Casson played and didn't bowl, I could only guess that Smith is a better bowler, so was used ahead of him. From what i've read it seems as though Hazlewood would have been used earlier in the season but NSW were waiting for him to finish his schooling. Mate, you continually bagging the NZ batting lineup is getting tiresome.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
**Official** New Zealand in Australia
- Thread starter NZTailender
- Start date
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Well you guessed wrong. I'm no Casson fan but he's definitely a better bowler than Smith - Smith was used because the game meant nothing so it gave us a chance to give a few overs to a youngster. He's a batting allrounder; rarely bowls more than a few overs here or there when he plays.
I disagree.
Flem274*
123/5
He's not generally a bagger though, unlike others on this forum (glares at a certain Brit who likes scrabble). PEWS sets alot of store on FC records and experience, you have to be aware of that when discussing cricket with him. Regardless of the undoubted potential of many of these batsmen, lets be honest, most of their records bar Ryders are not flash. PEWS has huge belief in the FC system, and that the biggest FC scorers should be picked, and I generally agree with him, however (imo only though) I have much more faith in what assets players have and what they've shown at test level (I've put this realy badly, when i get the right words I'll edit) than PEWS, whose slections for players who've played less than 15 games or so are based on the FC system, which I generally always agree with, though in our case I'd much rather have How with his poorer FC record, than say Papps or Bell.
I'l make a bit of an example by selected my guessed PEWPEW batting order
Papps
How (not sure here though, but there aren't many options)
Sinclair
Fulton (I thouroughly agree here, its a joke he isn't playing)
Ryder
etc, etc
So there's a bit of enlightenment on why he's so scathing of our current team because we have Mr Inconsistent Taylor, the one season wonder with an overall FC average of 30 odd in Flynn, and Redmond who doesn't have much of a record. He loves How's technical changes, but doesn't like his FC record.
He'd much rather have Sinclair, Fulton, Hay, Broom etc with their fairly nice FC records. I'd actualy agree with him there, though I (and you) have more faith than he in our current line up.
PEWS will probably say I'm completely wrong with his thinking, but oh well.
James
Cricket Web Owner
Speaking about Vettori, here are some graphs from Stats Spider you guys may mind interesting in regard to his batting ability and batting position:
Innings by Innings
Innings by Innings - Home
Innings by Innings - Away
Batting Average by Country
Batting Average by Year
Runs by Country
Batting Scores
Batting 1st Innings
Batting 2nd Innings
Batting Recent Scores
Batting Dismissals
Runs by Batting Position
Runs by Year
Innings by Innings
Innings by Innings - Home
Innings by Innings - Away
Batting Average by Country
Batting Average by Year
Runs by Country
Batting Scores
Batting 1st Innings
Batting 2nd Innings
Batting Recent Scores
Batting Dismissals
Runs by Batting Position
Runs by Year
four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
Hildich on Watson:
"We were really happy with Shane Watson in India. He's got to cement a spot in the top six - you can't be bits and pieces."
Ouch. Definitely going to be Symonds for the first test I think.
"We were really happy with Shane Watson in India. He's got to cement a spot in the top six - you can't be bits and pieces."
Ouch.
Definitely going to be Symonds for the first test I think.
SirBloody Idiot
Cricketer Of The Year
Rubbish selection. IMO the selectors have sent a ****house message out over the last months - that you don't need awesome domestic form to get a spot in the side. Selections of Siddle and Symonds prove this.
The likes of Noffke and Bollinger will be wondering what they have to do to even get a look in.
The likes of Noffke and Bollinger will be wondering what they have to do to even get a look in.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah, that's more or less right. It's a bit exaggerated but it's not too far off the mark.He's not generally a bagger though, unlike others on this forum (glares at a certain Brit who likes scrabble). PEWS sets alot of store on FC records and experience, you have to be aware of that when discussing cricket with him. Regardless of the undoubted potential of many of these batsmen, lets be honest, most of their records bar Ryders are not flash. PEWS has huge belief in the FC system, and that the biggest FC scorers should be picked, and I generally agree with him, however (imo only though) I have much more faith in what assets players have and what they've shown at test level (I've put this realy badly, when i get the right words I'll edit) than PEWS, whose slections for players who've played less than 15 games or so are based on the FC system, which I generally always agree with, though in our case I'd much rather have How with his poorer FC record, than say Papps or Bell.
I'l make a bit of an example by selected my guessed PEWPEW batting order
Papps
How (not sure here though, but there aren't many options)
Sinclair
Fulton (I thouroughly agree here, its a joke he isn't playing)
Ryder
etc, etc
So there's a bit of enlightenment on why he's so scathing of our current team because we have Mr Inconsistent Taylor, the one season wonder with an overall FC average of 30 odd in Flynn, and Redmond who doesn't have much of a record. He loves How's technical changes, but doesn't like his FC record.
He'd much rather have Sinclair, Fulton, Hay, Broom etc with their fairly nice FC records. I'd actualy agree with him there, though I (and you) have more faith than he in our current line up.
PEWS will probably say I'm completely wrong with his thinking, but oh well.
I'm generally pretty stats/experience orientated - obviously there are exceptions, but until the exceptions have been proven to me, I go with the stats primarily. Flynn's First Class average when he was first selected over Sinclair was only marginally higher than Sinclair's Test average, for example, and whilst the recent stats would show a different story, players have troughs and peaks and to only consider recent form and what a batsman has looked like in the last season or so shows a complete lack of basic cricket understanding for mine. If a player is likely to score runs at Test level, he will show it by stacking up the runs domestically in consecutive seasons. The best judge of the game is the game itself and if someone's only managed to average 30 odd over a long domestic career, how can one expect them to do better against better bowlers?!
