**Official** Pakistan v New Zealand in the UAE 2014

[Blocky]

why would you want to think like an Aussie when they just got hammered here? NZ are already doing much better simply by being themselves.

Thinking like an Aussie pre-Clarke. Clarke doesn't count as an Aussie in my view. The last -Australian- team had Steve Waugh in it.

 

[hendrix]

yeah I don't mind that team at all, it's only 1 different from what i'd select (Anderson for Neesham).

 

[NZTailender]

It will be interesting to see how Vettori goes finally having two threatening seam bowlers to benefit from his tidy bowling and/or to pick up wickets from said seamers keeping it tight. In the 18 tests he played alongside Bond he took wickets at 10 runs less than his current average.

 

[RxGM]

Thing is, you can't really consider our guys "specialist bowlers" - when you've got Craig, Sodhi and Vettori all averaging twenty plus in first class, all of whom having shown their stuff at international level. I don't think you're "missing" anything by not having Anderson in the line up - I'll give dollars to dimes that he won't outscore the guys enough to justify him as "a batsman who can bowl some overs" - i.e if you had Wagner, Craig, Vettori, Sodhi, Boult, Southee - its not unlikely that they'd contribute 100-150 runs between them as the tail.

But I was talking more about the "Throw caution to the win and chase victory the best way we can" - we won't win a test match because of Anderson, not in his current form. I hope he proves me wrong but the likelihood is small, however if we have a bowling attack that gives us six threatening options that we can alternate, when four of those bowlers can also hold a bat pretty well and the other two are handy sloggers, it's not as hair brained as "Well, we'll jettison the guy with better batting returns and keep the guy who's bits and pieces"

I agree they can score the runs but if you tell mark craig that he was a test match #6 as opposed to a test match 8, the pressure would do his head in and he would fail.
I think the conundrum comes from how badly this test squad and the previous one (WI) has been picked.
Essentially the selector has chosen two guys Rutherford/Ronchi who the coach doesn't have confidence in there ability to play test cricket.

 

[hendrix]

Agree 100% with that last statement.

 

[Mike5181]

What the hell are they smoking over there that's made them think three spin bowlers is a good idea? Show a bit more faith in Wagner, please.

 

[Athlai]

Come on the Ronchi selection wasn't that bad. You can't say the coach has no faith in his ability to play when it's for a position with two new blokes who have such a stellar start to their Test career. The Ronchi pick in my eyes was always one to cover both the keeper and our middle order if they were injured. Not to push his way in for poor form. If McCullum were batting 5 and Rutherford opening we'd already see Anderson or Neesham on the sidelines.

Only the opening position has ever had question marks around it when talking about form and it's pretty clear that taking a half cooked, out of his depth Rutherford was a pretty poor call.

 

[Kippax]

Hesson's said he'll always look to take two quality glovemen to the spin-dominated countries.

As for Rutherford, Hesson was convinced he'd fixed a lot of his issues on the A tour. He may've also noticed CW really ripping into Michael Bracewell's play of the Scottish spinners.

 

[Zinzan]

Hehe, loving the prospect of a Vettori return & agree with most that his inclusion should make it utterly superfluous to play Craig as well.

 

[Athlai]

Hesson's said he'll always look to take two quality glovemen to the spin-dominated countries.

As for Rutherford, Hesson was convinced he'd fixed a lot of his issues on the A tour. He may've also noticed CW really ripping into Michael Bracewell's play of the Scottish spinners.

20% of the selection process is how much a player has been flamed by CW. It's good to know we're part of the agribusiness KPIs.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I hope this "bowling is additive" theory means Baz, left-arm K-dub and Rosco get a tweak.

 

[Kippax]

https://in.news.yahoo.com/cricket-mccullum-excited-vettoris-comeback-record-122314284.html

McCullum said the plan to play Vettori was well debated.

