***Official*** New Zealand in England series 2013

[James]

Have to go Wagner IMO on the back of the England series in NZ. He's earnt his spot and shouldn't make way I don't think anyway.

Derbyshire falling apart.....

 

[Bahnz]

While I agree that Wagner did well enough against England at home, I just don't think he gives our bowling attack the right balance. He's not really suited to being in the first change role, and leaves the attack with a very one dimensional feel. He's effectively a lesser version of Boult: shorter, slower and less accurate. In an ideal world, I'd rather have a fully firing Gillespie, or maybe even someone like Butler. As it is though, I agree he should probably keep his place ahead of Bracewell for now.

 

[GGG]

Bracewell for me simple because he is a Kiwi.

 

[BeeGee]

So our openers and Guptill have failed. Unfortunately, rather predictable.

Nice to see Williamson, Brownlie and Watling getting some time in the middle.

Good stuff from Wagner, Bracewell and Martin, also. Loving the contest for that third seamer position. It's great to have genuine competition for bowling spots.

 

[RxGM]

While I agree that Wagner did well enough against England at home, I just don't think he gives our bowling attack the right balance. He's not really suited to being in the first change role, and leaves the attack with a very one dimensional feel. QUOTE]

I would like to extrapolate on that, in a post match rage after I got home from our failure to bowl England out in Auckland I went to statsguru to back up the claims I had been making at the ground all day, that our bowling attack could not take second innings wickets.

These are stats of the last 5 years summarised from the start of the England tour of NZ 08
1st INN 2nd INN
Vettori 87@30 35@48
C.Martin 70@36 38@34
Southee 52@31 19@53
Obrien 42@27 19@42
Boult 32@26 9@47
Patel 28@48 21@51
Bracewell 23@44 23@20
Wagner 11@43 6@46
B.Martin 8@28 1@164


There are two players that have decent second innings figure Bracewell and C Martin, they are the two "into the wicket"/seam bowlers, compared with Southee/Boult/Wagner who are mainly swing bowlers.

I think it is tough on Wagner but he is competing with Boult for a place not Bracewell.

 

[James]

I would like to extrapolate on that, in a post match rage after I got home from our failure to bowl England out in Auckland I went to statsguru to back up the claims I had been making at the ground all day, that our bowling attack could not take second innings wickets.

These are stats of the last 5 years summarised from the start of the England tour of NZ 08
1st INN 2nd INN
Vettori 87@30 35@48
C.Martin 70@36 38@34
Southee 52@31 19@53
Obrien 42@27 19@42
Boult 32@26 9@47
Patel 28@48 21@51
Bracewell 23@44 23@20
Wagner 11@43 6@46
B.Martin 8@28 1@164


There are two players that have decent second innings figure Bracewell and C Martin, they are the two "into the wicket"/seam bowlers, compared with Southee/Boult/Wagner who are mainly swing bowlers.

I think it is tough on Wagner but he is competing with Boult for a place not Bracewell.

England's conditions are typically swing friendly though aren't they rather than hard pacey wickets that suit the likes of an into the pitch type bowler like Bracewell.

This is where a 2 Test series is very annoying and frustrating as if it was 3 Tests, you'd be able to give Wagner a good shot at the first 2 and if he doesn't fire, give Bracewell the last one. A 2 Test series takes that away really.

I'm just of the opinion that after our performance in the 3 Tests against England in NZ, it would be pretty harsh to split up the bowling attack and that they deserve time to really gel together.

 

[Bahnz]

I'd have quite liked to have seen the selectors go in the Lions match with 4 seamers - that would've given Bracewell a second opportunity to prove his worth, as well as testing out the validity of the strategy in English conditions. Bartin grabbing 3/13 yesterday has probably ended any chance of that happening though.

 

[hendrix]

Chris Martin is a swing bowler, not an "into-the-wicket" type seamer.

I agree though that ideally we do want one of the into-the-wicket guys as 3rd quick. It would be very harsh to drop Wagner though, even though most of his wickets were gifted to him by poor England batting rather than good bowling on his part. Gotta have some consistency based on the fact that he did take wickets.

While I agree that Wagner did well enough against England at home, I just don't think he gives our bowling attack the right balance. He's not really suited to being in the first change role, and leaves the attack with a very one dimensional feel. He's effectively a lesser version of Boult: shorter, slower and less accurate. In an ideal world, I'd rather have a fully firing Gillespie, or maybe even someone like Butler. As it is though, I agree he should probably keep his place ahead of Bracewell for now.

+1. Just purely for consistency's sake, Wagner deserves to keep is spot. Would much prefer Bracewell in the long run though, and a fully firing Gillespie would be perfect.

 

[hendrix]

I'd have quite liked to have seen the selectors go in the Lions match with 4 seamers - that would've given Bracewell a second opportunity to prove his worth, as well as testing out the validity of the strategy in English conditions. Bartin grabbing 3/13 yesterday has probably ended any chance of that happening though.

Bartin should definitely play against England, but there'd be no harm in him sitting the Lions game out so that the selectors can give Wagner/Bracewell the full examination.

 

[Flem274*]

Chris Martin is a swing bowler, not an "into-the-wicket" type seamer.

As is Bracewell.

Gillespie is probably our most into the wicket bowler in the squad.

 

[Flem274*]

While I agree that Wagner did well enough against England at home, I just don't think he gives our bowling attack the right balance. He's not really suited to being in the first change role, and leaves the attack with a very one dimensional feel. QUOTE]

I would like to extrapolate on that, in a post match rage after I got home from our failure to bowl England out in Auckland I went to statsguru to back up the claims I had been making at the ground all day, that our bowling attack could not take second innings wickets.

