**Official** New Zealand in Australia 2015

[SteveNZ]

Yeah, nothing on RTS and HotSpot can, occasionally, get false positives. Now its obvious to all and sundry that Lyon hit it, the on-field umpire should have given it out. No argument there. The standing umpire ****ed up big time. But not being able to see the hotspot occur, in combination with the lack of RTS, means that definitive evidence does not exist for Llong to overturn the on-field decision. It's probably enough for him to make the decision himself. But that's not his job.

Nigel Llong the umpire can infer that it was out, but Nigel Llong the process-following Decision Reviewer cannot.

That said, Jono is 100% right about him being a dick for the "could have been anything" comment, but I imagine he knew he was on-air and didn't have time to explain the intricacies related to the key piece of definitive evidence being off screen because the HotSpot FoV is **** for sweep shots.

As an umpire, everything is about processes. Your processes are what make you get decisions right more often than not. But sometimes, very rarely, they just don't work -- and you have to accept that. But if you've developed them correctly, they're still a damn sight better than any other set of processes, or not having them at all.

Llong has done everything by the book but has been forced to make the wrong decision. It sucks, but these things happen. Unfortunately, this failure of the DRS technology and process had big ramifications for the match. But don't throw the ****ing baby out with the bathwater by suggesting DRS should be scrapped. It corrects the extreme majority of poor decisions (or, at least, has the potential to if Brendon McCullum doesn't gamble them on marginal LBWs in the first hour of every innings).

I don't buy that Llong did everything by the book for a second. Does the book say Snicko must overrule Hotspot? If not, which I presume it doesn't, neither trumps neither and there was absolutely clear as day evidence on the bat, in the exact same place the ball *would (did)* make contact with the bat. The ball changed direction, from the front-on camera. To say it could have been anything, I know he'd take those words back but it's ludicrous. How co-incidental could it be to have a ball-shaped mark on the EXACT part of the bat where the ball passed? The odds would be in the millions, right?

I said it about the LBW decision reviews, it is absolutely outrageous that the original decision of the umpire has any bearing on what a superior decision-making technology does upstairs. I don't blame Ravi (?) for the decision, it wasn't a massive edge. But if a more perceptive umpire gets it right, and Lyon reviews because he thinks he's last man in, the decision comes back out from exactly the same umpire upstairs. It's fundamentally flawed. Rugby League has the ref's call rule because their view can be impaired upstairs with bodies, angles etc. We very seldom have that, and in such a case (bat pad etc) I would have no problem. But LBWs in particular, never an issue. They should make the decisions completely independent of whatever happened on field. Put them in a room, don't give them any idea of what happened on field. Llong may have still got it wrong but he was influenced by what someone did in real time, which I can't understand. You're saying technology is superior but we still want to use the inferior decision maker (umpires) as part of the process. Umpires won't cease to exist if the review power is completely taken away from them. They're still a big part of how sides use reviews wisely or otherwise, spirit of cricket, no balls, wides, etc etc. They won't lose relevancy or turn robotic if we take away their power of influence in a reviewed situation.

Indiaholic got it exactly right. This isn't an algorithmic system/sport, or it shouldn't be. Nigel Llong is a first class player who should have a feel for the game and used all the evidence he had in front of him to make the right decision. If he can't, why don't we just employ social cricketers or people with passing interest who are comfortable with process? Partly the laws, and partly his own incompetency led to a decision that went a long way to deciding a series. It's hard to take for me and I'm not a player.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You can't defend Llong's decision IMO

even without hotspot there's a huge deflection when the ball passes the bat, it changes trajectory completely. A simple "the ball obviously hit the bat, change your decision to out" wouldn't have been that hard.

 

[Moss]

Biggest disappointment of the tour for me was Watling. Without his rear guard actions with the tail our lower order has no backbone. He looked horrible.

I'd like to see Santner come into the regular XI ahead of Craig. After only one test he already has better batting and bowling averages . Craig can replace a seamer when the pictch is a raging turner.

We really missed Anderson on this tour. He left a huge hole.

Watling could bat at 6 if they are going to keep playing the allrounder. Might benefit him to be able to play alongside the top order than having to forge rescue operations with a bunch of nutjobs down the order. Bad tour for him, but law of averages and all that.

Again, not sure Santner's a frontline bowling option at this stage. If Neesham isn't fit however, would play him as allrounder to support a four-man pace attack.

