Its Summer! - the Fever Cricket Thread. (Part 1)

Yeah but he can't convert those runs into international games.

Recalling him is a win/win situation for the selectors, either he gets runs or he fails and they have an easy excuse to dump him yet again. If they picked Williamson and he failed, it would be hard to drop him and save face.

I really hope Skippy gets picked and does well, he has been screwed over by the national selectors for years.

Why not Flynn?

Bollocks he has, he's just f**king rubbish.

Everytime he gets recalled, if he doesnt get a century he knows he will be dropped?

Considering some of the players who has been given extended runs without impressing, that is unfair. The Marshall twins, Fulton, Flynn hardly covered themself in glory.

Apart from Styris and Vincent, who else could they call in for cover who has experience?

Im available

Tbh, Sinclair scores tons of runs at Domestic level. Yes he's only set the test world a light at the start of his career but I'd rather pick the best at the Domestic level and watch him fail then pick an average domestic player and watch him fail.

Hoping Sinclair carves sh*t up.

Brilliant

Sinclair does not have the technique to play quality fast bowling. He is to slow at bringing his bat into line with the ball (doesn't come through straight) TouchMe2010-03-16 00:19:59

Just a reminder: it's been 17 years since we've beaten OZ in a test. 

oh god its worrying that hes been picked.
i really hope we are at least competitive and both games go the distance, or we win in 3 days

Since March 2001 (9 years exactly) he has averaged 20.93 in tests. That's not good enough. We know he's not good enough, I just don't know why we keep bothering. At least Williamson might come in and become another Taylor or Guptill over time. Sinclair will not do that. He is not good enough. End of story.

This.

Used to defend Sinclair a while ago, but he's proven over the last decade that he simply doesn't have it at the international level.

I reckon it's in his head not his technique.

He had an awesome eye, and great concentration. Would be good if he could kick on and get some scores. 20 isn't good enough. He should be at least 35 if not 45 with his talent.  He is at least a player with a mountain of experience.

Guptill hasn't been good enough this summer- and wouldn't have got that 189 against Aussie because he offered up an early chance or maybe more than one.

It's so much on concentration and determination, not getting figured out by the bowling attack. Though the technique helps of course. Which is what makes Guptill this season so frustrating. A great technique, good timing and his head hasn't quite been in it this season.

Do think though if you are good enough you are good enough- Crowe, Vettori and Fleming were this. Williamson really seems to be making a case. If you are good you want to challenge yourself against the best- do we get to play against Aussie again in the next 3 or 4 years?!??

Taylor, Ryder, Williamson----------Guptil-------------------------Everyone else

sinclair trained as wicket keeper today...the media are all over it i imagine

You mean Sinclair has a technique?

He's relied on his excellent hand-eye co-ordination his whole career. That works in FC cricket in NZ where the bowlers aren't too quick and don't move the ball around too much. Against quicker bowlers with more sideways movement and more bounce, he's always struggled because he doesn't have the technique to cope with it.

Where does Vettori fit into that?? and while we're on that subject Tuffey?


Class and results are not the same thing as Richardson shows, and they thought they'd found someone with stickability in Flynn. An immovable object or two in our batting lineup wouldn't hurt.

 
which is what they want macintosh to be, in fairness if he survives the early onslaught he starts to look ok....ish

Flyn has potential a good technique and discipline, but he doesn't score freely enough when opportunities arise. No good batting for a 150 ball and getting 20 runs at the end of the day.

I would kill for someone as talentless, but with as much determination as Richardson.

Oh wow, lets have this argument again. Go and read about Page 10 of this thread

n his defence, if NZ Cricket are having the same selection problems over and over, then the arguments around these problems are going to be repetitive too aren't they. fact is that our depth is piss poor, we have a few world class players at most and we have to select the rest of the players on form and the number in the domestic runs column.

i'm sure there are many other repetitive arguments on here in relation to this team.

No we had a vigorous debate about the merits of Mark Richardson, some on here don't rate him at all. I and others disagreed. That went on for quite some time.

This

o right, i was looking at the current picture (what we need) rather than the (what we had) Richardson part. carry on

also (sorry bopman, i'm not reading back) i'd like to argue that richardson wasn't completely talentless. he had a few things and he worked hard on the rest, something most of our batsmen could learn a lot from. it doesn't matter if your technique is flash, you need the mental toughness to overcome what cricket throws at you.

i guess this argument is quite open but i missed out on the riggor one 150 odd pages back.

:raises his hand:

:raises hand too:

I went to see a one man show last night at Bats called "The Second Test" it was pretty good. 

--Described as a true NZ story of courage, The Second Test is set in 1953 and tells the story of the NZ cricket team who reach South Africa and are hit with the news of the Tangiwai disaster back home. On now until 27 March at BATS.--

Okay to change the Richardson thing-

In the one dayers we have shown an inability to construct an innings. No one has batted through the way Astle used to do. 

It is more difficult with the power play, but we don't seem to have a batsman capable of collecting and not throwing their wicket away.

We used to have a good mix of stroke makers to players who would establish an innings. Now the mix of the team is constantly unballanced.  Also that we simply don't play enough games, and half the games we do play don't mean anything as they are against Bangladesh or a sub-par Windies effort.

Tours to India/Sri Lanka and Bangladesh this year so will be playing plenty of ODI cricket.

1995-2007 217 14 7090 145* 34.92 9760 72.64 16 41

2002-2010 145 22 3569 166 29.01 4062 87.86 2 17

ODIs.

McCullum at the bottom, Astle at the top. Key stat for me is the 16 hundreds against 2 hundreds. Agree that he could bat through. Guptill is a bit of an enigma. Taylor needs to be scoring hundreds regularly too or to be averaging 60+ cos he's easily good enough.

martinb2010-03-18 16:19:30

Taylor will end with an average mid 40 by the end of his career, pretty confident of that. I think all 4 of Taylor, Ryder, Guptill and McCullum could end up with averages around there.

Agre Bopman. Not a huge fan of McCullum opening, but it is unfair to compare hundreds with Astle (although I don't think 2 is good enough for the number of innings he has opened) due to McCullum often batting at 6-8.

yep- just pointing out where he is lacking at the moment. I think he has made more hundreds in 20/20 and he has been opening in one dayers for a while. I can't think of too many times yet when he has batted through, or at least until the batting power play.

I think I will go to the test tomorrow after school and on Saturday. Football has me tied up on Sunday. See you all there.

ahh morning of a test match, whats the weather like in wellington?

Beautiful, crisp morning Downey