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

[CaptainGrumpy]

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

I like Corey in the ODI team. One of the first names selected.

I don't like the thought of Corey in the test team over a better batsman (which includes Neesham) makes me an Anderson hater. Fine I am an Test Anderson hater.

Lets look at Anderson's bowling. Well he averages over 41 in FC. In test that improves to 38.46. He got 11 West Indian and Bangladeshi wickets his first year, and 2 wickets last year. No wickets this year. So it is quite likely if that trend continues that he will be past his FC average in tests soon. His test SR is 80.3. Fearsome stuff.

Kane Williamson has a better record as a test bowler, and their first class bowling performances are fairly identical with Anderson averaging 41.42, Williamson 41.56 but at a quicker SR. Williamson has the better test record, including after re-modelling his action, with a SR of 67 and wicket average of 37.22. Now we do not talk of Kane being an allrounder. Why do we do this Anderson?

So Anderson the bowler, who gets wickets in ODI cricket at over 6 runs an over, and does a good job for team balance, is not much chop with the red ball. Its a fairly similar scenario to Angelo Matthews. Effective ODI allrounder, but that all roundness does not transfer to bowling the red ball. Except Angelo Mathews is currently a fine test batsman, averaging over 50.

So Anderson the batsman. In 18 tests has managed 4 innings over 50. There is a century against Banagladesh, a downhill 70 after MccUllum scored a double ton and Williamson a single ton against India. There is the second innings free runs he made at Lords, when he swung to mid wicket and long on with Cook leaving the hole open to nab a wicket as runs were not an issue, as Anderson needed to bat time to save the test, not slog against the line striking at 77. Those were the cheapest runs one could make at Lords in a test.

Corey also made a 50, at near run a ball, in the UAE. After McCullummade 202 and Williamson 192. Nice little downhill effort there.

So Corey the test batsman with his 31 average, almost appears to be flattered.

Corey the ODI player - brilliant power hitter and useful canon fodder bowler in the McCleanhan vein, that is worth his weight to team balance for his power hitting and the fact he can bowl as well as McClenahn and take cheap wickets of batsman looking to score off him quickly at a high economy rate. Works for team balance.

As a test player, the power batting game is less useful and the bowling is attrocious. If McCullum and Williamson could ton up every innings, Corey is a nice way to ice the innings. But you cannot expect Williamson and McCullum to continually have Bradmanesque averaging years. Even then, why risk further occasional losses or let further possible victories slide?

If New Zealand is to carry a slogger and minnow basher in the test team who bowls dead ordinary occasional spells, why not select Munro for the job? He has the better first class track record for the job. I am not advocating Munro who is losing form in England as we speak, I am advocating Brownlie over Anderson.
I repeat that we do not talk of Kane being an allrounder. Why do we do this Anderson?

 

[Hurricane]

I like Corey in the ODI team. One of the first names selected.

I don't like the thought of Corey in the test team over a better batsman (which includes Neesham) makes me an Anderson hater. Fine I am an Test Anderson hater.

Ill advised comment. You are setting yourself up for some "taste that" comments later this year.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Ill advised comment. You are setting yourself up for some "taste that" comments later this year.

Possibly.

I think its more likely that you guys will be setting yourselves up for me to say "I told you so".

 

[Hurricane]

Possibly.

I think its more likely that you guys will be setting yourselves up for me to say "I told you so".

Maybe who knows. But I do know how CW works and outting yourself as a hater very rarely pays dividends. That said I have said some similar things about Steve Smith's batting technique.

 

[Prince EWS]

I repeat that we do not talk of Kane being an allrounder.

We used to before he got reported.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

We used to before he got reported.

You seem intelligent from your other threads. But because I bolded that line, I don't know if you read the whole post or not.

