New Zealand doom and gloom thread

[Bahnz]

Very true, although a straight swap between Williamson and Brownlie would be ideal IMO.

Brownlie to me looks more like a top 4 batsman, and no, that's not because he can't play spin.

Nah Brownlie's looked very average against the new ball on the few occassions he's been up against it. Look at his efforts against the new ball v SAF and England over the last few months. Never seems to last very long (only exception I can think of was his survival on the 3rd evening of the Auckland test).

 

[Kippax]

Yeah agree, wouldn't want Brownlie facing fuller and straighter lines, looking to get his cut away to a moving ball.

 

[Flem274*]

Wasn't Brownlie in very early in the second test in SA when he scored his ton?

BTW Brownlie is far more likely to score runs than domestic Ryder. I wouldn't be surprised if, like Bracewell, Ryder warms the reserves bench upon return for a period.

This means Brownlie needs to keep scoring some ****ing runs of course, and since we're going to slow spinning conditions next tour his progress against non-Robbie Peterson or Monty Panesar spinners will be interesting to gauge.

edit: I can't even remember if the Ryder discussion was in this thread or the tour thread, but oh well.

 

[Bahnz]

Wasn't Brownlie in very early in the second test in SA when he scored his ton?
This means Brownlie needs to keep scoring some ****ing runs of course, and since we're going to slow spinning conditions next tour his progress against non-Robbie Peterson or Monty Panesar spinners will be interesting to gauge.

edit: I can't even remember if the Ryder discussion was in this thread or the tour thread, but oh well.

Came in after nearly 18 overs. Not ideal, but given that he was dealing with the kookaburra, it would've been considerably easier to bat by that stage. Then got out in the first over of the 2nd new ball.

 

[Mike5181]

From memory, McCullum and Williamson did quite well to blunt the new ball against Dale Steyn and company before Brownlie arrived at the crease. Philander surprisingly got a bit wayward when he came in as well. Although tbf, Brownlie did a damn good job of disrupting their attack, and never let them settle.

 

[Bahnz]

So, the de-facto 5-test series winds down in disappointing fashion.

On the plus side, Southee and Boult look to have the potential to become New Zealand's best ever opening combination - at least in terms of the threat coming from both ends. Of course, because of this, there's a real danger that they'll both get bowled into career-threatening injuries.

Despite this, our batsmen continue to wilt whenever confronted by anything remotely challenging. Taylor's slump continues to be really worrying. He's our only test class top-order bat. We rely on him in order to be competitive. I know he got **** on at the end of last year, but he has just got to find a way to get back to his best. In this respect, the upcoming break from test matches couldn't have come at a better time.

As for the rest, one can only really repeat what's already been said. Brownlie has been a big let down after producing a number of promising starts. Williamson has tried his best, but he's not yet ready to face up to this level of bowling at number 3. McCullum has inevitably slipped back into being chaotically ****. Guptill...:vomits:. Blurg. There's really not a whole lot that can be done. There's no magic bullet for a top 6 that can't score runs.

The fielding's been good though.

 

[hendrix]

The only test playing nations we may be able to beat in the mid-term are India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, simply because we are incapable of scoring >300 against good bowling attacks.

Any other victories will be due to a) green tops (see Hobart) or b) complacent/crap bowling (e.g. nearly at Auckland).

 

[Mike5181]

Something to take out of this at least:

Trent Boult: 49 wickets @ 29.12

 

[Prince EWS]

Something to take out of this at least:

Trent Boult: 49 wickets @ 29.12

I think, even more encouraging than Boult coming on, is the Boult-Southee partnership as a whole. They've obviously played a lot of cricket together growing up and they really complement each other beautifully, primarily swinging it in opposition directions, bowling with different arms and delivering from different sides of the wicket.

In the 12 Tests they've played together:

Tim Southee - 46 wickets @ 26.65
Trent Boult - 42 wickets @ 27.33

Can't ask for any more than that from your opening bowlers.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think, even more encouraging than Boult coming on, is the Boult-Southee partnership as a whole. They've obviously played a lot of cricket together growing up and they really complement each other beautifully, primarily swinging it in opposition directions, bowling with different arms and delivering from different sides of the wicket.

In the 12 Tests they've played together:

Tim Southee - 46 wickets @ 26.65
Trent Boult - 42 wickets @ 27.33

Can't ask for any more than that from your opening bowlers.

It's amazing to think that the opening bowlers have stats like that over 12 Tests together and the team has only won 3 of those Tests.

 

[Prince EWS]

Batting averages since the start of 2012 - so effectively 18 months:

Fulton - 47.25
Taylor - 44.72
Rutherford - 35.75
McCullum - 35.03
Watling - 34.33
Williamson - 31.29
Guptill - 25.75
Brownlie - 23.22
Flynn - 21.81
van Wyk - 21.31
Vettori - 20.62
Franklin - 17.85
Munro - 7.50
Nicol - 7.00

 

[straw man]

I think, even more encouraging than Boult coming on, is the Boult-Southee partnership as a whole.

