**Official** New Zealand in Australia 2015

[Athlai]

Agreed.

Will stand by Craig, in lou of Jeets.

Haha made me chuckle.

Lieu.

 

[Athlai]

No, it isn't a fact at all. I'm sure you'll furnish me with statistics and paper work that suggest that is the case.

I'm probably not the best to comment on it, as I'm a bit sycophantic in regards to an old club mate. Or maybe I am because I know Mark's full story. He wasn't a full-time offie until around 7 years ago, into his 20s. That's ridiculously late for a spinner to learn his craft. His key assets are his height, ability to get drift, bounce, and a decent bit of turn. His strength has never been his pitch map, which yeah Kane may have over him. After being picked last year, he's done as well - if not better - than could have been expected given where he was at. Remembering he was picked because Jeetan turned down touring the Windies, he's won us Test matches since then. He's come to Australia, having never been attacked to the level he's been exposed to over here. NZ batsmen as a rule don't use their feet and dominate spinners like the likes of Warner, Burns, Smith etc do and unsurprisingly, on flat wickets that haven't turned much, he's gone for runs. Where's the surprise? Would there be another NZ spinner - save for Vettori - who wouldn't have got tap?

He'll do his best bowling in 2-3 years time, having been exposed to conditions and batsmen all around the world. Whether or not he's still in the side by then, who knows. Given our history, probably not.

And let's all be realistic, he's not going to get results this week. Sounds like it's either going to be a greenish one that holds together all week to save this pissant pink ball, or it'll be the usual Adelaide gives nothing at all with short square boundaries pitch. He'll get a raggy old pink ball that doesn't have much air in it, and he'll bowl during the day when batsmen are looking to make hay before the seamers get the ball after dusk. You'd hope he can tie an end up but that's not the bowler he is right now. And from all reports, Santner bowled real loose **** this week as well.

I dunno, as I say I'm probably blinded but I think the criticism of him personally, bowling wise, is weak. Batting I can understand, definitely. But the selectors picked him and he's pretty much done exactly as you'd expect, if not a bit more in winning Test matches in the fourth innings - which even Dan V didn't do in his last 4-5 years.

Na Craig is a total spud and his best performances have come when the opposition either got too excited at his pies and got out whacking him around, or like Pakistan just completely fell to pieces and a stiff breeze would have gotten those wickets.

Craig does not have the accuracy or the armory to be a serious threat in Test cricket. I know what you're thinking, besides maybe Jeets no one really does at all, but the issue with Craig is that he isn't a good defensive bowler either. We know we don't have a spinner that can get us wickets but they at least need to be able to build pressure and he just consistently gets treated with disdain.

This will be his last summer IMO.

 

[Hurricane]

I would be on his side if he batted sensibly. His slip fielding alone has been an asset.

There is room in the side at number 8 for a bowling all rounder who is only a B+ at bowling. His batting is technically good enough for number 8 but he is too cavalier and likes to have a dirty tonk.

 

[hendrix]

Haha made me chuckle.

Lieu.

haha I looked at it for ages and was like wtf is going on.

lieutenant etc. No coffee this morning.

 

[Flem274*]

Na Craig is a total spud and his best performances have come when the opposition either got too excited at his pies and got out whacking him around, or like Pakistan just completely fell to pieces and a stiff breeze would have gotten those wickets.

Craig does not have the accuracy or the armory to be a serious threat in Test cricket. I know what you're thinking, besides maybe Jeets no one really does at all, but the issue with Craig is that he isn't a good defensive bowler either. We know we don't have a spinner that can get us wickets but they at least need to be able to build pressure and he just consistently gets treated with disdain.

This will be his last summer IMO.

Dribble

 

[Gnske]

No, it isn't a fact at all. I'm sure you'll furnish me with statistics and paper work that suggest that is the case.

I'm probably not the best to comment on it, as I'm a bit sycophantic in regards to an old club mate. Or maybe I am because I know Mark's full story. He wasn't a full-time offie until around 7 years ago, into his 20s. That's ridiculously late for a spinner to learn his craft. His key assets are his height, ability to get drift, bounce, and a decent bit of turn. His strength has never been his pitch map, which yeah Kane may have over him. After being picked last year, he's done as well - if not better - than could have been expected given where he was at. Remembering he was picked because Jeetan turned down touring the Windies, he's won us Test matches since then. He's come to Australia, having never been attacked to the level he's been exposed to over here. NZ batsmen as a rule don't use their feet and dominate spinners like the likes of Warner, Burns, Smith etc do and unsurprisingly, on flat wickets that haven't turned much, he's gone for runs. Where's the surprise? Would there be another NZ spinner - save for Vettori - who wouldn't have got tap?

