***Official*** New Zealand in Australia 2011

[Bahnz]

I like watching McKay bowl, but even I admit he's not very good.

He did take 30 wickets from five minutes last year, but at the highest economy rate of any top ten bowler. He hasn't shown it wasn't a flash in the pan either.

Auckland

54 @ 30.51 from 19

Wellington
Rr
45 @ 26.66 from 10

The majority of those wickets are from last season. If Boult is unproven, McKay is very unproven. He isn't helping his case by getting smacked around today either. CricArchive doesn't show economy rates unfortunately.

When McKay is hot, he is very good at the first class level. When he's bad, he's absolutely awful. In test cricket he will be bowling to better batsmen who won't be intimidated by his brisk pace.

I like him, but I don't think he is one of the best bowlers in New Zealand and I don't think he's ready for test cricket. It's a shame he isn't five years younger because he would have had ample time to work on his consistency, whereas now if he wants a test career he needs to get cracking.

Boult has been picking up the wickets ever since his debut and is in better form. I think he should be ahead in the ranks.

EDIT: first season for Wellington, McKay took 15 @ 40. A bit disappointing.

All true, but Mckay was also the pick of the bowlers for New Zealand A earlier this year (which included Boult), and for that he has my interest. He's only had a few overs of bowling so far. I'll be interested to see how he goes throughout the rest of the match.

 

[Mike5181]

Setting aside for the moment the fact that Martin's average in the last two years has been bloated out by two admittedly terrible performances against Australia (and yes I realize that's who we're playing next), it's simply not true that we're suddenly over flowing with bowling options.

A 5fer against Zimbabwe, no matter how flat the track, isn't proof that Dougeh's ready for the step up. And the gulf between plunket shield and test cricket is so vast it's impossible to judge whether the likes of Boult and co. have what it takes based on a couple of domestic fivers. Southee is regarded as the best seamer in the country by a distance, and he's still only barely managed to average 40 in test cricket over the past couple of seasons.

I'm not saying that Martin should go on playing forever. One way or another this will be his last season for New Zealand. And I'm not saying he should be given a free reign to play every game this season no matter how well/poorly he's bowling. However to constantly call for his head on the basis that whoever's coming through must be better strikes me as blindly optimistic.

Martin's had one bad game. Bowlers do that from time to time. He's still been easily our most successful bowler of the last couple of years, even though he's still only been mediocre most of the time. We shouldn't be so desperate to toss that away at the first opportunity.

Who is constantly calling for his head? I'm sure the majority of the country were quite happy for him to stick around until he got his 200 wickets. Plunket Shield evidently is a big step down from internationals but that doesn't mean we keep a guy in the team if he doesn't perform especially when that guy is a month away from his 37th birthday. I'm not saying Boult etc would excel on the international stage but using the step up policy every time you select a team is a fallacy because you'd never know how good these players really are until you actually give them a chance.

Tim Southee is a far better bowler than he was a couple of seasons ago which he's only been able to show in ODIs thus far where he's averaging in the low 20s with the ball recently. We have to give him time to develop his test game which only comes with experience which Boult etc need as well.

I don't entirely buy Bracewell yet either. Personally he bowled too short against Zimbabwe but he had the control and the stamina to show there's something there.

The best seamers in the country at present time in my opinion are Tim Southee, Trent Boult and Neil Wagner. Yeah, Wagner could be a bit expensive against quality batsmen but he is a legit wicket taker which is something we haven't had since Bond and O'Brien were around.

 

[SteveNZ]

Oops.

 

[SteveNZ]

A 5fer against Zimbabwe, no matter how flat the track, isn't proof that Dougeh's ready for the step up. And the gulf between plunket shield and test cricket is so vast it's impossible to judge whether the likes of Boult and co. have what it takes based on a couple of domestic fivers. Southee is regarded as the best seamer in the country by a distance, and he's still only barely managed to average 40 in test cricket over the past couple of seasons.

It may not be irrefutable proof but he's earned a summer in Test whites by winning us a match on debut where we otherwise would've ended in ignominy.

And Boult got two good players out today, no matter which way you flip it. We'll only know when we pick him.

I'm all for picking Martin in Australia, incidentally, and Flem's idea of playing four seamers with Vettori at 6 has a lot of merit. It puts the onus on our batsmen to score the runs, as they are paid to do. If we need runs from 8 down, we're toast. Bowlers win Test matches and 5 front-line options gives us the best chance of doing so in Australia. Especially as Jesse won't bowl.

I'd still take McKay over there as well but unless he shows something in this match, he may be behind Boult. They're going to want to play nigh-on their best side against Australia A, given Bracewell has to play, Southee needs overs under his belt, Martin needs to find form and you wouldn't want McKay/Boult going in without playing a warm-up over there first

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Drop Brownlie, move Vettori up to six and play 4 seamers.

