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

[Blocky]

Not sure that's correct. Jimmy probably doesn't spray line as much but he showed in the ODIs he still struggles to find a length. Still a superior bowler to Corey, no doubt as when he does find a length it's hit hard and at a good clip. As I said in an earlier post, if he plays as a fourth seamer it'll be in seamer-friendly conditions (probably) and he'll be very effective. Over time he'll learn to bowl consistently to better players, and be a major asset.

I think the easiest way to summise is that Anderson on his day is really effective as a bowler and capable performing a role as a true seam bowler in the side, but due to niggles and a complicated action, he'll probably have quite a few days where he isn't at his best and on those days, he has limited control on line and length and is down on pace.

Neesham will give you some credible bowling in almost every spell, very uncomplicated action and good strength through the crease - he'll probably never set the world on fire and will best be used as a partnership breaker more so than a strike weapon, but if you want him to keep things quiet, he can do that. I think Neesham has a better template (and more importantly, not the lineage of injuries that Anderson has) to develop his bowling more. I could easily see Neesham morphing himself into a Jake Oram style of bowler ( in his earlier years and prime ) - where we bowls high and hard, nibbles off the wicket and keeps an "At you" line and length. I think if he develops into that role, he'd be a great foil for us and potentially mean we could include him at seven, Watling at 6 and select an additional bowler in place of a bat.

 

[Flem274*]

would love to see Neesham practice charging in off a long run and changing his MO a bit so he's a 140kph swing bowler. #phlegmdreams

 

[hendrix]

He already hits 140 from a jog. Quite ridiculous how talented some guys are, tbh.

 

[SteveNZ]

I think the easiest way to summise is that Anderson on his day is really effective as a bowler and capable performing a role as a true seam bowler in the side, but due to niggles and a complicated action, he'll probably have quite a few days where he isn't at his best and on those days, he has limited control on line and length and is down on pace.

Neesham will give you some credible bowling in almost every spell, very uncomplicated action and good strength through the crease - he'll probably never set the world on fire and will best be used as a partnership breaker more so than a strike weapon, but if you want him to keep things quiet, he can do that. I think Neesham has a better template (and more importantly, not the lineage of injuries that Anderson has) to develop his bowling more. I could easily see Neesham morphing himself into a Jake Oram style of bowler ( in his earlier years and prime ) - where we bowls high and hard, nibbles off the wicket and keeps an "At you" line and length. I think if he develops into that role, he'd be a great foil for us and potentially mean we could include him at seven, Watling at 6 and select an additional bowler in place of a bat.

Agreed with all of that, particularly the Jimmy/Oram thing. I'd said it about him going back as far as seeing him play club stuff as an 18-year-old, always hit it super clean and hit a natural length with the ball, as Jake did. He's also a very fine slipper, so it's a good package that you want in your side more often than not.

 

[Dan]

Neesham's the perfect 4th seamer, IMO. Capable of both bowling tight spells and bowling aggressively to try and take wickets, but not good enough or consistent enough at either to be in a 3-man pace attack. He's more value than a spinner in most conditions, but he's the one to drop out when a non-KW spinner is required.

 

[hendrix]

I sorta have to recant on my hoping for Milne to get the gig as third seamer in the near future - I just don't think he'll be capable of bowling long enough spells that we require from our third seamer when Anderson, Neesh/Sodhi are so inconsistent and unable to nail down an end.

Hopefully Henry can develop into that role.

 

[Flem274*]

four man pace attack.

 

[Blocky]

I sorta have to recant on my hoping for Milne to get the gig as third seamer in the near future - I just don't think he'll be capable of bowling long enough spells that we require from our third seamer when Anderson, Neesh/Sodhi are so inconsistent and unable to nail down an end.

Hopefully Henry can develop into that role.

We have a third seamer, called Wagner, you might have noticed him bowling us to victory in the first test.

 

[hendrix]

the phrase "no ****, sherlock" comes to mind.

 

[Blocky]

the phrase "no ****, sherlock" comes to mind.

