NZ v Australia Test #1
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="557671" data-time="1455059794">
<div>
<p>Is Khawaja opening ? if so I see parallels with Justin Langer, tried at number 3, plays like shit, gets dropped but then comes back as an opener and has a steller career.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The BCs do rely on Williamson but they have Guptill in great form, Latham almost quietly achieving compared to others, a young guy eager to do well on debut and McCullum determined to go out on a high. I don't think the gulf is as great as you say.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Great ODI form but often that doesn't translate to Test form, especially for Guptill. He just doesn't seem to have the right shot selection when playing tests. In saying that, he did OK in the Aus leg of the series??</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="557673" data-time="1455060167">
<div>
<p>Great ODI form but often that doesn't translate to Test form, especially for Guptill. He just doesn't seem to have the right shot selection when playing tests. In saying that, he did OK in the Aus leg of the series??</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Agree, some guys are better suited to different formats and Guptill has been found out at test level on a number of occasions but as I alluded to have a look at some of the walking wickets we've had there in our recent past. He's still an automatic selection at the moment.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Speaking of walking wickets cricinfo tells me Ronchi is on standby if Watling doesn't get over a niggle ( wakes up in a cold sweat )</p> -
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="KiwiMurph" data-cid="557728" data-time="1455066115">
<div>
<p>I think it may have been in reference to Marsh's verbals in Hamilton MN5.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Nope, NTA would gladly murder Mitch Marsh if he could get away with it.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="557730" data-time="1455066246"><p>Nope, NTA would gladly murder Mitch Marsh if he could get away with it.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Though I'll have to revise my opinion if he keeps scoring runs with any consistency.<br><br>
His brother can fuck off. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="dingo" data-cid="557675" data-time="1455060324">
<div>
<p>Anderson was either bowling noticeably quicker in the ODIs (quicker balls at mid 130s, with occasional higher 130s) or the radar gun was buggered. He would be a much more useful 4th seamer than in the past.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yep, he cracked 140kmh on a couple of occasions too. I'm reasonably comfortable having him as a fourth seamer.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm far less comfortable with Mark Craig playing. He's just not good enough to be effective on any wickets that aren't super-assistive to his spin. I don't give a fuck if he's eked out a test batting average of nearly 37 - he's primarily there to take wickets and in that facet he's been found wanting. If the selectors think Sodhi isn't suited to test cricket and Santner is out, then don't pick someone just for the sake of having a spin option. Williamson can throw down a few overs if conditions suddenly become conducive to spin, but we're better off picking either an extra batsman (not possible as we don't have a spare on this squad) or an all-seam attack and I'd go for Bracewell, Henry, Southee and Boult, in that batting order. That makes Anderson a fifth seamer.</p> -
<p>I just don't see the point in Anderson playing if he is your 5th seamer. If Anderson really one of the six best batsmen in the country? I get that the squad has been picked and you have to do the best with what you have but Anderson's batting isn't good enough to be picked just for that.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If I was picking the quicks I would go for Boult, Henry and Wagner. I like Wagner bowling into the wind. Southee would get the nod if he was fit and if he had performed domestically. I think Bracewell did bowl better in Aussie than his figures suggested but Wagner out performed him in the Sri Lankan series.</p> -
Bloody hell, innocently clicked on a Herald article and the bloody thing was written by Ratpoo. <br><br>
Only read the first paragraph, but he's basically just gone and fucked our chances of winning this series by banging on about how the BCs are in the box seat, blah blah blah.<br><br>
Fuckin sneaky Herald, not having the author of the article with the headline. -
<p>I think they'll play Craig because he did OK in the 2nd innings vs Sri Lanka in the last test at the Basin. As others have said, Anderson to replace Santner in the batting lineup and only select 3 quicks (Boult, Southee and Henry/Bracewell). Anderson's workload as the 4th seamer would have to be monitored as well, looking ahead to the T20 WC. The problem is that Craig can't even be used confidently as a stock bowler into the wind as he leaks runs.</p>
-
<p>It's maybe a bit niggly but Bracewell has yet to score a test 50 but if he plays he always bats ahead of Craig, Southee and even Boult who has one. He scored a good 47 against Sri Lanka but when is he gonna start delivering on the talent he has ? Those guys are all there for their bowling, I get that but I'd be pissed off if I was one of the aforementioned latter guys. I may rip the shit out of Craig on here as a bowler but he is an extremely decent low order batsman so if he has to play at least he brings that to the table.</p>
-
Doug's batting has been good since his return to the side. I think he's worked out his method now.<br><br>
Get the feeling Santner's injury costs Doug a starting place. -
<p>I agree if Taylor and Santner were fit he probably would play ahead of Anderson.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However his batting was shit in the ODI when he had time/overs to bat and build an innings. Only one innings sure but the nature of his dismissal - beaten all ends up bowled - didn't suggest he could provide dependability or stick-ability in the lower order you need in a test match. Plus he was the one to advise Milne not to review his LBW.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He may still beat out Henry though as McCullum and Hesson both made comments about his bowling being better than his figures suggest.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="557928" data-time="1455144672">
<div>
<p>So all this being said looks like poor old Wagner is definitely gonna miss out ? pretty rough but that's the price you pay for having depth I guess.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I would like to see Bracewell, Henry, Southee and Boult.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Bit it will likely be Craig, Wagner, Southee and Boult.</p>
