**Official** New Zealand in Australia 2015

[adub]

I can't see him being more of a threat than Hazlewood in NZ conditions

that might not be enough to stop him taking a bagful.

 

[Skyliner]

Captain Brendon McCullum promises Australia tougher test in New Zealand | Stuff.co.nz

The media's full of Baz said this and Baz said that today; PR machine in over-drive. Can't wait for the era of Captain Kane. The comments section features the usual sycophantic praise, failing to note we did better on the last tour to Aus under Captain Ross:

For once, we have stood up the bully's of cricket AND said, you better be ready cause we're gunning for you.
The Skippy's are not the team they used to be, but they still are damn hard to beat.
Good call Baz!

 

[social]

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.

Pretty much this

I missed the original appeal and came in mid-way through the review when snicko showed nothing and simply concluded that it wasn't out

A bit later (the review went on forever), they showed an angle where the edge was obvious irrespective of what snicko, hot spot, dancing girls etc might have been saying

At that point and IF HE HAS THE POWER TO DO SO, a reasonable person should have said "**** this for a joke, that's out!", conveyed his decision to the ump, put an end to the farce and virtually nobody would have complained as the correct decision had been made in the end

 

[straw man]

that might not be enough to stop him taking a bagful.

well someone's feeling bullish

 

[Hurricane]

I will make a long post anon

 

[Adders]

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.

100% with you on that and the reason I just don't like the DRS in its current form.

I know Im out on my own here but I preferered the game pre DRS and would happily go back until they sort the **** out. You can cop an onfield umpires mistake and live with it, to go through the whole DRS process and still end up with a BS decision is far far worse IMO (well it is for me anyway).

 

[Dan]

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.

You do realise how much complaining there was by Aussies on here when perfectly good spinners were getting dropped for miracle Hail Mary options, right?

Hauritz proved himself as a competent-if-not-brilliant Test spinner, meaningfully contributing to the side on many occasions. And then he gets dropped for Xavier Doherty, who in turn gets dropped for Michael Beer. And this comes after asking Cameron "I'm a batsman." White and Steven "We so want this batsman to be Warnie" Smith to play as specialist spinners.

Nathan Lyon then proves himself over an extended period, only to be inexplicably dropped multiple times.

Searching for a miracle option by chopping and changing players every series doesn't work. Guys need time to settle in to Test cricket, and they need time to establish themselves. That being said, you can't be blindly loyal to an absolutely terrible player for extended periods either. The balance is somewhere in between. Sodhi got 11 Tests before being abandoned. Craig has had 13. Rutherford got 16 (which was probably 3-4 too many; everyone knew he was cooked).

Guptill has had, what, 5 Tests since his recall? He deserves one more series, at least. If he doesn't succeed, then it might be time to give another option a few series to settle in. If, that is, you think another option actually has some chance of performing better than the incumbent.

 

[Skyliner]

You do realise how much complaining there was by Aussies on here when perfectly good spinners were getting dropped for miracle Hail Mary options, right?

Hauritz proved himself as a competent-if-not-brilliant Test spinner, meaningfully contributing to the side on many occasions. And then he gets dropped for Xavier Doherty, who in turn gets dropped for Michael Beer. And this comes after asking Cameron "I'm a batsman." White and Steven "We so want this batsman to be Warnie" Smith to play as specialist spinners.

Nathan Lyon then proves himself over an extended period, only to be inexplicably dropped multiple times.

Searching for a miracle option by chopping and changing players every series doesn't work. Guys need time to settle in to Test cricket, and they need time to establish themselves. That being said, you can't be blindly loyal to an absolutely terrible player for extended periods either. The balance is somewhere in between. Sodhi got 11 Tests before being abandoned. Craig has had 13. Rutherford got 16 (which was probably 3-4 too many; everyone knew he was cooked).

Guptill has had, what, 5 Tests since his recall? He deserves one more series, at least. If he doesn't succeed, then it might be time to give another option a few series to settle in. If, that is, you think another option actually has some chance of performing better than the incumbent.

The process Australia embarked on resulted in Lyon gaining the role long-term, so you'd have to say that it was ultimately successful. The NZ process would have resulted in Hauritz getting the gig long-term, as competent or mediocre would get a solid tick.