I find it pays to state the very obvious in these discussions though, considering you're still on the "We need a third seamer, I hope it's Milne, Henry or Bennett" bandwagon, rather than "Oh, Wagner continues to improve with every series and just won us a test" - I figured you'd need to recall the actual detail of the thing, you know, how Wagner returned better stats this series than Boult?

 

[hendrix]

ffs.

Are you Neil's girlfriend or something? Just because I didn't mention his name doesn't mean I want him dropped.

 

[Blocky]

Paraphrasing you. "I want Milne or Henry to fulfill the third seamer role"
Paraphrasing me. "Yes, because selecting inferior bowlers to replace someone who is starting to perform at a high level makes sense"
Paraphrasing you:

 

[hendrix]

you're not very good at reading.

Try again. Here you go.

I sorta have to recant on my hoping for Milne to get the gig as third seamer in the near future - I just don't think he'll be capable of bowling long enough spells that we require from our third seamer when Anderson, Neesh/Sodhi are so inconsistent and unable to nail down an end.

Hopefully Henry can develop into that role.

 

[straw man]

All this discussion clearly points to the fact that Neesham doesn't fit very easily into the current test side - not unless you think it's ok to pick your fourth bowler as much for their batting as their bowling. It makes me wonder if we're being a little cute straying from the four-best-bowlers, wicketkeeper, six-best-batsman formula.

If Neesham is to play a Jacob Oram role... well Oram batted at 6, which would currently be too high for Neesham and anyway Anderson is there (and also provides overs which reduce the comparative value of Neesham's bowling). If Neesham is to bowl old-ball into the wicket medium pace but better than Oram then in the medium term he probably competes with Wagner for that role. In this current side as fourth seamer I don't think he needs to bowl accurate stock - he needs to be threatening with the ball.

This discussion is a little redundant when all our alternative seamers are constantly injured but as I posted in the domestic thread, Neesham probably ranks around 10th best seamer in the country and he needs to be a lot closer to 4th to justify his test spot. Milne bowling short bursts at 150km/h would be absolutely ideal as 4th seamer considering we have Anderson and Williamson to pick up overs if need be. (That's a fantasy, no doubt). Or a spinner if we have one worth picking (a question worth discussing after the WI tour and revisiting in full in 12 months). Otherwise though if we want to pick our 'four best bowlers' then Henry, Wheeler and Bennett are there or there abouts. The other benefit of picking one of those is that if touch wood, Southee or Boult are injured at some point, those are our new-ball reserves and it would be good to get one involved sooner rather than later.

No argument though if McCullum and co want to continue to pick Neesham with the expectation his bowling develops significantly in the next 12 months. We may not even be aware for another 1-2 years whether Neesham's long term position is 6 or 8 - he certainly has masses of ability. Just recognising that right now it's another faith/development pick.

 

[hendrix]

Agree with all of that

 

[Blocky]

All this discussion clearly points to the fact that Neesham doesn't fit very easily into the current test side - not unless you think it's ok to pick your fourth bowler as much for their batting as their bowling. It makes me wonder if we're being a little cute straying from the four-best-bowlers, wicketkeeper, six-best-batsman formula.

If Neesham is to play a Jacob Oram role... well Oram batted at 6, which would currently be too high for Neesham and anyway Anderson is there (and also provides overs which reduce the comparative value of Neesham's bowling). If Neesham is to bowl old-ball into the wicket medium pace but better than Oram then in the medium term he probably competes with Wagner for that role. In this current side as fourth seamer I don't think he needs to bowl accurate stock - he needs to be threatening with the ball.

This discussion is a little redundant when all our alternative seamers are constantly injured but as I posted in the domestic thread, Neesham probably ranks around 10th best seamer in the country and he needs to be a lot closer to 4th to justify his test spot. Milne bowling short bursts at 150km/h would be absolutely ideal as 4th seamer considering we have Anderson and Williamson to pick up overs if need be. (That's a fantasy, no doubt). Or a spinner if we have one worth picking (a question worth discussing after the WI tour and revisiting in full in 12 months). Otherwise though if we want to pick our 'four best bowlers' then Henry, Wheeler and Bennett are there or there abouts. The other benefit of picking one of those is that if touch wood, Southee or Boult are injured at some point, those are our new-ball reserves and it would be good to get one involved sooner rather than later.