On Sinclair specificially, whilst I still do think that he would have had a good Test career if given a consistent run rather than the on-again-off-again selections he received, whilst I wouldn't have dropped him on several of the ocassions he actually was dropped, and whilst I'd be the second happiest man alive (after Skippy himself) if he did manage to get recalled, I wouldn't pick him now. Despite my faith in his ability as a batsman and his long-term proven record, I don't actually think he'd be particuarly sucessful if he was recalled now unless he was told something like "We think you're the best batsman in the country and you're not going to get dropped for the next five series regardless of your performances" - which obviously isn't practical by any stretch and should not be done.
If I was asked to pick a top 6 for the first Test, I'd go with this:
Papps - by far the best opener domestically with the possible exception the technical inept Bell, he's never been given the extended run he deserves to make this place his own.
How - First Class record indicated he was afraid of pushing on to get big runs and surprise surprise... despite this, he has arguably the best technique in the country and opening options are rare.
Ryder - Clearly a dickhead but he's experienced on the First Class scene and has consistently put the performances in there, despite his reputation.
Fulton - Sinclair without the ghosts of poor selection's past. Has a technical fault but actually scores runs - worth a real extended run at #3 or #4
Taylor - Was picked far too early for mine and would really have benefitted from being told he had actually had to score lots of runs to make the team, but he's here now and played some good knocks so I'd continue to pick him
Hay - Team batting needs bolstering, he's the best candidate. He's been talked down of late but he's piled on the runs domestically last season and, unlike Flynn, has done it his WHOLE career.
As I said before though, my criticism of the NZ batting lineup hasn't been because I object to the selections as such, and they've picked a side somewhat like what I would have. Even if the team I named was set to play I'd still be talking them down because in comparison to not only Australia but every other Test team worldwide (with the exception of Bangladesh) and indeed other New Zealand teams in semi-recent times, it completely lacks in experience and proven class. Potential doesn't score runs for you.
I believe New Zealand will get roundly smashed - not because I want that to happen or have a bizarre hatred for them like Scaly - but because the batting lineup is terrible (as it stands) by Test standards. It may be talented and it may have potential but it's shown absolutely nothing as a whole so far and until it does, I'll continue to have basically no faith in it. I know some of this may sound a little obvious, but some people have suggested that New Zealand will compete and that the series might be close - I don't really think that has a chance in hell of happening unless they bowl absolutely brilliantly and I've backed up that opinion by stating my gripes with the NZ batting lineup - not all individually, but as a whole group of players at Test level.
Last edited:
mikeW
International Vice-Captain
Agree Siddle was rubbish last season.
mikeW
International Vice-Captain
Fair enough.
Jakester1288
International Regular
Hardly rubbish. And over a career, 47 wickets @ 24.87 is very good, and I think that is including his test match. He is a good bowler for the future, quick, and can get some good deliveries flying down.
I agree Bollinger and Noffke should be there ahead of Siddle and Symonds, and Watson should start in the first test. Symonds did nothing to earn his place back in the side, but I suppose Siddle worked hard for a spot, and deserves to keep it for a while, even if he is not playing. It's not like Bollinger of Noffke was going to get a start anyway, may as well groom this lad for the future.
Nate
You'll Never Walk Alone
Was about to chuck a phat. Bracken > Lee, Clark, etc anyhow.As I said before, it's basically a third eleven as far as the bowling goes. If you count our internationals, anyway.
First XI attack - Lee, Clark, Bollinger, Casson
Second XI - Bracken, Cameron, ****ley, Hauritz
Third XI - Hazelwood, half-fit Henriques, Lambert, Smith
Would probably swap Bracken and Casson in reality but I wanted to keep the balance the same and it's irrelevant in the context anyway. Thought I'd qualify this in case Nath read it though: Bracken >>>>>>>> Casson.
Nate
You'll Never Walk Alone
You know what he's talking about mw. Noffke and Bollinger have had a full two seasons of dominance, Siddle had about six games to shine.
Moobs is a gun, but he doesn't deserve his shot yet.
I understand all of that, I just don't see the need to keep banging on about it. I think everyone knows the NZ batting lineup is incredibly inexperienced and will probably struggle while they find their feet at international level, lets move on.
SirBloody Idiot
Cricketer Of The Year
Eh stupid comment. Of course Siddle was good last year - but he wasn't a touch on Noffke or Bollinger. If they won't reward domestic form, then they should stop pretending that they will (re. Bracken, etc.).
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Who else in NZ is experienced enough? Sinclair and Bell failed in the home series against England, I don't think Jones deserves a recall and neither does Papps.
Probably the only disagreement I have with the likely XI to play in the first test would be Flynn, as Fulton should've been ahead of him in the first place, but he wasn't because he was in absolutely horrific form.
We could go back to tried and failed players and hope maybe they'll scratch together something respectable or give the players who will be our future experience now, rather than having the same situation in a few years time.
PS drunk, decent typing effort.
You know his WHOLE career consists of 2 seasons right? He also struggled terribly on the A tour to India, which is a worry.
Jones has a worse technique than Bell
No one other than Fulton deserves a look in at the moment (except maybe Hay, but then who would you suggest he replaced anyway?).
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Before the previous season I would've said Broom and Nicol, but they both had a fairly poor 07/08 and have fallen out of contention, which is annoying because they've both been around longer and putting in better performances than guys like Flynn, Redmond and even Todd was talked up later last year.