**Official** New Zealand in England

[Prince EWS]

Mason has to play for my money.

So you drop Southee fresh off taking a five wicket haul on debut against the same opposition? The bowling attack will Martin, Mills, Southee and Vettori. I have very little doubt about that. I was against Southee's selection when it happened but to drop him now would be absolutely ludicrous.

Especially while O'Brien has played as many as he has.

I'll be the first to admit that O'Brien looks absolutely horrible, and I was in fact against his recall in South Africa, but the man has been given six Tests on the back of being the standout bowler at domestic level for a few seasons running. Two of those were against Bangladesh. His selection was hardly unjustified.

 

[Richard]

So you drop Southee fresh off taking a five wicket haul on debut against the same opposition? The bowling attack will Martin, Mills, Southee and Vettori. I have very little doubt about that. I was against Southee's selection when it happened but to drop him now would be absolutely ludicrous.

TBH I kinda wish Mason would play ahead of Martin, though I'm, obviously, aware that that won't happen. But yes, I do think it would be best for everyone concerned if Mason plays ahead of Southee right now. Southee struggled badly in his only game of the tour so far - hopefully he might play another, I'm a bit surprised he isn't playing this one. And if he does and does well then maybe I might reconsider.

But it's easy to lose sight of the fact that Southee, remarkably impressive though he was on debut, is still just 19. Mason is highly unlikely to end his career a better bowler than Southee, but I do think he's probably got the best chance of the two of success in an alien country (albeit not unfathomably alien) right now. I think it'd be best for New Zealand long-term and short-term for Mason to play ahead of Southee in the opening Test. Unless something compelling happens in the final tour-game. Not only do I rate Mason's chances better currently, but he has less than Southee to lose by bad performance now.

BTW, TBF the bowling-attack will be Martin, Mills, Oram, Southee and Vettori. The specialist-bowlers might exclude the all-rounder tho.

I'll be the first to admit that O'Brien looks absolutely horrible, and I was in fact against his recall in South Africa, but the man has been given six Tests on the back of being the standout bowler at domestic level for a few seasons running. Two of those were against Bangladesh. His selection was hardly unjustified.

Well, it wasn't the worst selection you'll ever see, no. But I do think I'd have preferred to see Mason picked in South Africa - presuming he was fit, and I can't remember for certain that he was.

 

[Richard]

Oh, and BTW, your sig needs an update IMO. Instead of "me to reply re: openers", think you should just add this quote:

BTW, I keep forgetting, but your openers in your sig are shockers. For starters, Vaughan has never faced the first ball of the innings in his life and despite McKenzie being even less of an opener than Vaughan, he has.

 

[Prince EWS]

TBH I kinda wish Mason would play ahead of Martin, though I'm, obviously, aware that that won't happen. But yes, I do think it would be best for everyone concerned if Mason plays ahead of Southee right now. Southee struggled badly in his only game of the tour so far - hopefully he might play another, I'm a bit surprised he isn't playing this one. And if he does and does well then maybe I might reconsider.

But it's easy to lose sight of the fact that Southee, remarkably impressive though he was on debut, is still just 19. Mason is highly unlikely to end his career a better bowler than Southee, but I do think he's probably got the best chance of the two of success in an alien country (albeit not unfathomably alien) right now. I think it'd be best for New Zealand long-term and short-term for Mason to play ahead of Southee in the opening Test. Unless something compelling happens in the final tour-game. Not only do I rate Mason's chances better currently, but he has less than Southee to lose by bad performance now.

You can't undo his original selection though. We've both written articles about this exact thing. I agree that it would have been best if he wasn't selected ITFP, but he was. Dropping him now would remove all integrity from their selection process and leave Southee scratching his head wondering exactly what he'd done wrong. He may only be 19, but he was even younger than he is now when they picked him the first time, so it'd make no sense to drop him based on that. The most important thing is to remain consistent with your selection process, whatever it may be, so players know where they stand and what they have to do to retain their place, be recalled or break into the team for the first time. Dropping Southee now would certainly warrant a scathing paragraph in either of our articles (yours only if Southee was in fact English, obviously) so it's slightly hypocritical to suggest dropping him now.

Well, it wasn't the worst selection you'll ever see, no. But I do think I'd have preferred to see Mason picked in South Africa - presuming he was fit, and I can't remember for certain that he was.

It's hardly the crime of the century that O'Brien has played six Tests and Mason has played one, though. I would have preferred to see Mason back then as well and I'd certainly prefer to see him now if it came down to a shootout with O'Brien, but O'Brien well and truly deserved selection at the time after taking 34 wickets @ 20.85 the season before that tour.

 

[Leslie1]

O Brien is good because he's a tireless bowler. So is Mason actually.

Maybe the question should be, what style of bowler we need, considering what we do have right now. At the moment, both bowlers have mirrored each other's performances bar one wicket, so it comes down to what type of bowler you want for the first test.

This sounded like a good wicket to bat and bowl on reading the match report.

Vettori might be out of the next tour match judging by this finger injury.

 

[GIMH]

So EWS, Richard has repled has he. Repled guilty? Repled not guilty? No, hang on, that's pleaded...