Anderson, I don't know. Admirable fearlessness like Santner but I suspect the Aussie quicks would have been too good for him, and his bowling would have been surplus. He's the sort of guy NZ might have liked to have in their corner at Adelaide though.

 

[SteveNZ]

Having said all I've said, the superior team across the course of the series won. Wouldn't like it said any different.

Pros: Perth batting effort, which shows it can be done and that scoreboard pressure alone can overcome minimal assistance for the bowlers. An opener who isn't vulnerable to the new ball, or pace. Kane's class. Our catching (save for Santner which we can hopefully put down as a red herring). Boult and Southee now being in tune ahead of the home summer and two big Test series. Bracewell with the ball from 2nd Test onwards. Santner's mental approach to batting.

Cons: One very vulnerable opener who hasn't corrected technical flaws he had 6-7 years ago. The other opener who doesn't take toll of starts and puts pressure on our middle order. Our pitiful approach to batting from number 8 down, particularly 10 who again is doing the same **** he did 6-7 years ago and 11 who is scared of anything 135+. Brendon's captaincy on day 1 in Brisbane, the first night in Adelaide and last night in particular. Craig's pitch map. Incidentally I'm not at all concerned that Boult was picked for Brisbane despite not being ready. We knew we couldn't win over there without him, he obviously said he was right to go and if rested there, he might not have been up to speed by the 3rd Test.

 

[SteveNZ]

Watling could bat at 6 if they are going to keep playing the allrounder. Might benefit him to be able to play alongside the top order than having to forge rescue operations with a bunch of nutjobs down the order. Bad tour for him, but law of averages and all that.

Again, not sure Santner's a frontline bowling option at this stage. If Neesham isn't fit however, would play him as allrounder to support a four-man pace attack.

Anderson, I don't know. Admirable fearlessness like Santner but I suspect the Aussie quicks would have been too good for him, and his bowling would have been surplus. He's the sort of guy NZ might have liked to have in their corner at Adelaide though.

BJ had a bad series. Maybe he's a guy who can't come in off not a lot of meaningful cricket and contribute. I'm not at all prepared to write him off after all he's contributed. And he can't be held accountable for the patheticness of our tail. It's not up to him to babysit them. Every single one of them is capable. Every one, bar Trent, has a FC hundred. In fact I think Mark/Doug/Tim have all batted in the top four at domestic level in one format or the other. Trent was the top run-scorer in a national club competition of a decent standard (2nd XI or just below). They're obviously just not doing the work or are prepared mentally to do it. It's embarrassing and it's gone a long way to costing us the Lord's Test and this one.

Santner proved me wrong but he's not our frontline spinner by a long shot. He's definitely in the ODI/T20 sides but there's not a place for him when there are better options at 6 (currently, maybe not long term) and he's not the best spinner (not saying Craig is either). Howsie is right, he needs to bat 4 for ND. And he, and others in NZ including Craig, need to be under strong tutelage from the likes of a Mushtaq Ahmed, Saqlain, whoever and spend time overseas to get their craft right. We are exposed when we can't create/hold pressure through spin.

And yeah we didn't miss Corey that much. Good player no doubt but not a particular wicket taker and tough to think he would've scored runs in swinging conditions.

 

[Athlai]

Kiwis expect so much more from 8-11 than they should. Most teams would kill to have a "bad" series where the 8-11 averaged 17.66.

Besides Australia and South Africa that would probably be a GOOD series with the bat for the tail.

 

[Skyliner]

We have 4/5 realistic options and while I know optimism will be high with a few of our members on a few of these guys, none of them are better than Guptill at the moment.

Contenders

BS Smith
DR Flynn
DG Brownlie
MG Bracewell

Myths:

JA Raval

Pretenders:

HR Rutherford
BS Wilson
DS Robinson
MHW Papps
JF Carter
RJ Nicol
ML Guptill-Bunce

WTF:

RM Hira
LJ Woodcock

I just cannot stand to see a mediocre batsman persevered with as if the incumbent has a right to keep the position even though he is not performing. The Aussies would not do this, they would not accept that reasoning. They tried all sorts of openers to partner Warner until they went back to the aging Rogers and he did a job for them until someone else could step up. Same with the spinner option; they tried all sorts until they came up with a bloke who used to be a groundsman at Adelaide who just had a penchant for playing at this level.
We have a different mindset here in NZ: we just keep saying 'there's no-one else'. The Santner selection was rubbished and ridiculed and what do you know; the bloke stepped up on the toughest tour there is. Who's to say a bloke like Ben Smith won't do the same thing?
I remember Mark Richardson saying he actually preferred international level as the pitches are better, the coaching is better, the practice facilities are better. Guptill had two absolute roads to start the series, then he was touted as a pink ball specialist....nope. At international level you get a regular diet of Zim / Bang / Windies matches and the bloke still averages sub 30. That is not acceptable.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

