*Official* New Zealand in England 2015

[CaptainGrumpy]

Yes, it might be a tad high. My impression is that with Southee lacking match fitness and Craig well below par, they need another bowling option.

A tad high? A tad?!?!

This is nothing short of ridiculous. New Zealand is heading into a test with 5 frontline bowlers - and none of them are noted all rounders. Yes I know Mark Craig has had a more than useful start to his test career with the bat - but his test average is falling and will probably meet his first class average in the future.

For mine, I would like Colin Munro given another go at number 6 in test cricket (for his batting and a possible fourth seamer option to fill in a few overs, ahead of a fit Neesham. Neesham I prefer to Anderson - for test cricket. Anderson is a pyjama cricketer until he can bat in whites and earn his place as a batsman first and foremost. He possibly doesn't have a physical frame that could be a long term test bowling option. It could be Shane Watson all over. Injury after injury and he won't really be willing to bowl big overs in the whites. His test bowling average is approaching 40 - why are we replacing him with a bowler when we lose his "batting" - which needs some serious improvement on leaving the ball and not going for regular agricultural air swings if he wants to be a test player.

To play five specialist bowlers is ridiculous. The tail starts at seven. The English bowlers would be laughing.

If there are no batting allrounders to play at 6, play a specialist batsman. 4 specialist bowlers has been plenty for all the great teams, with much stronger tails than Southee, Henry and Boult.

I understand England is playing two allrounders, one at 6, and one at 8, but Moeen Ali is really a batsman who had a little bit of success early with his bowling in test cricket (look at his first class bowling average) and is really a English version of the Steven Smith test cricket introduction. For now, he complements Ben Stokes to develop his batting by reducing the pressure off him with the batting depth to follow. the point is, England will head into the test with a batsman at 8 who can bowl, we will head into a test with a bowler batting at 7. I can only hope that I grossly underestimate Doug Bracewell's batting development since his test average accumulated at 11 from 19 tests and 34 innings! Surely he is not unluckier than Mark Ramprakash.

Five specialist bowlers? Did Australia even do that when they had Bradman? Ridiculous.

Solution: If Anderson cannot play, I'd bring in Ronchi to keep and if Wattling can bat - I'd play him as a specialist batsman. That would stiffen up the batting - which collapsed from over 400-3 to just 523 and could not bat 70 odd overs to draw a test. If both Anderson and Wattling cannot play, then Ronchi, and I'd be forced to play Rutherford. If Doug Bracewell makes the team, and for mine he doesn't, he takes Southee or Henry's spot. Southee might perform better in the long run with both bat and ball if he realises his recent performances, with the bat especially, but also his mid 120 to 130 kmh mid pitch cannon fodder to Ben Stokes is not doing the team favours. Does he think he is Mitchell Johnson? Stokes made runs against Mitchell Johnson - at the WACA!

Southee can bend his back a little more and bowl with more effort than he has been of late.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Why do some fans have a hard time accepting that England bowlers outplayed the NZ batsmen, and it's that simple?

Nah this type of thing gets posted on here too often and it always irritates me. People take every piece of fan criticism of their team and look at it as something that takes away credit from the opposition. They are not mutually exclusive as I've said so many times. Criticizing NZ for mistakes which undoubtedly contributed to their defeat doesn't somehow take away credit from England. No one said they didn't play well pr were undeserving winners.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Why do some fans have a hard time accepting that England bowlers outplayed the NZ batsmen, and it's that simple?

Ahh - but the New Zealanders are thinking of a cunning plan to counter this. Instead of stiffening up the batting - we will play 5 bowlers for your bowlers to bowl at - and make the batting depth even weaker.

Was Rutherford only taken on this tour to carry the bags of the senior players?

Has there been a rule change that in test cricket, each bowler can only bowl a maximum of 18 overs in a day?

Have Mark Craig, Trent Boult, Tim Southee and Matt Henry formed a union demanding that they bowl no more than 18 overs each in a day?

 

[Prince EWS]

Moeen Ali is really a batsman who had a little bit of success early with his bowling in test cricket (look at his first class bowling average)

This is going to go over well.

 

[Zinzan]

Nah this type of thing gets posted on here too often and it always irritates me. People take every piece of fan criticism of their team and look at it as something that takes away credit from the opposition. They are not mutually exclusive as I've said so many times. Criticizing NZ for mistakes which undoubtedly contributed to their defeat doesn't somehow take away credit from England. No one said they didn't play well pr were undeserving winners.

Was honestly beginning to wonder if I was the only person who saw it this way. Emotion and irrationality aside, It's almost like it's an insult to the winning opposition to critique your own teams performances after a loss.

