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

[Scaly piscine]

Vettori can trouble Australian batsman, he has done it before. Also, more importantly he can tie up one end.

Getting to the bold part, by picking 6 batsman and then having Vettori at 7 can put pressure on Australia if New Zealand bat first.

Honestly though, according to you NZ are completely rubbish with the ball and have absolutely no hope, I don't really know what you expect NZ's fourth seamer will do?

Vettori averages 39.97 in Australia and goes at 2.91 an over. Australian pitches generally offer very little to finger spinners and the margin for error is very small so he'll definitely be milked at times. He's not a front line option. I can't realistically see NZ scoring the sorts of totals that will put Australia under big scoreboard pressure, they're probably capable of 350-400, decent but when you see Martin and Vettori are going to bowl more than half the overs there's not going to be much pressure.

Even if you come across the one pitch that helps finger spinners in Australia, Vettori won't do jack on it anyway. If NZ want to take wickets they need 4 seamers and make sure none of them are called Chris Martin.

NZ do seem to have a few seamers knocking about who can bowl high 80s along with the usual accurate medium fast etc., whether or not they'll be effective at Test level is another matter, but they can't do any worse than Chris Martin. An unknown with potential is far better than a tried and tested old plodder.

I'll say it again Vettori is a batsman who bowls. He's better than any specialist batsman who would come in at 6/7 to take the 4th seamer's slot. So you have 6 batsmen/1 keeper/4 bowlers. Vettori's bowling is just a bonus. It's the obvious balance. You can't just play 11 batsmen because the first 5-6 are a bit average.

 

[SteveNZ]

I'm afraid producing draws on this tour may be wishful thinking regardless of the make-up of your team. You've absolutely got to look to take 20 wickets in a Test, but if you have no foundations or an inability to set the game up due to not having enough runs on the board, then despite having an extra bowler the likelihood of managing 20 wickets diminishes greatly.

For me NZ's top 6 is not yet reliable enough to accommodate the extra bowler. At least with a decent score on the board that will bring its own pressures onto the Aussie batsmen.

Every single one of our top six can lay claim to being an international batsman of decent quality. Sure, they haven't proven it consistently but they are more than capable. Every single one of them (bar Williamson, who is about to announce his talent to a lot more people) has scored ODI runs against Australia, so it's not like the bowling completely spooks them. They just haven't translated it into whites.

And to be honest, I am prepared to take the risk. I don't care a jot about a draw. I would rather we were humped than one of those 'honourable' draws. I'm sick of draws.

Zimbabwe showed the way in the Test against us - weren't at al interested in a draw and eventually lost as they went down chasing. I'm not saying we are Zimbabwe but the only way we will get better and get up the rankings is to challenge and beat teams above us. Not draws, that won't teach us jack.

Put the acid on the top six. Don't tell me Brownlie batting at six makes us an eminently better side.

 

[Woodster]

Every single one of our top six can lay claim to being an international batsman of decent quality. Sure, they haven't proven it consistently but they are more than capable. Every single one of them (bar Williamson, who is about to announce his talent to a lot more people) has scored ODI runs against Australia, so it's not like the bowling completely spooks them. They just haven't translated it into whites.

And to be honest, I am prepared to take the risk. I don't care a jot about a draw. I would rather we were humped than one of those 'honourable' draws. I'm sick of draws.

Zimbabwe showed the way in the Test against us - weren't at al interested in a draw and eventually lost as they went down chasing. I'm not saying we are Zimbabwe but the only way we will get better and get up the rankings is to challenge and beat teams above us. Not draws, that won't teach us jack.

Put the acid on the top six. Don't tell me Brownlie batting at six makes us an eminently better side.

Scoring decent runs in ODI cricket is very different from building a Test innings. Many of those players are ready made to score ODI runs with their style and experience in this field, not sure I'd say the same about their credentials in pacing a Test innings.

Kane Williamson I'm a huge fan and believe he has the potential to be a top batsman for NZ, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he enjoys some success on this tour.

I'm not suggesting not to take risks, be positive, and go for the win, but going in with five specialist bowlers would be close to cricketing suicide for me. As for whether Brownlie makes you an eminently batter side ? I can only judge what I've seen of him, which is very little, only the Test against Zimbabwe, but he is the next best batsman in NZ, then yes I think he would strengthen the batting in the team and help the balance of the side.

 

[Sylvester]

Australia in South Africa 2011-12: Ponting, Haddin buy themselves time | Cricket Features | South Africa v Australia | ESPN Cricinfo

Some crazy talk going on in the comments section. Johnson should be retained and Mitch Marsh picked as a bowler. Deary me.

 

[Woodster]

Vettori averages 39.97 in Australia and goes at 2.91 an over. Australian pitches generally offer very little to finger spinners and the margin for error is very small so he'll definitely be milked at times. He's not a front line option. I can't realistically see NZ scoring the sorts of totals that will put Australia under big scoreboard pressure, they're probably capable of 350-400, decent but when you see Martin and Vettori are going to bowl more than half the overs there's not going to be much pressure.

