NZ v Australia Test #1
-
<p>And kind of important in a form of cricket that requires <u>20</u> wickets to win.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="559089" data-time="1455659644">
<div>
<p>And kind of important in a form of cricket that requires <u>20</u> wickets to win.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>We know our cricket. We should host our own show.</p> -
<p>I've seen Neesham play live once, in Brisbane. He was probably the worst player on the field. I don't think he's the answer to anything</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="559095" data-time="1455663166">
<div>
<p>I've seen Neesham play live once, in Brisbane. <strong>He was probably the worst player on the field</strong>. I don't think he's the answer to anything</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>At what exactly ? elaborate.</p> -
<p>20 overs, 1 for about 115 (and his one was Warner when he was on 163 and throwing the bat at everything). And i think he scored a duck and less than 5. For your all-rounder batting at 6, that's a fucking horrible game</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="559099" data-time="1455663760">
<div>
<p>20 overs, 1 for about 115 (and his one was Warner when he was on 163 and throwing the bat at everything). And i think he scored a duck and less than 5. For your all-rounder batting at 6, that's a fucking horrible game</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Agreed, shithouse game but people have them from time to time. He still has a decent record but he's not the messiah some say he is.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Aw and NTA, fuck off, you don't even like your teams all rounder let alone ours.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Virgil" data-cid="559024" data-time="1455608383">
<div>
<p>To be fair often hes left not out because the muppets at the other end throw it away (as the case in Wellington)</p>
<p>At this stage he seems a better and certainly a more effective batsman than as a spin bowler. Is there a case for him to do a Richardson ?? Not saying he will become a 45 averaging Test opener but you cant fault his application with the bat.</p>
<p>Big case to push him up the order.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Absolutely not.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Craig’s current career average does flatter him. In his debut series he benefited from so many drops by the Windies fielders it was uncanny, he has had a lot of not outs in his career (that’s not a criticism, but his teammates are Southee and Boult - not plug an end guys at the other end). His slight backing away v pace in Australia is not the sign of a compact future bat to me. I think even 7 is too high, I like him at 8 – but he is a breezy batsman, who knows his game well enough to know how to capitalise on his scoring areas while his time lasts.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The other reason is that he has already done a reverse Richardson. He was youth opening batsman who couldn’t make the grade & has turned himself into a spinner. He’s only been a spinner since his early 20s, he an absolute pup in spin bowling years. The reason he is so inconsistent & leak runs yet gets interest from the selectors is because they can see a bowler with the raw materials to succeed - who will improve his consistency as he becomes more experienced. I could actually see Craig operating on a Hamish Rutherford level if he worked on it – I see some similarities in their batting (that’s a compliment for a number 8 but not for a prospective opener), but if Ruds jr ever plays another test (without an incredible overhaul) then I will eat my keyboard.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The other part that annoys me about posts like this is that there are 60 odd professional batsmen on the domestic scene. 12 of them openers. Some of them with the techniques and potential to make a fist of elevation to test level. Cricket does occur off the TV screens. Take note of Ben Smith. Plus of course Dean Brownlie. Admittedly some of them have no chance (especially openers). </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="559100" data-time="1455664137">
<div>
<p>Agreed, shithouse game but people have them from time to time. He still has a decent record but he's not the messiah some say he is.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Aw and NTA, fuck off, you don't even like your teams all rounder let alone ours.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>My opinion stands, based on recent results.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="559102" data-time="1455665603">
<div>
<p>My opinion stands, based on recent results.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>In all honesty in terms of raw ability you look at Marsh, Neesham and Anderson and wonder why they aren't performing like Stokes. The potential is there.....</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Geez Virg, got a retort to IR after that ? Excellent post, I think he follows the domestic game a bit more closely than you or I do. As All Black fans we have Super Rugby to pick apart the relative merits of any potential player, cricket doesn't give us this luxury unless you want to go down and be bored shitless watching a first class game live. Interesting point regarding Craigs technique, I guess that's why Bracewell bats ahead of him despite scoring fuck all as he "looks" like more of a batsman.</p> -
<p>I think Wagner would provide more balance to the New Zealand attack.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Trent Boult average when Wagner plays: 73 wickets @25.01</p>
<p>Trent Boult average when Wagner doesn't play: 71 wickets @32.27</p>
<p>Tim Southee average when Wagner plays: 73 wickets @ 22.89</p>
<p>Tim Southee average when Wagner doesn't play: 92 wickets @ 38.54</p>
<p>Tim Southee's average when Wagner doesn't play (last 4 years) 52 wickets @ 35.27</p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=wickets;player_involve=49219;search_player=N+Wagner;team=5;template=results;type=bowling'>http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=wickets;player_involve=49219;search_player=N+Wagner;team=5;template=results;type=bowling</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>When Boult, Southee and Wagner all play we have won 7, lost 3 and drawn 5. I really rate Henry and I wouldn't even be surprised to see him take a bag full against Aussie. I would go for Wagner though.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="559104" data-time="1455666577">
<div>
<p>I think Wagner would provide more balance to the New Zealand attack.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Trent Boult average when Wagner plays: 73 wickets @25.01</p>
<p>Trent Boult average when Wagner doesn't play: 71 wickets @32.27</p>
<p>Tim Southee average when Wagner plays: 73 wickets @ 22.89</p>
<p>Tim Southee average when Wagner doesn't play: 92 wickets @ 38.54</p>
