New Zealand 'A' Tour of U.K., 2014

[hendrix]

I just don't buy the third seamer argument.

Maybe if someone like Duffy or Milne were in contention we could make that call. But Wagner himself is a converted opening bowler, and he's not exactly tall or fast or bouncy. He's also not a reverse swing specialist, as much as we hear that he's supposed to be. I'm not slagging off Wagner here, I'm just making the point that there isn't a current precedency for specialist 3rd seamers.

Wagner's modes of dismissals have been excellent bowling to excellent captaincy. Aside from the odd rip-snorting bouncer against the Indians (which I believe Henry is capable of too), he's had most of his wickets caught in the gully or short cover.

The status quo is not Morne Morkel. Excellent bowling, sure, but it's not specialist 3rd seamer stuff.

 

[SteveNZ]

I just don't buy the third seamer argument.

Maybe if someone like Duffy or Milne were in contention we could make that call. But Wagner himself is a converted opening bowler, and he's not exactly tall or fast or bouncy. He's also not a reverse swing specialist, as much as we hear that he's supposed to be. I'm not slagging off Wagner here, I'm just making the point that there isn't a current precedency for specialist 3rd seamers.

Wagner's modes of dismissals have been excellent bowling to excellent captaincy. Aside from the odd rip-snorting bouncer against the Indians (which I believe Henry is capable of too), he's had most of his wickets caught in the gully or short cover.

The status quo is not Morne Morkel. Excellent bowling, sure, but it's not specialist 3rd seamer stuff.

But the issue being if you convert Henry to a third seamer option, are you robbing Paul to pay Peter in terms of his own development? Henry is a beautifully-talented swing bowler who gets good batsman out with shape. Maybe Wagner was that once upon a time, I'm not aware of what he did pre-Otago.

If you all of a sudden send Henry around the world as a Test third seamer, you're forcing him to change. All of a sudden the swinging HV that got Solanki is the long HV that Kohli, Khan, Sangakkara and co are slapping to the fence for fun across the sub-continent. So he's forced to become a different bowler to stay in the side, and take away his key asset. Then one of your openers goes down, and perhaps he's not as adaptable to be able to do what he used to.

You aren't losing that with Wagner. At the moment you're telling him exactly what you want from him, pretty well consistently across all conditions. Even if there's a particularly conducive seam environment, you're probably giving him Neesham alongside him as well to do a wicket-taking job. You don't need him to change, you don't want him to change, he's who he is.

Same argument as applied to Kane (miss you Blocky). Yes he could do a job opening the batting, better than the other options. But you're taking him away from what he's naturally best at doing, which is batting at 3. And you're forcing him to change his game too.

I'd love a situation where we have 11 guys who know exactly what they're going to be doing Test by Test, tour by tour. They're all given a specific role and only injury/special circumstance changes that. And if they don't do it, the next guy comes in to do the same thing. I think we can achieve that with the player pool we have.

 

[Prince EWS]

But the issue being if you convert Henry to a third seamer option, are you robbing Paul to pay Peter in terms of his own development? Henry is a beautifully-talented swing bowler who gets good batsman out with shape. Maybe Wagner was that once upon a time, I'm not aware of what he did pre-Otago.

If you all of a sudden send Henry around the world as a Test third seamer, you're forcing him to change. All of a sudden the swinging HV that got Solanki is the long HV that Kohli, Khan, Sangakkara and co are slapping to the fence for fun across the sub-continent. So he's forced to become a different bowler to stay in the side, and take away his key asset. Then one of your openers goes down, and perhaps he's not as adaptable to be able to do what he used to.

You aren't losing that with Wagner. At the moment you're telling him exactly what you want from him, pretty well consistently across all conditions. Even if there's a particularly conducive seam environment, you're probably giving him Neesham alongside him as well to do a wicket-taking job. You don't need him to change, you don't want him to change, he's who he is.

Same argument as applied to Kane (miss you Blocky). Yes he could do a job opening the batting, better than the other options. But you're taking him away from what he's naturally best at doing, which is batting at 3. And you're forcing him to change his game too.

I'd love a situation where we have 11 guys who know exactly what they're going to be doing Test by Test, tour by tour. They're all given a specific role and only injury/special circumstance changes that. And if they don't do it, the next guy comes in to do the same thing. I think we can achieve that with the player pool we have.