I don't buy that Llong did everything by the book for a second. Does the book say Snicko must overrule Hotspot? If not, which I presume it doesn't, neither trumps neither and there was absolutely clear as day evidence on the bat, in the exact same place the ball *would (did)* make contact with the bat. The ball changed direction, from the front-on camera. To say it could have been anything, I know he'd take those words back but it's ludicrous. How co-incidental could it be to have a ball-shaped mark on the EXACT part of the bat where the ball passed? The odds would be in the millions, right?

I said it about the LBW decision reviews, it is absolutely outrageous that the original decision of the umpire has any bearing on what a superior decision-making technology does upstairs. I don't blame Ravi (?) for the decision, it wasn't a massive edge. But if a more perceptive umpire gets it right, and Lyon reviews because he thinks he's last man in, the decision comes back out from exactly the same umpire upstairs. It's fundamentally flawed. Rugby League has the ref's call rule because their view can be impaired upstairs with bodies, angles etc. We very seldom have that, and in such a case (bat pad etc) I would have no problem. But LBWs in particular, never an issue. They should make the decisions completely independent of whatever happened on field. Put them in a room, don't give them any idea of what happened on field. Llong may have still got it wrong but he was influenced by what someone did in real time, which I can't understand. You're saying technology is superior but we still want to use the inferior decision maker (umpires) as part of the process. Umpires won't cease to exist if the review power is completely taken away from them. They're still a big part of how sides use reviews wisely or otherwise, spirit of cricket, no balls, wides, etc etc. They won't lose relevancy or turn robotic if we take away their power of influence in a reviewed situation.

Indiaholic got it exactly right. This isn't an algorithmic system/sport, or it shouldn't be. Nigel Llong is a first class player who should have a feel for the game and used all the evidence he had in front of him to make the right decision. If he can't, why don't we just employ social cricketers or people with passing interest who are comfortable with process? Partly the laws, and partly his own incompetency led to a decision that went a long way to deciding a series. It's hard to take for me and I'm not a player.

Can understand the frustration but it's a bit too far. Sometimes you gain, sometimes you lose

 

[SteveNZ]

Can understand the frustration but it's a bit too far. Sometimes you gain, sometimes you lose

That's why I didn't say it did decide it. And yeah that's sport. I could cop it from an umpire in real time. Not from one supposedly with all the tools to get it right. Unfortunately the perspective of 'it'll go our way next time' is tough to swallow in the moment.

 

[Moss]

Kiwis expect so much more from 8-11 than they should. Most teams would kill to have a "bad" series where the 8-11 averaged 17.66.

Besides Australia and South Africa that would probably be a GOOD series with the bat for the tail.

Southee's approach seems to have spread right through the tail. Infuriating but can probably live with one guy batting this way.

I did think Bracewell was a decent improvement on the Ajit Agarkar impersonator he was in 2012. Also prone to daft shots like the others but overall put more of a price on his wicket.

I recall Craig actually playing the grafting game in the West Indies and Pakistan. Pretty funny he has abandoned that now for the slam bang approach, considering his batting might be the one thing that keeps him in the side going forward.

Unlike Southee probably not too late for Boult to salvage his batting ability, but god it's a bad joke watching him at the moment.

 

[Athlai]

I just cannot stand to see a mediocre batsman persevered with as if the incumbent has a right to keep the position even though he is not performing. The Aussies would not do this, they would not accept that reasoning. They tried all sorts of openers to partner Warner until they went back to the aging Rogers and he did a job for them until someone else could step up. Same with the spinner option; they tried all sorts until they came up with a bloke who used to be a groundsman at Adelaide who just had a penchant for playing at this level.
We have a different mindset here in NZ: we just keep saying 'there's no-one else'. The Santner selection was rubbished and ridiculed and what do you know; the bloke stepped up on the toughest tour there is. Who's to say a bloke like Ben Smith won't do the same thing?
I remember Mark Richardson saying he actually preferred international level as the pitches are better, the coaching is better, the practice facilities are better. Guptill had two absolute roads to start the series, then he was touted as a pink ball specialist....nope. At international level you get a regular diet of Zim / Bang / Windies matches and the bloke still averages sub 30. That is not acceptable.