He'll do his best bowling in 2-3 years time, having been exposed to conditions and batsmen all around the world. Whether or not he's still in the side by then, who knows. Given our history, probably not.

And let's all be realistic, he's not going to get results this week. Sounds like it's either going to be a greenish one that holds together all week to save this pissant pink ball, or it'll be the usual Adelaide gives nothing at all with short square boundaries pitch. He'll get a raggy old pink ball that doesn't have much air in it, and he'll bowl during the day when batsmen are looking to make hay before the seamers get the ball after dusk. You'd hope he can tie an end up but that's not the bowler he is right now. And from all reports, Santner bowled real loose **** this week as well.

I dunno, as I say I'm probably blinded but I think the criticism of him personally, bowling wise, is weak. Batting I can understand, definitely. But the selectors picked him and he's pretty much done exactly as you'd expect, if not a bit more in winning Test matches in the fourth innings - which even Dan V didn't do in his last 4-5 years.

So in summation

- Don't show me empirical evidence of how terrible he is
- He might be good in two years time so lets permit him to get smashed some more
- Waaaah Flat decks
- Who cares if he's bowling trash, bowling well and having a good pitch map was never his forte unlike good bowlers
- Bullying the West Indies, an English middle order made of China and bowling in a match in which no one wanted to play are achievements of a genuine winner of Test matches.

I know this tour has been a bit of a reality check for the NZ bowling but surely the denial isn't this serious?

 

[Kippax]

Sounds like Athlai is on the verge of making a deal with the Dev.

 

[hendrix]

So in summation

- Don't show me empirical evidence of how terrible he is
- He might be good in two years time so lets permit him to get smashed some more
- Waaaah Flat decks
- Who cares if he's bowling trash, bowling well and having a good pitch map was never his forte unlike good bowlers
- Bullying the West Indies, an English middle order made of China and bowling in a match in which no one wanted to play are achievements of a genuine winner of Test matches.

I know this tour has been a bit of a reality check for the NZ bowling but surely the denial isn't this serious?

He's not good. He's at best a passable. He's bowled terribly.

But it's not denial, the reality is that we have 2 good bowlers and one of them has finally gone missing after 2 years, which has exposed the lack of depth.

None of Bracewell, Henry, Wagner, Wheeler, Santner, Sodhi - whoever out of our non-frontline bowlers we pick can realistically be expected to contribute much more.

 

[Flem274*]

You could say conceding 600+ at home is a reality check for a team supposedly overflowing with world class bowlers that are all future ATGs

 

[Gnske]

He's not good. He's at best a passable. He's bowled terribly.

But it's not denial, the reality is that we have 2 good bowlers and one of them has finally gone missing after 2 years, which has exposed the lack of depth.

None of Bracewell, Henry, Wagner, Wheeler, Santner, Sodhi - whoever out of our non-frontline bowlers we pick can realistically be expected to contribute much more.

Fair enough in that regard but saying "Well he hasn't been a spinner for very long and his pitch map was never good anyway" isn't exactly something that would get you acquitted of murder, condemnation if anything.

Don't take me for an utter hater though, the international arena really isn't the place to be learning this stuff but if Craig must be persisted with he really does need to work with Dmitri or someone on getting his pitch map to standard. Could be such a weapon if he does but he needs to learn quickly at this rate.

 

[veganbob]

Na Craig is a total spud and his best performances have come when the opposition either got too excited at his pies and got out whacking him around, or like Pakistan just completely fell to pieces and a stiff breeze would have gotten those wickets.

Craig does not have the accuracy or the armory to be a serious threat in Test cricket. I know what you're thinking, besides maybe Jeets no one really does at all, but the issue with Craig is that he isn't a good defensive bowler either. We know we don't have a spinner that can get us wickets but they at least need to be able to build pressure and he just consistently gets treated with disdain.

This will be his last summer IMO.

agreed. I'd like to see santner tried. Really though, jeetan patel should really be playing.

 

[Cabinet96]

Athlai's assessment was harsh but he nailed the thing about leaking pressure. If you haven't got a top class spinner, you want them to both contribute in other ways, such as with the bat or in the field (Craig does this) and at least keep things tight and not allow any potential pressure built from the better bowlers go to waste (Craig doesn't do this). Craig is useful if you want to bowl a side out 4th innings in the West Indies but if he's going at 4/5 an over when his job is to try and be a containing bowler on day 1 then you've got massive problems.

I remember Bruce Martin sort of became a joke after he failed to get any wickets in the 4th innings at Auckland against England but at least someone like him could keep it tight and function in a 4 man attack. I'm not saying you should pick him, but I think that kind of holding spinner role is much more suited for a side like New Zealand.