Anyone who didn't see just how Southee and Craig in particular, played right into Cook's (who played very well) hands on the afternoon of day 4 must not have watched. Cook obviously played very well, but we made it ridiculously easy for him in those last two sessions. Craig's spell, when we still had a slight lead would have been embarrassing at club level, let alone first class.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

This is going to go over well.

Worked out alright for Steve Smith. He doesn't even feel the pressure to be the next Shane Warne anymore, this last summer he was aiming for Bradman.

I am not disparaging Moeen Ali. He may have recent developments to his bowling that make him a more fearsome prospect than Monty Panesar. This is about New Zealand not being able to accomodate 5 specialist bowlers when none of them can bat like Ali or Stokes.

If Jacques Kallis, Garfield Sobers or even Imran Kahn were to replace an injured Corey Anderson - I could understand the logic. But not a specialist bowler with a batting average of 11 to replace a batsman who bats at 6 and has a test bowling avergae of nearly 40.

Colin Munro must surely fancy his chances of international cricket this year.

 

[marc71178]

Worked out alright for Steve Smith. He doesn't even feel the pressure to be the next Shane Warne anymore, this last summer he was aiming for Bradman.

I think he was more referring to your ridiculously incorrect summary of Moeen's bowling.

 

[jcas0167]

A tad high? A tad?!?!

This is nothing short of ridiculous. New Zealand is heading into a test with 5 frontline bowlers - and none of them are noted all rounders. Yes I know Mark Craig has had a more than useful start to his test career with the bat - but his test average is falling and will probably meet his first class average in the future.

For mine, I would like Colin Munro given another go at number 6 in test cricket (for his batting and a possible fourth seamer option to fill in a few overs, ahead of a fit Neesham. Neesham I prefer to Anderson - for test cricket. Anderson is a pyjama cricketer until he can bat in whites and earn his place as a batsman first and foremost. He possibly doesn't have a physical frame that could be a long term test bowling option. It could be Shane Watson all over. Injury after injury and he won't really be willing to bowl big overs in the whites. His test bowling average is approaching 40 - why are we replacing him with a bowler when we lose his "batting" - which needs some serious improvement on leaving the ball and not going for regular agricultural air swings if he wants to be a test player.

To play five specialist bowlers is ridiculous. The tail starts at seven. The English bowlers would be laughing.

If there are no batting allrounders to play at 6, play a specialist batsman. 4 specialist bowlers has been plenty for all the great teams, with much stronger tails than Southee, Henry and Boult.

I understand England is playing two allrounders, one at 6, and one at 8, but Moeen Ali is really a batsman who had a little bit of success early with his bowling in test cricket (look at his first class bowling average) and is really a English version of the Steven Smith test cricket introduction. For now, he complements Ben Stokes to develop his batting by reducing the pressure off him with the batting depth to follow. the point is, England will head into the test with a batsman at 8 who can bowl, we will head into a test with a bowler batting at 7. I can only hope that I grossly underestimate Doug Bracewell's batting development since his test average accumulated at 11 from 29 tests! Surely he is not unluckier than Mark Ramprakash.

Five specialist bowlers? Did Australia even do that when they had Bradman? Ridiculous.

Solution: If Anderson cannot play, I'd bring in Ronchi to keep and if Wattling can bat - I'd play him as a specialist batsman. That would stiffen up the batting - which collapsed from over 400-3 to just 523 and could not bat 70 odd overs to draw a test. If both Anderson and Wattling cannot play, then Ronchi, and I'd be forced to play Rutherford. If Doug Bracewell makes the team, and for mine he doesn't, he takes Southee or Henry's spot. Southee might perform better in the long run with both bat and ball if he realises his recent performances, with the bat especially, but also his mid 120 to 130 kmh mid pitch cannon fodder to Ben Stokes is not doing the team favours. Does he think he is Mitchell Johnson? Stokes made runs against Mitchell Johnson - at the WACA!

Southee can bend his back a little more and bowl with more effort than he has been of late.

I think Bracewell has more batting potential than his test numbers suggest to date. Before his return in January, his last test had been in October 2013. He's only 24 now. Even at that point in his career he was obviously seen as quite reasonable with the bat given he's come at number 8 in the order 20 times so far.

If Southee lacks the match fitness to perform over a 5 day test then perhaps the better option would be to simply replace him with Wagner or Bracewell. And as you say, it might be the good for Southee to realise he still has work to do on his test game.

I am a huge Munro fan, but think Anderson's batting at test level has been reasonably good. But agree Watling would warrant a place as a specialist batsman ahead of him.