 

[Bahnz]

Who is constantly calling for his head? I'm sure the majority of the country were quite happy for him to stick around until he got his 200 wickets. Plunket Shield evidently is a big step down from internationals but that doesn't mean we keep a guy in the team if he doesn't perform especially when that guy is a month away from his 37th birthday. I'm not saying Boult etc would excel on the international stage but using the step up policy every time you select a team is a fallacy because you'd never know how good these players really are until you actually give them a chance.

Tim Southee is a far better bowler than he was a couple of seasons ago which he's only been able to show in ODIs thus far where he's averaging in the low 20s with the ball recently. We have to give him time to develop his test game which only comes with experience which Boult etc need as well.

I don't entirely buy Bracewell yet either. Personally he bowled too short against Zimbabwe but he had the control and the stamina to show there's something there.

The best seamers in the country at present time in my opinion are Tim Southee, Trent Boult and Neil Wagner. Yeah, Wagner could be a bit expensive against quality batsmen but he is a legit wicket taker which is something we haven't had since Bond and O'Brien were around.

People have been calling for Martin's head on and off for years. The vast majority of people would've had him carted off into retirement after his disastrous Australian series in 2010. He keeps coming back, reliable if unremarkable for the most part. That's something to be, if not admired then certainty respected, especially given the lack of depth in New Zealand cricket.

I'm not saying we never introduce anyone new to the team, but Martin provides precious experience and a cool head to what is otherwise a very green bowling attack. Southee's played less than 20 tests and he's a long way ahead of anyone else. Two inexperienced youngsters in the seam attack is more than enough for my mind.

 

[Flem274*]

You've just inadvertently reminded me of something I've been meaning to do-look at players who debuted at the age of 20 or less, and see which country has the highest success rate of converting those young players to good test players. I'll do it after my exam.

 

[SteveNZ]

Drop Brownlie, move Vettori up to six and play 4 seamers.

I hadn't thought that through enough. Can't drop Brownlie - he made 62 on debut and is not out on hundred odd domestically. Also very proficient on the back foot, which is of pretty vital importance over there. Johnson will likely try to get up us, as will Cummins if he plays, Siddle, Harris etc.

If Martin is going to bowl well anywhere, it's Brisbane. Play him, Southee and Bracewell in Brisbane, all swing bowlers. Reassess from there

 

[Flem274*]

We can drop whoever is needed if it is for the good of the team.

He's played one test, and it's not like he is being dropped from the squad. He still knows he is on the cusp of forcing his way back in. Would do our batsmen good to know they have someone nipping their heels.

Besides, with Ryder's injury record, Brownlie is bound to get a second test sooner or later.

 

[Days of Grace]

So, we have:

McCullum
Guptill
Williamson
Taylor
Ryder
Vettori
Young (wk)
Southee
Bracewell
Boult
Martin

or

McCullum
Guptill
Williamson
Taylor
Ryder
Brownlee
Vettori
Young (wk)
Southee
Bracewell
Boult/Martin


Be afraid, be very afraid if the first team is 30/3 in the first morning in Brisbane. I just cannot stomach Southee or Bracewell at no.8, no matter how much I want all three young seamers to play.

 

[Flem274*]

I think such defensive and negative planning is going to get us no where.

the batting heavy line up might draw a match, whereas the extra bowler might win it.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I think such defensive and negative planning is going to get us no where.

the batting heavy line up might draw a match, whereas the extra bowler might win it.

Agree with teh Phlegm.

 

[Bahnz]

If we do wind up 30/3, I don't know how much trust I'd place in Brownlie to bail us out. McCullum, Williamson, Taylor, Ryder and Vettori are by far the best 5 batsmen in the country. I think we just have to have faith in them and hope like heck that Mitch keeps bowling dross.

 

[Days of Grace]

You can afford to go with four seamers only when one of them is close to, or is, a genuine allrounder, IMO, like Broad for England.


For my argument's sake, I will ignore Mitch.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I'm all for picking Martin in Australia, incidentally, and Flem's idea of playing four seamers with Vettori at 6 has a lot of merit. It puts the onus on our batsmen to score the runs, as they are paid to do. If we need runs from 8 down, we're toast. Bowlers win Test matches and 5 front-line options gives us the best chance of doing so in Australia. Especially as Jesse won't bowl.

NZ might not have the guys who can bat down there as they've had in the past, but it doesn't mean you should give up once you've lost 6 wickets.

