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

[Top_Cat]

The only argument I can see against sticking Harris in whenever he's available (and it's not a bad argument at all, mind) is that his fitness concerns may see start a match but not finish it. That would be disastrous and perhaps outweigh the difference in bowling ability between someone like Pattinson and himself.

Perhaps? Think there's absolutely no doubt.

 

[Hurricane]

Bah - if we can't score against Pattinson/Starc/Siddle then I don't fance our chances against SA. However it will be at home at least. I wonder if the basin is getting a game?

 

[Prince EWS]

Bah - if we can't score against Pattinson/Starc/Siddle then I don't fance our chances against SA. However it will be at home at least. I wonder if the basin is getting a game?

If there's a game at the Basin, Martin will take 10fa.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah was just about to say NZ's bowling should be in with a chance of disturbing the Saffers. Weren't that bad at The 'Gabba and with 400+ on the board, would have been in the driver's seat.

 

[Julian87]

I don't think it does the team any favours at all if one of Siddle, Pattinson or Cummins is constantly shifted in or out of the side depending on Harris' fitness. And it's not like Harris has just been unlucky with one injury; his knee is, to use the technical medical term, completely ****ed, and he constantly breaks down with niggling injuries which means that he has failed to complete 3 games in a row for Australia and has missed 8 of the 16 Tests Australia have played since his debut with some sort of injury or fitness problem.

It's a shame for him, because I'd definitely have him as the first bowler down on the teamsheet otherwise.

I really don't agree. As long as the attack isn't too reliant on Harris being there to function then I don't think someone who isn't one of the best three quicks in the country should be repeatedly selected merely for continuity reasons. I don't think continuity is that important as long as you can keep the roles within the attack reasonably consistent.

The only argument I can see against sticking Harris in whenever he's available (and it's not a bad argument at all, mind) is that his fitness concerns may see start a match but not finish it. That would be disastrous and perhaps outweigh the difference in bowling ability between someone like Pattinson and himself.

I know I've jumped in at the back end of a discussion but Harris needs to come in when fit if not just for someone who is good enough to bat number 8. With Siddle, Cummins, Pattinson and Lyon we've got 4 tailenders. Yes you should be picked on bowling first but that alone will lose us some close test matches.

 

[Hurricane]

If there's a game at the Basin, Martin will take 10fa.

Fri Mar 23 - Tue Mar 27
10:30 local | 21:30 GMT 3rd Test - New Zealand vs South Africa
Basin Reserve, Wellington

Will try to go to as many days of it as possible.

BTW saw Martin bowling at the basin and he looks Quick and bowls some good nuts. Not Shaun Tait quick as I saw at Westpac stadium. But decent. Tuffey was in the same test and I felt like having a bat myself against Darryl.

 

[Prince EWS]

I know I've jumped in at the back end of a discussion but Harris needs to come in when fit if not just for someone who is good enough to bat number 8. With Siddle, Cummins, Pattinson and Lyon we've got 4 tailenders. Yes you should be picked on bowling first but that alone will lose us some close test matches.

Harris's batting seems particularly crap these days though; I don't really think he's good enough to bat eight either. In fact I think I'd bat Siddle ahead of him at this point.

Cummins and Pattinson definitely have a little bit of batting potential too; Pattinson has a grade ton in the middle order I believe, and Cummins was originally picked in the Green Shield as a batting allrounder, smashing a huge ton at #5 in one of the matches. And yes I know it does seem funny to be picking the Test team based on Green ****ing Shield results but he hasn't really performed particularly well with the ball at any level between that and Test cricket either.

 

[Prince EWS]

Fri Mar 23 - Tue Mar 27
10:30 local | 21:30 GMT 3rd Test - New Zealand vs South Africa
Basin Reserve, Wellington

Will try to go to as many days of it as possible.

BTW saw Martin bowling at the basin and he looks Quick and bowls some good nuts. Not Shaun Tait quick as I saw at Westpac stadium. But decent. Tuffey was in the same test and I felt like having a bat myself against Darryl.

Yeah, Martin loves the Basin. Loves it.

He loves the Saffas too; all the stars are aligning for Tom to get MOTM in that game.

 

[Furball]

I really don't agree. As long as the attack isn't too reliant on Harris being there to function then I don't think someone who isn't one of the best three quicks in the country should be repeatedly selected merely for continuity reasons. I don't think continuity is that important as long as you can keep the roles within the attack reasonably consistent.

The only argument I can see against sticking Harris in whenever he's available (and it's not a bad argument at all, mind) is that his fitness concerns may see start a match but not finish it. That would be disastrous and perhaps outweigh the difference in bowling ability between someone like Pattinson and himself.