How do you think Ronchi will fare in these conditions? It seems no one wants to see Latham shift down the order, so he seems to have a reasonable chance of playing.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I think he was more referring to your ridiculously incorrect summary of Moeen's bowling.

Thats exactly what I thought he meant. Read edit above. I am complaining vigourously about New Zealand thinking they need 5 frontline bowlers, and even more so when none of them are aspiring batsmen of any note. Southee and Boult are meant to be one of the better opening bowling combinations going around, if so (and I think Boult is a great player and in combination with Southee could be something special)- why do they need three frontline support acts? It is unfathomable. It is not a vote of confidence in the bowlers to want more bowlers. And it further weakens the batting - which is New Zealand's frailty, the seam bowling of Boult Southee, Wagner or Henry - is meant to be the strength.

 

[jcas0167]

Thats exactly what I thought he meant. Read edit above. I am complaining vigourously about New Zealand thinking they need 5 frontline bowlers, and even more so when none of them are aspiring batsmen of any note. Southee and Boult are meant to be one of the better opening bowling combinations going around, if so (and I think Boult is a great player and in combination with Southee could be something special)- why do they need three frontline support acts? It is unfathomable. It is not a vote of confidence in the bowlers to want more bowlers.

To be fair, I think it's only me who's suggested that. Normally I agree 4 should be fine, but the comment was made on the basis Southee apparently lacks match fitness.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I think Bracewell has more batting potential than his test numbers suggest to date. Before his return in January, his last test had been in October 2013. He's only 24 now. Even at that point in his career he was obviously seen as quite reasonable with the bat given he's come at number 8 in the order 20 times so far.

If Southee lacks the match fitness to perform over a 5 day test then perhaps the better option would be to simply replace him with Wagner or Bracewell. And as you say, it might be the good for Southee to realise he still has work to do on his test game.

I am a huge Munro fan, but think Anderson's batting at test level has been reasonably good. But agree Watling would warrant a place as a specialist batsman ahead of him.

How do you think Ronchi will fare in these conditions? It seems no one wants to see Latham shift down the order, so he seems to have a reasonable chance of playing.

Ronchi has improved his first class batting since moving to NZ from Australia - whatever that says. I think Luke Ronchi is a lionhearted player who will give his all. He has undeniable talent, and moved to New Zealand to see it realised. He has done everything he can to achieve that. He is gritty and tough, and an attractive stroke maker. How he will go in whites in England - I have no idea? But I would expect him to try his best and his best, at least from what I have seen in limited overs cricket, is pretty darn good. He can score quickly and elegantly, so hopefully that means he can make runs, bat time and attack successfully, where it is his natural game without getting out agriculturally or air swinging across the line.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

To be fair, I think it's only me who's suggested that. Normally I agree 4 should be fine, but the comment was made on the basis Southee apparently lacks match fitness.

Then drop Southee until he is fit. Does he expect Kane and Brendon to continue to average the runs they did in the past 15 months or so? Does he think his own batting makes him a player who can be sustained only bowling half match fit? He upset a lot of cricket fans In NZ with his batting in the last test match. I thought the tail played irresponsibly in the first innings - the second innings was, if anything else, consistent.

If Southee just wants the 6's record with the bat, bat him at 11 and he can play when his bowling is match fit and is one of the best four frontline bowlers.

 

[harsh.ag]

Nah this type of thing gets posted on here too often and it always irritates me. People take every piece of fan criticism of their team and look at it as something that takes away credit from the opposition. They are not mutually exclusive as I've said so many times. Criticizing NZ for mistakes which undoubtedly contributed to their defeat doesn't somehow take away credit from England. No one said they didn't play well pr were undeserving winners.

Good.

Was honestly beginning to wonder if I was the only person who saw it this way. Emotion and irrationality aside, It's almost like it's an insult to the winning opposition to critique your own teams performances after a loss.

Anyone who didn't see just how Southee and Craig in particular, played right into Cook's (who played very well) hands on the afternoon of day 4 must not have watched. Cook obviously played very well, but we made it ridiculously easy for him in those last two sessions. Craig's spell, when we still had a slight lead would have been embarrassing at club level, let alone first class.

Ftr, I was referring to the last day's play only. The NZ bats are being criticized way too much for what happened, which was a solid bowling performance by the Poms and good captaincy by Cook. The fourth day was a slip up by the BCs for sure.

 

[Zinzan]

Sometimes people just prefer to claim that their team played poorly, rather than acknowldeging that the opposition were better.

Because it's never a combination of both is it?

Tbf, most NZ posters (I saw) did acknowledge England played very well, but also and rightfully so, got stuck into the areas in which NZ were poor.

