Any updates on NZ's tour of Oz later this year?

[CaptainGrumpy]

Look, I get the whole "don't pick an all-rounder" thing if you've got batsmen definitively better than him. But NZ don't.

Brownlie averages around 30 in Test cricket so far and can't play spin, but he has success in Australia and recent FC runs. But we're not talking Bradman v2 here. Ronchi played a good knock on debut, but yeah, he's a rubbish starter and the last time he played regularly in Australia he lost his spot in the state XI because he wasn't performing. Neither of these guys are superstars unfairly being kept out of the team by undeserving, useless pricks who can bowl a bit.

I think Neesham, while also flawed, is just about as likely to score runs as Ronchi or Brownlie. I think Anderson is behind him, but again, the difference from best to worst in this 4-man comparison is pretty small.

So then, you have to ask yourself, is having Corey or Neesham bowling 10 overs per day instead of Williamson valuable? If it is, is it valuable enough to overcome the difference between Corey/Neesham and Ronchi/Brownlie with the bat?

I think it is valuable, and I think it certainly overcomes any difference between Neesham and Brownlie with the bat. In Perth? Well, you might have an argument for playing both Ronchi and Brownlie for the sake of local experience

Ronchi also made the Australian ODI side while playing there.

Brownlie is a much better bat than Anderson. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of first class cricket and Brownlie's ton against Morkel, Steyn and Philander. If Neesham is a better chance of runs than Brownlie - I can live with him playing. If Jimmy Neesham is in the best 6 NZ bats - then play him. Both he and Brownlie have problems against good spin. But Australia only have Lyon. be a good benchmark test for Lyon.

Think Williamson has a better test average at bowling than Corey, and the new Kane bowling action destroyed England on the final day.

 

[Dan]

Ronchi also made the Australian ODI side while playing there.

Brownlie is a much better bat than Anderson. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of first class cricket and Brownlie's ton against Morkel, Steyn and Philander. If Neesham is a better chance of runs than Brownlie - I can live with him playing. If Jimmy Neesham is in the best 6 NZ bats - then play him. Both he and Brownlie have problems against good spin. But Australia only have Lyon. be a good benchmark test for Lyon.

Think Williamson has a better test average at bowling than Corey, and the new Kane bowling action destroyed England on the final day.

How long is that piece of string, again?

 

[Days of Grace]

We had an allrounder at 6. We lost. He scored 67 of the cheapest runs ever when we needed him to anchor and save the match. He kept swinging to mid wicket and long on and Cook left it open for him to do so. He failed in the first innings. If anyone scored 76 runs in a test and failed, it was then.

We then play 6 batsmen and a keeper. We win. Yes the keeper and #6 batsman scored runs - thats the point. The same bowlers still took 20 wickets.

So if not playing an allrounder aint broke, don't fix it.

And our star bowler then picks up a back strain and our other opening bowler is fatigued. There's no way you want to be solely reliant on only four bowlers in this day and age.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

How long is that piece of string, again?

How do you like dem apples?

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

And our star bowler then picks up a back strain and our other opening bowler is fatigued. There's no way you want to be solely reliant on only four bowlers in this day and age.

Negative selection policy of an allrounder due to possible injury. Loser thinking. We want winners. Besides, still have Kane to bowl. McCullum may want to bowl his arm over.

Plus, I would choose Wagner to play as third seamer. He can bowl and bowl and bowl.

The biggest irony is that if anyone is likely to get injured, it will be Corey or Neesh.

 

[hendrix]

Ronchi also made the Australian ODI side while playing there.

Brownlie is a much better bat than Anderson. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of first class cricket and Brownlie's ton against Morkel, Steyn and Philander.

There are a surprising number of failed Test batsmen who've scored runs against that attack.
But anyway, say you're right about Brownlie being the best of the 3 in contention and we take him on tour after a season of opening the batting. And then we bat him at 6.

What do we do if one of the top 4 goes down? I suppose we could move McCullum up and shove in Neesh/Corey. But that doesn't really go with the selection policy which is continuity of place.

I think Brownlie is our reserve for Latham, Guptill and Williamson.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

There are a surprising number of failed Test batsmen who've scored runs against that attack.
But anyway, say you're right about Brownlie being the best of the 3 in contention and we take him on tour after a season of opening the batting. And then we bat him at 6.

What do we do if one of the top 4 goes down? I suppose we could move McCullum up and shove in Neesh/Corey. But that doesn't really go with the selection policy which is continuity of place.

