New Zealand doom and gloom thread

[hendrix]

As I mentioned elsewhere, Vettori isn't fit for test cricket. If he was he'd have been selected in the squad.

True.

I will now put a knife in the hearts of any NZ supporters who still have that masochistic optimism by pressing the case for an Ian Butler or James Franklin. (if they were in the original squad, which they weren't so it's elementary)

Well, not much to press really apart from the fact that they can both bat better than any of the number 8s we've tried recently and they would probably fluke a wicket or two now and then.

 

[straw man]

Franklin's absence is only disappointing because he would make a perfect scapegoat for this debacle .

Bracewell may or may not bowl well but he's worth a shot - quotes I've seen from warmups included 'failed to generate much swing', 'overused the short ball', but also 'strong and bowled quickly', 'improved with more overs'. Unpredictable. However Headingley will probably be another low-scorer so it's hard to see us struggling for bowlers even if Bracewell or Wagner goes missing.

 

[hendrix]

However Headingley will probably be another low-scorer so it's hard to see us struggling for bowlers even if Bracewell or Wagner goes missing.

Yeah see that's what I mean when I ask "What will Bracewell add to the bowling attack" other than covering for Wagner if he reverts (and there's also the very high chance of Bracewell himself bowling pies).

A bowling allrounder like Franklin, Butler or Vettori should have been brought along.

I suppose that's a defensive tactic but I don't care.

 

[Bahnz]

I'm not sure how a bowling allrounder is necessarily going to help you if one of the regular seamers goes missing. Both Butler and Franklin are renowned for producing their fair share of contributions to the annual "world's juiciest pie" contest. Wouldn't you be better opting for a regular line and length merchant like Brent Arnel?

 

[straw man]

Yeah see that's what I mean when I ask "What will Bracewell add to the bowling attack" other than covering for Wagner if he reverts (and there's also the very high chance of Bracewell himself bowling pies).

Because part of Bracewell's unpredictability is that he has bowled very well at various times during his career. Picking him gives us an extra roll of the dice, if you like. Whereas Bartin, even if fit, was fortunate to take the wickets he did and was fortunate to keep the runs down in that first innings too.

A line-and-length allrounder like you and Bahnz mention, would be useful if he could bat 8, but we don't have one (pending Neesham of course ).

 

[hendrix]

Brent Arnel...I'm sorry I drew this thread so low with my mentioning of Butler and Franklin...but jesus.

Nah I think Butler is pretty decent line and length tbh.

Of course we could get some real bowlers like Henry, Wheeler, Milne etc but we don't really need the extra bowling and we do need the batting.

Just someone who could hang around or something. I dunno.

Corey Anderson?

That other allrounder who's name eludes me right now?

 

[Flem274*]

Bowling talent stocks is the best we've ever had.

The gap between our best batting talents in the team and those on the bench is one of the biggest we've ever had.

Look, as I've just said in the tour thread, England would have killed pretty much anybody with the way they bowled last night. We don't have anyone better than Taylor, KW, McCullum, Brownlie et al. In fact, they're probably some of the best set up batsmen to play test cricket we've produced.

The problem starts at the top with the openers. You cannot possibly expect to reach 200, let alone 400, every innings if you're two down for less than ten every innings.

And we have no truly test ready openers. Rutherford is in early, and he has ability, but he isn't going to 171 it every series. Fulton is limited.

Serious question:

What will Bracewell add to the attack?

Quality

 

[Bahnz]

Bowling talent stocks is the best we've ever had.
The gap between our best batting talents in the team and those on the bench is one of the biggest we've ever had.

Eh, not sure I agree with this. We had an excellent selection of quick bowlers in the 1990's. Cairns, Nash, Allott, Doull, O'Connor, Wilson (many thought he'd be the pick of the bunch until the lure of an All Black jersey proved too much). Sadly, only Cairns came close to fulfilling his potential...

[ Look, as I've just said in the tour thread, England would have killed pretty much anybody with the way they bowled last night. We don't have anyone better than Taylor, KW, McCullum, Brownlie et al. In fact, they're probably some of the best set up batsmen to play test cricket we've produced.

The problem starts at the top with the openers. You cannot possibly expect to reach 200, let alone 400, every innings if you're two down for less than ten every innings.

And we have no truly test ready openers. Rutherford is in early, and he has ability, but he isn't going to 171 it every series. Fulton is limited.

Quality.

I sort of agree with what you're saying. Broad and Anderson deserve all the praise being heaped upon them by the cricketing media. They were magnificent, allying pace to admirable control of seam and swing. Broad produced the kind of Ambrose-esque spell that demonstrates why England supporters have every right to be frustrated with his career average of 30. His delivery to Rutherford in particular was sensational.

But no test batting lineup worthy of the name should be reduced to 29/6, especially on a pitch that was offering only modest help to the bowlers. The fact that this is the third time this year that New Zealand has lost it's first 6 wickets for less than 40 runs aptly displays the gravity of the situation. I agree that there aren't really any plausible replacements for the current side, but that's not an encouraging thought.