Martin is and was a joke selection. His bowling has never been any better than mediocre and his presence costs the team roughly 40-50 runs a Test. You bat twice, then you not only don't get any runs from Martin but more importantly you don't get a partnership - you're losing 15-20 runs per innings there by not just having someone who has a competent defence. His fielding is also rubbish. That's not getting into any momentum shifts, because every team that bowls at NZ's late order will pick up some momentum when wickets 9 and 10 fall together quickly.

New Zealand are not blessed with lots of talent and they need to make every percentage point they can scrape together count. Martin is ****e, old and selecting him stinks of settling for sub-mediocrity. As people have been saying with Ponting, if you're losing anyway you may as well lose with something young who's gaining experience. Martin was never much good to start with.

Playing against Australia might just about be the one team New Zealand could get away with playing 4 bowlers against (when one of your 4 bowlers is Vettori who is generally a non-factor with the ball against other teams), but given there'll be a young and inconsistent seam attack it would be asking a lot even then. You lot may as well get used to 4 seamers + Vettori and hope the keeper can average 30-35. The keeper getting those runs will be crucial to the balance.

I'm surprised New Zealanders, given that they've just scraped past Zimbabwe only because their team had sweet FA through numbers 8-11, are so keen to undervalue the merits of batting in those positions and just accept Martin's abject ****eness.

 

[Mike5181]

No, the reason Zimbabwe got so close was because Jeetan Patel had match figures of 142-0 and Chris Martin had 159-3.

 

[Wrong un]

Genuinely think NZ have a chance against Aus in this series. They just need a little luck at the GABBA i.e not to lose the toss and have Aus 340-2 at the close.

If they can get runs on the board I think the Aussie batting could crumble after the memories of the 47 keep flooding back..

 

[SteveNZ]

NZ might not have the guys who can bat down there as they've had in the past, but it doesn't mean you should give up once you've lost 6 wickets.

Martin is and was a joke selection. His bowling has never been any better than mediocre and his presence costs the team roughly 40-50 runs a Test. You bat twice, then you not only don't get any runs from Martin but more importantly you don't get a partnership - you're losing 15-20 runs per innings there by not just having someone who has a competent defence. His fielding is also rubbish. That's not getting into any momentum shifts, because every team that bowls at NZ's late order will pick up some momentum when wickets 9 and 10 fall together quickly.

New Zealand are not blessed with lots of talent and they need to make every percentage point they can scrape together count. Martin is ****e, old and selecting him stinks of settling for sub-mediocrity. As people have been saying with Ponting, if you're losing anyway you may as well lose with something young who's gaining experience. Martin was never much good to start with.

Playing against Australia might just about be the one team New Zealand could get away with playing 4 bowlers against (when one of your 4 bowlers is Vettori who is generally a non-factor with the ball against other teams), but given there'll be a young and inconsistent seam attack it would be asking a lot even then. You lot may as well get used to 4 seamers + Vettori and hope the keeper can average 30-35. The keeper getting those runs will be crucial to the balance.

I'm surprised New Zealanders, given that they've just scraped past Zimbabwe only because their team had sweet FA through numbers 8-11, are so keen to undervalue the merits of batting in those positions and just accept Martin's abject ****eness.

You're taking a fair bit of liberty there by stretching what I said to giving up once we're six down. What I'm saying is the onus goes on the top 7. If we lose, it will be because they didn't front up. Not because a bowling all-rounder didn't score runs. And playing an extra batsman is less likely to win us a Test than a fourth seamer, especially given the talent of our fringe batsmen.

Southee has scored runs v Australia, Bracewell has batting talent and Boult can also hold a bat. It's not an awful 8-10, just an inexperienced one.

Martin's presence costs us 40 runs? Absolute tripe. Crap. In the field? Doubt it, unless you are comparing him to the great fielders of all-time. With the bat? Compared to fellow No.11s, 10 runs at the very most. It's a lame argument. McGrath never got it and he was just as weak in both disciplines early in his career. Incidentally he has put on some very decent partnerships, with McCullum especially.

Whilst I agree his time is probably at its end, saying someone who has taken 201 Test wickets was never much chop is laughable.

 

[straw man]

I think such defensive and negative planning is going to get us no where.

the batting heavy line up might draw a match, whereas the extra bowler might win it.

We need more positivity! Should plan to be 300/1 after the first day

Unlike other recent series I am undecided about the XI I want to see. Both the issue of playing the extra batsman vs extra bowler (though the expected nature of the pitch should have an impact on this decision) and whether to drop Martin or not (though I am with Bahnz on not declaring Boult should be in the playing XI based purely on a couple of domestic scorecards).

There won't be a Hopkins or Patel selection to get really angry about (I'm assuming a minimum level of competence from selectors) so I should be happy enough with anything sensible that the selectors field on the day.

 

[Furball]

Has Southee had a county stint or have I completely imagined that?