**Official** New Zealand in Australia

[Woodster]

For New Zealand I'd probably like to see Fulton come in at bat at 3, and as suggested, everyone drop down a place. They need depth in the batting line-up, other options include Hopkins coming in the side to keep at the expense of either O'Brien or Southee from the Tour game side, or Elliott coming in and batting at probably 7 and adding an extra bowling option.

 

[Nate]

Rate Elliott. Really hope he plays.

 

[Zinzan]

Weather forecast ain't looking great over the next 5 days

 

[Flem274*]

Oh dear, what a shame.

Actualy, if by some brilliance NZ get in a good position against Australia, it will rain in Aus for the first time in like 2 million years, mark my words.

 

[howardj]

Weather forecast ain't looking great over the next 5 days

I think it's just rain on Day 1, then fine for the remainder of the Test.

You get used to it up here in Brisbane. Nothing breaks the drought like an international match.

 

[Ponting Man]

Well will flog even a half strength NSW beat NZ pretty easily we will kick their ass

 

[Burgey]

How did Martin bowl on the weekend?

Also some funny stuff on ABC between Waddle and O'Keeffe - seems a genuine dislike there. Could be enteratining over the next couple of weeks.

 

[Athlai]

Well will flog even a half strength NSW beat NZ pretty easily we will kick their ass

I think you are Fiery in possibly the cleverest return profile ever created.

 

[Johnners]

Still not overly worried. As I said, touring teams losing to state/domestic sides happens regularly, it's hardly unheard of. A true indication of how good New Zealand are will be the first test at the Gabba.

Seems as though the trolls have come out in full force on this last page.

"Oh noes people speaking the truthz, such trollz"

Whilst it was only a warm-up match, and touring teams have been defeated by domestic teams previously, It should be a worrying sign that NZ made basically no running in a match against a severely weakened NSW side that put out what was basically it's 3rd string bowling attack.

Fair enough if it was say a full strength NSW side (apart from it's test starts), but to lose in 4 days against that team is pretty poor afaic. I hope the NZ batting does improve, because I want a 5 day test match, but the signs aren't good and to suggest otherwise is ignorance afaic.

 

[Athlai]

Well not that worried TBH.
How - scored big
Redmond - not very good
Ryder - was sick
Taylor - got starts
McCullum - was sore then got injured while still scoring runs
Flynn - went alright but kinda iffy to begin with
Vettori - scored some runs

Who knows how the game would have went if Jesse wasn't crook?

 

[Johnners]

I'm happy to be proven wrong (and hope I am to a certain extent), but for an International team to not make it past 260 in 2 innings against a 3rd string attack...

Sure there were some positives, but the opposition is only going to get a LOT better.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah I'm only hoping we'll win a few sessions.

 

[Polo23]

It seems to me the Australians on here are the only ones worrying about this warm up match. All the kiwi's are saying "i'm not overly worried" and all the Aussies are saying "the kiwi's should be very worried"

 

[Bahnz]

I know its early days this summer, but I'm increasingly getting the feeling that New Zealand just can't afford Ryder, Taylor and McCullum in the same middle order, at least at this stage in their careers. They're all excessively agressive batsmen with a tendency to get themselves out rather than be gotten out. They're quite unquestionably the three most talented batsmen in the country, but their temperaments make them all unsuited to test cricket, at the moment. At the least I'd hope that they be broken up, so that they no longer occupy spots 3,4 and 5 in the batting order. A side can carry one or two such batsmen in a team, but having them make up most of the middle order leaves the team drastically prone to rapid collapse. I'll hold judgement until the end of the summer, but if things don't drastically improve I'd expect one of Taylor or Ryder to be gone by the end of the summer, and McCullum to move back down to number 6/7.

 

[Perm]

It seems to me the Australians on here are the only ones worrying about this warm up match. All the kiwi's are saying "i'm not overly worried" and all the Aussies are saying "the kiwi's should be very worried"

Well if people were looking at proceedings in an objective way, instead of letting their national bias get in the way, then they'd realise there are some worrying things about our performance. Obviously there are a few positives, but to brush off how miserable we were isn't taking things too seriously, IMO.