 

[cnerd123]

The process Australia embarked on resulted in Lyon gaining the role long-term, so you'd have to say that it was ultimately successful. The NZ process would have resulted in Hauritz getting the gig long-term, as competent or mediocre would get a solid tick.

Dont praise the process baised on the end results.

Its a complete fluke they stumbled upon Lyon. They killed Hauritz's career and ruined several other very decent young spinners like Boyce and Cullen on the way there.

 

[adub]

well someone's feeling bullish

Patto is that good. Haze might just be better. If both are fit for the return games we'll win.

 

[Dan]

They didn't ruin Boyce, he never got a gig in the rotation system. And Dan Cullen was before that period anyway.

The thing was, they were rotating players so bloody quickly that nobody ever got a chance to settle into the role; they were never able to prove themselves at Test level, because two bad Tests meant they were immediately out of the side. Hauritz, for instance, was dropped 3 Tests after a match-winning home 5-fer vs. Pakistan. Offies don't take match-winning 5-fers in Australia unless they have something about them. Hauritz should have got the home Ashes summer ahead of Doherty/Beer, at the very least.

If he didn't back up his potential, then yeah, you move on (and they would have got to Lyon anyway). The success of Lyon was a direct result of the selectors seeing he had potential and giving him time to realise it on the international stage. They backed him for waaaaay longer than any other spinner they'd tried -- and even then the Doherty recall in India and the Agar selection were still stupid Hail Mary or 'next Warne pls' selections during the Lyon tenure.

The other example is English openers post-Strauss. Compton was the obvious one -- he showed enough ability that he could develop into a solid option if given the chance to bed in at Test level. He may not have been spectacular and might have been replaced anyway, but instead they've run through Root, Carberry, Robson, Trott, Lyth, Moeen and perhaps Hales since -- with none of them getting long enough to prove whether or not they are that guy. So now Compton's back in the squad 3 years later, but nobody has a ****ing clue whether he's Test quality or not.

It isn't about accepting mediocrity. It's about giving the players a chance to show they aren't, in fact, mediocre. You need more than 3-4 Tests to do that.

 

[cnerd123]

Wait not Boyce; forgot the name of the chinaman spinner they tried out who did decently in the West Indies.

 

[SteveNZ]

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.

So that absolves him of backing away and weakly exposing his stumps with a 187-run lead, a guy well set at the other end and a guy with a 62.5 over old ball not bowling quickly at all? With two balls to see out before Bracewell gets strike at the other end? I'm not realistic to expect he might get in behind it and do so?

 

[Skyliner]

Dont praise the process baised on the end results.

Its a complete fluke they stumbled upon Lyon. They killed Hauritz's career and ruined several other very decent young spinners like Boyce and Cullen on the way there.

Surely the end result is everything. I don't think Australia have ever cared whether or not they killed someone's career in the process of finding the right man for the job. The found Lyon, dropped him, and he came back and took the spot & bowls like a champ. He didn't let it break him, he overcame adversity. They dropped Hayden early on and he had to score a truck-load of runs and come back harder and stronger. Same with Damien Martyn. What about the can't bowl , can't throw guy. How's he lookin these days? Surely elite team sport is about winning, not crying a river over certain players?

 

[Skyliner]

The other example is English openers post-Strauss. Compton was the obvious one -- he showed enough ability that he could develop into a solid option if given the chance to bed in at Test level. He may not have been spectacular and might have been replaced anyway, but instead they've run through Root, Carberry, Robson, Trott, Lyth, Moeen and perhaps Hales since -- with none of them getting long enough to prove whether or not they are that guy. So now Compton's back in the squad 3 years later, but nobody has a ****ing clue whether he's Test quality or not.

It isn't about accepting mediocrity. It's about giving the players a chance to show they aren't, in fact, mediocre. You need more than 3-4 Tests to do that.

But maybe that process will be the making of Compton. He'll come back determined not to lose his spot again. Just as with Aussie players that have been dropped in the past & came back determined to succeed. Chris Rogers is another one. They come back and they do the business within a short time-frame, or they go back to the wilderness. The Aussie openers is a similar scenario: they wanted someone to partner Warner and if Burns averaged 18 across this series they'd be looking for someone else already.

 

[Hurricane]

I am happy with our seamers throughout the match.

Not happy with the batting in the 3rd inning. It was 50-60 runs light.