 

[Athlai]

You don't measure part-timers by how sweet their average is. Kane bowls approximately 7 overs a Test. You may not rate Corey Anderson, but at worst he's a **** allrounder. To suggest he isn't one at all is just absolutely blockheaded.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

You don't measure part-timers by how sweet their average is. Kane bowls approximately 7 overs a Test. You may not rate Corey Anderson, but at worst he's a **** allrounder. To suggest he isn't one at all is just absolutely blockheaded.

Well with a declining test batting batting average of 31 where his only runs have been against Bangladesh, or cheap runs in a loss, or cheap runs after McCullum double tons, and Williamson also tons up, I take it he is a bowling all rounder then? Averaging close to 40 bowling? That cannot be the case.

Williamson at least bats 8 runs ahead of bowling average. Corey is seven runs behind his. Williamson has greater claims of being called an allrounder. It would appear to me that Corey is being selected as an averaging 31 batsman. There are better sloggy batsmen for red ball cricket than Corey Anderson.

In sum: Neesh is ahead of Corey in tests. I would still prefer Brownlie be considered for the team, unless Neesh is genuinely in the 6 best bats come the next test series.

 

[Prince EWS]

You seem intelligent from your other threads. But because I bolded that line, I don't know if you read the whole post or not.

I did read the whole post, but admittedly not until after I'd replied to that part. It's Friday man.

Kane hasn't done much bowling since he remodelled his action. It's easier to maintain a good average when you only bowl when it really suits you as opposed to being a regular part of the attack, plus small sample/variance, plus New Zealand usually need the extra seamer more than the extra spinner in the rotation anyway.

 

[Hurricane]

Well with a declining test batting batting average of 31 where his only runs have been against Bangladesh, or cheap runs in a loss, or cheap runs after McCullum double tons, and Williamson also tons up, I take it he is a bowling all rounder then? Averaging close to 40 bowling? That cannot be the case.

Williamson at least bats 8 runs ahead of bowling average. Corey is seven runs behind his. Williamson has greater claims of being called an allrounder. It would appear to me that Corey is being selected as an averaging 31 batsman.

In sum: Neesh is ahead of Corey in tests. I would still prefer Brownlie be considered for the team, unless Neesh is genuinely in the 6 best bats come the next test series.

Yeah I think we are done here. Saying Kane is a better all rounder than anyone in the world is not something I will seriously debate. He is a part time bowler like Athlai says. Cribb also responded to you by saying that Kane had the potential to be a batting all rounder before he was called for chucking. He doesn't bowl much these days. In the first test in England he was so low down the pecking order that he didn't bowl a single over. I am aware he took wicket(s) in the 2nd test but that was being used as a partnership breaker on a hunch rather than as a key bowling option. His bowling days aren't necessarily behind him, but he will be lucky to even get in the 7 overs per test that Athlai has referred to. I would say in the Australian series that over 3 tests he will get at most 15 overs even if Australia bats 6 times.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I did read the whole post, but admittedly not until after I'd replied to that part. It's Friday man.

Kane hasn't done much bowling since he remodelled his action. It's easier to maintain a good average when you only bowl when it really suits you as opposed to being a regular part of the attack, plus small sample/variance, plus New Zealand usually need the extra seamer more than the extra spinner in the rotation anyway.

Kane is not an allrounder. But he is a better fifth bowling option over Corey Anderson when you can play 6 batsmen, and include someone like Brownlie. Kane has bowled 10 overs in 2 tests since his remodelled action and taken 3/22. There is still lots left to like post his re-modelled action.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Yeah I think we are done here. Saying Kane is a better all rounder than anyone in the world is not something I will seriously debate. He is a part time bowler like Athlai says. Cribb also responded to you by saying that Kane had the potential to be a batting all rounder before he was called for chucking. He doesn't bowl much these days. In the first test in England he was so low down the pecking order that he didn't bowl a single over. I am aware he took wicket(s) in the 2nd test but that was being used as a partnership breaker on a hunch rather than as a key bowling option. His bowling days aren't necessarily behind him, but he will be lucky to even get in the 7 overs per test that Athlai has referred to. I would say in the Australian series that over 3 tests he will get at most 15 overs even if Australia bats 6 times.

