaves a big hole in more ways than one.
spookism
24 Mar 2010, 14:56
After watching the 1st test I believe the problem lies more in there fast bowling stocks (or should I say Medium-pace).
You have guys who are facing bowlers who can only get it up to 130-135kmph on a good day and then they come out and face Australia, who at the moment have two openers in the 140-145kmph mark, a first change 150kmph bowler and an all-rounder who bowls at 135kmph.
A weaker batting lineup is always going to look fragile facing guys 10 - 15 kmph faster then they have to face in the nets or on the weekends in their local comp!
XFactor1979
24 Mar 2010, 15:26
it would be an interesting match up to see who would win if nz play bangladesh - in bangladesh - now! the deshis are a far tougher proposition at home, and i suspect they might be favourites playing test matches at home against nz
as brittle as bangladesh's top order is (kayes, should be a straight swap with shahriar nafees dont you think?), nz's is not all that better
Plugger35
24 Mar 2010, 17:18
it would be an interesting match up to see who would win if nz play bangladesh - in bangladesh - now! the deshis are a far tougher proposition at home, and i suspect they might be favourites playing test matches at home against nz
as brittle as bangladesh's top order is (kayes, should be a straight swap with shahriar nafees dont you think?), nz's is not all that better
NZ won the test series in Bangladesh back in 2008, wasn't a whole lot in it though. They won the recent one off test in NZ as well pretty comfortably.
Bangladesh are improving though, whereas NZ has gone backwards with all the recent retirements, injuries etc. So there may come a time where Bangladesh overtakes them but not at this stage.
aidancdaman
26 Mar 2010, 17:44
I've been scanning through you Australians' opinions :p. Fair enough, you're entitled to them. I've made it my mission to learn about the history and records of the game in Aotearoa and I think I know enough to be qualified to comment :D. We aren't blessed with the same amount of talent as Australia, but at the same time the performances some of the players are coming out with are borderline unacceptable. In recent years, decks here are nigh on tarmac, so it's hard sometimes to pick the contenders from the pretenders. The problem starts with the whole fact that there is no proper grass-roots system in place. From Year 9 through Year 13, cricket is played in schools, and the quality of our club cricket could be outshone by 5 Pakistani boys playing cricket in an all. The odd real talent comes along, but when you have people like Matthew Bell, Craig Cumming and Michael Papps, all failures at the highest level, scoring century after bloody century, it provides an absolute and utter dilemma for the selectors.
I really believe McIntosh has the goods, but I am sceptical of Watling and Guptill's ability to knuckle down and do the hard yards. And the fact that these two only average 25-30 in the Plunket Shield should raise questions as to why they were picked. At least McIntosh had to wait his time before a call-up. He was the top scorer of centuries in Auckland's first-class cricket before his name was bundled about. It's incredibly hard to grow at international level, and only the true greats can. I do not think Guptill or Watling are future greats, though I'd be more than happy for them to prove me wrong. Jesse Ryder is a natural number five. He's played a few innings of substance where he has shown he can knuckle under, and two centuries against India further contrast one member's argument that he isn't good enough. Again, it's your opinion and you're fully entitled to it.
Mathew Sinclair. I guess a word to describe him would be 'enigma'. The story to his entire life and career is sad. If his father hadn't died in a car crash, he'd still be living in Darwin and perhaps plying his trade in the Sheffield Shield. Prior to the Bracewell regime, he'd racked up 1000 runs in under 20 tests, a rather rare feat for a kiwi, and was looking a promising talent. And then Bracewell and the selectors started to f**k him around. Which is the same reason Nathan Astle and Chris Cairns walked, and a contributing factor to Craig McMillan's retirement. This buggerising about continued up until his most recent test series to date against England, where it was fair to say he was going through a horrible run of form. But Sinclair didn't get bitter, he got better. He's recently racked up his 30th First-Class hundred, and needs six more to overtake Stephen Fleming on the NZ First-Class list. Sadly, his time is coming towards an end. One thing's for sure, his attitude's changed. Martin Crowe apparently has found him 'a pleasure to work with' and 'hopes that he plays on Saturday'. A far cry from the tag of 'uncoachable' that he was given under Camp Bracewell. He's coming into this test with not a lot to lose, but everything to gain. And I really hope he succeeds. He deserves it.
