***Official*** India in New Zealand 2013/14

[Blocky]

Didn't Wagner average close to 40 before this test? Plummeted to Chris Martin territory now. If he has another really good game wickets wise then it could be down to around 30. He's never going to be a low or mid 20s bowler imo but high 20s to low 30s is achievable if he bowls to the standard he set in the test just gone consistently.

He had a pretty bad start statistically with the West Indies and South African tours but since then, he's finished most series with an average below thirty. The one exception to that was against the Windies here where his action looked horrible and he was falling over at the crease and losing all of his pace and bounce. He's since corrected that since going back to Otago and was reaching speeds of 145 in this test, he was also the only bowler in the match to consistently average over 135kmh.

As long as he keeps his action stable and keeps working on finding the right lengths, he'll develop into as good a bowler as the other two - he seems to get reverse swing a fair few overs before the other two do also.

 

[Flem274*]

because rightly or wrongly, the perception is andrew schwass and graeme aldridge aren't fast enough for test cricket. and aldridge hasn't "dominated". he averages 28. that's good domestic bowler territory, not pick me pick me.

and nethula got one test. that's not lots of chances.

 

[Blocky]

2012 - 4 @ 52.25
2012/2013 - 13 @ 41.3
2013 - 7 @ 36.28
2013/2014 - 23 @ 26.34

Under Taylor - 4 @ 52.25
Under McCullum - 43 @ 32.48.

Good progression in the start to his career, still only 27 and I think he's definitely a confidence bowler, the more he performs, the better he'll get.

 

[Blocky]

because rightly or wrongly, the perception is andrew schwass and graeme aldridge aren't fast enough for test cricket. and aldridge hasn't "dominated". he averages 28. that's good domestic bowler territory, not pick me pick me.

and nethula got one test. that's not lots of chances.

Nethula shouldn't have gotten the test, is kind of what I meant to say - he played a lot of NZ A in the lead up to that.

Aldridge in his younger years had an average down in the low twenties and was consistently topping the domestic charts. I agree on the pace thing, but when you consider the types of players we've had through the side over the years, some of the selection policies make limited sense.

 

[Flem274*]

well i think andre adams and michael mason should have gotten more chances than they did, and we probably could have persisted with o'brien a bit earlier than we did. it's all 20/20 hindsight though from me, because at the time i didn't rate either adams or o'brien until proven wrong and my main reason for supporting michael mason was because he was from CD. all a bunch of 135kph blokes in their prime (o'brien a bit faster) who just weren't fashionable enough compared to ian butler and other hail marys. being stuck behind genuinely good bowlers like bond, marto, cairns and the first incarnations of jimmy franklin and daryl tuffey didn't help them either obvz.

 

[RxGM]

because rightly or wrongly, the perception is andrew schwass and graeme aldridge aren't fast enough for test cricket. and aldridge hasn't "dominated". he averages 28. that's good domestic bowler territory, not pick me pick me.

and nethula got one test. that's not lots of chances.

Nethula didn't even get that, I think he got about 4 odi's.

 

[SteveNZ]

The thing that really baffles me about the way NZ selects players is that they give a lot of opportunity to players who show potential with the ball, but very few who show potential with the bat.

I mean, even in the current squad, Southee, Wagner and Bracewell have all been given a tonne of opportunities despite their average being high, Southee was dropped but reinstated a couple of times, as was Wagner - those guys have come through but then if you had a look at domestic performances, they were dominant and there was potential there - we don't have that with Sodhi yet we're giving him a tonne of chances to get comfortable, as we did Brooke Walker, and Tarun Nethula. Why are we keeping a guy around the squad who really just isn't good enough for the level?

I think of bowlers like Aaron Schwass or Graeme Aldridge who dominated domestic cricket year in and year out and never got a shot, yet a guy like Sodhi walks in without performing, stays in without performing? Something is broken there.

Andrew Schwass, just FYI...point taken on those sort of guys, but I guess the intel on them was deemed to be that they were guys who thrived in NZ conditions but didn't offer something that would work at international level. I don't know if you could say Max Walker or Tarun got a tonne of chances? Brooke was in and out of favour and Tarun got a chance in the Windies and blew it through his lack of work ethic and attitude.

I would imagine they've identified Ish as the most likely to develop into a spinner that is good enough for the level, and they're going to give him every opportunity to achieve that. They certainly don't want to operate under the previous Australian model, where even Nathan Lyon got axed pre '13 Ashes in England off the back of 9-for in India. At some stage, however, I imagine the best thing for his development will be to spend more time with ND, winning games for them.