Even if you come across the one pitch that helps finger spinners in Australia, Vettori won't do jack on it anyway. If NZ want to take wickets they need 4 seamers and make sure none of them are called Chris Martin.

NZ do seem to have a few seamers knocking about who can bowl high 80s along with the usual accurate medium fast etc., whether or not they'll be effective at Test level is another matter, but they can't do any worse than Chris Martin. An unknown with potential is far better than a tried and tested old plodder.

I'll say it again Vettori is a batsman who bowls. He's better than any specialist batsman who would come in at 6/7 to take the 4th seamer's slot. So you have 6 batsmen/1 keeper/4 bowlers. Vettori's bowling is just a bonus. It's the obvious balance. You can't just play 11 batsmen because the first 5-6 are a bit average.

Think you're over-rating his batting and under-rating his bowling here. An economy of 2.91 for a finger spinner in Australia is very good, especially considering the strength of that Australia sides he'll have played against in previous tours. That will certainly give Ross Taylor some semblance of control from one end, especially if he chips in with his fair share of wickets too.

Vettori at a push may be good enough to bat at no higher than number seven,imo, which means your keeper has to bat at six if you want four pacemen in aswell. Far too weak in the batting department if you ask me going in like that.

 

[SteveNZ]

Scoring decent runs in ODI cricket is very different from building a Test innings. Many of those players are ready made to score ODI runs with their style and experience in this field, not sure I'd say the same about their credentials in pacing a Test innings.

Kane Williamson I'm a huge fan and believe he has the potential to be a top batsman for NZ, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he enjoys some success on this tour.

I'm not suggesting not to take risks, be positive, and go for the win, but going in with five specialist bowlers would be close to cricketing suicide for me. As for whether Brownlie makes you an eminently batter side ? I can only judge what I've seen of him, which is very little, only the Test against Zimbabwe, but he is the next best batsman in NZ, then yes I think he would strengthen the batting in the team and help the balance of the side.

I'm aware of the difference between ODI and Test cricket. The point was they have the talent to score runs, it's an application issue. Therefore, I'd advocate putting the acid on them to do so.

And it seems like they may be considering it, given the way Ross talked on Monday. Good. We don't have overs out of Jesse now, we don't have Oram's overs at #6 plus Vettori is more of a holding bowler than a wicket-taker against major opposition. We need penetration to win Test matches and break out of our rut.

I'm not saying that's the fit on every pitch in every country. Just at Brisbane, next week.

 

[Woodster]

I'm aware of the difference between ODI and Test cricket. The point was they have the talent to score runs, it's an application issue. Therefore, I'd advocate putting the acid on them to do so.

And it seems like they may be considering it, given the way Ross talked on Monday. Good. We don't have overs out of Jesse now, we don't have Oram's overs at #6 plus Vettori is more of a holding bowler than a wicket-taker against major opposition. We need penetration to win Test matches and break out of our rut.

I'm not saying that's the fit on every pitch in every country. Just at Brisbane, next week.

I don't doubt they have the talent, but they are yet to produce consistently, that is why I would be reluctant to go with one less batsman in such an unforgiving tour as Australia, even despite their current issues.

I appreciate your view is to put more pressure on them and hopefully they'll stand up and take responsibility, it could work. I personally would like to see them with some batting depth or one of these two Tests could be over very quickly.

Ideally you want five decent bowling options, but I don't think at this stage NZ can have that without weakening their batting, if not significantly, then to a fair degree. The batsmen themselves may well feel more able to play more freely and a more natural game with the comfort of a sixth batsman, alternatively it may focus their mind without that extra bat, my preference for NZ would be to go with the first option.

It's our own individual opinions which is why such debates are great, different points of view.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Scaly talking sense about NZ. JESUS.

BMac
Guptill
Williamson
Taylor
Ryder
Vettori
Young
Bracewell
Southee
Boult
Martin

Seeing as Martin is getting a free ride to the first test no matter what, that's what I'd go for. If Brownlie were to come in, it'd have to be for Martin or Boult, have to see how they go.

 

[straw man]

Vettori's last four tests vs Australia:

Bat1 Bat2 Runs Wkts Conc Opposition Ground Start Date
2 10 12 3 73 v Australia Brisbane 20 Nov 2008 Test # 1894
18* 13 31 2 124 v Australia Adelaide 28 Nov 2008 Test # 1896
46 77 123 1 143 v Australia Wellington 19 Mar 2010 Test # 1955
15 22 37 6 176 v Australia Hamilton 27 Mar 2010 Test # 1957

Average of 29 with the bat and 43 with the ball doesn't make for great reading. I have a feeling he will score some runs this series though. Less confident that he will take wickets.

Edit: That didn't paste as well as I'd hoped.

 

[straw man]

Scaly talking sense about NZ. JESUS.

Think Scaly's become a closet NZ fan, just quietly

Also mostly agree with him re Vettori's role in the team these days. Now if Bracewell could just turn himself into a decent number 8....

