NZ v Australia Test #1

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.

No Quarter

Some good ranting there tubbyj. You've convinced me that Munro should at least be given a go there. You can use the argument that he isn't suited to "guts" out an innings, but neither are Neesh and Anderson. I'm happy to have a stroke maker at 6 as long as we have someone solid at 5, and bloody BJ can find some form.

No Quarter

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="tubbyj" data-cid="559156" data-time="1455679936">
<div>
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 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 cost us the game IMO.
 
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
That is where we sorely miss Vettori.

tubbyj

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="559151" data-time="1455678242">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 But then Craig has bowled well on just as many occasions in tests as Anderson has batted well if not more. Craig has actually bowled us to victory in a few tests not sure Anderson has ever greatly contributed to many victories.
 
The manner of Andersons second innings dismissal being out thought by Mitch Marsh (who is an ok not a great bowler) over 27 balls for a duck on a fairly benign pitch was more desperate IMO that Craig getting hit by an Australian batting lineup which is never ever average even at their lowest points on a 1st and 2nd day pitch offering him little to no assistance .
 
Craig should not be asked to bowl in that situation. He shouldn't be bowling more than a few overs in the oppositions first innings not 35 like he did. Due to our poor pace bowling display in the 1st innings Craig never got the chance to bowl in the 4th inning with assistance. Thats why we need to bring in Wagner and Henry for Bracewell and Anderson and ask them to bowl tightly and economically as a team with Boult and Southee and improve our 1st inning pace bowling performance so Austalia do not score over 350 and Craig can concentrate on bowling in the 3rd or 4th innings like a spinner is selected to do.
 
Ps Andersons bowling was not ok. It was overly expensive and him bowling a four every over means you can't build pressure on a batsman or have him send down too many overs. Which was a big reason for Craig having to bowl 35 overs in Australia's first bat rather than a few. Andersons bowling is always expensive every single test he plays. He can not do the job I said needs to be done above.

tubbyj

In other news someone called Shane Jurgensen has been named as the new NZ bowling coach. Done the job previously seemingly between 2008 and 2010 (which doesn't fill you with hope) coached Bangledesh since then.
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.espncricinfo.com/newzealand/content/story/973265.html'>http://www.espncricinfo.com/newzealand/content/story/973265.html</a>

Siam

Not sure of the relevance of the pitch talk in the last match
 
Sure TV showed it to be green but the game was won with a margin of an innings and 50 odd runs. Pretty clear that one team didn't mind the pitch
 
To suggest a pitch lost it's movement after 2 and a half hours of a 5 day match is rather bizarre
 
Reflects more on the bowlers than the wicket
 
The game was more about one team executing the skills of cricket from ball 1 better, more than the playing surface or the toss of a coin
 
The groundsman won't win the game, and I do expect this current batch of Black Caps to perform better - one of our worst test performances in a year, and one of the Aussie's best

The Silver Fern

NZ v Australia Test #1