***Official*** Australia in New Zealand 2016

[SteveNZ]

every time someone says "half an appeal" a puppy dies. There's no such thing ffs. It's either an appeal or not.

Yeah. I have to say though, apart from the gigantic sook from their media, I haven't seen their players or posters on here get too wah about it.

I can't remember the same trans-Tasman media having too much of a reflection on the Nathan Lyon decision in Adelaide, where apparently the right protocols were used to get a completely wrong decision. And from this side of the pond, we were saying how unjust it was that Llong didn't remove his head from his arse, and make the right decision based on all evidence as was patently clear. On Monday night, that happened. Let's celebrate it. An umpire, or two, left his anorak and his fine tooth comb in his pocket, saw a basis for an appeal and went in search for the right decision. And found it.

 

[Days of Grace]

Though having said, for the purposes of getting a result, it might be better if the pitch is a real green nightmare given that the forecast for early next week isn't looking too flash.

New Zealand may be in direct path of cyclone - National - NZ Herald News

My NZ team for the game: Latham, Gup, KW, Nicholls (sigh), BMac, Watling, Corey, Henry, Wagner, Southee, Boult

Initially thought about going for Braces over Wags as there won't be much reverse on offer, but I reckon we'll need Wagners endurance once the surface flattens out.

Dat tail.

Don't trust that tbh. Putting too much pressure on a dodgy top 7. Braces has to play at no.8 as there's nothing wrong with his endurance and he's more accurate than Wagner, granted without nearly the same amount of intent.

 

[Jarquis]

Personally think it'd be worth going Wagner. If you're going to pick four frontline seamers then you don't want them all to be as similar as they would be. I mean, yeah Boult is left handed but they're going to bowl to similar plans. Wagner at least gives you a point of difference and while Bracewell has done a decent job recently of holding an end, on a flat surface and with Anderson (and KW) in your too 7 id want the bowler who's likely to somehow spring a wicket and ask different questions.

 

[TNT]

I was ignoring the post-match comments on the Henry-Marsh incident but unbelievably it's still going on a few days later.

John Hastings, Australian cricketer, accuses New Zealand of double standards


The umpiring process wasn't good and no doubt changes will come out of it, but you really have to bend over backwards to say McCullum/NZ were culpable in any way. What were they supposed to do? Recall Marsh because he was ummm... out? Bizarre.

McCullum went to press saying that Smith should have withdrawn his appeal against Stokes because he was ummm.... out. I think it just points out they say one thing and do another.

 

[SteveNZ]

McCullum went to press saying that Smith should have withdrawn his appeal against Stokes because he was ummm.... out. I think it just points out they say one thing and do another.

Yeah, that's actually not the same thing at all. Marsh was 100% caught and bowled. Stokes was not 100% out obstructing the field by anyone's measure, not the least the law book's.

Anyhoo, there's a Test to be played. And let's not draw up hypothetical XIs without Mark Craig in them, because he's playing. They're not going into a Test match with Kane as the front-line spinner unless it's being played on grassed plasticine. So he's at 8. Maybe a lot of us wouldn't go that way, we're entitled to our opinion. It's happening.

Guptill Latham Williamson Nicholls McCullum Anderson Watling Craig Henry Southee Boult. We're going to win this series by bowling Australia out for 250-300 on conducive pitches, not 400 and we score 500. Can't see it happening. So Henry is my man. It's all well and good to say he's not a third seamer, but with grass cover and the right atmospheric conditions he is. Wags still has Test matches in him but they might need to be off-shore.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah. I have to say though, apart from the gigantic sook from their media, I haven't seen their players or posters on here get too wah about it.

Don't read anything into it. No one is really upset about it because it was obviously out and the right decision was made. Even the media probably don't believe what they're hyping but that's just the media being the media because, you know, it's their jobs?

McCullum went to press saying that Smith should have withdrawn his appeal against Stokes because he was ummm.... out. I think it just points out they say one thing and do another.

huh, good point actually.

Yeah, that's actually not the same thing at all. Marsh was 100% caught and bowled. Stokes was not 100% out obstructing the field by anyone's measure, not the least the law book's.

Stokes was out, given out, should have been given out, very little doubt. McCullum saying he should have been called back was incredibly stupid tbf.

 

[straw man]

McCullum went to press saying that Smith should have withdrawn his appeal against Stokes because he was ummm.... out. I think it just points out they say one thing and do another.

Laughable. Focusing purely on this incident do you really expect that McCullum should have recalled Marsh because he didn't believe the umpires followed a good process? Even though the right outcome was reached.

 

[SteveNZ]

Don't read anything into it. No one is really upset about it because it was obviously out and the right decision was made. Even the media probably don't believe what they're hyping but that's just the media being the media because, you know, it's their jobs?

Stokes was out, given out, should have been given out, very little doubt. McCullum saying he should have been called back was incredibly stupid tbf.

True, on the first part.

Second part, not true. Some doubt. Although as I've said before it was very naive at best, and at worst brainless for Brendon to have said what he did.