 

[Richard]

You can't undo his original selection though. We've both written articles about this exact thing. I agree that it would have been best if he wasn't selected ITFT, but he was. Dropping him now would remove all integrity from their selection process and leave Southee scratching his head wondering exactly what he'd done wrong. He may only be 19, but he was even younger than he is now when they picked him the first time, so it'd make no sense to drop him based on that. The most important thing is to remain consistent with your selection process, whatever it may be, so players know where they stand and what they have to do to retain their place, be recalled or break into the team for the first time. Dropping Southee now would certainly warrant a scathing paragraph in either of our articles (yours only if Southee was in fact English, obviously) so it's slightly hypocritical to suggest dropping him now.

I suppose. However, the fact that Mason was injured throughout the home Test series against us (and from what I'd heard would have been picked had he not been) gives them a way out there. A way to pick him and not Southee without leaving Southee or anyone thinking "whaaat?"

The fact that Southee did well while Mason hasn't played for several years might still make it a little puzzling, though, yes - something not unlike the Tremlett-Broad situation on both of our Test tours last winter (where I said Tremlett had the only fair case and David Lewis said Broad had it - and both of us had a perfectly fair point).

It's hardly the crime of the century that O'Brien has played six Tests and Mason has played one, though. I would have preferred to see Mason back then as well and I'd certainly prefer to see him now if it came down to a shootout with O'Brien, but O'Brien well and truly deserved selection at the time after taking 34 wickets @ 20.85 the season before that tour.

I doubt anyone would say he shouldn't have been picked for his first 2 Tests, those against Australia in 2004/05. As I said - his selection in South Africa wasn't the worst thing anyone's ever done, but I think Mason would've been the better pick. I don't think it would've been outrageous to suggest he should definately have won selection in fact.

Meanwhile, against Bangladesh, though obviously it didn't really matter who played there, Mason inequivocally should have. However, once more I can only say this if he was fit - and if he wasn't, obviously, I take that back. If O'Brien was picked ahead of Mason for those games, Tests though they should not have been, it was truly criminal.

 

[Richard]

O Brien is good because he's a tireless bowler. So is Mason actually.

Maybe the question should be, what style of bowler we need, considering what we do have right now. At the moment, both bowlers have mirrored each other's performances bar one wicket, so it comes down to what type of bowler you want for the first test.

As pointed-out, though, it actually seems unlikely either will play.

 

[Richard]

Oh, and BTW, your sig needs an update IMO. Instead of "me to reply re: openers", think you should just add this quote:

So EWS, Richard has repled has he. Repled guilty? Repled not guilty? No, hang on, that's pleaded...

Think it looks funnier without the Jimmy-winning statement "Richard has replied" TBH.

 

[Prince EWS]

I suppose. However, the fact that Mason was injured throughout the home Test series against us (and from what I'd heard would have been picked had he not been) gives them a way out there. A way to pick him and not Southee without leaving Southee or anyone thinking "whaaat?"

I actually wasn't aware of that. I thought he was fit and available. That'd actually be fair enough really, although I still think it has virtually no chance of happening.

 

[Prince EWS]

I doubt anyone would say he shouldn't have been picked for his first 2 Tests, those against Australia in 2004/05. As I said - his selection in South Africa wasn't the worst thing anyone's ever done, but I think Mason would've been the better pick. I don't think it would've been outrageous to suggest he should definately have won selection in fact.

I disagree. I think it was a 50/50 pick. I would have preferred Mason, mainly based on how awful O'Brien looked a few years earlier, but I can definitely see the logic in O'Brien. Mason's first appearance in Test cricket was awful as well against slightly lesser opposition and O'Brien's recent domestic performances had been better.

2006-07
Mason - 15 wickets @ 21.20
O'Brien - 34 wickets @ 20.85

Actually not as much better as I thought - Mason suffered from missing a few games I suppose..

Meanwhile, against Bangladesh, though obviously it didn't really matter who played there, Mason inequivocally should have. However, once more I can only say this if he was fit - and if he wasn't, obviously, I take that back. If O'Brien was picked ahead of Mason for those games, Tests though they should not have been, it was truly criminal.

I agree; that was indeed ridiculous and I said so at the time IIRC. I didn't think you'd be referring to those games in your original post though as you don't class them as Tests. O'Brien has played four Richard-Tests and Mason one. I don't see a big issue with that TBH given the circumstances at the times of their respective selections.

 

[GIMH]

"Richard-Tests"

 

[Richard]

I disagree. I think it was a 50/50 pick. I would have preferred Mason, mainly based on how awful O'Brien looked a few years earlier, but I can definitely see the logic in O'Brien. Mason's first appearance in Test cricket was awful as well against slightly lesser opposition and O'Brien's recent domestic performances had been better.

2006-07
Mason - 15 wickets @ 21.20
O'Brien - 34 wickets @ 20.85

Actually not as much better as I thought - Mason suffered from missing a few games I suppose..