When the next option will average even less, it becomes acceptable. You don't set your standards to what Australia can have, you set them against what NZ has. Like it or not, Guptill has consistently been a part of almost all of our best Test partnership pairings over the years. No one is saying he shouldn't be under pressure but the merry go round shouldn't spin so fast that we chuck in players before they're truly putting their hand up. Look what happened with Rutherford, promising in FC cricket, great debut, and then years and years of absolutely nothing.

Sure these have been roads but come on, it's the new ball against Australia. The only harder tests for us are England and South Africa.

 

[SteveNZ]

Kiwis expect so much more from 8-11 than they should. Most teams would kill to have a "bad" series where the 8-11 averaged 17.66.

Besides Australia and South Africa that would probably be a GOOD series with the bat for the tail.

That's a narrow-minded way of looking at it though.

Doug Bracewell is a far better player than 11.63. That's the number a No.11 who bats close to that in domestic cricket should average. Mark Craig is potentially a domestic top 5-6 batsman without the other string to his bow. He looks assured at Test level and gets out really softly without fail. Tim Southee has not improved his batting one iota since he debuted. He puts no price on his wicket, and his approach to batting seems to pervade through the rest of the lower order as someone said. He bats one way in any situation which is completely wrong. And add to that, that he's very easily to set fields for by smart teams. Small grounds he might get away with it but never elsewhere. Trent Boult bats similarly, and is genuinely scared of the ball. This is a guy who scored 400 odd runs in a week of a one-day national tournament and has a great eye. Every No.11 on the planet should be able to hold an end up if required. He 99% of the time can't.

It completely changes our approach to batting when we're 7 down, or 8 at most. If a guy like Ross/Kane/Brendon/BJ are set, they have to go about their job differently knowing the guys at the other end aren't going to bat for them. Australia don't do that.

 

[Athlai]

Southee's approach seems to have spread right through the tail. Infuriating but can probably live with one guy batting this way.

I did think Bracewell was a decent improvement on the Ajit Agarkar impersonator he was in 2012. Also prone to daft shots like the others but overall put more of a price on his wicket.

I recall Craig actually playing the grafting game in the West Indies and Pakistan. Pretty funny he has abandoned that now for the slam bang approach, considering his batting might be the one thing that keeps him in the side going forward.

Unlike Southee probably not too late for Boult to salvage his batting ability, but god it's a bad joke watching him at the moment.

It might look ugly but in Adelaide they played that way because they knew they couldn't last.

On the roads, they mostly backed themselves to score quick runs. Though I do think they could have shown more responsibility ala Boult when Taylor was approaching 300. But it hardly cost us a lot of runs either. Craig is just a spud, I'll be happy to see Santner playing ahead of him.

 

[hendrix]

Won't pretend I'm not cheesed off with the Llong decision, and in a perverse way it's good to have something more to whine about when NZ-Aus contests come up. But I think this was one game where NZ's deficiencies REALLY cost them, when you consider how much they had going for them. To not win from there or even set Australia a better target was pretty inexcusable , never mind the decision. McCullum has said as much, and I'm hoping it's very much what he and the team are reflecting on and not just part of the nice-guy speak he seems to have mastered at press conferences.

Funny series; a wasted opportunity for NZ considering it was a rare 3-test assignment and this was a more accomplished set than the side from Hobart 2011. They paid the price for approaching this tour in the same way they did the England one earlier in the year. Thank god Southee and Boult are back to somewhere near their best. The Aussies - a rare green lineup and extremely brittle batting but Warner and Smith took up the extra responsibility so well. Nevill was everything BJ Watling should have been in this series, while Starc and Hazlewood have improved like mad. Despite NZ failing to show up for the first 6 days, I think they should be pleased with themselves for the 2-0 scoreline.

The return series - will be interesting and potentially very close but Starc/Hazlewood/Siddle/Pattinson should be par for the course and at least the equal of NZ's attack (plus having the advantage in the spin department), so I don't know that NZ will enjoy *that* much of a home advantage. Need to get back to basics come the Sri Lanka tests.

I normally agree with you but I don't see how it's an advantage to bat first on a green seaming pitch.

