**Official** New Zealand v Australia

[Somerset]

I don't believe NZ could keep the same squad after the nine wicket loss. What does McMillan have over the selectors? How many more runs does Fulton need to score to be selected ahead of McMillan? Bloody frustrating!

For the first and second days, and first session on the third day, this New Zealand squad was definately on top. Sure, they collapsed miserably and deserved to lose eventually but from that start, there was potential for the side to get a good result from the match. Personally, I think they deserve another chance.

 

[Somerset]

You have to keep McMillan for this Test, sure if he doesn't perform, replace him with another batsman. His form was good in the ODIs, and got some good starts.

I'd keep him for at least the remainder of this series. As you say, he played some decent innings in the ODI series, mainly at Wellington (opening match) and Napier where he looked to be in good nick.

Bringing Fulton into the side and having yet another inexperienced played is hardly going to help IMO.

 

[Will Scarlet]

You have to keep McMillan for this Test, sure if he doesn't perform, replace him with another batsman. His form was good in the ODIs, and got some good starts.

It may be best for the team's continuity but obvious necessary changes should be made before the series is lost. Bracewell was only willing to make changes to the ODI squad when that series was lost.

I believe they need to be proactive if NZ expect to win. McMillan was made look like a goose by the AUS bowlers in the first test. Fulton is in brilliant form and is an unknown to the Australians. I'd also bring back Sinclair to replace McMillan, as I think he should not have been dropped anyway.

And due to his height McGrath won't be able to look down on Fulton. And the extra bounce should not be an issue.

 

[Tim]

The selectors did the right thing by keeping the same team. But it's likely that it'll be 2-0 heading to Auckland & thats when i'd consider swapping Fulton for McMillan.

I can't see the harm in Fulton getting a look at a quality pace attack with the series already lost.

 

[chaminda_00]

OD form doesn't nessary mean Test form, i think McMillan should been dropped before the start of the series. In his last 14 Test Innings his only scored one 50 and averaged 18.46. He really hasn't batted well in Test Cricket since India 2003/04, that over 12 months ago now. Guys like Futon and J Marshall are batting allot better then him and should be given a go.

 

[Tim]

A huge blow for NZ this season is that they aren't getting the 'A' series here against South Africa 'A'. That series would have been extremely beneficial in selecting players for the tour of Africa.

 

[chaminda_00]

A huge blow for NZ this season is that they aren't getting the 'A' series here against South Africa 'A'. That series would have been extremely beneficial in selecting players for the tour of Africa.

Well they could always send an A side to Zimbabwe, will not change the result too much

 

[Tim]

I suspect it will be a new look side anyway. I don't think some of the current players are going to make the cut.

I think we'll see Shane Bond return along with new-caps Peter Fulton, James Marshall & possibly Bruce Martin for the ODI's. Jamie How & Michael Papps may fight out an openers spot too. The odds would be on Papps because he could also cover as a wicket-keeper for McCullum.

There's an outside chance of Jesse Ryder or Ross Taylor being selected. But i'd be keeping them back here for another season at least.

 

[Will Scarlet]

A huge blow for NZ this season is that they aren't getting the 'A' series here against South Africa 'A'. That series would have been extremely beneficial in selecting players for the tour of Africa.

Why was there no A Tour this year? Such tours have been important for finding and testing fringe players, as happened with Mark Richardson some years back.

 

[Tim]

South Africa pulled out for some reason. I believe though that NZ 'A' is heading to Sri Lanka sometime in the next couple of months.

South Africa possibly wanted their 'A' players closer to home incase they needed to fly someone over to the Carribean perhaps.

 

[Dydl]

In the newspaper this morning it had something saying that before the Australian's went out for the NZ's 2nd Innings, Gillespie was approached by Merv Hughes and Collin 'Funky' Miller,
(who was supporting a pink hairdo) saying that Gillespie should straighten his run-up, because he was running in at an angle. So Gillespie straightened and as a result performed better!

 

[Tim]

I wish it were that simple for the NZ bowlers.

 

[Ming]

OD form doesn't nessary mean Test form, i think McMillan should been dropped before the start of the series. In his last 14 Test Innings his only scored one 50 and averaged 18.46. He really hasn't batted well in Test Cricket since India 2003/04, that over 12 months ago now. Guys like Futon and J Marshall are batting allot better then him and should be given a go.