Well, that's the end of my rant. Though if I were a national selector, my team would look like this......
__________
TG McIntosh
__________
LRPL Taylor
JD Ryder
GD Elliott
BB McCullum
DL Vettori
DR Tuffey
__________
CS Martin
A little bit away from the purpose of this thread, but there's plenty of spots up for grabs. There's young talents like Kane Williamson, who's been the form batsmen in the 50 over and 4-Day formats.
Tim Southee, who sadly, seems to be a bit of an unlucky bowler, and a crap batsman.
Neil Wagner, the quickest bowler around on the domestic circuit, and needs another year to qualify for NZ selection (Which would make him the third Yapie in the last year and a bit to represent us, alongside Watling and Elliott).
And then there's old heads like Sinclair, who probably deserves his spot being arguably the most prolific batsman in Shield cricket history. And Franklin, who definitely has the talent, but it's only come in glimpses, and Jeetan Patel, the Paul Wiseman of today.
And for the record, Bangladesh have now got to overtake Pakistan and the West Indies to be ahead of us on the rankings Plugger. We were sitting 6th a week or so ago :p.
What's wrong with Guptill? He's been a good ODI contributor for a while, and he's played some good innings in the few Tests he's played thus far. From what I've seen he's been developing nicely as an unlimited overs player.
aidancdaman
26 Mar 2010, 18:10
If you take the test against Bangladesh out of the equation, he's played 9 tests and scored about 350 runs at 20 with one fifty. Not good enough in my books. My opinion though, again, you don't have to agree, and I don't want you to agree, as it creates a mass-debate :D.
Might have to point out to some of you that Jesse Ryder has never really been a top-order batsmen in the longer form, whether it be in the Plunket Shield or tests. I can remember him playing 4 tests at no.3 without gigantic success, and they swapped him with Daniel Flynn.
On another note, I believe you'll see Daniel Flynn back. He's trying to turn himself into an opener, and he's made a good go of it in the last couple of months.
Fair enough. Personally, when a player has played this few tests, I don't put too much stock in stats. I was impressed by the way he played a class Indian attack last year, and regardless of the opposition his innings last month against Bangladesh was pleasingly mature.
Twelve months from now, he'll be a solid middle order contributor. Guarantee it. ;)
aidancdaman
26 Mar 2010, 18:30
The problem is, the only middle order spot that would be remotely available would be the no.6 spot. And then he'd be playing a Marcus-North like role. And I'd be down with that. Though it would mean you miss out on a good medium-fast seamer like Elliott to trundle down some overs when wickets are MIA. Which wouldn't be too great a loss. I'd be more than delighted to be proven wrong by Guptill, though I can't see fat boy Ryder being anywhere but 5.
western royboy
27 Mar 2010, 09:51
I've been scanning through you Australians' opinions :p. Fair enough, you're entitled to them. I've made it my mission to learn about the history and records of the game in Aotearoa and I think I know enough to be qualified to comment :D. We aren't blessed with the same amount of talent as Australia, but at the same time the performances some of the players are coming out with are borderline unacceptable. In recent years, decks here are nigh on tarmac, so it's hard sometimes to pick the contenders from the pretenders. The problem starts with the whole fact that there is no proper grass-roots system in place. From Year 9 through Year 13, cricket is played in schools, and the quality of our club cricket could be outshone by 5 Pakistani boys playing cricket in an all. The odd real talent comes along, but when you have people like Matthew Bell, Craig Cumming and Michael Papps, all failures at the highest level, scoring century after bloody century, it provides an absolute and utter dilemma for the selectors.
