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

[Prince EWS]

I'm a 6-batsman fan myself.

Me too usually but the thing is - Brownlie may bat at six but he's the seventh batsmen. Vettori throws off the typical balance arguments by being one of the best six batsmen and one of the best four bowlers available.

The argument isn't really about "6th batsmen v 5th bowler"; it's "7th batsman v 5th bowler" which is a much tougher question. I would've just picked Franklin; if the last spot is going to go to the 7th batsmen or the 5th bowler= then you might as well pick someone who can fill both roles. It may sound strange given the (lack of) strength in this New Zealand side but it's basically a surplus position.

 

[straw man]

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.

Pretty much awta. There's no doubt NZ selecting 4 fast bowlers would be the more interesting viewing. Still not convinced it will give us the best chance of getting a result - I really think it's a line-call.

The expected pitch/atmospheric conditions will play an important part in the decision. It's early season and I see it's meant to rain in Brisbane for most of the next week - so can we expect a greenish wicket with a bit of swing too?

 

[straw man]

Me too usually but the thing is - Brownlie may bat at six but he's the seventh batsmen. Vettori throws off the typical balance arguments by being one of the best six batsmen and one of the best four bowlers available.

The argument isn't really about "6th batsmen v 5th bowler"; it's "7th batsman v 5th bowler" - a much together question. I would've just picked Franklin; if the last spot is going to go to the 7th batsmen or the 5th bowler, you might as well pick someone who can fill both roles. It may sound strange given the (lack of) strength in this New Zealand side but it's basically a surplus position.

Australia have shown a weakness against short wide dribble in recent times so Franky might have been a good choice

 

[Woodster]

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).

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.

Since January 2010 Vettori averages 27 with the bat, and 33 with the ball against Bangladesh, Australia, India, Pakistan and Zimbabwe, so a mix of sides really. His batting and bowling are around the area I'd expect them to be for that period. If Vettori is among the best six batsmen in NZ, then that doesn't reflect too well on NZ at this stage.

 

[Woodster]

Me too usually but the thing is - Brownlie may bat at six but he's the seventh batsmen. Vettori throws off the typical balance arguments by being one of the best six batsmen and one of the best four bowlers available.

The argument isn't really about "6th batsmen v 5th bowler"; it's "7th batsman v 5th bowler" which is a much tougher question. I would've just picked Franklin; if the last spot is going to go to the 7th batsmen or the 5th bowler= then you might as well pick someone who can fill both roles. It may sound strange given the (lack of) strength in this New Zealand side but it's basically a surplus position.

In your opinion it's 7th batsman v 5th bowler, imo it's 6th batsman vs 5th bowler, it depends how you rate certain players.

 

[Prince EWS]

Since January 2010 Vettori averages 27 with the bat, and 33 with the ball against Bangladesh, Australia, India, Pakistan and Zimbabwe, so a mix of sides really. His batting and bowling are around the area I'd expect them to be for that period. If Vettori is among the best six batsmen in NZ, then that doesn't reflect too well on NZ at this stage.

He's averaging over 40 since November 2004, though.

2835 runs @ 40.50 across seven years is not a small sample size by any stretch of the imagination. Yeah he's in a relative lean patch since the start of last year but nine Tests are a bit of a nothing sample.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Selecting Franklin would fulfill neither role very well.

 

[BeeGee]

Me too usually but the thing is - Brownlie may bat at six but he's the seventh batsmen. Vettori throws off the typical balance arguments by being one of the best six batsmen and one of the best four bowlers available.

The argument isn't really about "6th batsmen v 5th bowler"; it's "7th batsman v 5th bowler" - a much together question. I would've just picked Franklin; if the last spot is going to go to the 7th batsmen or the 5th bowler, you might as well pick someone who can fill both roles. It may sound strange given the (lack of) strength in this New Zealand side but it's basically a surplus position.

Some may argue that Franklin would fill neither role.

It's a coin flip for me. I can see advantages and disadvantages in either "7th batsman v 5th bowler" scenario.
It'll be interesting to see how Boult goes in the warm up game, but I suspect he's not yet quite developed to Test standard. So I suspect Taylor and Wright will go with 4 bowlers + Brownlie.