No argument though if McCullum and co want to continue to pick Neesham with the expectation his bowling develops significantly in the next 12 months. We may not even be aware for another 1-2 years whether Neesham's long term position is 6 or 8 - he certainly has masses of ability. Just recognising that right now it's another faith/development pick.

Sane discussion points - I think ultimately we're starting to become a little too heavy in players who could bat 4, 5, 6 or 7 for us which has been a longstanding problem for NZ Cricket. I don't know how you encourage some of these guys to take on a top order batting role and do a Richardson (starting with abundantly more talent with the bat than he did when he changed from a bowler to a batter) but I figure if you don't, you'll have the same old problem in a few years time of either forcing non openers to open (ala Sinclair, Fleming, etc) or you'll need to leave some of your better players out of the line up in order to pick significantly weaker options ( Fulton vs some of the guys we could bat at 5, 6 or 7 )

 

[SteveNZ]

Sane discussion points - I think ultimately we're starting to become a little too heavy in players who could bat 4, 5, 6 or 7 for us which has been a longstanding problem for NZ Cricket. I don't know how you encourage some of these guys to take on a top order batting role and do a Richardson (starting with abundantly more talent with the bat than he did when he changed from a bowler to a batter) but I figure if you don't, you'll have the same old problem in a few years time of either forcing non openers to open (ala Sinclair, Fleming, etc) or you'll need to leave some of your better players out of the line up in order to pick significantly weaker options ( Fulton vs some of the guys we could bat at 5, 6 or 7 )

Unfortunately the landscape is so much different in 2014. Could you convince Jimmy to turn himself into a turgid opener who leaves 5-6 balls, when he's just signed an IPL contract worth more than he may make from NZC throughout 2014-15? I'd be surprised.

You'd have to find a mid-late 20s middle order player who isn't on NZ's radar and convince him to do so. That's where Rigor was

 

[Blocky]

Unfortunately the landscape is so much different in 2014. Could you convince Jimmy to turn himself into a turgid opener who leaves 5-6 balls, when he's just signed an IPL contract worth more than he may make from NZC throughout 2014-15? I'd be surprised.

You'd have to find a mid-late 20s middle order player who isn't on NZ's radar and convince him to do so. That's where Rigor was

I think for a Jimmy or a Corey Anderson - they'll likely look at the 5 and 6 options and back themselves to be good enough longer term, but looking outside that mix, a Jesse Ryder, Will Young, Craig Cachopa type player should take it under extreme advisement to look into it as an option.

 

[straw man]

Sane discussion points - I think ultimately we're starting to become a little too heavy in players who could bat 4, 5, 6 or 7 for us which has been a longstanding problem for NZ Cricket. I don't know how you encourage some of these guys to take on a top order batting role and do a Richardson (starting with abundantly more talent with the bat than he did when he changed from a bowler to a batter) but I figure if you don't, you'll have the same old problem in a few years time of either forcing non openers to open (ala Sinclair, Fleming, etc) or you'll need to leave some of your better players out of the line up in order to pick significantly weaker options ( Fulton vs some of the guys we could bat at 5, 6 or 7 )

Yep, massive problem for a long time that we're flush with middle/lower order batsmen and don't have openers. Apart from McCullum and Mark Richardson, it's really not since Brian Young and Matt Horne that we've had openers that you could really say were 'established' in the team.

The unfortunate thing is that people have identified that there's a gaping hole at the top of the NZ test batting order and domestic players have moved up the top of their FC sides to compete for that spot. Fulton, Flynn, Nicol, Broom and most recently Latham. Unfortunately either due to not being good enough, or struggling with adjusting their games, or just not having the rare bloody-mindedness of Mark Richardson, it hasn't worked out that well so far.

 

[Athlai]

The best 4 bowlers in the country right now are very likely Southee, Boult, Wagner and Graeme Aldridge.

Graeme Aldridge is the future.