I really believe McIntosh has the goods, but I am sceptical of Watling and Guptill's ability to knuckle down and do the hard yards. And the fact that these two only average 25-30 in the Plunket Shield should raise questions as to why they were picked. At least McIntosh had to wait his time before a call-up. He was the top scorer of centuries in Auckland's first-class cricket before his name was bundled about. It's incredibly hard to grow at international level, and only the true greats can. I do not think Guptill or Watling are future greats, though I'd be more than happy for them to prove me wrong. Jesse Ryder is a natural number five. He's played a few innings of substance where he has shown he can knuckle under, and two centuries against India further contrast one member's argument that he isn't good enough. Again, it's your opinion and you're fully entitled to it.
Mathew Sinclair. I guess a word to describe him would be 'enigma'. The story to his entire life and career is sad. If his father hadn't died in a car crash, he'd still be living in Darwin and perhaps plying his trade in the Sheffield Shield. Prior to the Bracewell regime, he'd racked up 1000 runs in under 20 tests, a rather rare feat for a kiwi, and was looking a promising talent. And then Bracewell and the selectors started to f**k him around. Which is the same reason Nathan Astle and Chris Cairns walked, and a contributing factor to Craig McMillan's retirement. This buggerising about continued up until his most recent test series to date against England, where it was fair to say he was going through a horrible run of form. But Sinclair didn't get bitter, he got better. He's recently racked up his 30th First-Class hundred, and needs six more to overtake Stephen Fleming on the NZ First-Class list. Sadly, his time is coming towards an end. One thing's for sure, his attitude's changed. Martin Crowe apparently has found him 'a pleasure to work with' and 'hopes that he plays on Saturday'. A far cry from the tag of 'uncoachable' that he was given under Camp Bracewell. He's coming into this test with not a lot to lose, but everything to gain. And I really hope he succeeds. He deserves it.
Well, that's the end of my rant. Though if I were a national selector, my team would look like this......
__________
TG McIntosh
__________
LRPL Taylor
JD Ryder
GD Elliott
BB McCullum
DL Vettori
DR Tuffey
__________
CS Martin
A little bit away from the purpose of this thread, but there's plenty of spots up for grabs. There's young talents like Kane Williamson, who's been the form batsmen in the 50 over and 4-Day formats.
Tim Southee, who sadly, seems to be a bit of an unlucky bowler, and a crap batsman.
Neil Wagner, the quickest bowler around on the domestic circuit, and needs another year to qualify for NZ selection (Which would make him the third Yapie in the last year and a bit to represent us, alongside Watling and Elliott).
And then there's old heads like Sinclair, who probably deserves his spot being arguably the most prolific batsman in Shield cricket history. And Franklin, who definitely has the talent, but it's only come in glimpses, and Jeetan Patel, the Paul Wiseman of today.
And for the record, Bangladesh have now got to overtake Pakistan and the West Indies to be ahead of us on the rankings Plugger. We were sitting 6th a week or so ago :p.
Good post
Bracewell is a tool, Martin Crowe was my technical batting idol and I know he hated that regime.
I don't mind your side, however I am keen on Guptil, Flynn and would not right off Jamie How. I am not as keen on Elliot as I am not sure he is a test class bat. I hope Williamson makes it.
Bowling is still an issue, Martin is just not up to test class, Southee has youth on his side and Arnel looks ok. Play the Yarpie and see how you go.
Freo Big Fella
28 Mar 2010, 00:29
What's happened to Oram? Has he gone down the T20 mercenary route?
KiwiRoo
28 Mar 2010, 05:04
What's happened to Oram? Has he gone down the T20 mercenary route?
Did his knee in the one day game at Napier..out for quite a while
Plugger35
28 Mar 2010, 12:58
Oram's retired from test cricket anyway and his body is more fragile than Shane Watson's.
aidancdaman
28 Mar 2010, 17:03
What's happened to Oram? Has he gone down the T20 mercenary route?
If only.....
Nah, he's buggered a knee or something. These problems of his seem to be recurring, and he's not exactly irreplaceable. And besides that, he's retired from test cricket.