NZ v Australia Test #1

tubbyj

Southee conceded 2.8 runs an over
Boult 3.06
 
For 2 wickets a piece that is not bad. Compares ok with Hazelwood who was the best bowler in the game.
 
Bracewell 3.84
Anderson 4.38
Craig 4.33
 
for 2 wickets apiece is too expensive. Craig gets pillored but Anderson bowled worse and contributed less with the bat.
 
Craig should keep his place ironically for his batting cause there are not many other options and whole sale changes reeks of panic (I don't think Munro and Elliot are even in the country, Brownlie is an opening batsman now) and must win test against Aus is not the time to give someone a debut or out of left field recall. Craig should not be allowed to bowl except on the last 2 days if the pitch is offering alot of assistance.
 
Wagner replaces Bracewell for injury.
 
Henry replaces Anderson because the latter is a mediocre bowler and doesn't seem capable of contributing with the bat against the better bowling attacks.

nzzp

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="tubbyj" data-cid="559120" data-time="1455672712">
<div>
Henry replaces Anderson because the former is a mediocre bowler and doesn't seem capable of contributing with the bat against the better bowling attacks.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Anderson has got in, got set and then got out so often this summer. Intensely frustrating. He oozes potential, but just does not seem to deliver at the moment.

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="tubbyj" data-cid="559120" data-time="1455672712">
<div>
Southee conceded 2.8 runs an over
Boult 3.06
 
For 2 wickets a piece that is not bad. Compares ok with Hazelwood who was the best bowler in the game.
 
Bracewell 3.84
Anderson 4.38
Craig 4.33
 
for 2 wickets apiece is too expensive. Craig gets pillored but Anderson bowled worse and contributed less with the bat.
 
Craig should keep his place ironically for his batting cause there are not many other options and whole sale changes reeks of panic (I don't think Munro and Elliot are even in the country, Brownlie is an opening batsman now) and must win test against Aus is not the time to give someone a debut or out of left field recall. Craig should not be allowed to bowl except on the last 2 days if the pitch is offering alot of assistance.
 
Wagner replaces Bracewell for injury.
 
Henry replaces Anderson because the former is a mediocre bowler and doesn't seem capable of contributing with the bat against the better bowling attacks.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
It's perception though, you can't compare a 4th seamer with a frontline spinner.

taniwharugby

I think he just did....

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="559123" data-time="1455674249">
<div>
I think he just did....
</div>
</blockquote>
 
But you can't

tubbyj

The more I see of Colin Munros stats the more I wonder why he is not already batting 6 for NZ.
 
I went looking for a bowler who could bat but also bowl a few overs tightly in the 50-80 mark to save our strike bowlers.
 
Colin Munro who averages 48.20 from 40 matches also is a right arm medium fast bowler who has
45 wickets @ 29.66 but most importantly has an economy rate of 2.85 runs per over.
In his one test he bowled 18 overs 2 for 40. Economy rate of 2.22 runs per over.
 
Compare Corey Andersons 1st class stats
1st Class Batting average of 35.30
Bowling 37 wickets @ 41.32 economy rate of 3.21
 
Jimmy Neesham
1st class Batting average 34.61
Bowling 76 wickets @ 32.75 economy rate of 3.52
 
Grant Elliot
1st class Batting average 30.57
Bowling 92 wickets @ 36.71 economy rate 2.80.
 
So why has Colin Munro only been given one test in the sucide tour to SA with the team in chaos? Why have Anderson, Neesham and Elliot all been given a shot at the problem 6 position when they all have vastlty inferior first class stats?
 
Why wasn't Munro given a shot in the ODI's after looking to have got his head around playing international 20/20s? The guy is 28 and we look to be squandering his talent. He should be in the thick of our test team, ODI and 20/20 side not a bit part 20/20 player. He should have been persevered with after the SA tour and batted 6 behind Williamson, Taylor and McCullum.

taniwharugby

I once compared an apple to an orange, it worked, I knew they were both round, both grew on trees, both grow in my garden and I like to eat them both!

tubbyj

True it appears apples can bat and bowl reasonably well while oranges are pretty average at both. However only oranges get extended chances in the NZ test side.

MN5

It's like having a go at DC cos he didn't secure as much loose ball as McCaw.

tubbyj

How exactly?

tubbyj

Munro in his one test got scores of 0 and 15. Not very impressive until you look further up the scorecard and see NZ's already best batsman ever got scores of 4 and 11. Both scored 15 runs in 2 innings against a meanacing SA attack at home in career best form.
 
So hardly justification for dropping him especially as he was NZ's best bowler in SA's one innings preforming better than Boult, Wagner, Bracewell and English 1st class champion Patel taking 2 for 40 from 18 at 2.22 runs per over.