I'm not so sure I agree. I don't think having someone like Harris constantly in and out of the side does the team any favours as far as planning goes, both in the long term (which I know you don't agree with, and I certainly wouldn't be convinced by an argument to leave Harris out because you're potentially damaging the prospects of a Pattinson or a Cummins, but the point still stands), but also in the short term as well. For a 4-match series like the India one, if I was a selector/coach I'd want as clear an idea as possible of who my first XI is for the series, and the pecking order of reserves should a player be out of form. Harris doesn't fit into that; his Test career so far suggests that if he's fit for Boxing Day, by the time Adelaide or Perth come round he'll be on the sidelines nursing an injury, and I think a player with his fitness problems is far too great a risk of breaking down during a game, which obviously hampers the team's chances. Now obviously an injury could happen at any time which hinders a team's planning, but you can negate that to a degree by picking players who don't have a record of constantly getting injured. And with Cricket Australia's ******** scheduling this summer, which means the Big Bash will be played alongside the Border-Gavaskar series, you can't turn to Pattinson and say "we've gone with Rhino for this series, but go back to Victoria and keep yourself in contention by taking wickets and keep yourself match fit in case we need you later in the series."

 

[Furball]

I know I've jumped in at the back end of a discussion but Harris needs to come in when fit if not just for someone who is good enough to bat number 8. With Siddle, Cummins, Pattinson and Lyon we've got 4 tailenders. Yes you should be picked on bowling first but that alone will lose us some close test matches.

Siddle's a better bat than just a tail ender. Seems to have a decent enough defence and can play a few shots; IMO he's not that far off the required standard for a number 8.

 

[howardj]

With Cummins and Pattinson so raw (yet exciting) and the selectors seemingly looking at the third paceman as someone who has experience and is a steady hand on the tiller, the contenders for this spot I reckon are some of the 'older guys' such as:

- Siddle (huge opportunity in Hobart to nail down this spot for the Summer)

- Hilfenhaus (now that he won't be bowling in the same attack as Siddle, he comes back into contention I reckon, as a steady bowler who can churn out the overs into the wind)

- Harris (first picked among this lot, but the selectors may turn away from having their cornerstone so injury prone)

- Bollinger (offers left arm variety, and but for his fitness has acquited himself well at Test level)

Forgot Copeland, who could also fill this role..

 

[Howe_zat]

I know I've jumped in at the back end of a discussion but Harris needs to come in when fit if not just for someone who is good enough to bat number 8. With Siddle, Cummins, Pattinson and Lyon we've got 4 tailenders. Yes you should be picked on bowling first but that alone will lose us some close test matches.

Siddle's fine at 9, even if he'd get nosebleeds at 8. Actually, I'm pretty sure Siddle been much better with the bat than Harris in Tests.

Also, I heard Lyon top scored in a Test innings recently.

 

[Athlai]

How come Australia has so many bowlers that can't bat? Seems like everywhere else in the world has a spinner that can bat. Is O'Keefe the only really likely lad?

Lyon has some potential with the willow I guess.

 

[Julian87]

Siddle's fine at 9, even if he'd get nosebleeds at 8. Actually, I'm pretty sure Siddle been much better with the bat than Harris in Tests.

Also, I heard Lyon top scored in a Test innings recently.

Harris has probably batted about 10 times. Siddle doesn't even have a first class fifty.

 

[howardj]

Don't get how you can dedicate your life to cricket, and not at least be of a # 9 standard with the bat.

 

[Julian87]

How come Australia has so many bowlers that can't bat? Seems like everywhere else in the world has a spinner that can bat. Is O'Keefe the only really likely lad?

Lyon has some potential with the willow I guess.

Well Johnson, Harris, Copeland, Butterworth and Bollinger can all bat. They're just not in contention at the moment for various reasons.

 

[Prince EWS]

How come Australia has so many bowlers that can't bat?

They don't really. It's just that the bowlers they're picking are really inexperienced and in a lot of cases haven't even done a lot with the ball in Shield cricket yet, let alone the bat. Cummins and Pattinson both have batting pedigree in junior and grade cricket.

Seems like everywhere else in the world has a spinner that can bat. Is O'Keefe the only really likely lad?

Australia are pretty lucky to find a spinner at all at the moment without worrying if he can bat or not. O'Keefe and Hauritz can both bat, Cullen Bailey can bat a bit but he can't bowl, O'Brien is a batsman who gets used as a spinner. There's North..

 

[Athlai]

Australia are pretty lucky to find a spinner at all at the moment without worrying if he can bat or not. O'Keefe and Hauritz can both bat, Cullen Bailey can bat a bit but he can't bowl, O'Brien is a batsman who gets used as a spinner. There's North..

North is a better bowler than some of your recent picks IMO.

 

[Prince EWS]

Don't get how you can dedicate your life to cricket, and not at least be of a # 9 standard with the bat.

This is a bit of a fallacy. If everyone did that, then the standard expected of a #9 would just rise, as would the standard expected of numbers 10 and 11..

Which suggests that pretty much everyone is already doing that and it's already happened. Except Chris Martin, obv.

 

[Julian87]

Australia are pretty lucky to find a spinner at all at the moment without worrying if he can bat or not. O'Keefe and Hauritz can both bat, Cullen Bailey can bat a bit but he can't bowl, O'Brien is a batsman who gets used as a spinner. There's North..

How dare you leave the best wrist spinner AND opening batsman in the country off that list.