***Official*** New Zealand in the West Indies 2014

[Maximas]

God help us if Southee or Boult ever go down injured. Because as decent as his recent returns have been Neil Wagner is still trash. I seriously have no idea how this guy continues to pick up wickets. No accuracy, medium paced and he still can't land the ball on the seam to save himself. It boggles the mind.

The sooner Doug Bracewell sorts himself out and starts swinging the ball again, or a young guy like Henry or Wheeler stays injury free the better.

He single-handedly gets you guys back in the game from a horrible position but ooh drop him - his bowling doesn't look pretty.

 

[Bahnz]

Rutherford made big runs when he came back into the Otago side in the 2011/12 season (a double hundred, and another big hundred iirc). His form in 2012/13 was a lot more patchy, but he did make a 90 against India-A, so his selection wasn't unreasonable.

 

[hendrix]

YI've never seen a Wagner dismissal where I've thought "That's an awesome delivery" like I've done for Southee and Boult. On the other hand, I guess that's not really the job of a third seamer and if it means he keeps taking scalps then I'm not complaining.

The one to get Dhawan in the fourth innings at Eden Park.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I've never seen a Wagner dismissal where I've thought "That's an awesome delivery"

His ball to KP when they toured here. That was genuine magic.

He single-handedly gets you guys back in the game from a horrible position but ooh drop him - his bowling doesn't look pretty.

I don't think he's arguing to drop him. NZ fans are just generally circumspect about Wagner as a long term prospect since his bowling looks so flukey. It seems like he won't be able to jam out wickets forever.

 

[hendrix]

He single-handedly gets you guys back in the game from a horrible position but ooh drop him - his bowling doesn't look pretty.

well this is a little disingenuous.

Good bowling does cancel out poor bowling, and there's been plenty of poor bowling in Wagner's career. "single-handedly" and "from a horrible position" isn't really accurate either.

 

[Howsie]

He single-handedly gets you guys back in the game from a horrible position but ooh drop him - his bowling doesn't look pretty.

Where did I say anything about dropping him? He's a decent third seamer, I'd just much prefer a bowler who could get near Southee or Boult's level, a level Wagner will never reach.

 

[Bahnz]

Or the delivery that he bowled to castle Nick Compton in the 3rd innings at Lords. He is capable of producing some real screamers, but more often he looks to maintain pressure and bore batsmen out.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Depending on who you ask, Blackwood was dropped for Holder or Shillingford. Holder scored 90 runs total, Shillingford scored 40 runs without being dismissed. It's an awful lot of pressure on a guy in his second series to score more than they contributed with the bat.

It's more to do with Holder not being under-bowled. I think it would've made a big difference if he were to bowl more than 10 overs each innings.

 

[hendrix]

Where did I say anything about dropping him? He's a decent third seamer, I'd just much prefer a bowler who could get near Southee or Boult's level, a level Wagner will never reach.

tbf a third seamer is never going to swing the old ball around corners like Southee and Boult, so we should be looking at someone who brings something different to the table.

Henry is similar to Southee but also has a taller action so gets good bounce. He could be a good third seamer.
We all know about Milne but he needs to prove himself with 2 good seasons.
Duffy is my long term pick.

But yeah, Wagner is doing fine so he's nowhere near in competition from anyone really. Especially after how dross Bracewell has been - on and off the field.

 

[Hurricane]

His ball to KP when they toured here. That was genuine magic.



I don't think he's arguing to drop him. NZ fans are just generally circumspect about Wagner as a long term prospect since his bowling looks so flukey. It seems like he won't be able to jam out wickets forever.

I've been thinking about it. Maybe his good pace and bounce make people misexecute against deliveries that are short and wide. I am not talking about this series but past series where people have screwed up on cut shots against him.

 

[Mike5181]

I've never understood what people saw in Doug Bracewell. He's barely in the top ten bowlers in the country.

