**Official** New Zealand in Australia

[Raghav]

I was strongly against having Mills at 7 when it was announced, but after seeing it in action I actually think it's working pretty well. New Zealand's batting ends up a long way below standard when this tactic is used but the batting's going to be substandard to some degree anyway; it's allowed them to work to a real plan of keeping the pressure on the with the ball without any respite, and contrary to popular belief, New Zealand do indeed have the attack to do this. It gives them a genuine strength to play to.

Obviously this will change when/if Oram comes back or even maybe Franklin when he's fully fit, but I really do think five specialist bowlers is the way to go for now.

Jeetan Patel has hardly troubled Aussies in the recent ODI's and I feel that NZ don't require a second spinner on Aussie wickets. To win in the next match, NZ would better go with a extra batsman and leave Elliot to do the bowling. I think NZ can handle their bowling well but its batting that's letting them down. So, I feel having an extra batsman would help NZ.

NZ can go with these bowling options...

1. O'Brien
2. Tim Southee
3. K Mills
4. D Vettori
5. G Elliot

 

[Son Of Coco]

Stopped liking him about the same time he called Richardson a "geriatric ****head" and told him to "die choking on your own **** that you speak."

On the other hand, you have admire his ability to speak his mind

 

[Athlai]

Jeetan Patel has hardly troubled Aussies in the recent ODI's and I feel that NZ don't require a second spinner on Aussie wickets. To win in the next match, NZ would better go with a extra batsman and leave Elliot to do the bowling. I think NZ can handle their bowling well but its batting that's letting them down. So, I feel having an extra batsman would help NZ.

NZ can go with these bowling options...

1. O'Brien
2. Tim Southee
3. K Mills
4. D Vettori
5. G Elliot

Think Jeets was fine in the first 2 games but in that last game he was barely used, if thats going to be the case then we might as well have an extra batsman.

 

[Precambrian]

Warne took 40 wickets and scored over 250 runs in that series. Not often that a single bowler takes a full 40% of the available wickets in a series. By contrast, Flintoff in the same series took 26 wickets and made around 400 runs. Certainly a herculian effort but IMO 14 wickets is far more valuable than 150 runs.

Warne was the only thing that stood between a 2-1 scoreline and a 4-1 scoreline (we'd have won Lords, we always win Lords).

Yes, Warne took wickets, but why 40 wickets? Because none of the other bowlers save perhaps McGrath was upto the task.

Flintoff competed with Harmison, Simon Jones etc at their peaks, and yet got the breakthroughs his team always wanted.

Not to mentions runs scored at the most crucial of times.

 

[Raghav]

Think Jeets was fine in the first 2 games but in that last game he was barely used, if thats going to be the case then we might as well have an extra batsman.

Jeetan Patel against Austraalia

7 wickets @ 60.00 in 9 matches at an E.Rate of 6.13

 

[Athlai]

Jeetan Patel against Austraalia

7 wickets @ 60.00 in 9 matches at an E.Rate of 6.13

We just really don't have a better option, and we play an extra spinner despite conditions being totally adverse to that option. I really thought he did the job well in those first two matches.

 

[Julian87]

I was strongly against having Mills at 7 when it was announced, but after seeing it in action I actually think it's working pretty well. New Zealand's batting ends up a long way below standard when this tactic is used but the batting's going to be substandard to some degree anyway; it's allowed them to work to a real plan of keeping the pressure on the with the ball without any respite, and contrary to popular belief, New Zealand do indeed have the attack to do this. It gives them a genuine strength to play to.

Obviously this will change when/if Oram comes back or even maybe Franklin when he's fully fit, but I really do think five specialist bowlers is the way to go for now.

I agree, but for this to happen, it'd need Hopkins to bat at 6 if McCullum is out. Which is just not good enough. Hopkins, Mills etc in the lower middle order will be terrible.

Styris would be the perfect replacement for Patel if McCullum is indeed out. But if he isn't available, which is what I presume considering I haven't seen anything suggesting he is, they are seriously out of options with this squad. Maybe Dire-manti will come in as an all rounder/5th bowler for that extra option.

 

[Prince EWS]

Think Jeets was fine in the first 2 games but in that last game he was barely used, if thats going to be the case then we might as well have an extra batsman.

Yeah, you obviously don't plan for him to only bowl that much when you go into the game though. That's where having someone like Elliott, who despite not being a frontline bowler in international cricket bowls a lot of overs domestically, is so valuable. If one of the bowlers is having an off day or the batsmen take to him due to the conditions, you can whip him off and put Elliott on. If it's the same bowler all the time then you need to have a look at his place in the team but it's not like Patel's only been bowling three overs a game for the last ten running.

New Zealand aren't going to win games against good teams by sending out mediocre batsman after mediocre batsman. They'll win plenty by playing to their strength and having good bowlers bowl the entire fifty overs out though, and while I don't rate Patel particularly highly, he's part of this IMO and is going to offer the team more than a seventh batsman.

