***Official*** New Zealand in Bangladesh

[NZTailender]

Yes it does. How do you expect him to bowl to the best batsmen in the world, if he isnt playing against the best batsmen in the world? Well Southee completely proved you wrong then didnt he?

By preparing against batsman of a similar calibre. Preparing for Australia by taking things away from Bangladesh would be like preparing for your driving test by playing Grand Theft Auto.

Experience helps, of course. But that doesnt mean a non-experienced player cannot perform, especially one with the talent of Southee. I agree that Martin bowled well in New Zealand, but he was absolutely rubbish in England.

Martin was more ordinary than rubbish in England. He bowled well without being spectacular, but wasn't complete rubbish. For rubbish definition see Harmison, S.

Vettori isn't a wicket taker. Warne was a wicket taker. Vettori is fantastic, but no way is he a wicket taker, not in test match cricket. Why is there a bigger chance he could concede over 100 for no wickets? He isn't the one averaging over 100 with the ball against Australia. What you are basing that statement on I have no idea.

Vettori is a wicket taker though, on pitches that aren't completely green. That's his role, anyway. He tends to get defended against more than attacked, as a lot of batsmen seem to rate him.

The average for Bond is over 2 games, on the flattest surfaces ever played (I think we had 4 centurians in that game in Perth). Also Warne and McGrath averaged similarly for that tour also. The point I was making is that Martin averages over 100 against Australia over 6 matches...that is A LOT of bowling. To still average 100 after 6 matches is diabolical.

Martin averages 70 inover 3 matches on the flattest surfaces ever played. Plus he last played Australia in 2005 - since then he's become a much better bowler.

The 5fa against England on debut. The whole ODI series against England. I am sure you will reply with "Yeah, but it's ODI cricket". The fact remains that Southee was bowling brilliantly throughout that series.

Yes, well, it is ODI cricket. It's a lot different to bowl 4 over spells and 10 in total, either defending around 300 or trying to stop the other team from posting such a total, to bowling to a batsman who is set, 150* (280) in the 80th over of a test match, after being in the field all day.

And as far as 5fas on debut go, we should still have Mark Gillespie in the side if that's the case.

I disagree. It is completely understandable for ANYONE to be overwhelmed in their first test at Lord's, especially when it is their debut test away from home. I think from here on out he should be absolutely fine.

Well, would actually have to agree with that. But there are still a couple more places that Southee could be overwhelmed though - packed grounds in India, World Cup. But he seems like a tough little cookie already.

I agree. I was using Martin as an example why Southee should be picked. I think the lineup should be Martin, Mills, Southee.

Agreed.

His control was fantastic in his first test, and the whole ODI series against England. Of course he isnt guaranteed to send down 5 quality overs, but i'd back him over Martin against Australia.

I think I should point out that I wouldn't be prepared to back either player to do well in Australia, mainly because we haven't had someone bowl with great success in or against Australia for quite a while. While Southee shouldn't exactly be wrapped in cotton wool, I'm just wary of what might happen if he gets pasted. Kind of like Rutherford, in terms of youth and how they developed later on.

 

[Polo23]

By preparing against batsman of a similar calibre. Preparing for Australia by taking things away from Bangladesh would be like preparing for your driving test by playing Grand Theft Auto.

Again, we can't change who we are playing. Southee could either play Bangladesh, or not play any cricket at all. I would prefer him to have some cricket in the sub-continent, rather than bowling in the nets.

Martin was more ordinary than rubbish in England. He bowled well without being spectacular, but wasn't complete rubbish. For rubbish definition see Harmison, S.

Martin was absolutely trash. He was easily outbowled by Mills and O'Brien (and Oram) and for our top seam bowler that isn't good. I know he had problems with the duke ball, but that shouldnt be an excuse. Harmison was fantastic against South Africa, sure, he had one bad test in New Zealand, but other than that the whole English summer he was on fire.

Vettori is a wicket taker though, on pitches that aren't completely green. That's his role, anyway. He tends to get defended against more than attacked, as a lot of batsmen seem to rate him.

You think people didn't rate Warne and don't rate Murali? While Vettori may be a wicket taker for us, in world terms, he isnt a wicket taker.

Martin averages 70 inover 3 matches on the flattest surfaces ever played. Plus he last played Australia in 2005 - since then he's become a much better bowler.

2005 isn't that long ago. And to be fair I havn't noticed any drastic improvement in that time. His average/strike rate sure doesnt suggest he has greatly improved.

Yes, well, it is ODI cricket. It's a lot different to bowl 4 over spells and 10 in total, either defending around 300 or trying to stop the other team from posting such a total, to bowling to a batsman who is set, 150* (280) in the 80th over of a test match, after being in the field all day.

Yes, of course it is. But if you are bowling well, you are bowling well. You can't deny that.