This is a good post, but I have to wonder whether that wouldn't waste your best resources a little bit in this specific case. If Southee and/or Boult were nearing the end of their careers and Henry as an opening bowler was a succession plan then it'd make a lot of sense, but they're both only 25 -- just three years older than Henry -- so Wagner's spot will probably come up a lot earlier.

Refusing to see if Henry can adapt to a different role and only selecting him if there's an injury right up until the last couple of years of his career after Southee or Boult retire could just be a waste of one of your best bowlers.

I don't really think Henry would offer more as a third seamer than Wagner right now, but if that day came I think he should be picked in that role, and I do think he should be encouraged to develop his bowling in that way anyway just because of the state and respective ages of New Zealand's bowling resources. Your third seamer is definitely a much more important player than your reserve opening bowler if you're going to make them two different players (which I do agree is a pretty good idea generally).

 

[hendrix]

But the issue being if you convert Henry to a third seamer option, are you robbing Paul to pay Peter in terms of his own development? Henry is a beautifully-talented swing bowler who gets good batsman out with shape. Maybe Wagner was that once upon a time, I'm not aware of what he did pre-Otago.

If you all of a sudden send Henry around the world as a Test third seamer, you're forcing him to change. All of a sudden the swinging HV that got Solanki is the long HV that Kohli, Khan, Sangakkara and co are slapping to the fence for fun across the sub-continent. So he's forced to become a different bowler to stay in the side, and take away his key asset. Then one of your openers goes down, and perhaps he's not as adaptable to be able to do what he used to.

You aren't losing that with Wagner. At the moment you're telling him exactly what you want from him, pretty well consistently across all conditions. Even if there's a particularly conducive seam environment, you're probably giving him Neesham alongside him as well to do a wicket-taking job. You don't need him to change, you don't want him to change, he's who he is.

Same argument as applied to Kane (miss you Blocky). Yes he could do a job opening the batting, better than the other options. But you're taking him away from what he's naturally best at doing, which is batting at 3. And you're forcing him to change his game too.

I'd love a situation where we have 11 guys who know exactly what they're going to be doing Test by Test, tour by tour. They're all given a specific role and only injury/special circumstance changes that. And if they don't do it, the next guy comes in to do the same thing. I think we can achieve that with the player pool we have.

It's a good post, but I don't think the change that Henry might have to make is necessarily so binary.

For a start, he's already less of a pure swing bowler than Southee. And just because he might have to adapt his length a little bit doesn't mean he'll necessarily lose his shape with the new ball. As long as he's aware of what and why he's doing, addition of skill doesn't mean loss of other skills.

 

[Dan]

Your third seamer is definitely a much more important player than your reserve opening bowler if you're going to make them two different players (which I do agree is a pretty good idea generally).

This; especially when you have Milne/Wheeler who could sit there as reserve opening bowlers.

While converting Henry isn't an ideal situation, it's preferable to have him playing 80 Tests and taking 320 at 27 as the third seamer than it is to have him play 35 Tests for 140 as a reserve opener/third quick on a greentop, especially when there are alternatives to play that latter role. It isn't the best use of fast bowling resources, but you can't have three bowlers opening the bowling, and Southee/Boult is entrenched for quite a while, I suspect.

Definite arguments for and against. I do rate Steve's post and position, tbh.

 

[hendrix]

yeah he'll have to prove himself as a third seamer, of course. If he's averaging 40 after 15 tests and is expensive, it might be time to re-assess and shunt him back to reserve opening bowler. But I suspect he'll make a decent fist of it. If he manages to be as good as Wagner (i.e. acceptable, not great, low to mid 30s average) for the first few tests then he has significantly more upside to him than Wags.

 

[hendrix]

With all that said, Wagner could continue on his current trend of improvement and the conversation will be irrelevant. He's been excellent over the last couple of series. Here's hoping that continues.

 

[SteveNZ]

It's a good post, but I don't think the change that Henry might have to make is necessarily so binary.

For a start, he's already less of a pure swing bowler than Southee. And just because he might have to adapt his length a little bit doesn't mean he'll necessarily lose his shape with the new ball. As long as he's aware of what and why he's doing, addition of skill doesn't mean loss of other skills.

That's true, it's not about transforming him into a completely different bowler. That's just my position as a fan of defined roles. Of course he can still be an attacking bowler as a third seamer as well.

