**Official** New Zealand in Australia 2015

[Hurricane]

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.

How much does this factor :"medium-term damage to his confidence that could be done if he was dropped and then recalled really quickly" play into your recommendation?

 

[Hurricane]

McCullum was absolutely dreadful on day 1

How a bowler can be expected to be consistent when fields are being radically changed in the space of a few balls is beyond me

Many of us posted similar thoughts but what do keyboard warriors know?

Well, I can tell you that we wouldn't have done any worse than 8-820 by simply instructing the bowlers to bowl a length on or about off-stump and setting the field accordingly

Good post.

 

[hendrix]

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.

Nah they rate Browlie, it's their policy that he needs to have a full season opening. He almost certainly would have failed in the Windies and on the SC anyway.

I think by the end of the season he will replace Guptill.

 

[OverratedSanity]

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.

Somehow Brownlie's name always comes up in my head when I think about who should be in the team. I have no idea how he's doing in fc or anything... Just all based on that tour of SA where he was the only one who put up a good fight. What happened to him after that? Thought he'd cement his place in the side for sure after how well he batted there.

 

[Howe_zat]

McCullum was absolutely dreadful on day 1

How a bowler can be expected to be consistent when fields are being radically changed in the space of a few balls is beyond me

Many of us posted similar thoughts but what do keyboard warriors know?

Well, I can tell you that we wouldn't have done any worse than 8-820 by simply instructing the bowlers to bowl a length on or about off-stump and setting the field accordingly

novel to see praise for Andrew Strauss' captaincy

 

[Spark]

Strauss was a good captain though. Conservative, but you know what he was about and how he planned to take wickets with his bowlers.

EDIT: McCleneghan on a normal Perth road would be hilarious. Highly recommended.

 

[Howe_zat]

He was like the obstructive desk sergeant in a cop film

in this team we go by the book!

 

[Spark]

The book worked, though.

 

[Howsie]

Eh, over the Santner hate. He'll be fine. Do you honestly believe he'd be here if he was that much of a numpty off the back foot? Best young batsman, talent wise, in the country. He'll put a few on the hill if he's tested with the short stuff.

 

[Spark]

Eh, over the Santner hate. He'll be fine. Do you honestly believe he'd be here if he was that much of a numpty off the back foot? Best young batsman, talent wise, in the country. He'll put a few on the hill if he's tested with the short stuff.

That isn't really a great sign, tbh. In fact that'll make Starc and Johnson even more likely to bomb him if he's a happy hooker.

 

[SteveNZ]

Eh, over the Santner hate. He'll be fine. Do you honestly believe he'd be here if he was that much of a numpty off the back foot? Best young batsman, talent wise, in the country. He'll put a few on the hill if he's tested with the short stuff.

It's not like they were spoiled for choice. Next cab off the rank was Manu, who as much as I love him has no form, and very few would've wanted him picked before that anyway. But seriously mate, just take a breath...it's not hate. It's just people expressing that playing him and Pidg is not ideal, and that Santner playing isn't going to bolster us particularly.

It's like Mitch (Mc) being picked for Neesh, which you seemed to 'hate' on. He's the next best option. If he played, he might go okay. He might not. I'm like you with Santner, I think if Mitch played at Perth he'd go okay. He's bowling really well early season. And he might be cannon fodder. But he's there because the selectors see a role for him, and that's cool by me.

 

[SteveNZ]

Nah they rate Browlie, it's their policy that he needs to have a full season opening. He almost certainly would have failed in the Windies and on the SC anyway.

I think by the end of the season he will replace Guptill.

Brownlie's had a couple of seasons at the top, has he not?

I'd wager very strong money Gup won't be gone by season's end. He's only played three Tests since being reinstated to the side. He scored runs in both matches in England, and Hesson made a point of praising the way he hung in 2nd dig here. He'd have to go on an Agarkar-style run of ducks to be ousted. Problem is he looks much mentally stronger than he was in previous Test stints, but still gets out in similar ways. Seems like he's taylor made for ODIs where there isn't a cordon after he's on 20, but not so much Tests.

