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

[adub]

I don't agree he'd only make our top 6 because of our depth issues atm, but in any case isn't that just all the more reason why we should be allowing him to focus on his batting? The bottom line is, while our bowling still needs a fair bit of time to be 'road tested' and trialled, it is looking a fair bit more promising and solid than our batting atm. Surely, then, we should be trying to get the most out of Watson as a batsmen, because frankly there aren't that many more pure batsmen who can replace him at this stage.

Yes the bowling is looking on the up, but it's up from dire lows. I'd hate to see Cummins and Pattinson sacrificed on an Adelaide road because we only have a 4 man attack. In three or four years time, sure we might be strong enough to run a 4 man attack in good batting conditions, but not now. That to me makes Watson's bowling vital. (added to the fact it's just been so good).

Take his very good bowling of late out of the equation and Watson becomes much less of test match player. I just really don't see him as a long term 40+ average top order batsman. As has been noted by others his play against good spin can be comical, his overcommitment on the front foot leaves him open to lb's and he has a dire conversion rate. The fact he went through a golden patch and scored plenty of 50s has given him a rep he probably doesn't deserve. We'll find out if his current run is just a very lean patch. Personally I think his run of 50s was about as good as it's going to get for him, and he'll revert to a mean of being a mid 30s batsman. That's fine if you're also bringing mid 20s bowling to the table, but on it's own it's not enough to keep you in a decent test team.

If it came down to just being selected purely as a batsman then I don't think he offers more than guys like Khawaja, Warner or Marsh. If Hughes can't learn to leave then he'll take his spot short term, but without his bowling he is a greatly diminished prospect.

 

[Flem274*]

Martin bowled well to the left handers.

To the right handers he was a mixed bag. Some of his deliveries to Ponting in particular were really good, but he also had a tendency to bowl too far outside off stump.

He bowled like Chris Martin usually does tbh, so I think people just don't see it as much of a talking point.

Against South Africa he will get a bit of press. He loves Smith.

 

[Spark]

Yes the bowling is looking on the up, but it's up from dire lows. I'd hate to see Cummins and Pattinson sacrificed on an Adelaide road because we only have a 4 man attack. In three or four years time, sure we might be strong enough to run a 4 man attack in good batting conditions, but not now. That to me makes Watson's bowling vital. (added to the fact it's just been so good).

Take his very good bowling of late out of the equation and Watson becomes much less of test match player. I just really don't see him as a long term 40+ average top order batsman. As has been noted by others his play against good spin can be comical, his overcommitment on the front foot leaves him open to lb's and he has a dire conversion rate. The fact he went through a golden patch and scored plenty of 50s has given him a rep he probably doesn't deserve. We'll find out if his current run is just a very lean patch. Personally I think his run of 50s was about as good as it's going to get for him, and he'll revert to a mean of being a mid 30s batsman. That's fine if you're also bringing mid 20s bowling to the table, but on it's own it's not enough to keep you in a decent test team.

If it came down to just being selected purely as a batsman then I don't think he offers more than guys like Khawaja, Warner or Marsh. If Hughes can't learn to leave then he'll take his spot short term, but without his bowling he is a greatly diminished prospect.

There's the problem.

A "golden patch" for a top order batsmen should be Ponting 05-6, or what Clarke seems to be entering now where on a given day you're as likely to score a hundred as not.

"Lots of 50s" is just good form.

I personally think he's good enough to average low 40s minimum... but that would require a marked improvement on where he is right now.

 

[Flem274*]

It's funny that whilst most people in life obtain pleasure through, love, companionship, helping others etc, there are some sad, lonely, pathetic, cynical & remarkably ugly nerds out there who gain pleasure in other ways...that's life I suppose

Awww don't put yourself down, I'm sure you have your good points.

Chill out guys. The thread doesn't need to go down this route.

Scaly, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were baiting, but try and refrain from being an unpleasant poster thanks. It only makes you look bad. Zinzan, I'm disappointed you reacted, as a long time NZ fan you know the ways of certain posters.

 

[Riggins]

What are the solutions - none that I can see. Is Brownlie better off at 3 and Kane at 6? Should McCullum take the gloves back and risk ending his career early. Bring Timmy Mac back into the team. He did score 80 against Aussie at the basin reserve and I am not sure that Guptil is any better than him.

YES!! Bring in TMAC!!!

Also agree/reckon McCullum should be keeping.