 

[_Ed_]

well i think andre adams and michael mason should have gotten more chances than they did, and we probably could have persisted with o'brien a bit earlier than we did. it's all 20/20 hindsight though from me, because at the time i didn't rate either adams or o'brien until proven wrong and my main reason for supporting michael mason was because he was from CD. all a bunch of 135kph blokes in their prime (o'brien a bit faster) who just weren't fashionable enough compared to ian butler and other hail marys. being stuck behind genuinely good bowlers like bond, marto, cairns and the first incarnations of jimmy franklin and daryl tuffey didn't help them either obvz.

Add Chris Drum to the list, IMO. Terrific, albeit injury-prone bowler. 199 FC wickets @ 18.43 speaks for itself.

 

[Blocky]

Adams definitely but part of his issue was that he had a bit of mongrel about his personality and didn't want to conform to what was a pretty strict environment during the early days of his career. That was still in the Glen Turner "everyone must come off a factory line personality production" day.

O'Brien actually was horrible the first time he got selected, but to his credit he went away and worked harder that potentially any other guy I've ever seen work. I played against him a few times in NZ Trials for Indoor Cricket and he was always a skiddy effective bowler there, but I remember seeing him develop and in particular his pace, he went from a 125kmh military medium to being a good solid robust 140kmh bowler, all through sheer will, determination and thousands of overs bowled.

 

[Blocky]

Add Chris Drum to the list, IMO. Terrific, albeit injury-prone bowler. 199 FC wickets @ 18.43 speaks for itself.

That was his own doing - he finally got a chance in the team and had established himself, then decided to retire.

 

[Flem274*]

i think a lot of the issue with selecting bowlers back then too was the pitches were green so it became hard to separate the bullies from the contenders.

 

[Blocky]

Andrew Schwass, just FYI...point taken on those sort of guys, but I guess the intel on them was deemed to be that they were guys who thrived in NZ conditions but didn't offer something that would work at international level. I don't know if you could say Max Walker or Tarun got a tonne of chances? Brooke was in and out of favour and Tarun got a chance in the Windies and blew it through his lack of work ethic and attitude.

I would imagine they've identified Ish as the most likely to develop into a spinner that is good enough for the level, and they're going to give him every opportunity to achieve that. They certainly don't want to operate under the previous Australian model, where even Nathan Lyon got axed pre '13 Ashes in England off the back of 9-for in India. At some stage, however, I imagine the best thing for his development will be to spend more time with ND, winning games for them.

The news on Lyon though is that he went back to his spin coaches, looked at players who had been effective like Graeme Swann and tirelessly worked himself to get better drift, flight and spin. The only player in New Zealand who comes with that reputation is Kane Williamson with his batting, who spends probably more than an hour every day regardless of it being in a match or not, in the nets, batting.

 

[SteveNZ]

The news on Lyon though is that he went back to his spin coaches, looked at players who had been effective like Graeme Swann and tirelessly worked himself to get better drift, flight and spin. The only player in New Zealand who comes with that reputation is Kane Williamson with his batting, who spends probably more than an hour every day regardless of it being in a match or not, in the nets, batting.

I'm in wonderment of how he was ever dropped, although it's dangerous to criticise when not knowing the inner workings of what was happening. I was more referring to the long line since Warne/MacGill, which off the top of my head reads Beau Casson, Dan Cullen, Michael Beer, Xavier Doherty, Ashton Agar, Steve Smith, Glenn Maxwell, Bryce McGain, Jason Krezja, Cam White who probably didn't play more than 20 Tests as front-line spinners between them.

So that's probably Ish is, and will, get an extended run - we're loath to follow a similar cycle of looking at Astle, then Patel, then Sodhi, then the next guy in short bursts.

 

[Blocky]

I'm in wonderment of how he was ever dropped, although it's dangerous to criticise when not knowing the inner workings of what was happening. I was more referring to the long line since Warne/MacGill, which off the top of my head reads Beau Casson, Dan Cullen, Michael Beer, Xavier Doherty, Ashton Agar, Steve Smith, Glenn Maxwell, Bryce McGain, Jason Krezja, Cam White who probably didn't play more than 20 Tests as front-line spinners between them.