I think Brownlie is our reserve for Latham, Guptill and Williamson.

I actually have little idea what you're trying to say.

I think you're saying if we play Brownlie to bat at 6 what happens if someone is injured in the top 4 batsmen in the subsequent tests?

You then replace the injured batsmen with the next best available batsmen, in the order that will best score against the opposition. Its not rocket science.

Not selecting someone who deserves selection as one of the best 6 bats because they will be a better replacement for an injured player, should someone get injured, is rather daft.

So maybe you're trying to say something else. But you're rather ambiguous.

 

[Moss]

Little to choose between Neesham and Anderson IMO, they've both done a decent job in tests so far without either one conclusively winning the battle (would have said neither is indispensable, but in a funny way between them they've managed to make the "allrounder spot" an indispensable one). Neesham has the stats so far, but as someone has already said Anderson plays with pure emotion and his mindset alone might give him a better chance of succeeding.

Have my fears that whoever among them plays will get seriously owned by the Aussie quicks but (a) if we're looking forward and all that, no point shielding them - whoever plays stands to learn a lot from this tour, which could be the making of them as test cricketers, and (b) had similar doubts about Jacob Oram with his non-existent footwork but he did score that century at the Gabba in '04 (also see Ben Stokes in 2013). For now I prefer Anderson but will be looking forward to see how Neesham's shaping up when he returns to internationals in August.

 

[Moss]

Been quite a fan of Brownlie and he potentially provides a Watling-esque contrast to the flashier types in the lineup, but I buy the argument that you need at least one of the top 6 to shoulder the bowling workload and KW isn't the answer, at least in Oz. Someone with the bowling ability of a McMillan or Nathan Astle (that guy was a real asset with the ball in tests, felt he was missed big time as a complete package when he retired), would be ideal. So yeah, Anserson/Neesham (Neederson?) to continue at number 6. As has been stated, the management prefers continuity to horses and courses.

Ronchi - shouldn't be considered as a specialist batsman, will be eaten up by the Aussies. Happy to have him as backup keeper but would only play him in the scenario where Watling cannot keep. If a specialist batsman were to be injured out, it would be bloody typical to bring him in as keeper or batsman and move Watling up, but I would keep Brownlie or someone else in reserve.

All of them should tour though. The party would ideally be:
1st XI: Latham, Guptill, KW, Taylor, BMac, Anderson, Watling, Craig, Southee, Wagner, Boult
Reserves:
Neesham
Brownlie (utility batsman to cover for the middle order, or play as opener if Guptill has a torrid two tests. Fear this spot will go to Ruds)
Ronchi (only in the event of a Watling injury as mentioned above)
Sodhi/Astle (open for debate I suppose)
Bracewell
Henry

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Been quite a fan of Brownlie and he potentially provides a Watling-esque contrast to the flashier types in the lineup, but I buy the argument that you need at least one of the top 6 to shoulder the bowling workload and KW isn't the answer, at least in Oz. Someone with the bowling ability of a McMillan or Nathan Astle (that guy was a real asset with the ball in tests, felt he was missed big time as a complete package when he retired), would be ideal. So yeah, Anserson/Neesham (Neederson?) to continue at number 6. As has been stated, the management prefers continuity to horses and courses.

Ronchi - shouldn't be considered as a specialist batsman, will be eaten up by the Aussies. Happy to have him as backup keeper but would only play him in the scenario where Watling cannot keep. If a specialist batsman were to be injured out, it would be bloody typical to bring him in as keeper or batsman and move Watling up, but I would keep Brownlie or someone else in reserve.

All of them should tour though. The party would ideally be:
1st XI: Latham, Guptill, KW, Taylor, BMac, Anderson, Watling, Craig, Southee, Wagner, Boult
Reserves:
Neesham
Brownlie (utility batsman to cover for the middle order, or play as opener if Guptill has a torrid two tests. Fear this spot will go to Ruds)
Ronchi (only in the event of a Watling injury as mentioned above)
Sodhi/Astle (open for debate I suppose)
Bracewell
Henry

Yeah, I don't agree at all. Williamson has a better test bowling record than Anderson.

Do not see what Anderson delivers over another batsman like Brownlie playing.

Anderson could play a match winning innings. But he is less likely to than Brownlie.

Anderson match winner with the ball? Unlikely. Could happen - but how often? Against Australia? In Australia? Hmmm. Unlikely.

 

[Howsie]

Huh? Look at the last two tests. This statement is completely wrong.

That statement is just ridiculously wrong for the last test series.

