-
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.
Bowling attacks better than the current NZ one in Zimbabwe (knee jerk rage thread)
- Thread starter Flem274*
- Start date
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Agree with this, just bring Southee in for the Australia series and use Williamson and Guptill as and when needed as extra bowlers. Not a bad attack if they all stay fit.
karan316
State Vice-Captain
No second spinner? don't think that can be a good idea against Australia. I still feel that Nathan Mcullum is the best available second spinner, and he can bat aswell. Vettori batting at number 7 and Mcullum at 8 would increase the depth in their batting and bowling and will also provide good variation, you don't want a one dimensional bowling lineup.
And Chris Martin, Tim Southee along with Bennett/Andy Mckay can be the three seamers.
And Chris Martin, Tim Southee along with Bennett/Andy Mckay can be the three seamers.
Last edited:
Haha nah he's their coach. But probably still got it
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
You don't need 2 spinners in Australia unless you have 2 very good ones. Vettori will do fine on his own with back up from the part timers.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Really? Care to explain why that should be the case bearing in mind the performances of spinners in series in Australia over the last 10 years or so?
Flem274*
123/5
Don't need a second spinner in Aussie, and even if we did NcCullum isn't the second best spinner in New Zealand.
karan316
State Vice-Captain
Yap. But there has to be some variation in the bowling lineup, Vettori with his left arm spin and Nathan Mcullum with his offspin can be provide more options for the captain. And Mcullum is a good spinner, he bowls with a lot of control and has improved a lot in his previous few ODIs,
And New Zealand's batting lineup doesn't look that good aswell, Mcullum at 8 would also increase their batting depth and not to forget he is an outstanding fielder.
And I don't think they have any quality fourth seamer who can prove effective against Australia, three seamers are enough.
Flem274*
123/5
Everything in this post is wrong.
McCullum is not a good first class spinner, as evidenced by 103 wickets from 50 matches at an average of 42. he bowls with a lot of control as bowls tight, but he doesn't take wickets. He's a good ODI bowler but the same things that make him good at limited overs make him poor at the long format.
New Zealand have more than enough batting in the middle order, with Williamson, Taylor, Ryder all averaging over 40 in test cricket, Vettori averaging over 40 with the bat since 2005, Young since remodelling his technique has scored a bucketload of first class runs, including some tons at three. Also, Doug Bracewell and Tim Southee can hold a bat. Nathan McCullum's runs aren't enough to justify his inclusion.
New Zealand have seamers who are good enough to fill that fourth spot. The ones you might know of are Andy McKay and Hamish Bennett. There are other young and uncapped blokes who could fill it as well, the most likely of whom is Trent Boult, Southee's opening partner for Northern Districts. He is a left arm swing bowler who bowls with good control and lively pace. There are others, but he is probably the closest unless the selectors decide to throw in Adam Milne, a genuine 150kph fast bowler, as a wildcard.
If we decided to select a spinner for a tour where two spinners is extremely unlikely to be required, then Bruce Martin and Todd Astle will both be ahead of McCullum in the selection stakes, because they have respectable records. We won't pick a second spinner though, because if we do find a turning deck, Williamson will be thrown the ball.
wellAlbidarned
International Coach
Seems like Boult is going to spend eternity as "that very promising young fast bowler who keeps taking FC wickets", when the **** is he going to get a game?
karan316
State Vice-Captain
I really doubt this New Zealand batting lineup is that good, Ryder, Ross Taylor, Brendon McCullum,etc. are not the ones who spend time on the crease, they are capable of some blazing knocks, but in test cricket, you need someone who can stay at the wicket for longer time and not give away their wicket that easily and try and get as many runs as possible. They all are very talented players, but are unpredictable at times. NZ should have a strong lower order to get more number of runs in tests,
you cannot pick a pure batsman in the lower order, in such a case, Nathan McCullum is the only one who comes to my mind, in the recent India New Zealand series and the World Cup, he bowled really well and looked much different from his initial matches.
21 out of the 29 ODIs he has played has been against the subcontinent teams, who play spin really well, and yet he has done reasonably well,
I agree he is not a wicket taker like Swann or Ajmal but is a good off spinner and has improved a lot in the number of games he has played.
And I am aware of his FC record, but I m judging him from his most recent performances and I think he has added a lot more to his bowling,
NZ can go for four seamers,
but do they have 4 outstanding fast bowlers who can rattle Australia??
I really dont think so, Southee and Martin are looking good, you can pick one more out of the others but picking two wouldn't make a huge difference.