Bowling roles:
Vettori - keep it tight at one end, chip in with the odd wicket.
Martin - keep it tight at one end, chip in with the odd wicket.
Southee - swing the ball, aggressive wicket taker.
Bracewell - swing the ball, aggressive wicket taker.
Guptill/Williamson - partnership breaker, "WTF is this ****" shock value.

 

[Woodster]

He's averaging over 40 since November 2004, though.

2835 runs @ 40.50 across seven years is not a small sample size by any stretch of the imagination. Yeah he's in a relative lean patch since the start of last year but nine Tests are a bit of a nothing sample.

Well if you're doing it over a length of time, you go back to the start of his career,that's a better sample size and he's averaging 30. Not bad for a number seven you'd say, but wouldn't necessarily be happy if that was my Test number six.

Going back further than 2010 though does not represent any indications of how he may play in the upcoming tour, in terms of form and confidence. Going back to November 2004 is just to include a purple patch he may have gone through.

 

[outbreak]

So Australia potentially have Johnson, watsona, harris and marsh all out injured for the first test. Should see some young players getting a go here!

 

[Prince EWS]

Well if you're doing it over a length of time, you go back to the start of his career

Why though? He's obviously vastly improved as a batsman since then, and if he couldn't bowl he wouldn't have been playing then anyway. Judging him on the early part of his career when he averaged about 15 achieves nothing as it in no way reflects his abilities as a batsman today.

Unless you believe the last nine Tests have shown a decline and not just a form dip, which is highly tenuous and actually not what you've said at all, then you have nothing to stand on with that post. Lots of people judge Vettori's batting by his usual batting position, his career average or their idea that he's a bowler, all of which are grossly unfair to his current ability with the blade and don't do him justice.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

If Bracewell can be test standard at the stage he's at, then Boult definitely can too.

 

[Days of Grace]

Bowling roles:
Vettori - keep it tight at one end, chip in with the odd wicket.
Martin - keep it tight at one end, chip in with the odd wicket.
Southee - swing the ball, aggressive wicket taker.
Bracewell - swing the ball, aggressive wicket taker.
Guptill/Williamson - partnership breaker, "WTF is this ****" shock value.

So, if we had a 90-over day (not that we will need 90 overs), then how many overs would you like each bowler to bowl?

Vettori 30
Martin 20
Southee 20
Bracewell 17
Guptill/Williamson - 3 overs top

 

[Woodster]

Why though? He's obviously vastly improved as a batsman since then, and if he couldn't bowl he wouldn't have been playing then anyway. Judging him on the early part of his career when he averaged about 15 achieves nothing as it in no way reflects his abilities as a batsman today.

Unless you believe the last nine Tests have shown a decline and not just a form dip, which is highly tenuous and actually not what you've said at all, then you have nothing to stand on with that post. Lots of people judge Vettori's batting by his usual batting position, his career average or their idea that he's a bowler, all of which are grossly unfair to his current ability with the blade and don't do him justice.

I think he peaked in 2009, and has now come back down to the kind of record I thought he may do, because I personally don't really rate him as a batsman. I think he's a very useful number eight in a decent side, and can at a push do a job at number seven for a lesser team. I don't agree with hand picking stats from a stage of a person's career to strengthen a particular argument. I went back to the start of 2010 because that is fairly recent form but enough to give us an indication of how he's performing (results-wise).

The last nine Tests have obviously shown a decline in his performance from 2009, but I thought during that time he was over-performing for a man with his ability with the bat. I judge Vettori's batting on how he does when he bats, and that's how I've formed my opinion.

His bowling, tbh, I was never really a fan of, but I have gradually warmed to his style of bowling, but that's another issue.

 

[Howsie]

I've come to the conclusion that John Wright decided months ago that he wanted to play five bowlers in Australia and thus explaining why Doug Bracewell jumped ahead of Boult in the pecking order, only thing that makes sense to me. Give him some experience, see how he does and if he does well enough roll with your master plan. No way will New Zealand go into a test match against Australia with four bowlers when one of them is someone like Bracewell, it isn't going to happen. You'd have to be an idiot. Bracewell's upside is massive but he's still an incredibly green bowler at this stage of his career.

I think his batting ability is a little underrated around here though, granted he isn't near Vettori's level with the bat but the guy can play. He's a lot better than that first class average suggests.