So that's probably Ish is, and will, get an extended run - we're loath to follow a similar cycle of looking at Astle, then Patel, then Sodhi, then the next guy in short bursts.

Most of those guys had a history of performance either at youth or domestic level before being selected though. I agree that a lot of them should never have even been tried as front line spinners but Australia panicked because they were used to winning games on the back of their spinner. NZ haven't had a match winning spinner since about 2004 when Vettori's back issues meant he lost his dip and spin.

 

[Bahnz]

Getting off topic now, but Vettori was no longer a match-winner in 2004 - I'd say the last time Vettori played a significant role as an attacking spinner was in 2000 (see the youtube link below), before he stuffed his back. He subsequently had a number of excellent 1st innings efforts (most notably his 5fer v Australia at Perth in 2002) that have typified the post-2000 phase of his career, but the big-spinning match-winner of earlier years was gone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzH7o5U4Rfc

 

[Flem274*]

just in case we come crashing back to earth soon I thought I'd post some stats porn.

KW since (and including) the Taylor Test in SL: 13 tests, 1016 @ 46.18 with 3 tons and 7 fifties. Prior to that knock in Sri Lanka he was averaging 29 from 17 tests with less than 900 runs to his name despite two test hundreds against India and South Africa.

Speaking of Taylor, since the beginning of 2012 he has 1729 @ 59.62 with 6 tons and 6 fifties from 21 tests. Because the sky commentators are obsessed with his lack of sixes, they will be pleased to know he has only hit 9 sixes from those 21 tests compared to 25 sixes from his other 33 tests.

The best bit is he averages eighty ****ing four at home (11 tests) and 44 away (10 tests).

Since recall in Bangalore 2012 (didn't play the first test since he was dropped for Marto or Wagner iirc) Tim Southee has taken 62 @ 21.20. During this time he has bowled in New Zealand, England, India and Sri Lanka. His worst averaging country during this time is New Zealand (26) and his best is Sri Lanka (13). If you win the toss and bowl though, you better not rely on him to be the hero because he averages 38 in that situation. In any other situation however he has world class numbers.

Brendon McCullum now averages 38 as a specialist batsman from 31 matches and 42 when not opening as a specialist batsman. While his conversion rate is still terrible overall, once he passes through the nervous 90s he has two double hundreds from three 100+ scores. He is especially dominant at home (10 tests averaging 60) but very poor away (6 tests averaging 19).

Trent Boult is a demon at home (41 @ 23) and good away (37 @ 29.51). Since Tim Southee's emergence as a worthy new ball partner he has 63 @ 24.88 from 16 tests. His home average becomes 20 and his away average actually gets worse, declining to 31.

 

[_Ed_]

Those stats went down quite well with my sushi lunch at work just now. Much appreciated, sir.

 

[Dan]

Most of those guys had a history of performance either at youth or domestic level before being selected though. I agree that a lot of them should never have even been tried as front line spinners but Australia panicked because they were used to winning games on the back of their spinner. NZ haven't had a match winning spinner since about 2004 when Vettori's back issues meant he lost his dip and spin.

Beau Casson - one decent FC season and a forced selection when MacGill retired mid-tour. With touring experience and a couple more years, might have been ok - but was never going to happen with his health issues.
Dan Cullen - one decent FC season, picked alongside Warne and MacGill, actually an utterly crap bowler who should never have gone near Test selection.
Michael Beer - No history of performance whatsoever, other than a column from Warne backing him.
Xavier Doherty - Played U/19s and was a Tasmanian journeyman, but anyone with eyes could tell he wasn't an FC/Test bowler's arsehole. KP can play left arm spin when it's dart-y pies.
Ashton Agar - Missed the U/19 World Cup with injury (with Ashton Turner filling the lead spinner role), but had a good FC record for a 19-year-old just starting. Should never have displaced Lyon, he had no record to speak of.
Steve Smith - Akin to picking Kane Williamson at 8. Always was a batsman who bowled (and could develop into a genuine all-rounder), not the other way around.
Glenn Maxwell - Never played as a lead spinner (thankfully), but is like picking a combination of Brendon McCullum's batting - only significantly worse - and Nathan McCullum's bowling. Never was going to be Test quality.
Bryce McGain - Probably the only one of these whose selection was actually justifiable (well, apart from being forced to pick Casson) given he had 2-3 good years behind him. And he still got belted.
Jason Krezja - Picking a big-turning offie who averages nearly 50 with the ball in FC cricket, after getting demolished by some hacks in a warm-up match does not bode well. I will admit though, it takes some serious skill to pick up 12 wickets against India and still look utterly ****. Not FC standard, let alone Test material.
Cam White - lol