 

[Midwinter]

The problem was not that the selectors dropped Hughes per se. It's that they dropped him after two poor tests (three innings really) and publicly criticised his technique and told him he wouldn't be picked until he reworked it. Now maybe that was the right thing to do long term for him, but it's hard to say. Unorthodox techniques can work in cricket.

Unorthodox techniques can work - make the runs and then we candiscuss how unorthodox it is.

He was dropped because he was out the same way three times in a row, and has been out the same way in nearly every innings since.

It's like Hilditch and his hook shot.

An opener averaging 19 in the first innings - how long do you want to persist with this ?

 

[Flem274*]

"We suck against pace and bounce -> bring in T Mac."

Um...

Also, he's not scoring any runs this season. Would be a poor pick.

 

[Ruckus]

Yes the bowling is looking on the up, but it's up from dire lows. I'd hate to see Cummins and Pattinson sacrificed on an Adelaide road because we only have a 4 man attack. In three or four years time, sure we might be strong enough to run a 4 man attack in good batting conditions, but not now. That to me makes Watson's bowling vital. (added to the fact it's just been so good).

Take his very good bowling of late out of the equation and Watson becomes much less of test match player. I just really don't see him as a long term 40+ average top order batsman. As has been noted by others his play against good spin can be comical, his overcommitment on the front foot leaves him open to lb's and he has a dire conversion rate. The fact he went through a golden patch and scored plenty of 50s has given him a rep he probably doesn't deserve. We'll find out if his current run is just a very lean patch. Personally I think his run of 50s was about as good as it's going to get for him, and he'll revert to a mean of being a mid 30s batsman. That's fine if you're also bringing mid 20s bowling to the table, but on it's own it's not enough to keep you in a decent test team.

If it came down to just being selected purely as a batsman then I don't think he offers more than guys like Khawaja, Warner or Marsh. If Hughes can't learn to leave then he'll take his spot short term, but without his bowling he is a greatly diminished prospect.

I think Watson's technical issues, which frankly are mainly centred around his abysmal approach to playing spin, shouldn't be too much of a issue if he stays as opener. He does rely too much on front foot play, but honestly you can pick apart technical issues with every single player, no matter how good they are. I really don't think his foundations are bad enough to prevent him from being very successful, it's more to do with his conversion rate/mental issues. Fair enough if you think his run of 50's is all we'll get from him but I don't think so...I reckon if he can focus all his energy on his batting, he should produce the goods sometime soon. If you look back at the 'get into the 90's jinx' period with him and Katich, there were about 4 scores in the 90's there he really should have converted. If he did that, his conversion rate actually wouldn't be half bad, and his average would probably be a good deal higher. I think if he can produce a few big centuries in close succession, we'll see him gain a lot of confidence. His conversion rate was never a problem in FC cricket, and whilst test cricket is a different ball game, he is also a much better batsmen now than he was back in the day.

But just a question from your post, if you think he isn't good enough as a pure bat, what do you think should be done with him, specifically (i.e. where should he bat, should he be dropped for someone else etc.)?

 

[Athlai]

Bringing back TMac is so crazy it just might work.

 

[Hurricane]

I suspect that Arnel is there as a possible 3rd seamer. Listening to radio commentary, sounded like Bracewell created chances and asked some questions of batsmen on day 3 when bowling a fuller length. So mark him in for the new ball in Hobart. But Southee couldn't build any pressure, comments were that he was bowling "along the pitch". Perhaps he was brought back from injury a month too soon?

Without a strong 5th bowler option, there is an argument that for balance the team needs a 3rd seamer who can bowl up to 25 overs a day at around 2.5 rpo, and chip in with the odd wicket. Allows Martin and Braces bowl shorter spells. Boult does not fit, at this stage in his career he seems like an opening bowler. Aldridge, Mills and Arnel match the 3rd seamer profile, and of these Arnel is fit, in form, and has some (limited) test experience.

If Arnel plays I may switch Allegiances to cheering for bangers until we get a new selection panel. Arnel is not going to chip in with the odd wicket unless someone doesn't respect him and just starts slogging him. He is awful to watch bowl - a crap batsman - who I think averages like 5 in FC cricket and we already have one crap batsman in the team. There is absolutely no logic in flying him over there that I can see. Other than giving me a headache. Why not fly over KNB and be done with it.

 

[Athlai]

If Arnel plays I may switch Allegiances to cheering for bangers until we get a new selection panel. Arnel is not going to chip in with the odd wicket unless someone doesn't respect him and just starts slogging him. He is awful to watch bowl - a crap batsman - who I think averages like 5 in FC cricket and we already have one crap batsman in the team. There is absolutely no logic in flying him over there that I can see. Other than giving me a headache. Why not fly over KNB and be done with it.