I cannot believe you would even try to suggest what you have said as fact.

We had an allrounder at 6. We lost. He scored 67 of the cheapest runs ever when we needed him to anchor and save the match. He kept swinging to mid wicket and long on and Cook left it open for him to do so. He failed in the first innings. If anyone scored 76 runs in a test and failed, it was then.

We then play 6 batsmen and a keeper. We win. Yes the keeper and #6 batsman scored runs - thats the point. The same bowlers still took 20 wickets.

So if not playing an allrounder aint broke, don't fix it.

No, you're obviously not Blocky nor an Anderson hater

 

[Moss]

Huh? Look at the last two tests. This statement is completely wrong.

That statement is just ridiculously wrong for the last test series.

I cannot believe you would even try to suggest what you have said as fact.

We had an allrounder at 6. We lost. He scored 67 of the cheapest runs ever when we needed him to anchor and save the match. He kept swinging to mid wicket and long on and Cook left it open for him to do so. He failed in the first innings. If anyone scored 76 runs in a test and failed, it was then.

We then play 6 batsmen and a keeper. We win. Yes the keeper and #6 batsman scored runs - thats the point. The same bowlers still took 20 wickets.

So if not playing an allrounder aint broke, don't fix it.

The keeper at Leeds played two very Anderson-esque innings and they came off. Would he have played any differently at Lord's when the match was there to be saved? I doubt it. Batting-wise, it was as if Watling and Corey merely swapped batting positions for the 2nd test. Given Anderson bowled very little in the first, not much was lost in the bowling but I suspect the attack could have used the extra overs.

Point being, there are arguments to be made either way, but the last 2 tests are precisely the wrong examples to use.
(Unless you're arguing that Watling + Ronchi(k) > Watling(k) + Anderson which I definitely disagree with. At best Ronchi's batting is the equal of Anderson's and Anderson gives you the added option with the ball.)

 

[hendrix]

Anderson match winner with the ball? Unlikely. Could happen - but how often? Against Australia? In Australia? Hmmm. Unlikely.

I suspect Australia's whole game plan will come down to attacking our 3rd, 4th and 5th bowlers. Anderson could get something from that. More likely that he'll get taken to the cleaners, but he could be in the wickets. He's been a pretty vital part of our ODI attack and he's got a lot more intelligent with his bowling lately.

 

[Zinzan]

Little to choose between Neesham and Anderson IMO, they've both done a decent job in tests so far without either one conclusively winning the battle (would have said neither is indispensable, but in a funny way between them they've managed to make the "allrounder spot" an indispensable one). Neesham has the stats so far, but as someone has already said Anderson plays with pure emotion and his mindset alone might give him a better chance of succeeding.

Surprised tbh, I would have thought most NZ fans would see Neesham has a fairly clear edge over Anderson at Test level & this isn't just going by the numbers. It's not that I don't rate Anderson, just feel Neesham is slightly better in all disciplines in the long-form (including fielding, if it comes to that), and obviously vice versa in the short-forms of the game.

As much as Neesham's bowling with the white ball makes me cringe, I still see plenty of potential at test level, which I think we just started to see at the end of the test summer. I don't think there's any doubt Neesham would have played ahead of Corey at Lords if not for his injury.

 

[Hurricane]

...

 

[Hurricane]

New discussion:

Can New Zealand actually win? Or more precisely what odds would you give them of winning the series?

I would give them about a 10% chance. If we can't win in England against England we certainly can't win in Australia against Australia. But I could see a drawn series on the cards.
I guess the ultimate thing in our favour is that it is a 3 match series. We seem to be worse starters that pea soup and get better as series go on.

I would be happy to see a 1-1 result. But I am convinced we will lose the first test and will do well to even it after that.

 

[Dan]

<downhill skiier>

...

I know you're trolling with this now Hurricane, but this is straight-up incorrect.

 

[Hurricane]

I know you're trolling with this now Hurricane, but this is straight-up incorrect.

Yeah I can't confess to trolling due to the site rules which I have printed out at home . I am probably stirring the pot though and going for some groan type laughter. It is my opinion though.
Don't want to debate it though as I have had it out with Flem before and I am aware he has one or two innings from tougher situations. But it is literally one or two innings only. Most of the time he waves the white flag at the hint of pressure.
But yeah my goal is to post pics of skiiers and just say kthxbye and not justify myself afterwards really.

 

[Days of Grace]

We are terrible in the first match of a series and then we are down to our third-string bowlers by the last match.

 

[straw man]

Jimmy N transcends skiing