MN5

Anderson is a frontline batsman who is a part time bowler. Craig is a frontline bowler who happened to get a couple of good scores with the bat. DC might secure a couple of good turnovers and Richie might have an off night in that department but if DC made bad decisions, missed tackles, missed goal kicks etc then he might be in danger of being dropped. Get my drift ?

hydro11

I think it is because Munro gives no indication that he can actually guts out an innings. He basically slogs at domestic level which translates to a very good T20 player but maybe not a great test number 6.

tubbyj

Cricket isn't like rugby because DC is smaller and would get ragdolled n the forwards. Cricket isn't so dependant of physical attributes as rugby it is more just a case of mental constructs.
 
Cricket is full of examples of people who defy these like Andrew Jones, Steve Smith and Mark Richardson.

tubbyj

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="559148" data-time="1455677870">
<div>
I think it is because Munro gives no indication that he can actually guts out an innings. He basically slogs at domestic level which translates to a very good T20 player but maybe not a great test number 6.
</div>
</blockquote>
Unlike Anderson, Neesham and Elliot you mean who were given chances based on gutsing out what innings?
 
Anderson and Neesham have scored centuries at test level but I don't recall that being in backs to the walls gutsing out situations against quality opponents or is my recollection wrong.

MN5

No it's not.
 
Explained simpler. Craig was in as a frontline spinner, he sucked, his batting was a bonus but in itself shouldn't be enough to keep him in the team.
 
Anderson was a batsman with more claims to be an "all rounder" than Craig. One ok score and a duck but should be given another chance and his bowling was ok under the circumstances.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="tubbyj" data-cid="559150" data-time="1455678114">
<div>
Unlike Anderson, Neesham and Elliot you mean who were given chances based on gutsing out what innings?
 
Anderson and Neesham have scored centuries at test level but I don't recall that being in backs to the walls gutsing out situations against quality opponents or is my recollection wrong.
</div>
</blockquote>
Anderson has a FC SR of 58, Neesham's is 75 while Munro's is in the 90's. I think there is a feeling with Munro that quality bowling will undo him. Neesham's century against India was crucial, that was in the test where B Mac got his 300.

MN5

I think there is a case for all of these guys but one that would be strengthened heaps by all of them improving their bowling. None are in Cairnsy's class in this department but all can claim to be at least equal with the willow.

tubbyj

To me Anderson looks like a ODI and 20/20 specialist as long as he can continue to bat and bowl and we play the West Indies alot.
 
Neesham may have a future in test matches but he should be tearing up the first class scene to get back in the side. however his preformances have been sketchy for Otago since returning from injury. he should be told to put some consistent performances on the board for Otago like Hamish Rutherford before he is selected again for NZ.
 
If we had of introduced Munro into the 6 position a few years ago we would now have the option of him moving up to 5 to replace McCullum and having Neesham, Santner and Nichols battling it out for the NO 6 spot underneath a settled and experienced top 5. Instead pissed around at 6 with players based on potential rather actual achievement at 1st class level and we are facing a difficult couple of years with a completely unsettled middle order with no idea who can do the job at 5 and 6.
 
Anyway those 1st class stats got me angry and this has been a bit of a rant. Sorry about that better go and do something more constructive.

tubbyj

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="559152" data-time="1455678769">
<div>
Anderson has a FC SR of 58, Neesham's is 75 while Munro's is in the 90's. I think there is a feeling with Munro that quality bowling will undo him. Neesham's century against India was crucial, that was in the test where B Mac got his 300.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
In away I think this has kind of been the problem in our approach under McCullum. While he has greatly improved the team I think with the talent we currently have we could do better. To me the economy rates of your back up bowlers is way more important than thier strike rate.
 
To often we chase wickets at all costs with the likes of Anderson, Neesham, Bracewell and Craig bowling. Rather than being a bit defensive for a while and trying to tie a team down giving Boult and Southee a rest and then going again all out attack centred around them. 
 
For example having Aus 8 for 2 then allowing them to progress quickly to 100-2 in the matter of 10-15 overs so that Southee and Boult returned to the bowling crease with Batsman freed up cost us the game IMO.
 
Having a Chatfeild to your Hadlee can be just as important in a bowling attack
 
Having bowlers who can back up Boult and Southee with consistent line and length and control pinning oppositions teams down bowling to a defensive field even if they are not striking at a great rate will be more benefit to the team than an Anderson or Neesham who may have so called 'golden arms' but throw so many pies inbetween that opposition teams can boundary themselves out of trouble at a quick rate while Boult and Southee are catching a rest.
 
Alot of that comes down to McCullums field placement as well but even if you set a defensive field while Boult and Southee have a rest I am not sure Anderson or Nessham could bowl to it and not go for 4 or 5 and over. it would appear from the first class stats that Munro would have a better chance.

The Silver Fern

NZ v Australia Test #1