**Official** New Zealand in Australia Thread

[Mingster]

So what's his excuse for the first 11 Tests he played?

None? You seem to write alot of rubbish, accusing other posters of saying things they don't, just like Richard says.

I'm not saying Chris Martin the best bowler in the world, all I am saying (and you seem to miss the point entirely), is that he should be in the XI for against Australia and that he won't exactly be cannon fodder against the Aussies.

Obviously you haven't seen Martin bowl at his best, and we need him at his prime against Australia, just like how he demolished SA.

 

[Craig]

1 series in which he got wickets against a very out of form side.

The rest of his career tells a very much different story - 14 games , 40 wickets @ 37.25.

Of course ignoring the fact that the South Africans whipped the West Indies, so their Test form was pretty good.

Could it ever, inconviecably, New Zealand and Martin bowled well? Did you even watch a ball in that series?

 

[Craig]

Actually I don't think Martin wasn't that bad when he last played v Australia at The WACA in 2001.

 

[Macka]

So what's his excuse for the first 11 Tests he played?

Martin bulked up a little (so he says - he is still pretty slim) and has been able to bowl a lot faster since. He was still pretty disappointing against England though, different ball or whatever excuse the NZ bowlers were going on about.

 

[Macka]

Actually I don't think Martin wasn't that bad when he last played v Australia at The WACA in 2001.

I remember him giving Mark Waugh a bit of trouble, hitting him on the gloves.

 

[bryce]

i would like to correct myself, tuffey will most probaly not play in the test series but is hoping to be fit for the one-dayers.

 

[tooextracool]

1 series in which he got wickets against a very out of form side.

The rest of his career tells a very much different story - 14 games , 40 wickets @ 37.25.

without getting into the martin argument, id like to tell you that SA arent/werent out of form. they were/are just as good as they performed.

 

[tooextracool]

As Boycott would say (roughly); my mother could average 24 bowling in NZ

that is one of the stupidest statments i've ever heard on that series, i recommend that you watch that series before you tarnish a respectable person's name by using him to suggest it.

 

[Kent]

Because of the brilliant decision to go on a tour llike England with only 14 players. Needless to say, the players went down injuried all the time.

Brilliant thinking Bracewell

Sinclair and Franklin were in the UK, and at least getting some cricket. People forget that Mills (clearly the 14th member of that squad) did bugger-all in the warmup games, got thrown into the 3rd test, bowled some rubbish, and went down injured. How well would a 15th man have gone with even less cricket?

Bracewell's only error IMO was not having Bruce Martin stationed at an English club. I had no problem otherwise.

 

[Craig]

Fair point.

I still felt/feel it was a huge risk to take Bond when he clearly so little cricket ehind to gauge his form and/or match fitness.

 

[Kent]

That's true, although imagine if we didn't take him, and still got belted.

Then on the TV1 news there's Bond bowling at the academy, saying his back is fine and that he wishes he could be in England helping out his mates. Every average Joe would've instantly been calling for Bracewell's head. Ashley Ross and co. were also in the middle of altering Bond's action, and didn't want to leave him to train indoors on his own.

It sounds strange, but ultimately it could be a good thing that Bond had the chance to break down again in England. It's forced him to take his last option (surgery), and it gives him at least a slim chance of playing the Aussies in NZ and then maybe even a hassle-free career after that.

 

[Mingster]

Tuffey could be available for the 2nd test, he seems to have recovered well and got though the Academy game well.

 

[bryce]

i don't think he will be but i hope he is, he recently made a comment that there's is a big gap between bowling 8 overs for the academy and bowling 20 plus in australia vs the worlds best team, he said he will be bowling 12 overs against northern districts in the next academy match.

 

[cbuts]

The portion of Sinclair's test career where he's been exposed inside the first 10 overs has been a disaster. His 76 against BAN was his first score of substance in 17 innings.

so sinclairs score of 74ish against south africa that nearly set up a series win wasnt a substancial score?????

 

[cbuts]

I never really could believe how long it took them to move who I believe is the best batsman in the NZ OD squad into the test side - Marshall. If you compare him with other OD batsman when they had played the same amount of games (using PWC rankings), he's right up there with the best of them - he compares well with Tendulkar, Ponting, Gilchrist, Graeme Smith, Kallis... not a bad group to be ranking with. I'd say Sehwag and Gayle, but looking at their rankings they had a slow start anyway. To keep him away from tests for quite some time... well, I'm not sure if it will pay off in some way that the coaches intended, but I hope it does. I personally felt that Marshall could have been extremely influential during the England tests.

could it be the fact that marshall averages 22 in fc cricket, never got a century. he looks like he may be one of those players that have a better test career than fc but still picking him on those stats are a big risk.

 

[cbuts]

my best 11 would be

richardson
sinclair
flemming
styris
astle
oram
marshall
mccullum
vetorri
franklin
butler

 

[bryce]

could it be the fact that marshall averages 22 in fc cricket, never got a century. he looks like he may be one of those players that have a better test career than fc but still picking him on those stats are a big risk.

yes thats exactly right, he is extremely lucky to have been selected in the first place, one reason i think he was selected when he was scoring not alot of runs is that a few years ago he was chosen as new zealand's young player to lords where i think each country selected there most promising young player to train in england.

 

[Kent]

so sinclairs score of 74ish against south africa that nearly set up a series win wasnt a substancial score?????

He started that innings in about the 15th over, not inside the first 10. I was at that game, and I think Kallis was into his work.

If he'd made 74 after facing Pollock and Ntini's first spells with a shiny red pill, then I would have at least some confidence about him being up to opening in AUS.

 

[vic_orthdox]

big scores

first of all, i havent seen marshall bat, and don't profess to be any expert on him at all. however, i hear that he has not made a first class century.

what we've seen recently is that you need big hundreds to beat australia (or a dodgy pitch, but thats for another thread) - laxman, dravid, the whole bloody indian team in australia last year, and even lou vincent over here last time with his century at the WACA where NZ had the wood over aus at perth, our fave hunting ground, IIRC - and a guy who has not made a century at first class level surely, no matter how talented, is not the guy to pick in the team.

also, i reckon the aussies would be pretty pleased that mcmillan isn't coming. hes been a pretty good performer against the aussies, probably more in the one day arena, but still.

 

[marc71178]

Obviously you haven't seen Martin bowl at his best, and we need him at his prime against Australia, just like how he demolished SA.

But my point is - he's only really done it for 2 games in his career - so the weight of performances suggest he will be cannon fodder for the Aussies.