<p>Tim Southee's average when Wagner doesn't play (last 4 years) 52 wickets @ 35.27</p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=wickets;player_involve=49219;search_player=N+Wagner;team=5;template=results;type=bowling'>http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=wickets;player_involve=49219;search_player=N+Wagner;team=5;template=results;type=bowling</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>When Boult, Southee and Wagner all play we have won 7, lost 3 and drawn 5. I really rate Henry and I wouldn't even be surprised to see him take a bag full against Aussie. I would go for Wagner though.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>So in music terms Wagner is the steady Bassist to the duel axe attack of Boult and Southee, ie he makes them look better ?</p> -
<p>Good article on Wagner too <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11590957'>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11590957</a></p>
-
<p>I think if Boult and Southee were both on form, it would be a no-brainer to pick Wagner. However, given that they haven't been in such great form suggests that it makes sense to pick a 3rd strike bowler in Henry. Henry's case for selection is bolstered by the fact that the pitch should be a bit green and it is his home turf. The conundrum does make you tempted to just pick all 4 quick bowlers and drop Craig.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="559107" data-time="1455667149">
<div>
<p>I think if Boult and Southee were both on form, it would be a no-brainer to pick Wagner. However, given that they haven't been in such great form suggests that it makes sense to pick a 3rd strike bowler in Henry. Henry's case for selection is bolstered by the fact that the pitch should be a bit green and it is his home turf. The conundrum does make you tempted to just pick all 4 quick bowlers and <strong>drop Craig</strong>.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Craig this season. 10 for 666.....this isn't a fucken Iron Maiden album so those figures don't look good.</p> -
<p>I'd pick Wagner, I'd have picked Wagner for the last test, even though I do respect Bracewell's performaces since coming back into the team as 3rd seamer. As for Doug; an RPO of 4 as 3rd seamer should almost be a career killer. Only one game, mind ...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have serious wood for Henry, but only as a new ball bowler. If it is TRUELY green, a Hobart style batting cripple fight. Then I'll be OK with Henry over Craig. But if the curator gets it slightly wrong..... and we lose the tossss ...... then no whinging. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="559107" data-time="1455667149">
<div>
<p>I think if Boult and Southee were both on form, it would be a no-brainer to pick Wagner. However, given that they haven't been in such great form suggests that it makes sense to pick a 3rd strike bowler in Henry. Henry's case for selection is bolstered by the fact that the pitch should be a bit green and it is his home turf. The conundrum does make you tempted to just pick all 4 quick bowlers and drop Craig.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>The more I reflect on it the more I agree. People seemed to be angry at the batsman and saying if you are bowled out on the first day for 180 you can't expect to win etc.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However this is demonstrably not true if you bowl the other team out for about the same or less. Our bowling had opportunities-opened the door and peaked through but couldn't kick it open and march through. Having Australia 2 down for 5 then Bracewell and Craig (and McCullum) in the space of one spell allowing them to hit so many soft boundaries to get themselves out of trouble. Then dropping Steve Smith. Allowing someone like Siddle to score 49 when we where trying to save the game. Allowing their batting lineup to score 562 on that pitch when the par score for the second or third innings was about 350 was really poor.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Our bowling was shithouse and lost us our game. Anyone expecting any drastic improvement in our batting with that lineup is going to be disappointed as our openers probably did better than normal. If the wicket is green in Christchurch and we lose the toss 180 could be the high tide mark. We need to improve our bowling effort and ensure we don't allow them to score over 350 again. Bracewell and Anderson should be replaced by Henry and Wagner. Move Watling up to six and Craig (who seems to get better results than Anderson and Bracewell even if his technique is not textbook can bat at 7.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Long tail but if Williamson doesn't score at least a century we are screwed anyway so no point stacking the tail with medicore batsman who are also medicore bowlers. 3 sloggers (Southee, Boult, and Henry) so one is guaranteed to hit a few 6s and a quickfire 30 which is probably better than what Anderson will score on a greentop.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="tubbyj" data-cid="559117" data-time="1455672084">
<div>
<p>The more I reflect on it the more I agree. People seemed to be angry at the batsman and saying if you are bowled out on the first day for 180 you can't expect to win etc.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However this is demonstrably not true if you bowl the other team out for about the same or less. Our bowling had opportunities-opened the door and peaked through but couldn't kick it open and march through. Having Australia 2 down for 5 then Bracewell and Craig (and McCullum) in the space of one spell allowing them to hit so many soft boundaries to get themselves out of trouble. Then dropping Steve Smith. Allowing someone like Siddle to score 49 when we where trying to save the game. Allowing their batting lineup to score 562 on that pitch when the par score for the second or third innings was about 350 was really poor.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Our bowling was shithouse and lost us our game. Anyone expecting any drastic improvement in our batting with that lineup is going to be disappointed as our openers probably did better than normal. If the wicket is green in Christchurch and we lose the toss 180 could be the high tide mark. We need to improve our bowling effort and ensure we don't allow them to score over 350 again. Bracewell and Anderson should be replaced by Henry and Wagner. Move Watling up to six and Craig (who seems to get better results than Anderson and Bracewell even if his technique is not textbook can bat at 7.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Long tail but if Williamson doesn't score at least a century we are screwed anyway so no point stacking the tail with medicore batsman who are also medicore bowlers. 3 sloggers (Southee, Boult, and Henry) so one is guaranteed to hit a few 6s and a quickfire 30 which is probably better than what Anderson will score on a greentop.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>This is what I've said a few times this week... Henry is our only real seam bowler, if it's gonna be a green top then get him in there.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Wagner has been unfairly treated and should start also.</p> -
<p>If Taylor was fit I would definitely go with Tubby's suggestion. Picking 4 quicks and a spinner gives us a good chance of leveling the series. It's McCullum's last test and we are 1-0 down in the series. We will be playing for the win here. Taylor not being fit makes me think twice about it buy it may be a gamble worth taking.</p>