And as far as 5fas on debut go, we should still have Mark Gillespie in the side if that's the case.

Pretty poor comparison. Gillespie had something like 1/100 on debut then took the second new ball and cleaned up the tail to end up with a 5fa. Southee got wickets from the very start and destroyed England's top order. The better spell of bowling is pretty obvious.

Well, would actually have to agree with that. But there are still a couple more places that Southee could be overwhelmed though - packed grounds in India, World Cup. But he seems like a tough little cookie already.

India packing a ground for a test match? I don't think so. Yep, he could get overwhelmed at the World Cup, but that is 3 years away, and he sure as hell would have cemented his spot by then.

I think I should point out that I wouldn't be prepared to back either player to do well in Australia, mainly because we haven't had someone bowl with great success in or against Australia for quite a while. While Southee shouldn't exactly be wrapped in cotton wool, I'm just wary of what might happen if he gets pasted. Kind of like Rutherford, in terms of youth and how they developed later on.

Sure, but you can also go the other way and look how Vettori turned out. He is the countries best bowler by a mile (well, bar Shane Bond..but I don't like to talk about that). I doubt Vettori would be what he is today if he hadnt started so young, and gained all that experience.

 

[Bahnz]

Martin was absolutely trash. He was easily outbowled by Mills and O'Brien (and Oram) and for our top seam bowler that isn't good. I know he had problems with the duke ball, but that shouldnt be an excuse. Harmison was fantastic against South Africa, sure, he had one bad test in New Zealand, but other than that the whole English summer he was on fire.

Martin bowled excellently in the first test match, and was extremely unlucky to only pick up 2 wickets. In the same match, Southee was all over the shop. And no, the fact that he was playing at lord's is no excuse. The second match was always going to be decided by spinners, and thanks to the poverty of our batting stocks he only got one go in the 3rd dig. He certainly wasn't at his best, but he was hardly rubbish.

Oh, and for the record, Harmison wasn't fantastic against South Africa, he was OK. He was arguably playing as well as he has at any point in the last 2-3 years, but that still isn't saying much. He was still the weak-link in the English bowling attack, consistently being outbowled by Flintoff, Broad, Anderson and Panesar. Just because he managed to land the ball somewhere in the batsman's area code 2/3rds of the time doesn't mean he suddenly returned to his 2004 form.

Yes, of course it is. But if you are bowling well, you are bowling well. You can't deny that.

No it's not. Bowling well in ODI cricket need have no correlation with success in the test arena. Southee bowled well in the ODI series, but most of his wickets came from building pressure in the face of mounting run rate requirements, with the exception of his haul in the 3rd ODI. That formula often fails to have much affect in tests.

Pretty poor comparison. Gillespie had something like 1/100 on debut then took the second new ball and cleaned up the tail to end up with a 5fa. Southee got wickets from the very start and destroyed England's top order. The better spell of bowling is pretty obvious.

He did a bit more than rap up the tail. The batsmen he got out were Kallis, Prince, De Villiers, Boucher and Harris, all of South Africa's much vaunted and highly successful middle. The fact that he managed to dismiss such high quality batsmen, operating with the old ball and the new one, after the top order had laid the foundations of a truly massive total is arguably more impressive than Southee swinging out a couple of openers and the tail with the new ball in overcast conditions.

Sure, but you can also go the other way and look how Vettori turned out. He is the countries best bowler by a mile (well, bar Shane Bond..but I don't like to talk about that). I doubt Vettori would be what he is today if he hadnt started so young, and gained all that experience.

It's also arguable that if Vettori hadn't started out so young, and hadn't been bowled into the ground before leaving his teens, he might not have suffered all those stress fractures that forced him to remodel his action and lose a lot of his bite. The comparison also isn't valid on the grounds that the reason why Vettori was picked so young was because there were simply no other test standard spinners in New Zealand. Up until he came along, New Zealand had been relying on the likes of Dipak Patel, Matthew Hart and Shane Thompson. The same isn't true for test standard seamers today.

 

[Polo23]

I'm sick of arguing. So instead i'll just agree with everything you said.

Southee is rubbish and should be dropped for the might of O'Brien and Martin. I can't wait for them to lead NZ into the future

 

[Athlai]

Honestly mate, just give Southee more time he still has 14 years in him.

 

[Polo23]

Honestly mate, just give Southee more time he still has 14 years in him.

I don't think he needs more time. I think he is good enough (by NZ standards atleast) to play test match cricket.

Why should he be pushed out of the side because a few people think he is too young?

 

[Athlai]

Because there are better players than him. Franklin, Mills, and Martin. If anyone's choosing a side he should be the number 4 seamer on their list, but he's certainly no automatic selection. O'Brien is biting at that spots heels as well. Martin is not going to be nor does he deserved to be dropped just yet.