 

[Scaly piscine]

Think you're over-rating his batting and under-rating his bowling here. An economy of 2.91 for a finger spinner in Australia is very good, especially considering the strength of that Australia sides he'll have played against in previous tours. That will certainly give Ross Taylor some semblance of control from one end, especially if he chips in with his fair share of wickets too.

Vettori at a push may be good enough to bat at no higher than number seven,imo, which means your keeper has to bat at six if you want four pacemen in aswell. Far too weak in the batting department if you ask me going in like that.

I can't be bothered looking it up but the Kiwis are always going on about Vettori averaging 40 with the bat for the last x years. I wouldn't particularly fancy him against a high quality Test attack but what can you do. As long as the 6 and 7 are averaging around 75 combined then that would be pretty good by NZ standards, so if Vettori and the keeper can manage that then it represents a reasonably solid 1-7.

 

[straw man]

Also:

BMac
Guptill
Williamson
Taylor
Brownlie
Vettori
Young
Bracewell
Southee
Boult
Martin

You heard it here first. Jesse to get injured or punch a window.

 

[SteveNZ]

I can't be bothered looking it up but the Kiwis are always going on about Vettori averaging 40 with the bat for the last x years. I wouldn't particularly fancy him against a high quality Test attack but what can you do. As long as the 6 and 7 are averaging around 75 combined then that would be pretty good by NZ standards, so if Vettori and the keeper can manage that then it represents a reasonably solid 1-7.

Vettori made runs against Australia last time out with a very decent attack, he's made them in Sri Lanka, against India, against Pakistan...I back him, even if it is 50 or so like you're hinting at. The 40+ you speak about (can't be bothered either) isn't boosted by minnow numbers - it's genuine against genuine line-ups.

It's a nice change to have an argument about the balance of a side, usually we don't any choice - it's the old 'which three seamers are fit' + Vettori (unless we're overseas on a turner and we pick Jeetan for the sake of it).

 

[Prince EWS]

Think you're over-rating his batting and under-rating his bowling here. An economy of 2.91 for a finger spinner in Australia is very good, especially considering the strength of that Australia sides he'll have played against in previous tours. That will certainly give Ross Taylor some semblance of control from one end, especially if he chips in with his fair share of wickets too.

Vettori at a push may be good enough to bat at no higher than number seven,imo, which means your keeper has to bat at six if you want four pacemen in aswell. Far too weak in the batting department if you ask me going in like that.

Vettori is definitely one of the best six batsmen in New Zealand. The vast majority of people over-rate his bowling and under-rate his batting, mainly due to the sort of cricketer he was for the first half of his career.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Put the acid on the top six. Don't tell me Brownlie batting at six makes us an eminently better side.

This.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Wow. Just looked at Dan's stats for the first time in ages, he really does have a good chance of reaching 5000 runs and 400 wickets. Pretty crazy for a player who's just classed as fairly good, certainly not an ATG (except for us obviously ).

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Wow. Just looked at Dan's stats for the first time in ages, he really does have a good chance of reaching 5000 runs and 400 wickets. Pretty crazy for a player who's just classed as fairly good, certainly not an ATG (except for us obviously ).

Playing for 15-16 years helps a bit.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Indeed. Managing to be decent for 17 years is definitely a fair achievement though.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Think Scaly's become a closet NZ fan, just quietly

Also mostly agree with him re Vettori's role in the team these days. Now if Bracewell could just turn himself into a decent number 8....

I'd be quite happy to see NZ beat Australia but generally speaking I just want to see the best teams out there. It's also more interesting to see new players out there.

I want to see teams that can bowl each other out and have proper results and competitive games. It makes Test cricket unpredictable and exciting even if one side is a lot stronger than the other. When teams can bowl each other out consistently then anything can happen.

It will be a bit of an anti-climax if NZ play 4 bowlers and include Martin. I think everyone knows deep down what will happen - NZ would only win if the pitch is a minefield or Southee takes 15-fer. The main interest would just be individual performances and other similar subplots.

 

[Flametree]

I'm a 6-batsman fan myself. Either the wicket is flat in which case you need to score a lot of runs to win tests (and yes, save them - sorry, but I'd prefer 0-0 to 0-2) , or else the wicket does a bit in which case four bowlers should be enough. Given early season wickets, and an opposition not in the best form, I think an extra 50 runs from a 6th batsmen is more likely to win a test than an extra 10 overs from a probably under-used fourth seamer.

It would be nice of coure to have a batsman who could bowl 10 reasonable overs per day, but where they once seemed to be a standard feature of NZ teams (think Congdon, Coney, Crowe, Astle, McMillan, Styris) they seem fairly rare these days.

The main issue if you only have four bowlers is to be sure you've picked the best three seam bowlers. If the argument against playing just four bowlers is that one of them (Martin) is unlikely to be much good, then the answer is not to play another bowler, the answer is to play Southee, Bracewell and Boult. Unless conditions suggest the Gabba will seriously assist swing, I wouldn't consider Martin on his recent form.