McMillan was in good domestic form, that's why he was recalled.

Of course ODI form doesn't instantly mean Test form, but it shows he was in good nick. You can't doubt that.

 

[chaminda_00]

McMillan was in good domestic form, that's why he was recalled.

Of course ODI form doesn't instantly mean Test form, but it shows he was in good nick. You can't doubt that.

That might be true but the guy has just failed for 18 months straight in Test Cricket. Was his domestic form that much better then the others guys in NZ, to make up for his complete lack of form in Test Cricket. If that is the case then NZ have some major problems.

Also apart from his 63 in the last game his form wasn't that good in the 1Day Series. His might have been better then some other NZ batsmen but that say more about their lack of form then his brilliant form.

I really can't see a big enough case for him to stay in the Test Side, unless of course NZ have absolutely no other batsmen, which i doubt.

 

[anzac]

It's his attitude to his game that's as much a problem as his form, & the writing was on the wall when he made that statement re not having changed his game.............

IMO I'd be right in saying "I told you so" re my predictions about Sinclair being the sacrificial bunny & making way for Macca's return that I made prior to the tour to AUS........

 

[anzac]

McMillan was in good domestic form, that's why he was recalled.

Of course ODI form doesn't instantly mean Test form, but it shows he was in good nick. You can't doubt that.

he was in no better nick than How, Fulton, Vincent, Gaffaney, Stewart, J Marshall.........and Sinclair was in better form than him at intnl level at the time he was dropped in comparison to how Macca has played since his return..............

people have been going on about how the likes of H Marshall & Butler have been Bracewell's golden boys - IMO the reality is that Macca appears to be the Golden Child - not only has his repeated failures at top flight been excused over the past several seasons (it's so obvious we even joke about his 1 decent innings per series to continue his selection in the starting team - hell even he makes reference to it!!!!), but he has also yet to be asked to bat out of his comfort zone below #4, while other players have had to chop & change around him!!!!!!

 

[Grubb]

Well, after three days of tense, exciting cricket it all turned to manure. The frequency with which this manure appears is now getting ridiculous. I was interested to hear some of Martin Crowe's comments on Xtra today, and he was saying that it looked to him (though not in these words) that Fleming's demotion from king to captain is having a negative effect on the way NZ, and Fleming himself, play the game.

I tend to agree with Mr Crowe: has Bracewell of Gloucester's elevation from county squire to Lord Protector really been beneficial?

If I were Martin Sneddon I'd be looking to greet John Wright at the airport in May with a large box of sweeties. I'd also be dry-cleaning the ermine and looking at a restoration before the captain buys a few acres in the country and starts growing pumpkins.

 

[anzac]

as much as I don't think Bracewell is doing any good at Test level I don't think you can blame the batting woes solely with him - it's been going on basically all decade - IMO as long as they've been going with a 5-5 split with an out of form allrounder at #6, & with a middle order using a combination of Styris, Astle & McMillan...............

tactics played a part while they were experimenting with the 'advance the game' theory - esp with Richardson opening & putting so much pressure on the rest of the batting lineup to score quickly..............

to his credit Bracewell has made some changes - but the question is would these have been made if he had a fully fit squad to choose from - me thinks not..............

IMO the rescue act performed by Katich & Gilchrist in the AUS 1st innings highlights the massive advantage of having specialist batsmen down to #6 to partner the likes of Gilchrist.....and traditionally AUS have used a more moderate type of player in that role to form partnerships...........(S Waugh).........

 

[Grubb]

Yes, but what I'm wanting to get at is the devaluation of Fleming's role in the planning and selection processes. He - and it's not only Martin Crowe who's noticed this, I think Ian Chappell said something similar during the tests in Australia - has led New Zealand best, and performed best himself, when the buck has stopped with him. Now that Bracewell is, to all intents and purposes, the chief strategist and team selector, New Zealand, and to a lesser extent Fleming, are not performing well in test cricket. My question is whether Bracewell's assumption of the leadership is not adversely effecting the team in terms of its cohesion and direction. Would it be better to have a coach who performs more of an advisor role to a dominant Fleming, or is it preferable to have Bracewell as the autocrat?

 

[anzac]

I understand what you're getting at & I think there was some speculation about this when Bracewell was appointed..............