Sigh.
At least this means that hopefully, at the end of this series, there will be one less top order batsman with a mediocre record for NZC to experiment with before they bring in some real talent. Might I suggest one Mr. Kane Williamson. Sure he's only 19, but so was Tim Southee when he first arrived on the international scene and Kane seems like way less of a dickhead. He's also coming off two 150 plus scores for Northern districts, in consecutive innings.
There is however, the argument that perhaps it's not wise to throw such a young player in the deep end, against one of the best attacks going around at the moment.
And This sounds like good logic, until you realise that Australia's plan to dismiss the guy they chose instead is "bowl at the stumps," - and it usually works a charm.
But at least the test squad announcement means I get to see BJ Watling's name on something... which brings me to my next question.
Why the hell is Watling regarded as a test specialist? For a team who struggle to bat out the 50 overs half the time, New Zealand have a bewildering selection policy that marginalises batsmen who actually value their wicket some. Watling only strikes at 70 in List A games, but he has an average of over 40. To put this into context, that is higher than the List A averages of all 11 men who took the field in the final Chappell Hadlee game on Saturday. But apparently a side full of batsmen who hole out, slogging to deep square leg match after match don't require a dependable anchor to hold things together.
Watling is also absolutely nuts in the field, and would be a pretty valuable addition to a fielding outfit that is arguably the best in the world.
The international cricket community's favourite comment about the state of New Zealand cricket is that they do a damn good job with the limited amounts of talent the kiwis have coming through. This is true to some extent. But half the problem is that on the rare occasion that a cricketer actually shows some real promise, they don't get picked until the selectors have experimented with 70 other 'experienced' players who are all past their prime.
Sometimes I wish New Zealand was more like Pakistan.
Posts
Say Goodnight and Go
5 hours ago
Good to see Sinclair given another chance - hopefully they will play him in both games, and tell him this in advance of the 1st test.
ReplyDeleteRe: Watling, yes his List A average is 40, but in the 4 test innings he has had, and in first class, it drops to 30, which is barely respectable for a specialist test batsman. While he has a great 1:2 half-century:century conversion ratio, what is fo concern is his very low strike rate of 30 for first class and 50 for tests. This suggests his technique isn't up to dominating bowlers easily, so he has to accumulate slowly over time - this can work at NZ first class level, but against Oz? Doubtful.
Ingram's first class average of 36 (no strike rate on Cricinfo) and high century rate is promising, though whether that holds up at test level is questionable - there his figures are similar to Watling's.
A lot will depend on NZ picking a bowling side that can regularly knock Oz over for 300 or so, which will give the batsmen some confidence they can chase it down.
Batsman like Kallis, Sangakkara or Strauss rarely 'dominate' attacks the way a Tendulkar or Ponting would, but they still do very well for themselves on the world stage. The thing here is that, New Zealand already has naturally aggressive batsmen like Taylor, McCullum and Ryder (when he gets back)who will go after the bowling. What they need desperately is stability at the top. Watling, I think anyway is the best candidate for that role in the NZ domestic scene at the moment.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, I share your bemusement about Ingram being retained (he's dispensable at the ODI level but not in tests?), but I'm also wondering what the selectors' long term vision is. If Ingram were 21 and not 31, I could buy the reasoning that he might work on his technique and get better. I actually hope Skippy plays ahead of him in the first test, but apparently he has been recalled as 'batting cover' - whatever that is.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder whether players like Jamie How and Aaron Redmond aren't feeling short-changed by the current selection policy. How had two good series against England in 2008 and was beginning to look the part before his form fell away, while Redmond scored an 83 in his last test - against the Aussies - and looked much more of a top level batsman than Ingram in the few ODIs he played last year.
Ingram has one test, maybe two, as his last chance saloon. If he fails then its goneburger. His footwork was found out in the onedayers, and will even more likely be a problem in test format. But, they selected him and rightly should give him a decent shot. At his age though, it is pretty clear that this series is it unless he puts it together. Players can look awful in a debut series and then come right. Give him a fair crack of the saveloy fellas. Williamson and Watling, nurture these two well as they are the future of the team.
ReplyDeleteDmc out.