West Indies tour of NZ
-
@Cyclops said in West Indies tour of NZ:
It's official, Blundell and Ajaz in. Duffy remains in the squad and Jamieson not called up. Kristian Clarke the 4th seamer.
The decision of Jamieson has to sit with the medical/conditioning team but Blundell's recall is gutless. I'm not even sure Blundell is our second keeper with Max Chu improving rapidly for Otago.
I believe this would be a 4th home test for Ajaz who is yet to take a home wicket.
At the time we hired Walter I thought Shane Bond was the better option and nothing he's done so far has convinced me otherwise.
Yeah i really dont get why they dont pick Jamieson. We have the Windies number its not like he would be facing 5 days of tough cricket.
If he can bowl nearly 30 overs in a domestic game why cant he bowl in a test?understand why they went back to Blundell, im sure its only a matter of time before Hay takes his spot anyway.
-
@Virgil said in West Indies tour of NZ:
@Cyclops said in West Indies tour of NZ:
It's official, Blundell and Ajaz in. Duffy remains in the squad and Jamieson not called up. Kristian Clarke the 4th seamer.
The decision of Jamieson has to sit with the medical/conditioning team but Blundell's recall is gutless. I'm not even sure Blundell is our second keeper with Max Chu improving rapidly for Otago.
I believe this would be a 4th home test for Ajaz who is yet to take a home wicket.
At the time we hired Walter I thought Shane Bond was the better option and nothing he's done so far has convinced me otherwise.
Yeah i really dont get why they dont pick Jamieson. We have the Windies number its not like he would be facing 5 days of tough cricket.
If he can bowl nearly 30 overs in a domestic game why cant he bowl in a test?understand why they went back to Blundell, im sure its only a matter of time before Hay takes his spot anyway.
The Windies have been here awhile and will already have one foot on the plane home. Not playing Jamieson for some easy wickets ( like you say, this one won’t go five days ) is ridiculous.
Hay couldn’t have done more either really.
The Nicholls one is a bit weird, obviously there is the view that he is a home track bully but he'd be playing at home against a limited team. Seems odd he's not there. Young continually blows chances to get the big score he needs to stamp his mark at this level of the game.
-
@African-Monkey said in West Indies tour of NZ:
@Chris said in West Indies tour of NZ:
@mikey07 said in West Indies tour of NZ:
@booboo Can’t see with the what seemed like 100s of chances Nicholls got
Yeah don’t get that Nicholls has 9 test 100s one being a double,more than Conway and Mitchell
Young has 0 100s
I think I see the better player on results.Come on now, he has 10 test centuries haha, but yeah, the guy has certainly overachieved in his career. Didn't think he'd last as long as he has/did when I first saw him at international level.
Yeah his record makes him a better player than Young who has 0 from 23 tests lets put the player in the squad who can't score a test 100 over the player who has 10 good idea lol.
If you can't see that then you are kidding yourself.
These stupid comments about a players who is 8th on the all time amount of test Hundreds is just laughable. -
-
-
@Chris said in West Indies tour of NZ:
@Bovidae said in West Indies tour of NZ:
Young will also be covering as an opener, which Nicholls isn't.
Nicholls has opened in tests so that is not a issue.
Not according to cricinfo. He has batted from 3 to 6. The majority of Young's test innings are as an opener.
-
@Bovidae said in West Indies tour of NZ:
@Chris said in West Indies tour of NZ:
@Bovidae said in West Indies tour of NZ:
Young will also be covering as an opener, which Nicholls isn't.
Nicholls has opened in tests so that is not a issue.
Not according to cricinfo. He has batted from 3 to 6. The majority of Young's test innings are as an opener.
He has opened I was at a test he opened the batting due to an injury and Made runs,cricinfo also has wrong stats on players not a site to trust it is not accurate.
-
@Chris said in West Indies tour of NZ:
@Bovidae said in West Indies tour of NZ:
@Chris said in West Indies tour of NZ:
@Bovidae said in West Indies tour of NZ:
Young will also be covering as an opener, which Nicholls isn't.
Nicholls has opened in tests so that is not a issue.
Not according to cricinfo. He has batted from 3 to 6. The majority of Young's test innings are as an opener.
He has opened I was at a test he opened the batting due to an injury and Made runs,cricinfo also has wrong stats on players not a site to trust it is not accurate.
I think you must be thinking of an ODI. Nicholls has never opened at test level and cricinfo could not be more accurate in terms of stats.
-
@Virgil said in West Indies tour of NZ:
yup the highest hes batted in a test is at #3 earlier this year in Zimbabwe (34 and 4*)
The rest of his batting has been at 4 and 5he has opened several times in ODI's however.
he also batted at 3 vs India back in 2016, his overall record @3 is 63 runs at 21.00
-
Its funny the Young v Nicholls debate because I always thought Young was the better player coming through. Maybe its because Nicholls isn't the prettiest on the eye, but he has received some harsh criticism at times. Young is still a handy bat to have around the squad and is test standard, and always contributes without ever kicking on, but yeah, you'd think Nicholls had never crossed triple figures the way he gets talked about. 10 test centuries at 39 is nothing to be sneezed at.