Its better if they strengthen their batting lineup a bit and work with 4 main bowlers(3 seamers + Vettori)
and Nathan McCullum as the 5th bowler.
Last edited:
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
No-one would even consider playing McCullum in Tests if he didn't play ODIs, and he's not even particularly good at that format. He gets randomly brought up because people actually know who is and because Patel is quite obviously not good enough; these two factors are not enough to earn a Test spot. He's not even a main bowler for Otago on a lot of occasions; I'd sooner keep Patel around really (not that I'd do that either).
N.McCullum isn't good enough at either discipline to demand a Test spot. He's not effective in limited overs because he takes wickets - he's effective because he has the ability to tie down players, clear the ropes at the death with the bat and save 10-15 runs in the field.
None of those are of much interest to us in Test cricket. We already have a defensive spinner who doesn't turn it. We have plenty of attacking batsmen. We have a team full of superb fieldsmen, Martin apart.
And I think if you look over the past 24 months, the records of Taylor/Ryder and McCullum are a lot stronger than given credit for.
I doubt his name even comes up in more than passing in selection meetings.
None of those are of much interest to us in Test cricket. We already have a defensive spinner who doesn't turn it. We have plenty of attacking batsmen. We have a team full of superb fieldsmen, Martin apart.
And I think if you look over the past 24 months, the records of Taylor/Ryder and McCullum are a lot stronger than given credit for.
I doubt his name even comes up in more than passing in selection meetings.
karan316
State Vice-Captain
I have know doubt over the talent of Taylor, Ryder, B McCullum, Guptill or even Williamson, but I don't think as a batting unit NZ have been able to put enough runs in tests.I strongly feel that the NZ batsmen have to contribute a bit more.
If not Nathan McCullum, then they need to go with some or the other bowler who can contribute with the bat, they really need to have a good all rounder at 8 to make sure that they score enough runs.
I was observing Nathan McCullum's bowling in the India New Zealand Series and also the World Cup, I was really surprised to see the improvement in his bowling since his initial few matches where he looked more like a part time bowler, I really feel he is a much better bowler now then what his FC record suggests, he has a lot more variations and can be a useful 5th bowler.
And Four bowlers(including Vettori) should do the primary bowling, there is no need for a 5th specialist bowler as the batting lineup will be weakened.
McCullum can bowl some tight overs and pick up a wicket here and there and contribute with the bat.
And let me tell you, m a big fan of NZ team, I watch all NZ matches and m commenting on this issue keeping in mind the previous tests and ODIs NZ has played and their results.
Last edited:
Reece Young batted at No.8 in the last Test, and he's a very accomplished player. I'm happy with that. And Tim Southee may well be at No.9 in Australia - he isn't there yet, but he is more than capable of being a solid contributor.
I rate McCullum very highly in our limited-overs side, but he won't get people out in Test matches. We have a part-timer in Williamson that will do almost as much as he would offer. Unfortunately other than them, we don't have anyone within cooey of being a Test spinner.
I rate McCullum very highly in our limited-overs side, but he won't get people out in Test matches. We have a part-timer in Williamson that will do almost as much as he would offer. Unfortunately other than them, we don't have anyone within cooey of being a Test spinner.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Agree with most others here, NcCullum is a non-starter for Test matches, it's that simple.
There's no good reason at all to consider him. If you were wishing to add to the batting depth (and I don't think they need to) then Franklin would be a far better option than NcCullum to fill that middle to lower order spot with the bat & to roll his arm over for a few overs.
As Steve said, with Young @ 7 or 8 & Southee @ 8 or 9, that's more than enough depth to even contemplate Franklin (who's rubbish with the ball these days), let alone NcCullum
(who's even less penetrable with the ball than Franklin)
There's no good reason at all to consider him. If you were wishing to add to the batting depth (and I don't think they need to) then Franklin would be a far better option than NcCullum to fill that middle to lower order spot with the bat & to roll his arm over for a few overs.
As Steve said, with Young @ 7 or 8 & Southee @ 8 or 9, that's more than enough depth to even contemplate Franklin (who's rubbish with the ball these days), let alone NcCullum
(who's even less penetrable with the ball than Franklin)
Flem274*
123/5
So because we don't have guys who stay at the crease for long periods, you think we should select a lower order hitter?
Say we select a spinner on your theory, well then Todd Astle would be the number one guy in the selectors mind because;
i) he takes a lot of first class wickets
ii) he is an ex-opening batsman
iii) he is an aggressive leg break bowler, which will add something different to our attack
Moving on to our fast bowling stocks, how are you so positive we don't have good young bowlers when you live over in India?