I can't think of a player as a prior example off the top of my head, but as long as he doesn't become a back of a length, bang it in and go for twos as opposed to harnessing his wicket-taking ability then I'm more than happy for him to follow Southee and Boult. Of course if Jimmy becomes someone who can provide a clamping job, as I think he can over time, then it provides more flexibility.

Nice conversation to have right?

 

[hendrix]

Yeah.

it was maybe 2 years ago when Chris Martin was the best pace bowler in the country.

Would love for Sodhi to get to a level where he can buy wickets for us. Shouldn't think we'd need much more than that if Neesh/Anderson grow into the holding role.

 

[Flem274*]

hopefully Henry is a smart guy and watches how Siddle and Morkel all of a sudden go from good bowlers to world beaters when they remember to keep a fuller length and not get sucked into banging it in halfway down all day.

 

[Kippax]

 

[Zinzan]

^ Lol @ Bennett's no-look celebration at the LBW (at 2:00). Would be in strife for that at international level.

 

[hendrix]

Yeah saw that.

Todd Astle is consistently outperforming the incumbents. I realise that McHesson wants a leggie and an offie in contention and i realise there's been significant investment in Sodhi but there has to be a point where Tastle forces himself in.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Nice of Richard Branson to announce things at the start there.

 

[Dan]

Yeah saw that.

Todd Astle is consistently outperforming the incumbents. I realise that McHesson wants a leggie and an offie in contention and i realise there's been significant investment in Sodhi but there has to be a point where Tastle forces himself in.

I'm a massive Tastle fan, but 4 wickets @ 5.5rpo is hardly 'forcing himself in'.

Still reckon he should open instead of HamRud though.

 

[hendrix]

Tastle opening would be so awesome.

NZ/Aus/England/SA bowling attack:
Southee
Boult
Wagner
Henry
Neesham
Tastle

Windies/SC/UAE bowling attack:
Southee
Boult
Wagner
Craig/Jeets/Sodhi
Tastle
Neesham

 

[Flem274*]

hendo's hero
tastle it
adorable future captain big daddy kane
ross
baz
the neesh
wpwb
5outhee
WAGner
mini-southee
boulter

(Y)

 

[hendrix]

Anyone but Southee batting 8.

 

[Prince EWS]

Anyone but Southee batting 8.

If you've got Astle opening but playing primarily as a bowler you should definitely be looking to bat deeper than that. Anderson in for Henry and it's a really unconventional side but potentially balanced much better than if New Zealand tried to pick a traditional side. Giving up on finding a second proper opener is very defeatist though.

 

[vandem]

Summary? Ignoring the last FC game, here's my take on the tourists and possibilities for the World Cup squad:

Winners:
Brownlie: enough match winning innings to be serious contender for reserve batsman in WC, but spot depends on selector's attitude to Ryder.
Henry: standout seamer from the highlights I watched. Will get WC squad reserve seamer spot, possibly a place in match XI if Mills or McClenaghan struggle or are injured.

Close behind:
Rutherford: surprising success, match winning innings at Worcester. Outside chance of WC squad if Ryder ignored and Latham struggles.
Kuggeleijn: will be at WC 2019. 33 (34) at #8 was a key innings in the 22 run win at Bristol, came in at 6-194, exited at 8-264. Useful wickets with reasonable ER.
D Bracewell: regular top-order wicket taker.
Bennett: regular top-order wicket taker. Outside chance for WC squad if McClenaghan struggles and selectors want firepower.

In the pack:
Munro: only major score was against a weak Northants. Needs Kane to be bowling and Corey injury to bring him into contention.
M Bracewell: useful runs against weak Scotland
Elliott: flattered by centuries against weak Scotland. 42 (57) was a typical middle overs innings in win at Bristol, but we now have Kane and Ross to play the middle order accumulator role.
Watling: limited opportunities, easy runs against weak Scotland. Didn't watch enough highlights to comment on his keeping. Needs some luck to make WC squad ahead of Latham.
Latham: 2 failures, 2 successes in A series. Assume he'll be WC opener if Ryder not selected, or backup batsman and emergency keeper if Ryder is in squad.
Devcich: enough useful contributions to make the next NZ A tour.
Sodhi: flattered by spell of 4-10 to mop up tail against SL A. Long term option, would have more chance if Kane could bowl a few steady overs if he's having a bad day. Don't see how he'll make WC squad, better to punt on Vettori or take a second backup seamer.

Also rans:
de Grandhomme: blazing 151 vs weak Northants, not much else.
Mitchell: an opportunity missed.