Totally agree and you can see it when one of them is missing imo.

This is a whole lot of guesswork (read probably BS) but I think Boult gives Southee focus and helps him think actively about his bowling when he's on the field. Without that Timmy seems to repeat mistakes rather than fix them, sometimes loses direction and lets things meander. You see with Boult's bowling that if he bowls a bad spell, he often comes back for the next one, has worked things out and bowls better. Some of that rubs off on Southee imo.

Whereas I don't think Boult liked being seen to be the main man in South Africa. Perhaps puts too much pressure on himself to bowl something magic. When he plays with Southee I'd say the opposition still view Southee as the main threat, in part just because of the extra height and pace. And I think Boult likes that.

Then there's the concrete fact that if they're not bowling with each other, chances are whoever is at the other end is either wayward or unthreatening or both.

 

[Bahnz]

Definitely, different bowlers with different skills that complement one another nicely. Also means that if one has an off day (as Boult did on Saturday) the other can still keep the pressure on the batsmen and prevent the opposition from breaking away entirely. I reckon if we ever manage to cobble together a batting lineup that can consistently post 600 runs across both innings we'll win a lot of games.

 

[Dan]

I think the positive nature of Southee/Boult and the negative nature of the batting comes from being able to trust your partner, tbh.

With the batting fragile and filled with inconsistent players, the more dependable blokes (mostly Williamson and Watling, from what we've seen recently) can't really trust anyone to stick with them - Fulton's limited, Rutherford either comes off or fails spectacularly, Taylor doesn't look like he gives a **** after what's been done to him, McCullum seems resigned to hit-and-hope at 4/60, and Brownlie doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

So you end up with Williamson, who as we saw with his 90-odd in NZ, feeds of the bloke up the other end and bats well in partnerships, struggling. And you end up with Watling having the support of Neil Wagner down the order and that's about it.

Whereas with the bowling, Southee and Boult know what they're getting down the other end - and if one's off, odds are they'll fix up the issue within a spell - exactly the stuff Straw Man is talking about.

 

[Days of Grace]

It's amazing to think that the opening bowlers have stats like that over 12 Tests together and the team has only won 3 of those Tests.

In my mind, we are basically like the West Indies of the late 1990s.

Two very good opening bowlers, with not much back up and no real spinner to think of, and a flimsy batting order with a few names that folds all too frequently like a deck of cards, thus undoing all the good work of the new-ball bowlers.

Where it breaks down is that Ross Taylor is not exactly Brian Lara, but you can see the general similarities between the two teams.

West Indies in that period still competed very well against good opposition at home, but were often poor away (0-5 in South Africa was followed by a 2-2 draw against Australia at home).

 

[Mike5181]

In five months time we have a two test match series against Bangladesh. If everyone was injury-free/eligible etc, and you could select the players in any position you want, what would everyone have as their starting team?

 

[hendrix]

1. Rutherford
2. Latham/Fulton/Flynn
3. Ryder
4. Taylor
5. Williamson
6. McCullum
7. Watling (w)
8. Vettori
9. Southee
10. Boult
11. McCleneghan/Milne

 

[straw man]

For tests in Bangladesh

XI
Rutherford
Fulton
Williamson
Taylor
McCullum
Watling
Vettori
Southee
Wagner
B. Martin
Boult

Reserves
Brownlie
Ronchi
Young allrounder - Anderson/Neesham
Extra spinner - Nethula/Astle/Sodhi? Noone has impressed recently tbh. Alternatively consider someone properly quick like Milne.

Very limited options for the top 7. Vettori comes in to replace Brownlie - I think Bangladesh should suit his batting.

Reserves are the difficult part. Seeing as they don't want to play Latham as a keeper, the sensible thing to do would be to take Ronchi. I left out Ryder as I have no faith that things will fall into place with him in next five months (even if says he's eligible) - I'm handicapping myself here as 2008-2010 Ryder would drastically improve and balance the side, but I can't ignore the way he was batting in the last Plunket Shield.

Tempted to leave Wagner out of the XI for someone like Astle or Anderson or Neesham.

 

[Prince EWS]

In five months time we have a two test match series against Bangladesh. If everyone was injury-free/eligible etc, and you could select the players in any position you want, what would everyone have as their starting team?

Rutherford
McCullum
Williamson
Taylor
Ryder
Watling
Stokes
Vettori
Bracewell
Southee
Boult

Brownlie and Fulton are going to get absolutely owned by Bangladesh's spinners IMO. Vettori's form before his injury was terrible but he does have an awesome record against Bangladesh - you probably would've lost the last series there if he wasn't playing - so he's worth another go, even if just because none of the other spinners really inspire confidence anyway. Bruce Martin leaves me so cold, and while I like Taste and Jeets they don't really warrant inclusion.

I have decided to be a dickhead, take what you said in your post to the nth degree and pick Stokes.

 

[Bahnz]

Would also have Fuller in there for Bracewell.