These are stats of the last 5 years summarised from the start of the England tour of NZ 08
1st INN 2nd INN
Vettori 87@30 35@48
C.Martin 70@36 38@34
Southee 52@31 19@53
Obrien 42@27 19@42
Boult 32@26 9@47
Patel 28@48 21@51
Bracewell 23@44 23@20
Wagner 11@43 6@46
B.Martin 8@28 1@164


There are two players that have decent second innings figure Bracewell and C Martin, they are the two "into the wicket"/seam bowlers, compared with Southee/Boult/Wagner who are mainly swing bowlers.

I think it is tough on Wagner but he is competing with Boult for a place not Bracewell.

The long term issue has been Vettori sucks, Martin sucked for a long while and O'Brien was good but not amazing. Southee also used to suck.

England defying us from a winning position for NZ is actually an anomaly. On the rare occassion we've gotten ourselves into good positions with Southee/Boult/Bracewell or Wagner, we've generally got the job done.

The main issue has been getting the runs for the bowlers to play with. 49 all out doesn't really help.

 

[Bahnz]

It's also worth remembering that Bracewell has looked at his most threatening when he is swinging the ball around corners (like he did in the 2nd innings at Hobart).

 

[the big bambino]

Martin a swing bowler? Whenever I've seen him in Oz he's pretty much banged it in.

 

[Bahnz]

Chris Martin - Reducing India to 5-15 and taking 5-63 - YouTube

 

[hendrix]

As is Bracewell.

Gillespie is probably our most into the wicket bowler in the squad.

It's also worth remembering that Bracewell has looked at his most threatening when he is swinging the ball around corners (like he did in the 2nd innings at Hobart).

Really? I don't remember it that way but I suppose it is a couple of years ago. time to check out the vids I guess

 

[hendrix]

Just checked the vids. yeah he did used to swing it a fair bit. Interesting.

I wonder what happened to that.

I still wouldn't call him an out-and-out swing bowler like Anderson/Southee.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's one of the biggest myths in New Zealand that Bracewell is a back of a length seam bowler. He's been used in that role a bit because of the balance of the rest of attack but this has coincidentally (or not) overlapped with the times he's been ineffective and gone for plenty. Bracewell, like Southee, is predominantly a right arm new ball outswing bowler; that's where he's most effective. He has a strong action, gets nicely side on and swings the ball away. I think he's been neutralised to some extent by having to be the first change or old ball bowler for New Zealand, however he's not as good with the new ball as Southee or Boult so it was somewhat unavoidable.

It's why I disagree with this post:

While I agree that Wagner did well enough against England at home, I just don't think he gives our bowling attack the right balance. He's not really suited to being in the first change role, and leaves the attack with a very one dimensional feel. He's effectively a lesser version of Boult: shorter, slower and less accurate. In an ideal world, I'd rather have a fully firing Gillespie, or maybe even someone like Butler. As it is though, I agree he should probably keep his place ahead of Bracewell for now.

I think Bracewell is a better bowler than Wagner overall, but I disagree that he's more suited to the first change role. Bracewell is more suited to bowling with the new ball, as above. The Duke ball and the general overhead conditions make the ball swing for longer in England so having such a bowler bowl first change isn't as debilitating as it is in other countries, but generally I think he's unsuited to coming on first change.

Wagner on the other hand, ignoring the fact that he's IMO not really a Test class bowler, is quite suited to the role. He's adept at getting reverse swing which makes him as good with the old ball as the new, and his MO as a bit of a wild, aggressive partnership breaker rather than a pressure-builder makes him better suited to the role as well. He bowls different lengths (probably not always on purpose, but still), has a change up in pace delivery and is always at the batsman, which makes him a good option to introduce at a lull when the ball has lost its original shine. I think his best utility would probably actually be as the fourth quick in a five man attack, giving the captain the luxury of bowling him in short spells to try and break through, and whip him off quickly if he was getting pounded - much like the use of Gillespie when he played in a five man attack against South Africa at home.

There's a quality difference between the two bowlers that comes into it, but I think Wagner is less like Boult than Bracewell is like Southee if you're talking about the balance of the attack, and Wagner's more of a change bowler than Bracewell.

I actually think the bowler most suited to bowling first change in the country would be Butler. He's become a real back of a length accurate seamer, getting in close to the stumps and looking to hit the splice of the bat on off stump. In the Stuart Clark mould if you like. Question marks over his fitness and ability to keep his pace up for five days remain, and this sort of bowler is less of a factor in English conditions, but I still think it was a mistake to leave him out of the squad.

 

[hendrix]

I actually think the bowler most suited to bowling first change in the country would be Butler. He's become a real back of a length accurate seamer, getting in close to the stumps and looking to hit the splice of the bat on off stump. In the Stuart Clark mould if you like. Question marks over his fitness and ability to keep his pace up for five days remain, and this sort of bowler is less of a factor in English conditions, but I still think it was a mistake to leave him out of the squad.

I kinda agree with this.

He can't have been far away from being picked since he was named in the squad when England toured.

Other candidates would be Hamish Bennett or Adam Milne.

 

[BackFootPunch]

With regard to Butler, he's probably not going to get a crack because his period of form in this most recent season largely coincided with Wagner being away. Meaning Butler was the spearhead and got to run in and attack and look for wickets etc. He said during the season that the reason for his improved results was because he no longer had to play that containing role. I seem to remember him going for runs but getting plenty of wickets a lot of the time.

So, unless we want to use him as an opening bowler, I don't see him being suited to the role Wagner and Bracewell are currently competing for. In fairness, he'd probably do just as good a job as either of those two but I doubt he'd replicate the form he showed last season.

 

[hendrix]

actually, McCleneghan wouldn't be a bad shout either