 

[Polo23]

I completely disagree. Yeah, they are all aggressive batsmen but so what? If they are good enough to be in the side (and they are) they need to bat in the positions they are best suited for the team. Who do you propose bats at 3, 4 or 5 instead? The only candidate is Flynn and personally I wouldnt like to see him at 3 or 4, because as of yet he hasnt shown me the ability to adapt his game given the situation (someone a 3 or 4 needs to do). I wouldnt mind seeing him at number 5, and McCullum slot down to 6, but that has nothing to do with breaking up the aggressive approach of those players, just that I don't think McCullum has the temperement yet to be a test number 5. Ryder and Taylor have both shown their ability to stick around and use up time anyway, so I don't see the problem in their generally aggressive approach if they have the ability to adapt.

If things don't drastically improve from what? I believe Ryder is averaging over 50 in test cricket currently, and Taylor is averaging over 35. Both very acceptable given how young and inexperienced they are.

 

[jondavluc]

It seems to me the Australians on here are the only ones worrying about this warm up match. All the kiwi's are saying "i'm not overly worried" and all the Aussies are saying "the kiwi's should be very worried"

Yeah worried for there health when brett lee comes at ya.. Just kidding you should be positive though cautious.

 

[Polo23]

Well if people were looking at proceedings in an objective way, instead of letting their national bias get in the way, then they'd realise there are some worrying things about our performance. Obviously there are a few positives, but to brush off how miserable we were isn't taking things too seriously, IMO.

I'm pretty sure everyone in New Zealand knows our batting lineup is currently suspect at best, but I think everyone can see that there is a lot of potential there and once those players start finding their feet at test level, and fulfill that potential New Zealand may well have a relatively strong top/middle order. The Kiwi's on here are saying "i'm not that worried" because they know New Zealand batting lineup had an absolute shocker in that game, and played to probably 40% of their ability. I am confident we can turn it around for Brisbane and atleast score more than 260 against this current Aussie attack.

I don't think that warmup game should be taken too seriously..after all, it was exactly that - a warmup game.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Well if people were looking at proceedings in an objective way, instead of letting their national bias get in the way, then they'd realise there are some worrying things about our performance. Obviously there are a few positives, but to brush off how miserable we were isn't taking things too seriously, IMO.

National bias both ways, methinks.

 

[Bahnz]

I completely disagree. Yeah, they are all aggressive batsmen but so what? If they are good enough to be in the side (and they are) they need to bat in the positions they are best suited for the team. Who do you propose bats at 3, 4 or 5 instead? The only candidate is Flynn and personally I wouldnt like to see him at 3 or 4, because as of yet he hasnt shown me the ability to adapt his game given the situation (someone a 3 or 4 needs to do). I wouldnt mind seeing him at number 5, and McCullum slot down to 6, but that has nothing to do with breaking up the aggressive approach of those players, just that I don't think McCullum has the temperement yet to be a test number 5. Ryder and Taylor have both shown their ability to stick around and use up time anyway, so I don't see the problem in their generally aggressive approach if they have the ability to adapt.

If things don't drastically improve from what? I believe Ryder is averaging over 50 in test cricket currently, and Taylor is averaging over 35. Both very acceptable given how young and inexperienced they are.

You do realise you shattered any credibility your argument had by relying on Ryder averaging 50 against Bangladesh as evidence that everything is going fine and dandy?

But seriously, you made the point nicely in your own article. They need to bat in the positions that are best suited to the team, and they're not right now. I don't think Ryder has ever played at number 3, and is only really batting there right now because the management can't find anywhere else for him. Taylor shouldn't really be batting any higher than number 5 at this stage of his career. I know he's technically the most experienced member of our batting lineup, but he's just not suited to it. And while both have shown an ability to hang around, neither has shown the inclination to do it with any regularity, or to exercise any common sense while batting. Indeed, Taylor has exhibited a marked reduction in his maturity at the crease since the start of the England series, and both tossed their wickets away in each innings against NSW. And McCullum should move back down the order.

3 Fulton
4 Ryder
5 Taylor
6 Flynn
7 McCullum

Then at least the fragility of our openers and the unpredictability of our middle order is at least partly broken up by a couple of steady hands in Flynn and Fulton.