NZ's 3rd seamer at the Gabba

[Fuller Pilch]

Why all the Craig hate? He averages 40 with the bat, is a great slipper, and takes lots of wickets. He might bowl a few too many 4 balls, but he has played major roles in test wins against the West Indies, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and England. Considering how Australia looked against Moeen and Rashid in the last game (and yes I know it was an ODI), it would be insane not to select him.

 

[Flem274*]

Rutherford?

 

[hendrix]

Rutherford extremely lucky to say the least.

A gamble not taking another bowler. Even Wheeler would be a justifiable inclusion if Boult or Southee went down and given the number of lefties in the Aus lineup.

 

[Athlai]

Why all the Craig hate? He averages 40 with the bat, is a great slipper, and takes lots of wickets. He might bowl a few too many 4 balls, but he has played major roles in test wins against the West Indies, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and England. Considering how Australia looked against Moeen and Rashid in the last game (and yes I know it was an ODI), it would be insane not to select him.

Because he isn't very good at batting or bowling and Australia isn't really the best place to try carry a specialist spinner.

 

[Athlai]

Stop picking Rutherford over Brownlie FFS.

Rutherford is there to make the quicks feel good in the nets.

 

[jcas0167]

Wagner should be playing.

In hindsight, Wagner should never have been dropped. Henry deserved a chance to trial for the 3rd seamer role, but disapointed. Wagner would have just run in and bowled all day in the Australian heat.

Doug Bracewell? If we're going backwards, can we not just pick Ryder and Brownlie?

Wasn't Bracewell the most impressive bowler the last time NZ toured Australia & he seems back in reasonable form?

I would have picked Wagner over Henry who appears to have lost his effectiveness since Bond left as bowling coach.

Brownlie another who is unlucky in that he was the best batsmen on the 2011 tour & his style is tailor made for Australian (and South African) surfaces.

The A squads are interesting. Didn't realise that Blundell was that close to selection. Munro in the four day squad is good to see.

 

[Immenso]

New Zealand A four-day squad
Todd Astle
Michael Bracewell
Dean Brownlie
Derek de Boorder
Jacob Duffy
Colin Munro
Henry Nicholls
Ed Nuttall
Jeet Raval
Mitchell Santner
Neil Wagner
Ben Wheeler
Will Young

Batting looks pretty bad. Bowling looks great. No Milne though.

Astle preferred over Sodhi (who is in the A one-day squad).

Really pleased with that squad at first glance.

Raval
Brownlie
Bracewell
Young
Nicholls
Santner / Munro
De Boorder
Astle
Wheeler
Wagner
Duffy

Is what I'd go, sub in Nuttal for 1 test for either Wagner or Wheeler.

In fact that's the first time I've been happy with the A team in ages (apart from the White-ball wasted opportunity tour, no gripes with the actual team picked for that)

 

[Immenso]

no Bennett in the A teams, though
Although he didn't finish the season.

I'm surprised about Neesham, was expecting the worst.

 

[Dan]

**** squad. NZ should have taken:

1. Guptill
2. Latham
3. KW
4. Ross is Boss (you're welcome Hurricane)
5. Baz
6. Unleash the Neesh
7. WPWB +
8. Craig
9. Southee
10. Henry
11. Boult

12. Brownlie
13. Ronchi
14. Wagner
15. Milne
16. Santner

Bracewell is a myth, Anderson doesn't sound like he's going to be 100% fit (while Santner lets you play 4 quicks), and Brownlie gives you better batting cover all through the order than ****ing Spudderford.

Milne gets a run because YOLO; by all means sub in Wheeler if you so wish, while Henry gets named in the XI because incumbency -- debate which of the third seamers should play all you want, that squad selection isn't intended to advocate for Henry to make the XI.

 

[Skyliner]

Brownlie was supposed to be the ordained 'next cab off the rank' even prior to scoring his triple century....what did he say or do to get put in the doghouse? He saved our bacon last time we were in Aus, but instead the poorly performed Rutherford gets to head off for another overseas holiday. Do we now have "incumbent squad members", who only lose their place if they get the teams laundry requirements mucked up?
And they should have taken Milne, he showed plenty on the recent tour of Africa, with movement to complement his pace. Now the attack is a bit samey; a bunch of guys all occupying the same medium-fast niche.
Conservative selections have always been the bane of NZ cricket...too timid to take a punt - "he who dares wins" - yet crazily we select two all-rounders with seemingly chronic back issues.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Brownlie was supposed to be the ordained 'next cab off the rank' even prior to scoring his triple century....what did he say or do to get put in the doghouse? He saved our bacon last time we were in Aus, but instead the poorly performed Rutherford gets to head off for another overseas holiday. Do we now have "incumbent squad members", who only lose their place if they get the teams laundry requirements mucked up?
And they should have taken Milne, he showed plenty on the recent tour of Africa, with movement to complement his pace. Now the attack is a bit samey; a bunch of guys all occupying the same medium-fast niche.
Conservative selections have always been the bane of NZ cricket...too timid to take a punt - "he who dares wins" - yet crazily we select two all-rounders with seemingly chronic back issues.