 

[SteveNZ]

Some may argue that Franklin would fill neither role.

I wouldn't argue neither, but I'd definitely argue nothing with the ball and based on recent Test performances, inconsistent with the bat. I wouldn't pick him, but I would've had him in had they taken 14 over the Tasman.

 

[Scaly piscine]

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.

The funny thing is, given the extra batsman NZ will play is likely to be quite weak, that if you just basically dropped that extra batsman *and* Martin for two seam bowlers who aren't totally useless with the bat then the net effect on the batting line-up would be pretty minimal (the extra batting at 8 has less chance to build partnerships and so on). However I think there would be a big benefit to the bowling because:

So, if we had a 90-over day (not that we will need 90 overs), then how many overs would you like each bowler to bowl?

Vettori 30
Martin 20
Southee 20
Bracewell 17
Guptill/Williamson - 3 overs top

Sticking yourself in a situation like this is a big problem. Vettori will HAVE to bowl a big chunk of the overs. If it is a seamer's day you're going to give away another 100+ runs in an innings, easily. In Australia it's nearly always easier for a seamer to take a wicket than a spinner. That choice is a significant advantage even if you've got a class spinner, NZ have Vettori, who's average. At stages the Aussies will be looking to dominate a bowler, Martin or Bracewell are likely targets. Southee will just naturally have good days and bad days. The extra variety and choice will be a big help. NZ were vulnerable against Zimbabwe when they picked Patel and he bowled turd, Vettori's lack of penetration was shown up and they were in big trouble. In Australia the game will run away faster.

I haven't even gone into the benefit of smaller bowling workloads meaning fresher bowlers. Or the possibility of an injury to a bowler. NZ don't really have high class wicket-takers so chances are they'll be in the field for long periods. The slightly perverse thing is of course the more bowlers you have the less time you spend in the field, so you end up needing the extra bowler less. There are also bowler v batsman match-ups to consider, you can match bowlers up more against particular batsmen if you've more freedom with when they bowl due to a bigger bowling attack.

50 runs is a small price to pay for an extra bowler given the attack you're looking at and the conditions they will face. If you've got a really top notch bowling attack with no weak links then you can play 4 bowlers and it won't hurt you a great deal, but very few teams can put out an attack with that depth.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Again, agree with Scaly.

The benefits of the extra bowler outweigh that of the extra batsman. If you are relying on runs from a 7th batsman then you are in trouble. I'd rather have the extra bowler and hope that the top 6 do their jobs. It's not like that 8 and 9 will be absolute bunnies either.

 

[TumTum]

Kiwi left handers, like left handers from any team I would have said would have the most success against us. But hopefully with Cummins we have fixed that weakness. I don't see how Williamson could have much success at #3, especially when NZ are likely to be 1 down early. He likes to build his innings around spin so I would like to see him moved down to #4 and Taylor to #3. Taylor and McCullum are really the only batsman that could do damage against us. Guptill will get a few 30s, Vettori and Franklin might hang around. Ryder's flaws in his game will be exposed big time. So yeah I can't see how NZ will ever make it past 300 tbh.

For out batting, it really depends on the day. If the pitch has life in it, won't be surprised if we get out for 200-300. This is what will keep NZ in the game. Chris Martin though will be punished, again. NZ need to find another one of those consistent fast-medium bowlers that hits good areas, like Southee and Arnel, they are the ones to watch out for.

 

[Prince EWS]

Kiwi left handers, like left handers from any team I would have said would have the most success against us. But hopefully with Cummins we have fixed that weakness. I don't see how Williamson could have much success at #3, especially when NZ are likely to be 1 down early. He likes to build his innings around spin so I would like to see him moved down to #4 and Taylor to #3. Taylor and McCullum are really the only batsman that could do damage against us. Guptill will get a few 30s, Vettori and Franklin might hang around. Ryder's flaws in his game will be exposed big time. So yeah I can't see how NZ will ever make it past 300 tbh.

For out batting, it really depends on the day. If the pitch has life in it, won't be surprised if we get out for 200-300. This is what will keep NZ in the game. Chris Martin though will be punished, again. NZ need to find another one of those consistent fast-medium bowlers that hits good areas, like Southee and Arnel, they are the ones to watch out for.

Franklin's not playing.

EDIT: And neither is Arnel.