NZ v Australia Test #1

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

tubbyj

2008 we
beat Bangledesh in Bangledesh 1-0
drew West indies in NZ 0-0
lost to India in NZ 1-0
 
Our bowling attack was based around Chris Martin, Ian Obrien, Kyle Mills, James Franklin, Mark Gillispie, Vetorri and Patel with Tim Southee just coming into the team.
 
2009 we
lost to Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka 2-0
 
2009/10
drew with pakistan in NZ 1-1 Shane Bond played in this series
Beat Bangledesh in one test in NZ Daryl Tuffey played this test
 
So not that great a period as far as results go though Taylor and Ryder where scorin decent runs at 4 and 5 during this period. Such a shame about Ryder

hydro11

<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 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.
</div>
</blockquote>
Those were batting strike rates. I feel like Munro might warrant an opportunity but I would highly doubt that he would be able to succeed at international level. I'm generally against this line of process but I would want to see Munro perform at ODI and T20 level. If Munro is good enough to bat at 6 in tests then he will be good enough to do it in ODIs.
 
Neesham also averages about 2 wickets per game at FC level whereas Munro and Anderson are only at one wicket per game.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Siam" data-cid="559166" data-time="1455685475">
<div>
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
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Here are the scores in the last 3 tests at the Basin:
 
 Vs Australia: 183 then 562
Vs Sri Lanka 221 then 356
Vs India 192 then 438
 
All of them we have batted first and we have been skittled each time. Against India and Sri Lanka we came back in the 3rd innings. If you go back further we set a good score against the Windies but they were crap when they came here. It's definitely a bowl first wicket, the Basin, but given the size of our loss was clearly not the sole reason we lost.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Siam" data-cid="559166" data-time="1455685475">
<div>
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
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Doull said on the morning of the match that this was how it would pan out and that winning the toss was vital...which IMO is wrong that the match hinges on a 50-50 call on a coin. 
 
Do they start the coin heads up every time before tossing, or do they just whip it out and give it a toss...

Bovidae

I read somewhere that the groundsman at the Basin is relatively new and this was the first test wicket he had prepared.

Siam

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="559170" data-time="1455686119">
<div>
Here are the scores in the last 3 tests at the Basin:
 
 Vs Australia: 183 then 562
Vs Sri Lanka 221 then 356
Vs India 192 then 438
 
All of them we have batted first and we have been skittled each time. Against India and Sri Lanka we came back in the 3rd innings. If you go back further we set a good score against the Windies but they were crap when they came here. It's definitely a bowl first wicket, the Basin, but given the size of our loss was clearly not the sole reason we lost.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Good spotting Hydro, fair point. Wonder about the roles of technique and even psychology staring down at a green one - could be as simple as batting plans.
 
Either way it's a repeated flaw that needs rectifying

No Quarter

The pitch was doing plenty but fuck me some of our dismissals were shit. Playing at balls not even threatening the stumps. Given how quickly the pitch flattened out you'd hope survival would have been at the top of the list of priorities in the first session. We get through that first session then suddenly the pitch gets a bit easier and we have the advantage of bowling last. 
And to make matters worse we'd done exactly the same thing the previous two tests at the Basin - learn a lesson guys! 
The toss was important but not the reason we lost.

Frye

<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/76976471/exblack-caps-captain-stephen-fleming-weighs-into-pitch-debate-as-mike-hessons-plea-for-green-wicket-falls-on-deaf-ears'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/76976471/exblack-caps-captain-stephen-fleming-weighs-into-pitch-debate-as-mike-hessons-plea-for-green-wicket-falls-on-deaf-ears</a>
 
I agree with Flem.
 
I'd be quite happy to see a pitch which only had 200 runs (max) in it per innings. Looks like our best chance of a favourable result.
 
Who is this Rupert Bool character and is he deport-able?

canefan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="559186" data-time="1455691996">
<div>
The pitch was doing plenty but fuck me some of our dismissals were shit. Playing at balls not even threatening the stumps. Given how quickly the pitch flattened out you'd hope survival would have been at the top of the list of priorities in the first session. We get through that first session then suddenly the pitch gets a bit easier and we have the advantage of bowling last. 
And to make matters worse we'd done exactly the same thing the previous two tests at the Basin - learn a lesson guys! 
The toss was important but not the reason we lost.
</div>
</blockquote>
Our last test was Dec 22 2015 against the Lankans and since then we've had a steady diet of slap and giggle cricket. It looked like we never flicked the switch back into test mode and the aussies were quite proficient at helping show our boys the way back to the pavilion

canefan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Don Frye" data-cid="559188" data-time="1455693780">
<div>
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/76976471/exblack-caps-captain-stephen-fleming-weighs-into-pitch-debate-as-mike-hessons-plea-for-green-wicket-falls-on-deaf-ears'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/76976471/exblack-caps-captain-stephen-fleming-weighs-into-pitch-debate-as-mike-hessons-plea-for-green-wicket-falls-on-deaf-ears</a>
 
I agree with Flem.
 
I'd be quite happy to see a pitch which only had 200 runs (max) in it per innings. Looks like our best chance of a favourable result.
 
Who is this Rupert Bool character and is he deport-able?
</div>
</blockquote>
Other nations have always tailored pitches to suit their strengths, I can't see why we don't do a bit of the same, especially in a must win game

gollum

<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>
 
Munro reminds me of that fat slogger we gave 1 test to as an opener on the basis of his first class statrs? Ingram?
 
Had a cracking 1st class record on the basis on standing still & heaving everything which worked against the non spinning spinners & 125kph opening bowlers he came up against in NZ 1st class.

The Silver Fern

NZ v Australia Test #1