-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
**Official** New Zealand in Australia 2015
- Thread starter Hurricane
- Start date
Hurricane
Hall of Fame Member
I have given up taking a strong opinion on starting xi's as our selectors always seem to make good calls. They will get it right this time too.
I do like guessing who they will pick though.
Craig is not a test match number 7 in their eyes
Wagner may be higher in the pecking order than Henry even though Henry can move it away.
I think they will prefer santner over ronchi due to santners tour knock in England. That inning was "noted for the record"
Ronchi has been a bit hit and miss in odis and they seem to rate ODIs as a helpful guide.
I do like guessing who they will pick though.
Craig is not a test match number 7 in their eyes
Wagner may be higher in the pecking order than Henry even though Henry can move it away.
I think they will prefer santner over ronchi due to santners tour knock in England. That inning was "noted for the record"
Ronchi has been a bit hit and miss in odis and they seem to rate ODIs as a helpful guide.
Flem274*
123/5
Hesson on radio just now
-unlikely we'll play a batsman in for neesh because we want five bowlers so everyone predicting santa or craig at 7 is looking good
-when asked about what went wrong said um first, nerves second and being hit off our length third. Sounds like we were already edgy then bowled trash as a result and it went downhill from there
-very pleased with guptill looking to bat time in the second innings
-doesn't care about the drs or starc incidents
-unlikely we'll play a batsman in for neesh because we want five bowlers so everyone predicting santa or craig at 7 is looking good
-when asked about what went wrong said um first, nerves second and being hit off our length third. Sounds like we were already edgy then bowled trash as a result and it went downhill from there
-very pleased with guptill looking to bat time in the second innings
-doesn't care about the drs or starc incidents
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Wow surprised to hear Hesson so head strong about wanting to play 5-bowlers, surely with no Anderson & Neesham that policy has to go out the window. Where is innovative thinking that saw them play Vettori in that one -off test vs PAK in Sharjah last year?
The Santher I saw in ENG ODIs this summer looks nowhere near test standard as yet. NZ think thank potentially loosing the plot here a bit.
The Santher I saw in ENG ODIs this summer looks nowhere near test standard as yet. NZ think thank potentially loosing the plot here a bit.
Moss
International Captain
Vettori happened to be the right man in the right place at the time. The problem here is, the think tank (rightly) has reservations about a 4-man attack including Craig. 3 Seaamers + Craig and playing the extra batsman in Ronchi was something they were prepared to do in Leeds because the conditions on the whole afforded it. Not the same story in Aus unless the WACA is unusally seamer friendly this time. They are also very reluctant to dispense with Craig, mainly because of always-play-a-spinner principle as opposed to blind loyalty, but his batting and fielding no doubt factors in.
5 bowlers may not be innovative, but it certainly is bold and is NZ's best chance of victory IMO though it could easily backfire and leave them looking foolish. There is a precedent here:
2nd Test: Sri Lanka v New Zealand at Colombo (PSS), Nov 25-29, 2012 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
Todd Astle was batted at 7 and played a vital knock in the second dig. Craig's batting ability is almost at his level (NZers here might want to debate this). Thoughts?
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, I think it's borderline crazy to be honest. Sure, let's pick a 23 year old with a mediocre record and dubious backfoot technique to debut on the fastest pitch in the world against the fastest bowling lineup in the world. What could go wrong? As for his bowling, if you're expecting anything more than a mirror image of what will happen to Craig, then don't.
Moss
International Captain
Wasn't referring to Santner at all (should have made that explicit I guess). Craig at 7 and 4 seamers is what I have in mind.
Last edited:
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Ah, ok. That's definitely a better bet, but I can't shake the feeling that Craig just isn't near to being good enough to bat at 7 in tests. Sure he has a good eye (and a better record) but the lack of foot movement and hackiness of his strokeplay would just leave us too exposed in the event of a middle order wobble.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I don't think five bowlers is imperative in Perth so much as four seamers is unless you have a really, really good spinner. If Neesham was still fit I'd go in unchanged, but he's not, and I think his bowling role was going to be more important in Perth than his batting role.
That leaves four seamers, five batsmen, Watling and one place to fill. Between Ronchi, Rutherford, Craig and Santner I think Craig would probably offer the most to that spot, particularly given the medium-term damage to his confidence that could be done if he was dropped and then recalled really quickly. That doesn't mean he's "good enough to be a number seven batsman in Test cricket"; it just means he'd offer more to the side in that role for this one game than the other options. I'd pick Brownlie ahead of him if he was in the squad, but alas he's not.
That leaves four seamers, five batsmen, Watling and one place to fill. Between Ronchi, Rutherford, Craig and Santner I think Craig would probably offer the most to that spot, particularly given the medium-term damage to his confidence that could be done if he was dropped and then recalled really quickly. That doesn't mean he's "good enough to be a number seven batsman in Test cricket"; it just means he'd offer more to the side in that role for this one game than the other options. I'd pick Brownlie ahead of him if he was in the squad, but alas he's not.
Last edited:
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah they called up McClenaghan.
Howe_zat
Audio File
Last edited:
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah you'd hope he'd still be behind the blokes picked in the squad ahead of him - Bracewell, Henry and Wagner - but New Zealand selectors haven't tended to work like that recently.
Moss
International Captain
Off track but makes me wonder if the think tank simply doesn't rate Brownlie. I know he's currently auditioning for an opening role and is probably behind Rutherford in the queue. But for situations like this where you might need someone who can bat anywhere in the top 6 he comes across as the perfect utility man.
He's been left out of subcontinental and West Indian tours on the basis that his game doesnt suit, but can't make an Australian tour even as reserve. Partly down to a settled top 6 I guess, but still find it weird.
He's been left out of subcontinental and West Indian tours on the basis that his game doesnt suit, but can't make an Australian tour even as reserve. Partly down to a settled top 6 I guess, but still find it weird.