I'll admit I hadn't a clue how Mason had fared in said 2006/07 until now, and if he had averaged 56.37 then obviously he (and I) would have had no case. As it is, though, I now think O'Brien's selection over Mason for SA was very silly. Never mind 50:50, I reckon I'd have gone 80:20 in favour of Mason. Yes, he'd been poor in his previous Test appearance too, same as O'Brien, but when I've watched Mason (ie, in ODIs) he's just looked better, much better, than O'Brien ever has. And no, of course, I hadn't watched O'Brien until the SA Tests, but I imagine that had I done so he'd have looked about the same. So I'm sure that had I watched both bowlers lots in running up to 2007, I'd have come to the conclusion that Mason was better.

I agree; that was indeed ridiculous and I said so at the time IIRC. I didn't think you'd be referring to those games in your original post though as you don't class them as Tests. O'Brien has played four Richard-Tests and Mason one. I don't see a big issue with that TBH given the circumstances at the times of their respective selections.

Even though they're not Test-worthy IMO, they're still games for New Zealand's representative side - akin to, for example, the one that is ongoing as of this post against Essex. Being picked for a home "Test" against Bangladesh is very similar to being picked in a tour-party and playing a tour-game. While it doesn't neccessarily mean you'll play a Test, you've still been identified by the national selectors as being ahead of someone in the pecking-order who should be ahead of you. And while I don't consider O'Brien's 2 games against Bangladesh as Test-worthy, I do consider them as things it's silly that he played ahead of Mason.

 

[Leslie1]

I'd say he supports NZ as I support SA.

As I've said before, I honestly have wondered before now whether I don't support SA over England sometimes. But I have most interest in and knowledge of the game over here.

I'll be very interested to find-out who I'm gunning for later this summer.

Richard are you a closet NZ fan? Or is this common thing (talking about team selections of other teams you don't really support)?

 

[NZTailender]

Unless there's an injury, I don't think O'Brien or Mason will play a test on this tour. However if it does happen, I'd prefer Mason - any day.

Apparently one of the factors in O'Brien getting chosen over Mason in SA and against Bangladesh is that O'Brien bowled better than him in the nets...

 

[FBU]

County Championship this season, Division 2:

MS Panesar 2* 3 75.0 14 234 4 4/105 4/156 58.50 3.12 112.5 0 0 1 0

And all 4 wickets were in a limited overs scenario when Warwickshire needed to get quick runs before time ran out, which they succeeded in doing.

Yet again, why is this nothing performer a fixture in England's team? If he was unfashionable like Graeme Swann he'd have been dropped numerous times already.

Panesar 75 overs 4 wickets 58.50
Swann 43.4 overs 8 wickets 13.50

 

[Scaly piscine]

Because "you've got to have variation". It's glaringly obvious why. Hence, you popping-up twice a week or whatever to post this exact same tirade gets exceedingly tedious due to its utter pointlessness.

Actually the correct answer starts with stating which facet of incompetence/mediocrity applies to England's selectors. Flintoff, Broad, Sidebottom & Hoggard would cover most of the realistic wicket-taking bases - certainly moreso than if you replace one with a toothless finger spinner.

And yea I'd probably prefer Swann to Panesar to be honest. But I'd prefer a seamer over both.

 

[Halfpast_Yellow]

There is no reason Southee is an automatic selection. He's still 19 years old and raw. Sure he had a bright debut but he only got selected on the back of Mills, Mason, and O'Brien all being injured. He bowled well in the first innings but looked tired in the second.

In Southee's favour is his type of bowling suits English conditions I believe?

Personally I wouldn't be surprised to see some rotation over this series. Mills seems to have poor fitness these days, he bowled well in the first test in NZ, was tired in the second, and injured for the 3rd. Mason and Mills are similar in that they both swing it away from right handers so for example Mills could play the first test, then Mason the second giving Mills a wide window of recovery.

Martin must play if he has sorted himself out with the Duke ball. He has been here before.

 

[Days of Grace]

Martin hasn't exactly set the world on fire so far, and to be honest I'm not sure if I would select him for the first test.

At the moment, I'm leaning towards:

How
Redmond
Marshall
Taylor
Fulton/Flynn
McCullum (wk)
Oram
Vettori
Mills
Southee
Mason

Good to see O'Brian bowling well, and pressuring for a spot. Good competition.

 

[Flem274*]

I'll get laughed out of town for this, but anyway:

IMO O'Brien is under-achieving. His domestic record is superior to all bar Mason (I haven't checked both records lately) and is better than the likes of Mills, Martin, Franklin, and Shane Bond. I'm not suggesting he's world class material but he and Mason have done less than I thought they would.

My preffered XI for Lords:

Jamie How
Aaron Redmond
James Marshall
Ross Taylor
Peter Fulton
Brendan McCullum
Jacob Oram
Daniel Vettori
Mills
Southee
Martin

Though that bowling line up could change. The best two seamers in the warm ups should line up with Mills at Lords. IMO Kyle Mills is our best seamer without Franklin around and I know Martin has lots if 5-fers but he has also been ineffective outside of NZ and SA. Mills, whilst relatively inexperienced, has bowled well in all his tests since he went from being rubbish to being excellent about three years ago.