NZ Test Match Summer News and Thoughts

[Prince EWS]

a) we've only been playing tests for about 80 years,

b) NZ have tried four seam bowlers before a bit, with mixed results

c) if watson were to give up bowling permanently, would that be your prescription for the australian side?

As for C; if they had Vettori I'm sure it would be.

 

[Hurricane]

^ Vettori wouldn't make the Aussie side as he doesn't take enough wickets etc...

 

[thierry henry]

Yeah, NZ need a spinner because of all the raging turners in NZ. Oh Vettori doesn't spin it? Well, we need someone to bowl 30-40 overs a day and hold up an end, and be all non-threatening an all. If they can't drop a batsman for Vettori, I'd rather he didn't come back at all.

 

[Prince EWS]

^ Vettori wouldn't make the Aussie side as he doesn't take enough wickets etc...

He'd make it as what he is; a batting allrounder. Especially in the hypothetical situation put forward where Watson wasn't bowling.

 

[Hurricane]

If Boult gets dropped, then it's going to be one of batsmen on the verge of being dropped (AKA a ****ty batsman) that stay in instead of him. I seriously don't think 5 bowlers, with one being Dan, is as absurd as people are making out. We just won a test match with 4 seamers ffs, let's give the idea a few more chances. It's not like we were winning tests left right and centre with the old structure.

How old is the old structure. As far as I know we have used it in Zimbos and Aussie (6 batsman) and we are 2-1.

Before that it has been 5 bowlers or 4 bowlers and an allrounder like Oram.

One of the batsman on the cutting block is Ryder and is he definitely not ****ty.

 

[thierry henry]

Southee's average is getting more and more Samiesque. How poorly does he have to perform to be under the microscope? He bowls well in very small patches which are surrounded on all sides by the buffet cart.

tbh it's not "getting" Samiesque, it just always has been. He's only played 15 tests though tbf. If the bloke keeps on averaging 40 for the rest of the summer you probably have to start wondering if he's one of those bowlers who looks ok but is actually sh*t.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

How old is the old structure. As far as I know we have used it in Zimbos and Aussie (6 batsman) and we are 2-1.

Before that it has been 5 bowlers or 4 bowlers and an allrounder like Oram.

One of the batsman on the cutting block is Ryder and is he definitely not ****ty.

More referring to this specific bowling combination deserving more of a chance than the five bowler setup in general. No, it's true that it often doesn't work, but I think in this case it definitely can. All I'll say on Ryder is that his batting against Aus was on par with Southee for pea-heartedness. I don't care about much talent he has, he needs to get his **** together badly.

 

[Hurricane]

He'd make it as what he is; a batting allrounder. Especially in the hypothetical situation put forward where Watson wasn't bowling.

I would trust Hussey at 6 before Vettori. What number would you bat him.

 

[Prince EWS]

I would trust Hussey at 6 before Vettori. What number would you bat him.

There's talk of playing Dan ****ing Christian because of how much the selectors want a fifth bowler; I have absolutely no doubt Vettori would get a game. I'd bat him at six for Australia.

 

[Spikey]

hahahah yep. It's a no brainer.

 

[Flametree]

A cautionary tale for any advocate of the five bowler theory :

2nd Test: Australia v New Zealand at Hobart, Nov 26-29, 1993 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Were the selectors drunk when they picked that team??

More seriously, if you give up a batsman to play a bowler you concede 40 runs per test over the long run. Anyone care to look at the margins of our last three victories (Aus, Zim, Pakistan)?

 

[Flem274*]

More seriously, if you give up a batsman to play a bowler you concede 40 runs per test over the long run. Anyone care to look at the margins of our last three victories (Aus, Zim, Pakistan)?

That assuming you still get the same value for wickets from your bowlers. You won't, because you have one less.

We lost that test because our team sucked. Blair Pocock, Richard de Groen, Dipak Patel...

Then you look at the Aussie line up.

 

[Howsie]

2) Vettori in, Southee out

Southee was the lesser of the bpwlers against Australia, so if we drop a bowler on performance it's him.

Eh, a fully fit Tim Southee is New Zealand's best bowler by a country mile. Regardless of how poor he was in Australia overall (and he was pretty average for the most part) a two test match series on a couple of bowling tracks isn't going to change my opinion on that.

 

[Mike5181]

Agree with the druggie australian toad. The situation basically is:

1. Having an extra ****ty batsmen who doesn't deserve his place

vs

2. Having an extra good bowler who DOES deserve his place

In my humble opinion ofc.

Realistically we aren't going to drop Williamson, Taylor, Ryder or McCullum. You can claim Guptill is the extra batsman but we have no alternatives opener-wise so he really isn't. Converting a middle order batsman like Brownlie wouldn't be ideal IMO but I'm semi open minded to the idea. We had this same discussion about the extra batsman before the test series against Australia in relation to Dean Brownlie.

 

[Hurricane]

More referring to this specific bowling combination deserving more of a chance than the five bowler setup in general. No, it's true that it often doesn't work, but I think in this case it definitely can. All I'll say on Ryder is that his batting against Aus was on par with Southee for pea-heartedness. I don't care about much talent he has, he needs to get his **** together badly.

Good post. I think this is the first time we could put on the field 5 good bowlers. In the past one of the bowlers has been Franklin or Arnel or patel or Tuffey or even 2 of them at once.

Ryder did not bat with guts and determination it is true. But with that much talent and with John Wright as coach he will come good.

At least we have a good squad of 12 to pick from.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

It felt really dirty too.

 

[Hurricane]

There's talk of playing Dan ****ing Christian because of how much the selectors want a fifth bowler; I have absolutely no doubt Vettori would get a game. I'd bat him at six for Australia.

Who will you trade to us for him?

 

[Athlai]

When Flynn is fit and Wagner has qualified we should hopefully have 14 players to pick from.

 

[straw man]

I'm certainly not saying he should be dropped as it'd be absolutely ridiculous given what just went on, but I still think Bracewell is the worst of the four NZ bowlers who played the Hobart Test at the moment.

Again, dropping him would be beyond ridiculous, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was the one who ended up out of the side for a bit eventually (although Martin's eventual retirement makes this post even less relevant).

I don't know I'd go so far as to say Boult>Bracewell at this stage but agree that two good performances do not provide any guarantee that Bracewell will be better than Southee or Boult in the longer term.

Likewise with Brownlie - in a year or two we could all be laughing that Brownlie was once considered a must-play over Ryder and Williamson.

However we have to reward performance - there is no reasonable alternative approach.

 

[Flametree]

Yeah, we've probably done the shape of the side to death... is there anyone else outside the current set-up who we think might make a contribution by the end of the South Africa series or next winter? A keeper is an obvious one. Wagner, Flynn, anyone else?