Welcome back Skyliner.

 

[straw man]

Conservative selections have always been the bane of NZ cricket...too timid to take a punt - "he who dares wins" - yet crazily we select two all-rounders with seemingly chronic back issues.

Maybe occasionally true though I can think of a lot more cases where out-of-the-blue cross fingers and hope wtf has this guy done to deserve this selections have been the bane of NZ cricket. In fact you contradict yourself - neither selecting Rutherford over Brownlie or selecting two talented but injury prone allrounders can be seen as conservative.

 

[Skyliner]

you contradict yourself - neither selecting Rutherford over Brownlie or selecting two talented but injury prone allrounders can be seen as conservative.

Firstly, conservative from the point of view that Rutherford is the squad incumbent, therefore the conservative or status quo selection. A less hidebound policy would have picked Brownlie.
Secondly, conservative from the point of view that selecting both Anderson and Neesham is a hedging-the-bets selection; a cop out rather than picking one of the two to do the job. To me cop-out selections represent a conservative mindset.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Picking both Anderson and Neesham was inevitable in my opinion.

Neesham is the incumbent but for injury, and Corey is part of the squad.

Personally I don't think Corey Anderson has much claim to be near the test team due tot he fact he cannot bowl with a red ball and is batting is 31 and getting worse which is just not enough runs for a #6, but Hurricane begs to differ. Because they are both injury prone, it makes sense to send both of them over. Personally I would have preferred a batsman at 6, but we may yet get Ronchi and Watling at 6 and 7.

The interesting thing is Henry and Bracewell over Wagner. I preferred Wagner to play in Australia. Seems like some hoping and wishin' that Doug gets some magic going.

Rutherford may have been selected because he mixes the best drinks now. Brownlie is more likely to be flown over than Rutherfod play, surely?

 

[straw man]

Firstly, conservative from the point of view that Rutherford is the squad incumbent, therefore the conservative or status quo selection. A less hidebound policy would have picked Brownlie.
Secondly, conservative from the point of view that selecting both Anderson and Neesham is a hedging-the-bets selection; a cop out rather than picking one of the two to do the job. To me cop-out selections represent a conservative mindset.

Ok, well I think of a conservative selection as choosing someone because you think they can be relied on to do a not-terrible job, as opposed to choosing someone because you think(hope) they might do a good job... or a great job in 12 months. Brownlie a far more conservative pick than Rutherford. You're right there's a strong bias towards incumbency with these selectors though, which is generally a good thing I think.

 

[hendrix]

**** squad. NZ should have taken:

1. Guptill
2. Latham
3. KW
4. Ross is Boss (you're welcome Hurricane)
5. Baz
6. Unleash the Neesh
7. WPWB +
8. Craig
9. Southee
10. Henry
11. Boult

12. Brownlie
13. Ronchi
14. Wagner
15. Milne
16. Santner

Bracewell is a myth, Anderson doesn't sound like he's going to be 100% fit (while Santner lets you play 4 quicks), and Brownlie gives you better batting cover all through the order than ****ing Spudderford.

Milne gets a run because YOLO; by all means sub in Wheeler if you so wish, while Henry gets named in the XI because incumbency -- debate which of the third seamers should play all you want, that squad selection isn't intended to advocate for Henry to make the XI.

If Bracewell is a myth (and he probably is), Santner is the ****ing flying spaghetti monster. Zero reason to pick him. Why don't you bring back the Tastle love?

 

[Hurricane]

Brownlie is more likely to be flown over than Rutherfod play, surely?

Good comment. Certainly in past years, someone has been deemed a spud and we have sent back home for reinforcements rather than play that person.

I can't recall off the top of my head who we did that too but it has happened.

My objectives for this tour:

1) Win my bet at work where I have a beer riding on NZ winning the series in Australia. (I think it is a 50/50 call)
2) Find some excuse to start a thread called Ross is Boss. I have no idea what the OP will be but that is of secondary importance to the thread title.


In terms of a serious post - I think that squad is fine. We all know who the starting XI will be, with some minor quibbling of who will play at 6,.

Even though Henry will start the first test I would rather have Bracewell play than Henry. I think Bracewell has grown from a maturity perspective and I think will potentially bowl to plans a lot better.

Henry will be a dud on this tour if he plays. He needs more cricket under his belt and a better coaching support system to tell him what to do and when to do it.

Still even with Henry we can win. We either win this series or we never win again in Australia in the next 30 years.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

'Cane, I am not convinced that Henry starting over Bracewell is pre-determined.

So batting at 6 and 3 rd seamer are up in the air somewhat. 9 players of the XI are decided barring injury.

Then there is (unlikely) chance of Neesh, Anderson and no Doug or Henry. Unlikely. But possible.

 

[Prince EWS]

I actually think Bracewell will play the first Test tbh.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I actually think Bracewell will play the first Test tbh.

I am having nightmares of a Mitch Marsh hundred or thirty with Doug flayed through the off side. Dear Lord.