In ODI cricket I think Southee deserves his spot, but he really shouldn't be overplayed, covering other players and getting the occasional full series behind him is what we should be doing. Help him steadily improve his game rather than hope he takes the massive leap all in his stride.

 

[Bahnz]

I don't think he needs more time. I think he is good enough (by NZ standards atleast) to play test match cricket.

Why should he be pushed out of the side because a few people think he is too young?

But that's just it. He hasn't been pushed out of the side. He played poorly, got sick and was replaced by someone who performed excellently. Just because he's young shouldn't be the foundation of why he pushes other players out of the team.

 

[NZTailender]

I'm sick of arguing. So instead i'll just agree with everything you said.

Southee is rubbish and should be dropped for the might of O'Brien and Martin. I can't wait for them to lead NZ into the future

Haha geeze, we're not saying he's rubbish, we're saying he shouldn't be a shoo-in for a side just yet, and that he's probably best served not playing Australia in tests at the moment.

I don't think he needs more time. I think he is good enough (by NZ standards atleast) to play test match cricket.

Why should he be pushed out of the side because a few people think he is too young?

Let's just skip years and years of pointless experience and skill building and hand caps to Boult, Williamson and Worker now then.

 

[Polo23]

Because there are better players than him. Franklin, Mills, and Martin. If anyone's choosing a side he should be the number 4 seamer on their list, but he's certainly no automatic selection. O'Brien is biting at that spots heels as well. Martin is not going to be nor does he deserved to be dropped just yet.

In ODI cricket I think Southee deserves his spot, but he really shouldn't be overplayed, covering other players and getting the occasional full series behind him is what we should be doing. Help him steadily improve his game rather than hope he takes the massive leap all in his stride.

I disagree that Mills and Martin are better than him. Also Franklin is injured at the moment, shall we play 10 men?

So he should only be in the ODI side when players are injured? How the hell is that going to build good ODI team if we are constantly chopping and changing bowlers?

We saw with Graeme Henry and the All Blacks that that doesnt work. The best team should play as much as possible.

 

[Polo23]

But that's just it. He hasn't been pushed out of the side. He played poorly, got sick and was replaced by someone who performed excellently. Just because he's young shouldn't be the foundation of why he pushes other players out of the team.

Of course his age shouldnt be a reason why he pushes other players out of the team, and I am not saying that at all.

In my opinion he is one of the top 3 seamers in NZ, him being so young is just a bonus.

 

[Polo23]

Let's just skip years and years of pointless experience and skill building and hand caps to Boult, Williamson and Worker now then.

Why would we play Boult, Williamson and Worker when it is blatantly obvious they are not good enough yet?

Can you honestly not see the difference between Southee and the players you listed?

 

[NZTailender]

Why would we play Boult, Williamson and Worker when it is blatantly obvious they are not good enough yet?

Can you honestly not see the difference between Southee and the players you listed?

Isn't it blatantly obvious that Southee isn't completely ready for facing the likes of Australia?

 

[Polo23]

Isn't it blatantly obvious that Southee isn't completely ready for facing the likes of Australia?

I find it hard to believe you can tell that from watching him play 2 test matches, one in which he took a 5fa.

 

[TT Boy]

Isn't it blatantly obvious that Southee isn't completely ready for facing the likes of Australia?

And O'Brien is?

 

[NZTailender]

And O'Brien is?

More so than Southee.

 

[NZTailender]

I find it hard to believe you can tell that from watching him play 2 test matches, one in which he took a 5fa.

I find it hard to believe that from two tests you think Southee is as good as you think he is.

He was great when he took that 5fa, then very very ordinary in the second innings and in the Lords test. Oh but he was overwhelmed, so that doesn't matter. So yeah, he's basically only played 1 test effectively, where he took a 5fa. Therefore he should be picked over everyone else.


This is just going round in circles. Crazy pills, etc.

 

[Polo23]

More so than Southee.

How?

I really find it hard to believe you can think a guy who averages over 100 against Australia (Martin) and a guy who averages 98.50 against Australia (O'Brien) are ready to face them.

Unbelievable.

 

[TT Boy]

More so than Southee.

Age aside any reason why? Southee from what I've seen of him (England tour and U19 World Cup) has a big game mentality and looks like a player who can step up to the plate. O'Brien did a serviceable job against England in conditions which he enjoys but last time he faced Aus he was smashed and when confronted with flat wickets in South Africa he was smashed to all parts.

 

[NZTailender]

How?

I really find it hard to believe you can think a guy who averages over 100 against Australia (Martin) and a guy who averages 98.50 against Australia (O'Brien) are ready to face them.

Unbelievable.

Because we should always go by the statistics from a few years ago and completely ignore the fact that both Martin and O'Brien have bowled better recently than they ever have in their whole careers?

Vettori averages over 40 in Australia, let's get rid of him as well.