I've always been in the 'make sure you bat down to 7 even if you have to fiddle ten overs of part time stuff in' camp, but I'm slowly being converted, particularly when it comes to teams that have better bowling stocks than batting stocks like New Zealand.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yes, Warne took wickets, but why 40 wickets? Because none of the other bowlers save perhaps McGrath was upto the task.

Flintoff competed with Harmison, Simon Jones etc at their peaks, and yet got the breakthroughs his team always wanted.

Not to mentions runs scored at the most crucial of times.

Harmison was definitely not at his peak that series. He really only bowled well in teh first innings at Lords. Was definitely Jones and Flintoff who got the ball the most.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah, you obviously don't plan for him to only bowl that much when you go into the game though. That's where having someone like Elliott, who despite not being a frontline bowler in international cricket bowls a lot of overs domestically, is so valuable. If one of the bowlers is having an off day or the batsmen take to him due to the conditions, you can whip him off and put Elliott on. If it's the same bowler all the time then you need to have a look at his place in the team but it's not like Patel's only been bowling three overs a game for the last ten running.

New Zealand aren't going to win games against good teams by sending out mediocre batsman after mediocre batsman. They'll win plenty by playing to their strength and having good bowlers bowl the entire fifty overs out though, and while I don't rate Patel particularly highly, he's part of this IMO and is going to offer the team more than a seventh batsman.

Fair call really, I don't really want Patel in the team when conditions don't suit, I'd rather a fully fit Franklin or Oram. But since that isn't the case he's the next best thing and we should keep him.

 

[Prince EWS]

I agree, but for this to happen, it'd need Hopkins to bat at 6 if McCullum is out. Which is just not good enough. Hopkins, Mills etc in the lower middle order will be terrible.

Styris would be the perfect replacement for Patel if McCullum is indeed out. But if he isn't available, which is what I presume considering I haven't seen anything suggesting he is, they are seriously out of options with this squad. Maybe Dire-manti will come in as an all rounder/5th bowler for that extra option.

Yeah, I'm still assuming McCullum will play. If McCullum doesn't play then Styris must come in for Patel as Hopkins isn't a #6's bum. That contradicts my last post I guess but while I'm warming to the idea that having seven batsmen isn't that important, you do have to have six.

 

[thierry henry]

tbh Patel has been pretty **** this series, which pretty much goes with the trend of his entire career since his first class debut, tbph.

But anyway, putting aside for a second my tendency to only post about Jeetan Patel when questioning what on earth he is even doing in discussions for a place in international cricket.......I'm pretty much just as confident about Elliott as a 5th bowler as I am with Jeets. And what about Styris.....has he now officially retired from bowling?

 

[Prince EWS]

tbh Patel has been pretty **** this series, which pretty much goes with the trend of his entire career since his first class debut, tbph.

But anyway, putting aside for a second my tendency to only post about Jeetan Patel when questioning what on earth he is even doing in discussions for a place in international cricket.......I'm pretty much just as confident about Elliott as a 5th bowler as I am with Jeets. And what about Styris.....has he now officially retired from bowling?

Well he started bowling those silly off-cutter things to protect his knees or something, and they were just terrible. I'd almost rather see Rosco come on and bowl his pies than see Styris bowl like that again.

 

[Julian87]

Well he started bowling those silly off-cutter things to protect his knees or something, and they were just terrible. I'd almost rather see Rosco come on and bowl his pies than see Styris bowl like that again.

Whatever happens, if they drop Patel for a batsman, Elliott as the fifth bowler, with no true part timer will be suicide almost. It just shows that they have picked a very silly squad.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I am pretty sure you advocated James Hopes though.

Given a choice between Haddin and Hopes in the middle, I'd take Haddin every time. We'll see though, one innings doesn't make a career and I'd be surprised if he ever plays an innings like that opening again.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

It just shows that they have picked a very silly squad.

Nah, it shows the impact of Ryder's injury more than anything.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

tbh Patel has been pretty **** this series, which pretty much goes with the trend of his entire career since his first class debut, tbph.

You are Roneel Hira and I claim my 5 Auckland Francs.

 

[Julian87]

Given a choice between Haddin and Hopes in the middle, I'd take Haddin every time. We'll see though, one innings doesn't make a career and I'd be surprised if he ever plays an innings like that opening again.

I just hate that attitude. Open with someone because they are **** in the middle order, even though they are barely mediocre when opening. James Hopes simply does not have the natural talent with the bat to even open the batting in ODIs, let alone win a match for Australia with the willow, batting first.

 

[Julian87]

Nah, it shows the impact of Ryder's injury more than anything.

So Cumming, Diamanti, Hopkins and Boult were the right players to be called upon as squad fillers and cover for injury?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I just hate that attitude. Open with someone because they are **** in the middle order, even though they are barely mediocre when opening. James Hopes simply does not have the natural talent with the bat to even open the batting in ODIs, let alone win a match for Australia with the willow, batting first.

Haha I'm crushed you don't approve.

I'd have opened with Hopes from the squad originally chosen. Personally, with the injuries I'd have opened with Klinger and Marsh originally and probably pushed up Clarke when Marsh went down, because I think Hopes is ****.