 

[hendrix]

I think whether we go full Blocky and call him NZafrican Mitch Johnson or our very own Ishant Sharma, 2 things have been very clear over the last few series:

1. He hasn't been injured. This is freaking huge in the context of NZ bowlers and the support Southee and Boult require.

2. He's taken wickets by perfectly executing smart bowling plans. Credit Bond or McCullum for this, but you gotta give big props to Wagner for that. There's a particular level of bloodimindedness that goes into bowling to plans for catches at short cover and he's done it like a champ.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I've been thinking about it. Maybe his good pace and bounce make people misexecute against deliveries that are short and wide. I am not talking about this series but past series where people have screwed up on cut shots against him.

I think he has the same penchant as the old Mitchell Johnson had. Both have very exaggerated and slightly inconsistent bowling actions so every delivery comes out a bit different. As a result, batsmen never feel entirely settled and can't rely on the ball coming on to the bat.

 

[Maximas]

Good bowling does cancel out poor bowling, and there's been plenty of poor bowling in Wagner's career. "single-handedly" and "from a horrible position" isn't really accurate either.

His good bowling often comes at times when Boult and Southee are either not around or unable to make an impact. And the position you found yourselves in at 1/153 was looking very dire, Wagner's first two scalps and then the big wicket of Chanderpual were instrumental in restricting the lead. Exaggerations perhaps, but my statements weren't wholly inaccurate.

Where did I say anything about dropping him? He's a decent third seamer, I'd just much prefer a bowler who could get near Southee or Boult's level, a level Wagner will never reach.

He compliments the Boult/Southee partnership rather well though IMO, running in hard all day and standing up when conditions don't suit or when the chips are down. While you didn't say you wanted him dropped you clearly feel that there are potentially better alternatives, I'd argue Wagner has a valuable place in this attack that shouldn't be replaced with another Boult/Southee type, unless of course they are of the same quality, which to my knowledge they aren't atm

 

[Viscount Tom]

Better a lucky average bowler than an unlucky good bowler.

 

[hendrix]

His good bowling often comes at times when Boult and Southee are either not around or unable to make an impact. And the position you found yourselves in at 1/153 was looking very dire, Wagner's first two scalps and then the big wicket of Chanderpual were instrumental in restricting the lead. Exaggerations perhaps, but my statements weren't wholly inaccurate.

I just think you're a little guilty of falling into the trap of calling every wicket Wagner takes as "match-turning, big wickets" when Southee and Boult running through the top order is just par for the course. He's a third seamer; I'm not expecting him to have as much of an impact as Southee and Boult, but he's expected to take wickets - and yes, he did his job.

Craig and even Sodhi have done the same job in this series.

 

[Hurricane]

I've never understood what people saw in Doug Bracewell. He's barely in the top ten bowlers in the country.

He went down hill - but at one point he had a mint bowling action. Then the bowling action went south and so did the swing. At his best he could bowl great outswingers and had a devastating off cutter.

 

[Bahnz]

I don't think that it's too much of a stretch to say that Wagner pretty much single-handedly reversed the momentum of the series. WI had dominated the contest for 6 and a half days straight, and when Wagner came on to bowl, were looking a sure fire thing for a 100+ first innings lead. Collectively, NZ were bowling rubbish, and looked more than a little resigned to the whole situation. By the time that Wagner was done a session and a bit later, WI were 240/5 and the tail was exposed. Other players then piled in and backed up his good work, but Wagner was undoubtedly the catalyst for the turn-around.

 

[_Ed_]

I've never seen a Wagner dismissal where I've thought "That's an awesome delivery" like I've done for Southee and Boult.

That's a fair point, although there is one that comes to mind straight away for me, from the Dunedin test against England. Cricinfo commentary:


10.3 Wagner to Pietersen, OUT, full and straight, swinging in and plumb lbw! Pietersen gets a first-baller. What a delivery from Wager. Pietersen was so late on that, late inswing, Pietersen couldn't get the bat across in time and is trapped bang in front of all three


But apart from that, I think you're right. This could be the exception that proves the rule.

 

[Hurricane]

I also think, and this is stealing Blocky's point, that while WI suffered by not picking 6 batsmen in this test, NZ may have had a different outcome in the 2nd test if Wagner had played instead of one of the spinners. Maybe not but we will never know.