 

[straw man]

Accepted years ago that our bowling attack was always likely to be four seamers plus Kaneh, with a spinner only brought in for tours of the subcontinent and WI. So I'm surprised Craig's done even as well as he has. I was genuinely impressed with how he bowled in the second test against England - yes England were a long way behind and were tentative, but he landed the ball in the right spot enough times, turned it and bowled the arm ball well. Aside from that though, he's been often poor and frequently terrible.

Am not sure where NZ should go from here with spinners.
- Could stick with Craig. They've shown admirable loyalty to him and I think he'll at least get the next home series after this. I hope he'll settle back into some rhythm once there's less pressure on him. The accuracy problems can't be accepted forever though, especially if he's part of a four man attack (or forcing us into a five man attack even though we don't have a fit allrounder to make it work). How much persistence will McHesson have? Rutherford says a lot.
- Santner may get quite a few chances to bat 6 (or 7 below Watling) with Neesham and Anderson injured so frequently, which means we could field four seamers and resembles the original plan in that Santner's spin is part-time-ish. One positive is that we would have enough bowling that one of the seamers could be Milne - apply in short bursts, twice daily.
- Tastle deserves a chance next time we tour SC/WI and I like the way he attacks the crease now. But could he be our number one spinner? The offspinner is probably seen as a lower risk option than the legspinner though really, does Craig land the ball in the right spot any more frequently than Tastle would? Considering the bits to add to the pieces, despite being a former opener his batting output is probably lower than Craig these days. Not sure what Tastle's fielding is like.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

it all comes down to - are we expecting Craig to play as a containing spinner?

The answer (I hope) has always been a resounding no. He's a good slipper, solid number 8, and an erratic but potentially match-winning spinner. He's not going to wheel away at one end at 2 RPO.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Short leg growing on Burns | cricket.com.au

That's unfortunate.

Hopefully while he gets that removed we can get someone in there who can catch.

 

[Cabinet96]

Also, to what extent does Craig's batting get canceled out if you have to play an all-rounder at 6/7 instead of a specialist batsman, because he can't function well in a 4 man attack? Brownlie-Watling-Bracewell is no worse a 6-8 than Anderson/Neesham-Watling-Craig IMO.

 

[Prince EWS]

Also, to what extent does Craig's batting get canceled out if you have to play an all-rounder at 6/7 instead of a specialist batsman, because he can't function well in a 4 man attack? Brownlie-Watling-Bracewell is no worse a 6-8 than Anderson/Neesham-Watling-Craig IMO.

The selectors just don't rate Brownlie though. Either that or they're really keen for him to get some experience opening and don't want to bat him in the middle order in the mean time.

If a middle order batsman was injured, both Anderson and Neesham would play, or Ronchi would play. They've basically indicated that not only do they disagree with what you said, but they'd even disagree that Brownlie-Watling-Craig was no worse than Anderson/Neesham-Watling-Craig in the first place.

It's much less a case of Anderson/Neesham being picked because of Craig and much more a case of Craig being a reasonably good fit because Anderson and Neesham are considered the fourth and fifth best non-Watling middle order batsmen even aside from their bowling.

 

[straw man]

Yeah Craig fits in if there's an allrounder to bowl some overs when the time is not right for Craig. Astle would be a similar proposition*. Our allrounders are and may continue to be very injury prone though.

Santner is a different proposition because it means you can instead spend your risky-might-take-a-wicket-might-go-horribly-wrong points on Milne instead.

* though legspinners often tend to be a good idea for tailend wickets, whereas Craig isn't necessarily.

 

[hendrix]

Craig is useful if you want to bowl a side out 4th innings in the West Indies but if he's going at 4/5 an over when his job is to try and be a containing bowler on day 1 then you've got massive problems.

This is undoubtedly true, but if his job is to be a containing bowler on day one then that's a contingency plan at best. And while it'd be nice to have contingency plans with bowlers that can perform both roles to a reasonable standard, we can only select 11 players.

Craig has been selected in the event that the batsman and pace bowlers have fired in the first innings and we're trying to bowl a side out on days 4 and 5. That's been McCullum's stated selection policy throughout his tenure; picking a side for 5 days. Now I'm not even sure whether Craig is all that great at bowling a side out on days 4 and 5, but he's definitely better at that skill then he is at being a containing bowler on day 1.

You might call it unreasonable for NZ's plans to revolve around the expectancy that the batsmen and the seam bowlers do well over the first 3 days, but that is the definition of positive selection policy and I don't particularly disagree with it. There were 3 specialist pace bowlers and an allrounder who all failed to varying degrees before Craig failed spectacularly in each test. We shouldn't have to make plans for that.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah we got away with a run leaker who never put in the good performances of craig (sodhi) because southee, boult, wagner and anderson protected him.