Notes from the Oval #1
How’s that for openers… just a shame about the middle ($), PLUS: Kane's message for a slightly younger hack, and Southee Snr sums up is son in 11 words
NZ 315 for 9 (Latham 63, Santner 50*; Potts 3-75, Atkinson 3-55)
Three things from day one of a dreaded dead rubber.
1. These things are always easier to say with the benefit of hindsight, but you don’t need to rewrite history to come to the conclusion that finding a place for Will Young from the outset of the series could have been useful.
Not easy, but useful.
As Young made his way mostly serenely through the morning, the Bounce was privy to a few communications with the name Gary Stead preceded by a swear word, but I do have a degree of sympathy for him on this one.
If you go through Young’s potential landing spots it position by position, there was a fishhook to negotiate everywhere.
Opener 1: Tom Latham is captain.
Opener 2: Devon Conway was coming off a bowlers’ series in India where he scored 91 in the first test and 76 in the second. Yes, he looked dreadful at Hagley Oval, but he was always going to be picked for the series.
No 3: If Kane Williamson is fit, he plays and he bats where he wants to bat. No further explanation required.
No 4: Rachin Ravindra is the future and came off a series in India where he scored a match-winning century in Bengaluru and followed it up with a half century in Pune.
No 5: Daryl Mitchell is the No 1-ranked cricketer in the country, first slip, occasional fifth seamer and was coming off a critical 82 at Mumbai.
No 6: Tom Blundell is wicketkeeper. Dropping him for Young would require an inferior gloveman in Latham to not only open and captain, but open, keep and captain. Possible, but improbable.
No 7: Another unlikely but not implausible landing spot. Again, this is leaning heavily upon hindsight, but if Stead suspected Glenn Phillips would bowl only 29 overs total across the first two tests and take just one wicket with his orthodox spin, you could maybe make a case that Young should have played instead of him, and then tailor the lineup to suit, but while Phillips’ role remains blurry, he hasn’t done a lot wrong.
No 8: This is the easiest solution and also the riskiest, because it does mean you play a bowler down and that Mitchell (3 test wickets at 125) is your fourth seamer.
Despite the fishhooks, Stead and Latham should have found a way to stay with hot-hand, whether that particular theory is fallacy or a real phenomenon, and they’re paid to come up with solutions. As it was, Young played today and we saw that rarest of things, a 100-run (105 to be precise) opening partnership.
But… you knew there was a but coming, didn’t you… Young’s innings today could be used by the prosecution and the defence.
He is a batter with the full palette of cricket’s prettiest strokes. At his best, the Gunn & Moore is used like a brush, but too often the pictures he paints are the sort you can buy for a negotiated price near the top of Montmartre. This 42 was like that too. There were flourishes of pure quality, but in the end not enough to hang in a gallery.
Young doesn’t need to paint the Sistine Chapel to prove himself, but he does need enough strokes to fill a Garden of Earthly Delights.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to The Bounce to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.