"We spoke to Dan earlier in the tour. The wickets over here are so suited to spin bowling. So considering the fact it has been very hard on the bowlers, we looked at perhaps the balance of the team and we decided that a spinning all-rounder will also be handy at No.6 position.

"After seeing how fit and strong he is, which is another important point because his fitness is at a level where he feels comfortable he can operate in this Test match, and obviously the enthusiasm which he brings to the group and experience as well is great."

McCullum added: "Dan is an optimist as well and he is excited about the opportunity and I am sure he will be a bit nervous as it is couple of years since he donned the black cap but he is a wonderful player.
"Even if it's maybe his last one and it will be great fun to play and go out on his terms and rather than slide out of his wonderful Test career."

 

[Kippax]

Vettori return excites McCullum | Sport24

Pakistan will bring in opener Mohammad Hafeez who missed the second Test due to a hamstring injury.

His bowling action was reported as suspect after the first Test but he can bowl in Sharjah, pending a report of a bio-mechanical analysis performed in England on Monday.

He returned to Sharjah early Tuesday and will replace Taufeeq Umar while paceman Mohammad Talha is likely to come in for Eshan Adil who suffered a side strain.

 

[Blain]

Far out... I don't like that we've weakened our batting, while carrying a bowler (Craig). If we cant take 20 wickets with 2 spinners, why would adding another change anything? Get rid of our weakest bowler, not batter.

 

[hendrix]

Especially now that Hafeez is back.

 

[Kippax]

Craig is the only bowler in the match who can locate Boult and Rahat's footmarks, you see. Hesson's becoming a bit of a Maximas with the footmarks.

Cricket: Numbers justify Vettori's recall - Sport - NZ Herald News

New Zealand coach Mike Hesson has defended the efforts of the incumbents: "They've bowled some nice spells but have struggled to create pressure over periods. We're still working on that. Mark's been trying to bowl slightly wider of the crease to hit the footmarks and become more of a challenge to their right-handers. That's why batsmen like Younis Khan kept running at him because he wasn't happy with him landing there.

"Ish bowled some wonderful deliveries but got a bit tired. He probably bowled a bit slowly [through the air]."

 

[Blocky]

Craig is the only bowler in the match who can locate Boult and Rahat's footmarks, you see. Hesson's becoming a bit of a Maximas with the footmarks.

Cricket: Numbers justify Vettori's recall - Sport - NZ Herald News

The problem at the moment is that no one in NZ Cricket (Wiseman included) understands what it takes to bowl off spin successfully, which is why they're all about "Well, the amount of angle we can get on the ball coming back towards the right hander is the most important thing" - they don't understand the subtleties that come with off spin bowling, they don't realise part of the issue for our off spinners is that they start wide of the crease, pitch the ball wide of the crease and make it too easy for batsmen to get outside of the line, it also limits the impact of variation/natural variation because even if they're beaten by the turn, it's not usually threatening.

What Swann did so well was get himself close to the wicket and push the ball away from the right hander before bringing it back in, it also meant his straighter balls and natural variation had a higher chance of striking on the line. The reason Williamson has generally been more effective than the offies we try in my view comes down to him being the type that gets a little closer to the wicket and doesn't try to turn the ball through the gate, he uses turn more so to create doubt and looks to use the variation to take the wicket.

Ish did bowl some great deliveries, but given how much turn was on offer, the scoreboard pressure on the opposition and the fact that they really couldn't justify coming out to attack him - he continues to go well in above of fifty per wicket which just isn't good enough at this level, until we start focusing on the returns of what our bowlers produce, we're going to focus too much on the one dismissal per test that we feel justifies his talent, kind of like a golfer believing he's brilliant because of one shot a round, while he goes on to card a 100.

 

[Immenso]

So if we lose the toss, can Dan go just go "yeah, nah" ......

 

[hendrix]

it's so harsh to leave out Wagner here.

 

[Kippax]

So if we lose the toss, can Dan go just go "yeah, nah" ......

He was always more of a first innings man, anyway.