1) The openers are supposed to be the most defensive batsman in the team but both of them felt frustrated they couldn't score runs in a TEST match. I am more mad at Latham for not learning from Guptil's example. Both out trying to play expansive drives against a Bowler who was on fire.

2) Kane became obsessed with playing the ball late and forgot to push his foot towards the ball, if you are going to bat from the crease then it doesn't take much movement to get an edge. Poor technique from a master technician. I suspect the pitch intimidated him into camping on the crease. Unfortunately - Kane and Ross are our batting plan. There is no plan B. You needed to come off Kane.

3) Taylor -Off balance, premeditated, I could go on.

4) Brendon have already analysed his poor excuse for a defensive technique. Call your next series your retirement farewell as your batting has lost it. I also am convinced you aren't strong enough or a big enough man physically to use a 3lb four ounce bat or whatever they said that tree trunk weighed. You can see Brendon often late to each shot and just struggling to actually generate bat speed. Perhaps he actually pulls off that slash shot in the first inning against Starc with a lighter bat.

5) Santer - 30s and 40s are not good enough. When you are set you must carry on. Despite your innings I think you need more time in Plunket as both of your dismissals were not how a batsman gets out. Signs of someone who does not have many centuries under his belt. I agreed with your decision to go over the top against Lyon - be patient waiting for the right ball and DO NOT make up your mind before he has started his run up. Test cricket is not a development league. I would only be picking you where Cory is unavailable.
I will reserve comment on your fielding for later.

6) Watling - stage fright all series.

7) Mark Craig - does not bat like a team man.

8) Bracewell - has finally figured out how to bat in test cricket. He obviously has a 1st gear, defence, and a 4th gear - smashing it - so just alternated between those two gears. Keep up the good work.

9) Southee/Boult. As a club captain I don't really care how my number 10 and 11 bat. I do care how my number 8 and 9 bat though greatly.
Numbers 8 and 9 should be putting on 20 something every time they bat with the odd fifty thrown in. Numbers 10 and 11 - I don't even really see much point in letting them take up valuable time batting in the nets unless they have come to me and said they want to work their way up the order. To emphasise my point, if Tim and Trent bat like they do out in the middle of a test match with 50 thousand people watching them, how do you think they bat in the nets, it would be a farce bowling to them and I can only imagine it is a circus.
If I had to bowl to either one of them I would run in and fire it six inches outside leg stump so that he just tickles me down to fine leg, rather than bowling him good nuts and watching him belt some good length delivery over my head and making me walk 5 minutes to get it. I am semi serious on this point. Tim's net batting must be a crime scene.

The bowling effort.

We got off on the wrong foot as Warner took guard to Southee. We didn't want that match up.

I stopped paying close attention after Santner's dropped catch. As soon as it went up I thought "Please let Martin Guptil be underneath this". But it was the rookie. What annoyed me about the drop was two fold. A) he was a deer in the headlights (all catching requires is determination) B) when they did a close up of him afterwards they showed him looking like Joe Cool with his collar up on end. He is ****y. It reminded me of Latham on debut where he swaggered around and got a top score of 3 or something and then wised up after that. On debut Latham wore a long sleeve shirt on a boiling hot day because it looked cool.
Test cricket is hard. Treat it with respect. I don't care Smith got out shortly thereafter - that chance should have been held and there was no way we were winning after that. Had a chance to redeem himself with a run out later and didn't take his chance.

Two thumbs up to Brendon for the field to Smith. We have rabbitted on for ages on CW about setting a field like that. Finally someone did it and he was dismissed.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Wanna see Kane walk out collar up in a sleeveless shirt next test.

 

[Skyliner]

I am happy with our seamers throughout the match.

Not happy with the batting in the 3rd inning. It was 50-60 runs light.

1) The openers are supposed to be the most defensive batsman in the team but both of them felt frustrated they couldn't score runs in a TEST match. I am more mad at Latham for not learning from Guptil's example. Both out trying to play expansive drives against a Bowler who was on fire.

2) Kane became obsessed with playing the ball late and forgot to push his foot towards the ball, if you are going to bat from the crease then it doesn't take much movement to get an edge. Poor technique from a master technician. I suspect the pitch intimidated him into camping on the crease. Unfortunately - Kane and Ross are our batting plan. There is no plan B. You needed to come off Kane.

3) Taylor -Off balance, premeditated, I could go on.