-
@African-Monkey said in West Indies tour of NZ:
Its funny the Young v Nicholls debate because I always thought Young was the better player coming through. Maybe its because Nicholls isn't the prettiest on the eye, but he has received some harsh criticism at times. Young is still a handy bat to have around the squad and is test standard, and always contributes without ever kicking on, but yeah, you'd think Nicholls had never crossed triple figures the way he gets talked about. 10 test centuries at 39 is nothing to be sneezed at.
Young is massively frustrating. A middling ( but not terrible ) average, some really nice signs but no huge scores. He looks the part before he gets out.
41 innings at test level should have resulted in a ton or three by now.
Nicholls was part of the best era of BC Cricket and did a more than handy job at five in the order. He should really still be in the squad somewhere.
The KW/Ravindra/Mitchell 3-5 positions are set in stone although KWs powers might be waning slightly, Ravindra still shows lapses in concentration and son of Mitch hasn't scored a ton in two and a half years.
As for this, straight from the Razor handbook.....
Sounds like Hay was on a hiding to nothing from the start. He took his one batting chance well and from what I saw of the test ( quite a bit ) his keeping was excellent.
-
Young has been a massive disappointment in tests. He was very promising coming through and had a decent run in ODIs but has really struggled in tents. The recent Indian series was his best performance - player of the series I believe - and I hoped that was a turning point but it seems more like A blip.
Nicholls is probably getting close to a recall, he's piled on the runs lately. At this point the biggest knock is probably his age - just turned 34. You're not bringing him in with an eye to the future.
Mariu must be the next in line though, especially if we're replacing an opener. His latest ton took him past 2000 runs in 40 innings at an average over 50.
All a bit academic, since our next test is in May, a one off vs Ireland, followed by a tour of England. We'll have had the second half of plunket shield by then and who knows who will be in form by then.
-
@Cyclops said in West Indies tour of NZ:
Young has been a massive disappointment in tests. He was very promising coming through and had a decent run in ODIs but has really struggled in tents. The recent Indian series was his best performance - player of the series I believe - and I hoped that was a turning point but it seems more like A blip.
Nicholls is probably getting close to a recall, he's piled on the runs lately. At this point the biggest knock is probably his age - just turned 34. You're not bringing him in with an eye to the future.
Mariu must be the next in line though, especially if we're replacing an opener. His latest ton took him past 2000 runs in 40 innings at an average over 50.
All a bit academic, since our next test is in May, a one off vs Ireland, followed by a tour of England. We'll have had the second half of plunket shield by then and who knows who will be in form by then.
Do we need to start a "Walter firsts" thread for this one just in case?
-
@Chris said in West Indies tour of NZ:
@Bovidae said in West Indies tour of NZ:
@Chris said in West Indies tour of NZ:
@Bovidae said in West Indies tour of NZ:
Young will also be covering as an opener, which Nicholls isn't.
Nicholls has opened in tests so that is not a issue.
Not according to cricinfo. He has batted from 3 to 6. The majority of Young's test innings are as an opener.
He has opened I was at a test he opened the batting due to an injury and Made runs,cricinfo also has wrong stats on players not a site to trust it is not accurate.
Should be pretty easy for you to work out the test then.
-
I like the loyalty philosophy the Black Caps have, it’s clearly worked over the past 10 or so years.
However the loyalty should have to be earned and not just handed out by default.
In Young’s case, just doesn’t have the numbers and proven history to fall back on during a lean patch like others do.
There also has to come a point where a proven performer’s demonising returns over a longer period have to come into the equation.
I don’t have the numbers on me and can’t be bothered looking them up, but Blundell’s place in the team must be being discussed at the selection table rather than being an automatic selection.
-
@Gunner said in West Indies tour of NZ:
I like the loyalty philosophy the Black Caps have, it’s clearly worked over the past 10 or so years.
However the loyalty should have to be earned and not just handed out by default.
In Young’s case, just doesn’t have the numbers and proven history to fall back on during a lean patch like others do.
There also has to come a point where a proven performer’s demonising returns over a longer period have to come into the equation.
I don’t have the numbers on me and can’t be bothered looking them up, but Blundell’s place in the team must be being discussed at the selection table rather than being an automatic selection.
Yeah Ross Taylor was possibly a bit lucky to be there towards the end of his career but the fact he was far and away the best batsman in NZ during his career ( disclaimer: apart from anyone called Kane Williamson ) meant he had earnt the right to farewell on his terms.
Actually Tim Southee took this to slightly ridiculous extremes until he finally buggered off.
Blundell has done a good job but he's no McCullum or Watling. There should be massive question marks over his continued selection.
-
@Donsteppa said in West Indies tour of NZ:
Interesting just having a look at Will Young's stats:
Tests: 41 innings, 11 50s, 0 100's. Average 31.97
ODI's: 52 innings, 10 50's, 4 100's. Average 36.04Shame his conversion rate in Tests isn't like his ODI one.
His ODI record hasnt been great recently too, for a while he was averaging over 40.00
Its hard not to feel he's only in the side because he can bat both as an opener and the middle order (and there isnt really alot else to choose from other than Nicholls)