Adding in another two to the list:

Brad Hogg - Crap FC record over a long period of time, picked on the back of desperation (mostly ODI form), and more use as a number 8 batsman than a specialist spinner. Stick to the white ball mate.
Nathan Hauritz - Picked from outside the NSW side, yet far and away the best non-Lyon spinner we had post-Warne. Says a lot about our system, when the best Test spinner in the country wasn't playing FC cricket at the time he was selected. Crappy FC record, but he could tie up an end and was technically pretty decent. Grew into his role until he was unfairly shafted for Xavier ****ing Doherty.


Sorry for hijacking, but raging/laughing at our ridiculous spinner selection policy is a favourite past time of mine. Compared to the guys we were trying and failing, you were lucky having Vettori. I'd honestly rather have picked Jeets than 3/4 of the above.

 

[straw man]

The thing that really baffles me about the way NZ selects players is that they give a lot of opportunity to players who show potential with the ball, but very few who show potential with the bat.

I mean, even in the current squad, Southee, Wagner and Bracewell have all been given a tonne of opportunities despite their average being high, Southee was dropped but reinstated a couple of times, as was Wagner - those guys have come through but then if you had a look at domestic performances, they were dominant and there was potential there - we don't have that with Sodhi yet we're giving him a tonne of chances to get comfortable, as we did Brooke Walker, and Tarun Nethula. Why are we keeping a guy around the squad who really just isn't good enough for the level?

I think of bowlers like Aaron Schwass or Graeme Aldridge who dominated domestic cricket year in and year out and never got a shot, yet a guy like Sodhi walks in without performing, stays in without performing? Something is broken there.

A lot of it is just supply vs demand though. Or options vs need if you prefer. I don't really agree that we don't give opportunities to those batsmen with potential either. Like who? More than any other spot, individual opening batsmen have been given masses of chances over long periods to succeed in recent years - exactly because there's an enormous need. Fulton and Rutherford the latest examples given lots of rope, but most of all in recent years is Martin Guptill. Brownlie and Flynn were other batsmen given good runs in the side but unfortunately didn't quite make the grade. There are plenty of others too.

I for one support the pick-and-stick approach where a new player is given a prolonged opportunity to succeed, rather than the disastrous chop-and-change of previous years (also seen in other countries). It has its failures but has important successes too. Currently spin bowling is a massive weakness, second only to the Opener problem, so given the paucity of other options I can see why they're giving full backing to the longshot in Sodhi. Better judges than me think he has potential - clearly it was too early and maybe there are better options anyway, but with luck this experience will pay dividends in a few years time. Another option would be to just accept the fall-back position of four seamers plus Williamson, however it does limit us and at the same time the presence of Anderson does allow for some leeway in picking a spinner on faith. Tarun Nethula is not a good comparison because if there's one thing you need confidence in for a selection on faith, it's that their head is in the right place. I'd say they'll leave Sodhi out in Wellington, but play him in WI and if he struggles, send him back to domestic after that. Will be interesting to see if they then select another promising spinner or just go with Williamson.

On fast bowlers, Southee, Wagner and Bracewell all got plenty of chances because of a lack of supply of fast bowlers 2-3 years ago; no O'Brien, no Bond, Tuffey and Franklin useless and Martin on his last legs. Now we don't have that shortage; if we did someone like Henry would have already made his debut. Schwass and Aldridge (and Walker) are examples from a long time ago so not really comparable to what's happening at the moment - whether they should have been picked or not would need to be looked at in the context of that time and the other available options. Right now the context is different.

More broadly speaking, there's no argument from me that plenty of selections from 5+ years ago didn't make sense; the John Bracewell era in particular was characterised by it. But in more recent years I think our test selections have improved markedly.

 

[Blocky]

Getting off topic now, but Vettori was no longer a match-winner in 2004 - I'd say the last time Vettori played a significant role as an attacking spinner was in 2000 (see the youtube link below), before he stuffed his back. He subsequently had a number of excellent 1st innings efforts (most notably his 5fer v Australia at Perth in 2002) that have typified the post-2000 phase of his career, but the big-spinning match-winner of earlier years was gone.

Daniel Vettori bowling highlight - YouTube

How bloody good was Spearman at slip?