You 're missing the point. The issue is not whether Kane is an allrounder. That is a use of rhetoric that appears to have confused you. The issue is what does Corey Anderson bring to the test team over Brownlie or anyone else including Neesham. For you to call Neesham a downhill skiier - when all three of Corey's 50's have been downhill ski jobs, leaving his sole ton against the Bangladesh as his sole meaningful contribution to test cricket is laughable.

Jimmy has made some substantial scores in far more trying and meaningful circumstances to set up team scores.

Corey Anderson is a part time red bowler too, much in the mould of Williamson. "He just don't bat good in red ball cricket."

 

[Hurricane]

You 're missing the point. The issue is not whether Kane is an allrounder. That is a use of rhetoric that appears to have confused you. The issue is what does Corey Anderson bring to the test team over Brownlie or anyone else including Neesham. For you to call Neesham a downhill skiier - when all three of Corey's 50's have been downhill ski jobs, leaving his sole ton against the Bangladesh as his sole meaningful contribution to test cricket is laughable.

Jimmy has made some real scores in far more trying circumstances to set up team scores.

Kane will get murdered if he steps up to bowling the number overs we need out of a 5th bowler. McCullum knows that so the main 4 bowlers will have to bowl more as a result. Kane is best used as a surprise factor these days.

Now maybe you can make a case that it is ok if the 4 "main" bowlers get through more overs. As Days of Grace pointed out Boult was injured eventually due to workload and that included a test match without Corey playing.

We have 3 test matches to get through, keeping our bowlers fresh and healthy will be a factor.

I am not saying we have to have a 5th bowler because like you if there is a demonstrably better 6th batsman like say Ryder (who I assume Hendrix was referring to) then we would pick him.
Brownlie may indeed be better but he is not an order of magnitude better.

I will respond to your accusation about Corey making soft runs shortly.

 

[Athlai]

Well with a declining test batting batting average of 31 where his only runs have been against Bangladesh, or cheap runs in a loss, or cheap runs after McCullum double tons, and Williamson also tons up, I take it he is a bowling all rounder then? Averaging close to 40 bowling? That cannot be the case.

Williamson at least bats 8 runs ahead of bowling average. Corey is seven runs behind his. Williamson has greater claims of being called an allrounder. It would appear to me that Corey is being selected as an averaging 31 batsman. There are better sloggy batsmen for red ball cricket than Corey Anderson.

In sum: Neesh is ahead of Corey in tests. I would still prefer Brownlie be considered for the team, unless Neesh is genuinely in the 6 best bats come the next test series.

Bangladesh are decent in Corey's career and if you want to explain away all his runs as soft thats alright. He hasn't even played a dozen Tests yet, hardly damning to say he hasn't scored a matchwinning hundred in trying conditions. Corey is a better bowler than Neesham and Neesham is a better batsman than Corey in this format. You hear no arguments from me.

But those two are allrounders and Kane isn't.

 

[Athlai]

I think Corey is a far superior batting prospect than Oram ever was in red ball stuff. It's #6 FFS. They aren't in the team to score difficult runs.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Kane will get murdered if he steps up to bowling the number overs we need out of a 5th bowler.

Hasn't in the past. Been as effective than Corey with a better SR.

Now maybe you can make a case that it is ok if the 4 "main" bowlers get through more overs. As Days of Grace pointed out Boult was injured eventually due to workload and that included a test match without Corey playing.

Yes but Rutherford did not play that test match either. Correlation does not entail causation. Furthermore, a result was being chased, Boult needed to take wickets and the game could not go through a cheap easy run phase for England of Corey bowling. But, if Boult needed a break, Kane could have bowled. Oh wait he did. And he took wickets in the second innings.

I am not saying we have to have a 5th bowler because like you if there is a demonstrably better 6th batsman like say Ryder (who I assume Hendrix was referring to) then we would pick him.
Brownlie may indeed be better but he is not an order of magnitude better.

