I'm not going to get heavily involved here... but can we establish how the openers rate (as prospective Test batsmen) compared with the potential middle order players?

Can everyone concerned give each of these players a rating based on the likelihood of them taking an unexpeced opportunity to play in the Test side? Assume 4/10 is "reasonable prospect", 6/10 is "good prospect", 8/10 is "very good prospect" and reserve 9/10 and 10/10 for players with the promise of true greatness.

Next try and indicate which potential openers (if any) might be worth a shot at 3...

Last but not least.... could we have some discussion of the merits of only playing one genuine opener: if no-one is really claiming the second spot... PLEASE consider promoting a middle order bat and getting quality into the side: bear in mind that even a lifelong opener might actually end up playing at 3 or 6 when promoted to the senior Test side.

One plea: please don't stick a second opener in the side just because he opens in domestic cricket: pick the best prospects and THEN work out the batting order!

I understand the point you are making here, and we have included Aaron Redmond as a player with a lot of potential, but is really a middle-order player and not an opener.

The other problem we have to contend with here, Rachael, is that New Zealand have over the past couple of years really struggled to fill the openers slots in test cricket. Middle order players (Hamish Marshall, Lou Vincent) have been tried and not succeeded. Out and out openers have been tried (Michael Papps, Jamie How) and have also not succeeded. Frankly, given this situation, as soon as a batsman makes a decent innings they are in contention for a test slot. I remember reading in the Dominion Post the day after Tim McIntosh made his 200 that he could be opening for the test series. Fortunately, he didn't.

We have some real class in the line up already with Taylor and Ryder at 3 and 4. These guys have real class and potential to boot. Taylor has already shown glimpses in ODI cricket that he has the full range of shots, great application with his wrists and the ability to see out tough periods. These two are the real 8-10/10 players.

With the openers, to my mind, we need players with the technique to see out the tough periods (which from the candidates would be Ingram/Barnett). Astle is the expected 'hot prospect' as an opener, but I would only put him in the pot 5-6/10 (the surname obviously gets him a bit of press). Watling has potential as a keeper/batsman, but personally I don't think he'll make it (McCullum will be round for a long time IMO)

Other middle order players - Hiini, for example, have real potential, but certainly do not have the experience to be shoehorned in as an opener. That'd be crazy. Other openers have been dismissed for their lack of class.

Perhaps the person who voted for Barnett could recast theri vote for either Ingram or Astle to resolve the openers dilemma? Since the bulk of the selectors have deemed the Canuck ineligible.

Seen as though i voted for Astle aswell, would do Ingram, he was probably next on my list, if Barnett was nto allowed.

__________________
Hoggy Hoggy Hoggy...OI OI OI!!!

Oh dear,

At the risk of throwing someone else into the mix all too late: Shanan Stewart (Papps' partner in crime...)

And in reply to Racheal; as Andy said there's only really Ryder and Taylor who could be said to be 'world class' 8/10 and up type players. In NZ you'd probably define that as 'having a FC career average in the mid 40's' (though I think Taylor's is only mid-late 30's)

There's also a bunch of bats you'd probably call 'useful' like, on this years form, Ingram, Broom, Redmond, Stewart, Todd erm... and some others I've no doubt missed [edit: like Rob Nicol]. Hay had a good first season but obviously too early to judge him for greatness. These guys are probably your 6-7/10's with FC averages somewhere in the mid-late 30's.

I don't like to harp on about stats too much as there's obviously more to cricket than that - the Marshall's were brought into the top teams on 'a hunch', despite only having averages in the late 20's and plenty of other options available

__________________
never believe anything until it is officially denied . . .

Well, Ingram was a fairly clear choice for opener. We still have another opening slot available, but as we seem to be deadlocked between Astle, Watling and Redmond, I've decided to close that poll and move onto another for the time being.

Now, the choice for all-rounder. This could be a tough one - as 4/5 people decided that Geoff Barnett is ineligible, then Grant Elliott - a clear candidate must also be ineligible.

So, who should go into the poll?

Bradley Scott: Bowling: 111 wickets @ 26.45; Batting: 678 runs @ 20.54, Age 27
Brandon Hiini: Bowling: 28 wickets @ 30.14 ;Batting: 401 runs @57.28 ,Age 25
Tim Southee: Bowling: 16 wickets @ 33.43 ;Batting: 96 runs @ 32 ,Age 18

These are the options I've gone for initially in the poll, but there are probably other options out there. Let me know if there's anyone to add for the poll.

Interestingly, these 3 players offer 3 very different options. The 3 bowling styles are very similar (medium - medium-fast) but Scott has the experience, Hiini has great batting potential and Southee has great bowling potential.

I'm rather confused over this so-called "eligibility" issue: am I missing something?

I trust the disagreement on Barnet is nothing to do with him occasionally taking the option of playing for Canada - surely a complete irrelevence as it does not in any way preclude him from going on to play Test cricket for New Zealand (which is the only country he's ever likely to play Test cricket for as Canada's short term propects of joining the elite group look pretty bleak).

In terms of Grant Elliott, you need look no further than Three pledge future to New Zealand. It is not the job of selectors to pass judgement on this pledge: as with the Barnett case, Elliot's case for selection should surely be based exclusively on what he does on the field.

This side is supposed to identify the players who might be entering the Test cricket frame in the short-medium term: if this pair are strong candidates they should be penned in!

You're confused, Rachael!?! So am I!!

Now, Barnett IS a Kiwi, but he has recently played for Canada. I believe there is some ICC eligibility criteria that would prevent him playing for New Zealand in the next 12 months. Unfortunately, I cannot find any confirmation for this on t'internet; so I put it to a poll of the selectors as to whether they would be comfortable with Geoff playing for NZ. Currently, that answer was a categoric NO. If we were to select him, and then find out he wouldn't be eligible to play for NZ anyway (in the next 12 months) then we'd look pretty silly.

Similarly, Grant Elliott has played in New Zealand for 2 seasons. In the UK, players such as Graeme Hick and Kevin Pietersen had to play 5 and 3 years respectively and live in the UK for that time to qualify to play for England. I suspect that there are similar criteria in NZ (in that Elliott was require citizenship to play for NZ). NZ's citizenship criteria is three years, so Elliott cannot be eligible to play for NZ A in the next 12 months.

Unfortunately, Elliott is a pretty good player.

Southee has time on his side, and I feel it would be a mistake to bring in an 18-year-old unless he was supremely talented (i.e. one of Rachael's 9-10/10 players). So that rules Southee out.

As for the other two, it's a question of how far we want the batting line up to go. If we have to rely on our all-rounder for runs, I'd put Hiini in the side, but if it's bowling we're primarily after, I'd plump for Scott. It's a question of balance...

...and with this line up I'd go for Scott. For now.

__________________
"Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose."
- Ayrton Senna

I'm inclined to agree with you on this one, Adam. Its definately the bowling that looks short of a trick or two at the moment, and Scott is the better bowler at the moment by a long chalk!

Plus, even ruling Hiini out as all-rounder doesn't prevent him from being in the running for a middle-order slot as he was in superb batting form this season.