I was wondering if any New Zealand cricket fans could enlighten me about the make-up of their Test team?
I don’t know that much about Kiwi cricket, but I know a little.
I watch all the international games they play against us; I’m familiar with their top players; I loved their recent renaissance under Brendon McCullum and their efforts at the World Cup; I miss the writing of Martin Crowe and the batting of Chris Martin; I was gripped by the Chris Cairns perjury trial.
At full strength and on good days, the Black Caps can beat anyone, but they seem to lack bench strength. If their population had an extra million or two they’d be regularly fighting for the top spot all the time.
That, and their selectors are holding the Test team back.
Let’s look at the side for the most recent Test against India: Tom Latham, Martin Guptill, Kane Williamson, Ross Taylor, Luke Ronchi, James Neesham, BJ Watling, Mitchell Santer, Jeetan Patel, Matt Henry and Trent Boult.
Some of these selections are obvious. Williamson, Boult and Taylor are world class – any team would be lucky to have them (ditto the injured Southee). Ronchi, Watling and Latham are pretty good. Henry maybe isn’t awesome but he’s okay (like Neil Wagner, who’s in the squad).
But what about the rest? Guptil averages 29 with the bat after 46 Tests. Neesham and Santner are bits-and-pieces all rounders – Neesham has a first-class average of 34 with the bat and 33 with the ball (taking less than two wickets a game), Santner has a first-class average of 29 with the bat, and 45 with the ball (less than two wickets a game).
Patel has 650 first class wickets at 35, with a batting average of 22.5, and 54 Test wickets from 20 Tests at 48.81. (As an aside, Patel replaced Mark Craig, who has 129 first-class wickets from 51 games at an average of 43 – something presumably compensated by a batting average of 25.)
These are not great stats from Crowe country, but at first I put it down to lack of alternates. Selectors can only pick what’s in front of them.
However a casual search of Cricket Archive and Cricfino revealed that New Zealand domestic cricket has some bloke called Jeef Raval who’s played 67 first-class games, made almost 5000 runs at an average of 43.85, and another guy called Colin Munro who has made 2844 runs at an average of 48.20, and is a handy part-time bowler.
Not to mention young gun called Bharat Popli, who is averaging 49.83 with 1545 runs after 20 games, or spinner Ajaz Patel, who has taken 95 first-class wickets from 26 games at 34.46.
Is there are a decent reason why the Kiwis aren’t playing these guys in the Test team? They’re not even in the squad. Okay, Popli is only young, but what’s wrong with Raval?
I get the impression Munro is considered a one-day specialist, but doesn’t a first-class average of 48 demand some respect? Instead of giving a go to someone like Patel, why do they persist with Santner, who has 49 wickets from 32 games? A first-class average of 29 isn’t good enough to justify that. Maybe he’ll turn into Daniel Vettori down the line, but why not let him learn his trade at first-class level and free up his spot for someone else?
For some bizarre reason New Zealand seemed to have borrowed Australia’s selection strategy from their tour of India in 2013 – fill the team with all rounders rather than specialists, ignore batsmen with first class averages over 40, and pick third-rate spinners over first-rate pacemen ‘because that’s what you do in India’. Australia lost that series 4-0 and now New Zealand are well on the way to match it.
Do selectors not care about first-class averages? Do they not like to pick players who were born outside New Zealand? Do they ever look at whether, statistically speaking, playing specialists wins more game than a team full of bits and pieces cricket? Are there temperament issues involved? I’d genuinely like to know.
A Kiwi XI of Latham, Raval, Williamson, Taylor, Popli/Ronchi, Munro, Watling, Ajaz Patel, Wagner, Henry/Boult and Southee would be very competitive. Their current XI has weak batting at the top and middle, and an unpenetrative attack. They’re making it easy for India.
A strong New Zealand is good for world cricket, but their selectors aren’t giving their country its best chance.
But, like I say, maybe there are other issues here – if anyone can enlighten me, I’d love to hear it.
WQ
Guest
Stephen, I can't disagree with your thinking re: a huge dependency on 2 or 3 top order batsmen in the side. Having said that it is not a lot different in most Test sides around the world.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
Agree. Love to see him get a decent go, just to see.
prosen
Guest
Ross Taylor failed new Zealand badly this series.they depend too heavily on him and Williamson anyway.
moaman
Roar Guru
One major problem in this series was the abject failure of NZ's 3 most reliable batsmen; Williamson.Taylor and Watling. Those 3 are the backbone of the batting lineup in terms of class and experience. Latham has issues centred on playing around a front leg that is planted across the off-stump.Until he learns to bring that foor around and point it down the wicket a lot more--he will be prone to lbws.(Apart from that he was our best batsman in the series). Guptill we all know about.Nicholls doesn't move his feet much and too often gets himself into strife cutting balls too close to the body and with his back foot closer to leg stump than off.Poor technique. Ronchi is not a Test-quality batsman.Santner has a lot of promise but came in with too much to do and too many around the bat. I was very disappointed in their performance collectively because there were opportunities throughout the series to embarrass India's selection of only four bowlers.But every time they threatened to place India under the cosh--the Indians came up with the play that wrested the initiative back.All credit to them for that. I don't think Kohli is much chop as a tactician and is prone to be very reactionary and defensive but he seems to be a natural-born leader of men and this Indian team is a formidable unit. Williamson will be very,very disappointed with his own series.His own captaincy is a much more conservative brand to his predecessor's--but then again,whose isn't? The manner of KW's dismissals was the most galling and his slowness to remedy that has to put down to some degree to his illness I believe---because usually he is a very quick learner. I think KW will come back better and stronger for the experience....but one or two of his team may well be casting glances over their shoulders prior to the upcoming Pakistan series.