4) Brendon have already analysed his poor excuse for a defensive technique. Call your next series your retirement farewell as your batting has lost it. I also am convinced you aren't strong enough or a big enough man physically to use a 3lb four ounce bat or whatever they said that tree trunk weighed. You can see Brendon often late to each shot and just struggling to actually generate bat speed. Perhaps he actually pulls off that slash shot in the first inning against Starc with a lighter bat.

5) Santer - 30s and 40s are not good enough. When you are set you must carry on. Despite your innings I think you need more time in Plunket as both of your dismissals were not how a batsman gets out. Signs of someone who does not have many centuries under his belt. I agreed with your decision to go over the top against Lyon - be patient waiting for the right ball and DO NOT make up your mind before he has started his run up. Test cricket is not a development league. I would only be picking you where Cory is unavailable.
I will reserve comment on your fielding for later.

6) Watling - stage fright all series.

7) Mark Craig - does not bat like a team man.

8) Bracewell - has finally figured out how to bat in test cricket. He obviously has a 1st gear, defence, and a 4th gear - smashing it - so just alternated between those two gears. Keep up the good work.

9) Southee/Boult. As a club captain I don't really care how my number 10 and 11 bat. I do care how my number 8 and 9 bat though greatly.
Numbers 8 and 9 should be putting on 20 something every time they bat with the odd fifty thrown in. Numbers 10 and 11 - I don't even really see much point in letting them take up valuable time batting in the nets unless they have come to me and said they want to work their way up the order. To emphasise my point, if Tim and Trent bat like they do out in the middle of a test match with 50 thousand people watching them, how do you think they bat in the nets, it would be a farce bowling to them and I can only imagine it is a circus.
If I had to bowl to either one of them I would run in and fire it six inches outside leg stump so that he just tickles me down to fine leg, rather than bowling him good nuts and watching him belt some good length delivery over my head and making me walk 5 minutes to get it. I am semi serious on this point. Tim's net batting must be a crime scene.

The bowling effort.

We got off on the wrong foot as Warner took guard to Southee. We didn't want that match up.

I stopped paying close attention after Santner's dropped catch. As soon as it went up I thought "Please let Martin Guptil be underneath this". But it was the rookie. What annoyed me about the drop was two fold. A) he was a deer in the headlights (all catching requires is determination) B) when they did a close up of him afterwards they showed him looking like Joe Cool with his collar up on end. He is ****y. It reminded me of Latham on debut where he swaggered around and got a top score of 3 or something and then wised up after that. On debut Latham wore a long sleeve shirt on a boiling hot day because it looked cool.
Test cricket is hard. Treat it with respect. I don't care Smith got out shortly thereafter - that chance should have been held and there was no way we were winning after that. Had a chance to redeem himself with a run out later and didn't take his chance.

Two thumbs up to Brendon for the field to Smith. We have rabbitted on for ages on CW about setting a field like that. Finally someone did it and he was dismissed.

Pretty harsh to have a pop at Kane and Santner. If there is no Plan B beside Kane succeeding then that needs addressing. Sick of hearing he's a freak and in some way unusual because he loves to bat, spends extra time in the nets, is always working on his game. These things are not signs of an abnormal character; they are signs of someone wanting to be a top batsman and I wish more in the team would follow his example instead of semi-ridiculing him.
Moreover, he was got out in both innings. Starc fired in a pin-point yorker & the one he nicked in the second dig was great bowling - he had to play it and got a feather. Other people threw their wickets away willy nilly but he was the prized wicket for the Aussies and they bowled accordingly.

Santner and the guys batting on the last day seem to be getting bagged, when the openers chased wide ones and didn't do their job. It's up to the top order to get all those runs that the lower order were vilified for not getting. But the fact we were even batting under lights and got minced on day 2 was all down to the brainless captaincy of Baz after the Lyon non-dismissal (which should have been another wicket for Santners tally). Bowling Craig at Starc was shades of charge of the light brigade lunacy while Bracewell languished in the field for an hour.

 

[Athlai]

So that absolves him of backing away and weakly exposing his stumps with a 187-run lead, a guy well set at the other end and a guy with a 62.5 over old ball not bowling quickly at all? With two balls to see out before Bracewell gets strike at the other end? I'm not realistic to expect he might get in behind it and do so?

Yes, you aren't realistic to expect a #11 to bat like someone who knows how to bat.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Good post Hurricane, think you're a bit harsh on Santner though.