Arnel is probably the next best bowler in the country. I don't know why you'd bother with Boult already over there though. Yet hardly the end of days for NZ cricket as you're making it out to be.

 

[straw man]

yeah changes to persArnel are not going to fix our problems

 

[Hurricane]

What is the point of him playing Athlai? Just so that we can slow the scoring rate of the Aussie batsman from 3.5 to 3.3 they will still make 450 odd runs and will possibly get 500 because he is not a wicket taker.

If they are flying him over they must want to play him ahead of somebody. And what was the point of taking Boult at all.

With regards to Southee. I only saw him on the first day of the Australian innings. From what I saw he bowled fine. For reasons only he knows he did not use his off cutter very much. He and Martin were both a handful with their movement. I think it will be a travesty if Bracewell is preferred over him in the pecking order. We need to show faith in Tim. He needs to be invested in over time and he will repay us.
He just finished taking a 7 wicket bag in FC cricket (as you well know).

 

[Jono]

If Arnel plays I may switch Allegiances to cheering for bangers until we get a new selection panel. Arnel is not going to chip in with the odd wicket unless someone doesn't respect him and just starts slogging him. He is awful to watch bowl - a crap batsman - who I think averages like 5 in FC cricket and we already have one crap batsman in the team. There is absolutely no logic in flying him over there that I can see. Other than giving me a headache. Why not fly over KNB and be done with it.

Only one?

 

[adub]

I think Watson's technical issues, which frankly are mainly centred around his abysmal approach to playing spin, shouldn't be too much of a issue if he stays as opener. He does rely too much on front foot play, but honestly you can pick apart technical issues with every single player, no matter how good they are. I really don't think his foundations are bad enough to prevent him from being very successful, it's more to do with his conversion rate/mental issues. Fair enough if you think his run of 50's is all we'll get from him but I don't think so...I reckon if he can focus all his energy on his batting, he should produce the goods sometime soon. If you look back at the 'get into the 90's jinx' period with him and Katich, there were about 4 scores in the 90's there he really should have converted. If he did that, his conversion rate actually wouldn't be half bad, and his average would probably be a good deal higher. I think if he can produce a few big centuries in close succession, we'll see him gain a lot of confidence. His conversion rate was never a problem in FC cricket, and whilst test cricket is a different ball game, he is also a much better batsmen now than he was back in the day.

But just a question from your post, if you think he isn't good enough as a pure bat, what do you think should be done with him, specifically (i.e. where should he bat, should he be dropped for someone else etc.)?

We'll see.

What I think should be done with him is bat him at 4 and bowl him as much as the team needs. Without the bowling he's done enough to hold his place in the short term, but how long that is so will depend entirely on how many runs he makes compared to the alternatives. As Spark said, it would need to be a lot more than he has this year.

 

[Athlai]

What is the point of him playing Athlai? Just so that we can slow the scoring rate of the Aussie batsman from 3.5 to 3.3 they will still make 450 odd runs and will possibly get 500 because he is not a wicket taker.

If they are flying him over they must want to play him ahead of somebody. And what was the point of taking Boult at all.

With regards to Southee. I only saw him on the first day of the Australian innings. From what I saw he bowled fine. For reasons only he knows he did not use his off cutter very much. He and Martin were both a handful with their movement. I think it will be a travesty if Bracewell is preferred over him in the pecking order. We need to show faith in Tim. He needs to be invested in over time and he will repay us.
He just finished taking a 7 wicket bag in FC cricket (as you well know).

He is a wicket taker. He has taken wickets.

That said he won't play.

 

[Nate]

Scaly +1!

Surprised Mitch Marsh didn't get the call tbh. He is a genuine match winner.

 

[straw man]

No I don't believe Southee's in danger either. I could only listen on the radio when he was bowling early in the first innings but the commentators were saying he bowled fairly well. Bowled decently on the third morning and then dished up a bit of rubbish later in the day.

 

[Prince EWS]

Surprised Mitch Marsh didn't get the call tbh. He is a genuine match winner.

I'm surprised he didn't get the call too, but for different reasons. He's a young player with some obvious potential and heaps of wraps on him without really having done much yet ie. exactly the sort of player the selectors seem to be falling in love with at the moment. Christian certainly deserves it more, although I'd be personally pretty surprised if Marsh didn't end up better at both batting and bowling than him.

 

[Nate]

I was trolling. But carry on.