BurgyGreen
Guest
I've also often wondered about Munro. Averages 48 at a strike rate of 93 (!) in First Class cricket. He's played a single Test. Often on other sites when his name comes up Kiwi fans seem to write him off as a limited overs specialist. Surely Guptill is the very definition of a limited overs specialist, yet he's been given 47 Tests to prove himself. Surely, especially with those stats, NZ can't afford to simply write players off like that?
WQ
Guest
Thanks Barry, I intend taking a good hard look at myself
WQ
Guest
Good Morning Anindya Dutta, Thanks for your reply, I'm pleased we can agree on the Toss. The way New Zealand performed was a reflection of just how most other Test playing nations have performed in India for quite some time now. This includes Dave A Pom's amazing England whom have won one series there since 1986! My comment about the pitches in India are not biased they are a true reflection of the pitches. They are prepared to suit the strengths of the Indian Team and so they should be. Every other Country does exactly the same thing, it's part of international Cricket. At no stage did I blame the unlucky wickets for losing the Test Matches, it was merely a point made to justify my actual intention re: the make up of the New Zealand Team had little to do with the 3-0 drubbing. As for DRS, it was established to remove the decisions that were deemed to be 'Howlers' from the game. The very nature of Human's suggests that 'Home Team' decisions exist. 50:50 decisions are required to be made by umpires in every innings of every Test, that's a fact. I'm happy for you to believe that Umpires do not feel any home crowd pressure but I do not. I refuse to believe that there is no pressure applied to umpires by 50,000 screaming fans.
Jacko
Guest
Funnily enough Taylor actually captained the 2nd test better than when he was full time captain but apart from that it may be time to move him on.
JohnB
Guest
Suggest you look up the accepted meaning of the punctuation ";)".
goldenboot
Roar Rookie
Guptill should have been dropped. However playing away in India as an intro to test cricket would have been a tough assignment for Raval. That's probably the logic behind giving him one final chance Nothing wrong with Santner. He is young, needs to be given opportunities (because frankly none of the Kiwi spinners were consistent or threatening enough) but more importantly he shows application at the crease when batting (see recent tour to Aus) I do agree Neesham is a bit part cricketer, but I strongly disagree with your assessment of Taylor. A senior player, needed to step up and yet again did not!
Nudge
Guest
Republicans gone into hiding
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
I'd like to keep Ronchi for five - like his experience and consistent run scoring over a long time, think he deserves a go.Munro for six. Bring in Popli if either don't work out. Munro could be used as back up to four specialist bowlers.
Cantab
Guest
I think Guptill should stay, he's been to dominate in ODI and T20 to move him along, not to mention he is the best fielder in the team. But NFI why we picked 3 spinners, 3 average ones aren't as good as 1 of quality. Picking 3-4 'bits and pieces all rounders' in the test team is a tradition of NZC and stems from lacking depth. Neesham is there as we needed a 3rd seamer. Losing all 3 tosses was brutal.
Geoff Parkes
Expert
Absolutely Stephen, NZ would be rapt to pick 6 'proper' batsmen. You've identified Raval for Guptill, no argument there. Now 5 and 6, you tell me who they might be. If the players were there they would be picked, NZ doesn't have the luxury of leaving test quality players at home.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
I was trying to find out whether there were any reasons that the stats were being so wilfully disregarded. New Zealand played with a lot more fight than say Australia in Sri Lanka but feel they could've done even better with a stronger side.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
New Zealand have been a fantastic test nation - I remember their great 80s side, and they were also pretty handy under Fleming.Feel the key to them regularly winning is strike bowlers.
Targa
Guest
The 1st two tests were actually quite competitive (except on the scoreboard while the 3rd was slaughter). Ross Taylor and Watling were really disappointing with the bat while we couldn't knock over the tail when needed in tests 1 and 2. Latham looked great when scoring 3 50s but couldn't kick on - reminds me a bit of Stephen Fleming. Some of our batsman got sawn off for terrible LBW decisions (Neesham got a real shocker when in the 70s) but there is no DRS and Ashwin is the best cricketer in the world atm.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
Don't you think the team would be better off with six proper batsmen and four proper bowlers? Think there is a massive difference when your number six averages 40 vs when they average 30 (not to mention your opener), isn't there? Do share your concerns about NZ attack - apart from Boult/Southee they seem to lack match winners.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
I can't help feeling NZ batting would have done better with more batsmen who average over 40 at first class level in the line up... a really strong opener and number six could make all the difference - give the bowlers something to defend. New Zealand's tail is so long, batting completely dependent on Williamson and Taylor.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
But why should he get the chance to learn his trade at test level, why other players have to earn their stripes at first class level? Not trying to be mean or anything - just seems a little unfair some players don't have to produce the goods and are given a long rope (e.g. Mitchell Marsh) whereas others never get a fair crack.