 

[Mike5181]

Ryder's the only one I'd confidently say would improve this current line up. Who knows what the **** he's up to. Any chance and I'd have him on the tour to Bangladesh at the end of the year. This is pretty much our best team outside that. We desperately need the development of Sodhi to go swimmingly. Martin/Vettori/Williamson isn't going to cut it if we want to be a top team.

That being said, I rate our ODI squad for the Champions trophy. I really don't think we're far from some good results there.

 

[Flem274*]

Eh, not sure I agree with this. We had an excellent selection of quick bowlers in the 1990's. Cairns, Nash, Allott, Doull, O'Connor, Wilson (many thought he'd be the pick of the bunch until the lure of an All Black jersey proved too much). Sadly, only Cairns came close to fulfilling his potential...



I sort of agree with what you're saying. Broad and Anderson deserve all the praise being heaped upon them by the cricketing media. They were magnificent, allying pace to admirable control of seam and swing. Broad produced the kind of Ambrose-esque spell that demonstrates why England supporters have every right to be frustrated with his career average of 30. His delivery to Rutherford in particular was sensational.

But no test batting lineup worthy of the name should be reduced to 29/6, especially on a pitch that was offering only modest help to the bowlers. The fact that this is the third time this year that New Zealand has lost it's first 6 wickets for less than 40 runs aptly displays the gravity of the situation. I agree that there aren't really any plausible replacements for the current side, but that's not an encouraging thought.

Southee/Boult/Bracewell/Wagner/Milne/Wheeler/Henry/McClenaghan/Bennett plus new kids on the block like Duffy/Bartlett/Verma/Mathieson/Small are better imo. Talent depth obvz, and this is just from watching them bowl so is quite subjective. I was pretty damn young when I watched the 1990s class too so I am probably biased.

Who knows, Gillespie might even have one last hot streak in him.

As for the batting, well...

@Mike: We can get away without a test standard spinner. It isn't ideal but it isn't crippling outside of non-subcontinental turners and the subcontinent sides are masters of playing spin anyway unless you have an ATG or are India trying to play Swann/Panesar.

Having two dodgy openers is what is killing us because our 23 year old number three is in at 1 for zilch almost every innings, and our best batsman comes in a few minutes later.

The batting depth outside the test squad is appalling. While Watling becoming a decent player was a complete and pleasant surprise the likes of Flynn and Broom need to copy his example otherwise we will be giving test debuts to guys like Latham and Young who are way too inexperienced atm and lets face it, haven't shown they're the next Ross Taylor, Jesse Ryder or KW to date.

 

[harsh.ag]

I think NZ should just lure Ajinkya Rahane and Rohit Sharma, give them citizenship and get them to open. The whole world will be better off. Efficiency through free trade. Now why are we against that?

 

[Bahnz]

I think NZ should just lure Ajinkya Rahane and Rohit Sharma, give them citizenship and get them to open. The whole world will be better off. Efficiency through free trade. Now why are we against that?

What would we trade for them though? They're certainly not getting Southee!

 

[Prince EWS]

What would we trade for them though? They're certainly not getting Southee!

They're India's backups, so you'd only need to give them Bracewell and Butler.

 

[harsh.ag]

What would we trade for them though? They're certainly not getting Southee!

You don't need to trade players. Both Rahane and Rohit will jump at the chance of being NZ citizens (provided you do the same for their families). Just pay for them to buy out their contracts with BCCI. Of course, BCCI may make a motion to ban NZC from cricket in the next ICC meet, but that's a risk you should be willing to take

 

[Flem274*]

Tempted to dig up that cricket trading thread

 

[Bahnz]

They're India's backups, so you'd only need to give them Bracewell and Butler.

Hmmmm...

 

[Jezroy]

Having two dodgy openers is what is killing us because our 23 year old number three is in at 1 for zilch almost every innings, and our best batsman comes in a few minutes later.

This this this this this!!!

Williamson/Taylor/Brownlie/McCullum must think "here we ****ing go again...". I guess that's what makes the SL win so outstanding. Ross and Kane figured they may as well open and forget about the openers.

 

[Jezroy]

I've also been begrudgingly impressed by Wagner, especially in this latest test. To give him his due, he's seen his opportunity, and hasn't given Bracewell a chance since. Can't ask for much more than that.

And you know what? Maybe he'll get better as he becomes more comfortable in the set up? He did that in FC cricket didn't he? Not that standout until the last couple of seasons when he was ripping it up.

 

[Jezroy]

So I think all pretensions that Vettori would not be a useful addition can now be dropped.

Just like Metallica said, "You know it's sad but true".

Kind of like how Fulton and Rutherford are there because there is no one else that would obviously do a better job.

Except Vettori has an okay record.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

If Vettori came in as a bowler he wouldn't add anything to what we've got. He'd have to take a top 6 spot otherwise he's bumping out a pacer.