We've all done it Bahnz... I seem to recall you getting all down & out about NZ's WC chances after one loss to SL in that pre WC ODI series. Some doom & gloom rant about the fact NZ won't be able to string winning games together in the WC due to fact we only had 3 ODI standard batsmen, when the reality was it was sub-par batting performance (think we scored 260) followed by a brilliant chase-down hundred from Dilshan. I had zero problems with that post at the time btw, but let's not pretend we all jump straight in only giving the opposition credit after a loss without making the odd emotional OTT critique about our own team. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that example.

 

[Zinzan]

Good.



Ftr, I was referring to the last day's play only. The NZ bats are being criticized way too much for what happened, which was a solid bowling performance by the Poms and good captaincy by Cook. The fourth day was a slip up by the BCs for sure.

Yeah, I was very critical about our bowling on day 4, that's where we really let ourselves down.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

It seems no one wants to see Latham shift down the order, so he seems to have a reasonable chance of playing.

I would move Latham down the order to keep, but for the fact that brings Rutherford into the team. I think Ronchi at 7 with Latham opening is probably going to score more runs than Rutherford opening with Latham keeping down the order. A possible alternative would be for non keeping Watling to open and to drop Latham down the order as keeper - but Watling bats so well in the middle order and Latham will develop his game as an opener playing in England in May against Anderson and Broad. So I prefer Ronchi in the team as opposed to Rutherford in the team. I prefer Rutherford in the team to Bracewell as a fifth bowler if Watling cannot play even as a specialist batsman, however. Then it is a question of where Rutherford bats? Probably Guptill into the middle order and Latham and Rutherford opening? Or try Rutherford in the middle order. Either way, something has gone wrong if Doug Bracewell bats at 7 or higher and not as a night watchman.

Put simply, if Watling can bat but cannot keep, he is the team for mine. Anderson if injured can be replaced by Ronchi, and if Anderson is fit - Anderson can be dropped and replaced Ronchi but really by Watling as a specialist bat. But I know you already worked that out from your earlier post.

 

[harsh.ag]

Never thought this series would come to the point where NZ's success seem more reliant on Southee firing than England's do on Jimmy firing.

 

[Bahnz]

Because it's never a combination of both is it?

Tbf, most NZ posters (I saw) did acknowledge England played very well, but also and rightfully so, got stuck into the areas in which NZ were poor.

We've all done it Bahnz... I seem to recall you getting all down & out about NZ's WC chances after one loss to SL in that pre WC ODI series. Some doom & gloom rant about the fact NZ won't be able to string winning games together in the WC due to fact we only had 3 ODI standard batsmen, when the reality was it was sub-par batting performance (think we scored 260) followed by a brilliant chase-down hundred from Dilshan. I had zero problems with that post at the time btw, but let's not pretend we all jump straight in only giving the opposition credit after a loss without making the odd emotional OTT critique about our own team. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that example.

Tbf, I said that our batting was too fragile to win 3 knock out games in a row, and I was exactly right, so I'm not apologising for anything.

 

[Zinzan]

Tbf, I said that our batting was too fragile to win 3 knock out games in a row, and I was exactly right, so I'm not apologising for anything.

Lol, nothing to do with apologising, there's no need to get defensive, this isn't a trial. I was simply illustrating that we're all capable of letting our own teams flaws/poor performances overshadow occasions in which the opposition played really well on a given day, which Dilshan did on that occasion.

And tbf, while I recall you saying you didn't think we'd win the world cup after that, you were hardly implying we'd make in all the way to the final, which was arguably our greatest cricketing moment ever.

We've all had our moments when irrationality and the emotion of the moment can make us look too much inwardly, rather than simply saying we were outplayed. To suggest it's always others, does come across a touch high & mighty at times. It's okay to say we're 'wrong' on occasions mate, nobody is perfect here.

 

[Stapel]

Yeah, the truth here lies somewhere in the middle. People who didn't watch the series or don't remember it well will look back at the names on paper and think it was a pretty good pace attack, and some who did watch the series will remember the bowling as being much worse than it was.

Australia picked good bowlers but they had very poor plans and were often trying to defend low totals because Australia's batting was genuinely **** in that series. It definitely counts as Cook having scored runs against a good attack, but not so much against good bowling.

I think we (all) agree it wasn't good bowling. But Cook didn't score 70+ rather than 50+ in that series. He was a run machine, outscoring all others (Bell, Trott, Strauss, Pietersen, Prior and Collngwood (who couldn't even score a run from his mother in law's blowling that series) by an insane difference. That, combined with the fact it was against Aus in Aus, still makes it a top class performance.

Obviously, we all savour our memories in different ways! To me, Cook in '10/'11 is 'one of those'. And no Mitchell Johnson spraying it all over the place will change that.