Brownlie is a magnitude better at first class. At test level Brownlie previously made tough runs against Australia and South Africa.

I will respond to your accusation about Corey making soft runs shortly.

Okay - but for 50+ scores its a sloggy Lords loss innings when batting time was more vital and Cook leaving the field open at long on and mid wicket, a ton against Bangladesh and two fifties after Brendon double tons with Kane going single ton.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Kane will get murdered if he steps up to bowling the number overs we need out of a 5th bowler.

Hasn't in the past. Been as effective than Corey with a better SR.

Now maybe you can make a case that it is ok if the 4 "main" bowlers get through more overs. As Days of Grace pointed out Boult was injured eventually due to workload and that included a test match without Corey playing.

Yes but Rutherford did not play that test match either. Correlation does not entail causation. Furthermore, a result was being chased, Boult needed to take wickets and the game could not go through a cheap easy run phase for England of Corey bowling. But, if Boult needed a break, Kane could have bowled. Oh wait he did. And he took wickets in the second innings.

I am not saying we have to have a 5th bowler because like you if there is a demonstrably better 6th batsman like say Ryder (who I assume Hendrix was referring to) then we would pick him.
Brownlie may indeed be better but he is not an order of magnitude better.

Brownlie is a magnitude better at first class. At test level Brownlie previously made tough runs against Australia and South Africa in those countries.

I will respond to your accusation about Corey making soft runs shortly.

Okay - but for 50+ scores its a sloggy Lords loss innings when batting time was more vital and Cook leaving the field open at long on and mid wicket, a ton against Bangladesh and two fifties after Brendon double tons with Kane going single ton.

 

[Hurricane]

Corey has made plenty of tough runs. However he just hasn't converted starts. But he makes sure that wickets don't fall in clumps however.

116 - Bangers - FOW when he went into bat 4-127 (hard runs)

38 vs west indies - 4/189 (hard runs)

39 vs West indies 4/174 (hard runs)

77 vs India 4/251 (probably soft runs)

48 vs Pakistan 3/47 (very tough runs)

50 vs Pakistan 3/464 (soft runs)

67 vs England 5-61 (hard runs even if Grumpy didn't like the looseness of the inning)

 

[Hurricane]

Hasn't in the past. Been as effective than Corey with a better SR.
.

When he chucked.

He used to be a very good "bowler" and use to give it a real rip. Now not so much. Please stop looking at his total career stats. At least in one post you did make reference to his stats post chucking.

He is not the same bowler any more.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Corey has made plenty of tough runs. However he just hasn't converted starts. But he makes sure that wickets don't fall in clumps however.

116 - Bangers - FOW when he went into bat 4-127 (hard runs) [/quote] Its Bangladesh (pre Mustifzr).

38 vs west indies - 4/189 (hard runs)

39 vs West indies 4/174 (hard runs)

A his career defining 30's. Seriously - there goes you calling Jimmy a down hill skiier. Seen his runs against the West Indian attack. Bigger scores too.

77 vs India 4/251 (probably soft runs)

Oh so soft.

48 vs Pakistan 3/47 (very tough runs)

a career defining 40.

50 vs Pakistan 3/464 (soft runs)

Soft.

67 vs England 5-61 (hard runs even if Grumpy didn't like the looseness of the inning)

Bollocks. he slogged accross the line to mid wicket and long on and Cook left the field open for him. Time was essential to save the test, not runs. Cook was chasing wickets, not defending runs in the least on day 5. Soft runs. Soft soft soft.

So there we have it, Corey Anderson has never scored over 50 against an attack better than Bangladesh that were not soft runs. No wonder he averages 31 and falling.

I cannot believe you are pulling out scores of 30's against the West Indies to defend a top 6 batsman. Jimmy Neesham went way bigger in similar circumstances, and you call him a downhill skiier.