 

[hendrix]

Not with you on the McCleneghan part but yeah, re: Santner and the Clen it's just more a case of it not being ideal than any real hate.

I wish we had genuinely better options.

 

[Howsie]

That isn't really a great sign, tbh. In fact that'll make Starc and Johnson even more likely to bomb him if he's a happy hooker.

It's a hell of a lot better than 'He's scared of short pitch bowling', 'Johnson and co will eat him for breakfast' Where does this crap come from? The kid can play, could be a bloody good batsman down the road. Is this too early? No doubt, will Johnson and co be tough, yes indeed. But my gawd, Mark Craig a better bat. Only on CW

 

[aussie]

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?

I was dropping Craig and just picking 4 seamers, since that is the one pitch where you can play 4-quicks & alter your team balance for on game. It would be then up to Hesson/McCullum to decide if of the 6 batsman they either bring in Ronchi & decide whether he or Watling keeps or the suggestion I see mooted by some and calling up Brownlie.

I know he is off the radar, but this is where the NZ bad boy Ryder if things didn't go awol for him wouldn't be a bad addition @ # 6.

 

[Spark]

It's a hell of a lot better than 'He's scared of short pitch bowling', 'Johnson and co will eat him for breakfast' Where does this crap come from? The kid can play, could be a bloody good batsman down the road. Is this too early? No doubt, will Johnson and co be tough, yes indeed. But my gawd, Mark Craig a better bat. Only on CW

Nothing wrong with being somewhat scared of Johnson and Starc bowling bouncers at Perth, tbf. It's a rare batsman--we're talking Williamson/Kohli/Ponting-class--who isn't. But trying to fight fire with fire is often the absolute worst way to play that sort of bowling, you're just asking to get laughed off the field after you've been caught at deep square leg.

 

[SteveNZ]

Not with you on the McCleneghan part but yeah, re: Santner and the Clen it's just more a case of it not being ideal than any real hate.

I wish we had genuinely better options.

Yeah, fair enough too. I'm clouded a bit by rating Mitch, he's got great players out in international cricket before and he's bowling well, and I'm biased. I get that.

Haha it's funny isn't it, I remember a few posters saying it was great we had genuine depth a few months ago. That might be true against average international teams but it certainly isn't against Australia over there.

 

[aussie]

Yeah, fair enough too. I'm clouded a bit by rating Mitch, he's got great players out in international cricket before and he's bowling well, and I'm biased. I get that.

Haha it's funny isn't it, I remember a few posters saying it was great we had genuine depth a few months ago. That might be true against average international teams but it certainly isn't against Australia over there.

Well to be fair NZ do in most area's I guess except opening. You probably didn't expect both your all-rounders to be injured at same time and probably not being able to use Milne in test cricket ATM as a back-up quick option before having to consider McClenegan.

 

[Moss]

It's a hell of a lot better than 'He's scared of short pitch bowling', 'Johnson and co will eat him for breakfast' Where does this crap come from? The kid can play, could be a bloody good batsman down the road. Is this too early? No doubt, will Johnson and co be tough, yes indeed. But my gawd, Mark Craig a better bat. Only on CW

I'm sure Santner is (will be?) a better bat than Craig, but there are ways of easing newcomers into the side.

You might recall that KW was in the test squad to face the Aussies in that 2010 home series, but instead of throwing him into the deep and against Johnson and Harris they saved him for the subcontinent ODI's before giving him the green signal for the India tests. If they are viewing Santner as a long-term prospect (which seems to be the case) you'd hope they are similarly pragmatic

 

[Hurricane]

I'm sure Santner is (will be?) a better bat than Craig, but there are ways of easing newcomers into the side.

You might recall that KW was in the test squad to face the Aussies in that 2010 home series, but instead of throwing him into the deep and against Johnson and Harris they saved him for the subcontinent ODI's before giving him the green signal for the India tests. If they are viewing Santner as a long-term prospect (which seems to be the case) you'd hope they are similarly pragmatic

KAne was 20 then Santner is 23

That said we long remember what we did to Ken Rutherford and Martin Crowe early doors.