 

[Moss]

I just cannot stand to see a mediocre batsman persevered with as if the incumbent has a right to keep the position even though he is not performing. The Aussies would not do this, they would not accept that reasoning. They tried all sorts of openers to partner Warner until they went back to the aging Rogers and he did a job for them until someone else could step up. Same with the spinner option; they tried all sorts until they came up with a bloke who used to be a groundsman at Adelaide who just had a penchant for playing at this level.
We have a different mindset here in NZ: we just keep saying 'there's no-one else'. The Santner selection was rubbished and ridiculed and what do you know; the bloke stepped up on the toughest tour there is. Who's to say a bloke like Ben Smith won't do the same thing?
I remember Mark Richardson saying he actually preferred international level as the pitches are better, the coaching is better, the practice facilities are better. Guptill had two absolute roads to start the series, then he was touted as a pink ball specialist....nope. At international level you get a regular diet of Zim / Bang / Windies matches and the bloke still averages sub 30. That is not acceptable.

Given Latham is only in his second full season of international cricket, I think they'd be reluctant to bring in an inexperienced partner for him. Thought the signs were encouraging for Guptill in England, but same old story here. I'd give him the Sri Lanka series but really think he should have a chat with Sehwag on clearing his mind and all that. It was good enough for David Warner.

Rutherford was on tour so might well be in the frame for the home season, and have first dibs on that slot. Brownlie would be my choice (as most here seem to agree), but can see him struggling against the moving ball early on so don 't know if his move to opening is the wisest choice. Still he might well be a good foil for Latham and does have some idea about constructing a test innings.

 

[Bahnz]

Bracewell C+? Got better and better as the series progressed, embraced the 3rd seamer role and showed signs of having worked on his batting.

Yeah, but you gotta remember that he was terrible at the Gabba and (until day 5) tame at the Waca. I don't actually think a whole lot changed for Doug between the Waca and Adelaide either, he just finally found a pitch that suited his style.

 

[Bahnz]

I normally agree with you but I don't see how it's an advantage to bat first on a green seaming pitch.

We were the only side that got to bat 2 whole sessions under the sun. That's a pretty serious advantage which we screwed up through slashy strokeplay after lunch.

 

[Athlai]

That's a narrow-minded way of looking at it though.

Doug Bracewell is a far better player than 11.63. That's the number a No.11 who bats close to that in domestic cricket should average. Mark Craig is potentially a domestic top 5-6 batsman without the other string to his bow. He looks assured at Test level and gets out really softly without fail. Tim Southee has not improved his batting one iota since he debuted. He puts no price on his wicket, and his approach to batting seems to pervade through the rest of the lower order as someone said. He bats one way in any situation which is completely wrong. And add to that, that he's very easily to set fields for by smart teams. Small grounds he might get away with it but never elsewhere. Trent Boult bats similarly, and is genuinely scared of the ball. This is a guy who scored 400 odd runs in a week of a one-day national tournament and has a great eye. Every No.11 on the planet should be able to hold an end up if required. He 99% of the time can't.

It completely changes our approach to batting when we're 7 down, or 8 at most. If a guy like Ross/Kane/Brendon/BJ are set, they have to go about their job differently knowing the guys at the other end aren't going to bat for them. Australia don't do that.

Trent Boult has the 4th highest average of a #11 of all time.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

And in terms of balls faced per innings he is almost certainly one of the best performing #11s ever

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

These expectations are just totally unrealistic.

 

[Bahnz]

And yeah we didn't miss Corey that much. Good player no doubt but not a particular wicket taker and tough to think he would've scored runs in swinging conditions.

I actually think we badly missed Corey's wobblers at Adelaide. Santner did a decent holding job but he didn't really look much like taking wickets at any stage. Corey would've been so handy to have had him coming on alongside Bracewell under lights on day 1.

 

[Moss]

I normally agree with you but I don't see how it's an advantage to bat first on a green seaming pitch.

I suppose this is a point you could argue either way. Given the conditions under lights, I would've thought the idea would be to bat as much as possible in the daytime so there's some sort of foundation in place by the time the lights take effect. KW and Latham were following the template I had mind on day one, but a combination of smart bowling and some overambitious shotmaking meant NZ's good start was wasted.

Also, NZ under McCullum have enjoyed far more success batting first, and I'm not sure they would have relished the prospect of chasing in tricky conditions.