At the end of the day, what we need to appreciate as cricket fans is this all occurs in the white-hot atmosphere of a cricket match in front of tens of thousands of people. Time moves at a different rate. With the Stokes one, Smith saw a perceived injustice at real speed and had every right in the world to appeal and uphold it. If it looked bad-ish on reflection, Brendon of all people (Murali, Chris Mpofu etc) should have known that decisions like that are not made with slo-mo cameras and a clear perception. With the Marsh one, it's the same. Catch goes up, someone takes it, they ask. A replay goes up, the question is asked. Decision is made. In both instances, the captains (Smith with the Stokes one, Brendon with the Marsh one) took in all they could in that environment and with their perspective and made their judgement call. Their obligation is to their side first, and the spirit of cricket second - with the hope that the two are able to marry in reasonably successfully. I'm sure both thought at the time that a decision could go their way without the spirit of cricket being completely **** on. In contrast to the West Indies Mankad, which might have been within the rules but anyone of a reasonable level of maturity should have known in that situation, with a guy not taking the piss and backing up consistently or majorly, that it stunk of **** and should never have happened.

 

[Bahnz]

McCullum went to press saying that Smith should have withdrawn his appeal against Stokes because he was ummm.... out. I think it just points out they say one thing and do another.

Yeah, McCullum's whole point was that it likely wasn't out (though plenty of people would disagree with that pov).

Anyway, tend to agree with SteveNZ that Craig is in, but its crazy policy.

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah, McCullum's whole point was that it likely wasn't out (though plenty of people would disagree with that pov).

Anyway, tend to agree with SteveNZ that Craig is in, but its crazy policy.

It may depend on how well or otherwise Kane is bowling. I don't know if they trust him with the remodelled action. Then you get to a day 5 pitch, you're in the field, the pitch is wearing and you've got absolutely no way of getting them out if you haven't backed a front-line spinner to do the job. Pre remodelling, I was all for us playing Kane as the 'front-line' spinner (but shouldering a slightly less load than a specialist) in most conditions apart from the sub-continent, Adelaide (during the day) and decks in NZ you absolutely knew would crumble a bit - unless we found a spinner who demanded selection. Mark looked like he might be that at times, but now it looks like against the better sides he isn't. But now you're at a point where Kane isn't the bowler he was v England in '13 when you could back him on day 5. So we probably have to pick Mark, given a history of winning a couple of games on day 5. It's a tough one.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I don't have a problem with Craig at 8. I don't think he's significantly less dangerous than Bracewell or Wagner with the ball and he's at least as good with the bat.

Henry is going to be key in this series, third seamer or not. He doesn't get much swing but he gets horrendously tricky seam movement and as we saw with Bailey in the ODIs that's enough.

The only way we can beat Aussie in this series is to exploit their weakness with lateral movement.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Craig cannot bowl

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah but I think the whole issue everyone has with Craig is his bowling, not where he is in the order. And it probably centres around his inability to string dots together or build pressure, or hit a consistent length. Bracewell is very capable of that. Wagner not so but most would argue he's more of a wicket taker in NZ conditions than Craig, and probably more capable of bowling dots too.

On the last point, I agree. Hence why I am plumping for Henry and others are too.

 

[Bahnz]

It may depend on how well or otherwise Kane is bowling. I don't know if they trust him with the remodelled action. Then you get to a day 5 pitch, you're in the field, the pitch is wearing and you've got absolutely no way of getting them out if you haven't backed a front-line spinner to do the job. Pre remodelling, I was all for us playing Kane as the 'front-line' spinner (but shouldering a slightly less load than a specialist) in most conditions apart from the sub-continent, Adelaide (during the day) and decks in NZ you absolutely knew would crumble a bit - unless we found a spinner who demanded selection. Mark looked like he might be that at times, but now it looks like against the better sides he isn't. But now you're at a point where Kane isn't the bowler he was v England in '13 when you could back him on day 5. So we probably have to pick Mark, given a history of winning a couple of games on day 5. It's a tough one.

Again, I don't think that's going to be such a big issue...

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah but I think the whole issue everyone has with Craig is his bowling, not where he is in the order. And it probably centres around his inability to string dots together or build pressure, or hit a consistent length. Bracewell is very capable of that. Wagner not so but most would argue he's more of a wicket taker in NZ conditions than Craig, and probably more capable of bowling dots too.

On the last point, I agree. Hence why I am plumping for Henry and others are too.

Wagner when he's bowling well (as he has this season) absolutely does a fantastic job of keeping it tight and building pressure. He won us a test against India doing exactly that.

 

[Flem274*]

my thoughts on the odi team post T20 world cup (where elliott will probably sign off) are

gup
latham
kane
ross
watling (wk)
santner
anderson (or neesh or munro depending on fitness/preference)
four pace bowlers of your choice or sodhi and three pace bowlers

best of every world imo.

for the tests im going to be more controversial and say two of wagner, henry and dougeh should play. southee didn't set the world on fire in a pretty weak plunkett round, being outbowled by another guy returning from injury who is notorious for being wayward (along with picking up wickets) and boult, pace or no pace, is still sending down lots of ****

craig obviously in because you don't pick teams for day one and two.

anyway the form and fitness of our "middle order" and the question marks over boult in particular are giving me memories of brisbane, and the denial leading into it about the bowling form especially.

i wouldn't have said this until recently but this test has the tourists as firm favourites. they've managed to keep the majority of their important players fit. starc isn't as important to the test side as he is to the odi side and they're replacing hacks with guys who can play a bit like nevill (hey even if he has a **** tour with the bat, at least he can catch)

sign me up for the doom and gloom

 

[Spikey]

A touching ceremony, although I don't know why they buried Matt Wade there

 

[Flem274*]

A touching ceremony, although I don't know why they buried Matt Wade there

the grass is always greener wherever matthew wade's career is buried

 

[kiwiviktor81]

i wouldn't have said this until recently but this test has the tourists as firm favourites. they've managed to keep the majority of their important players fit. starc isn't as important to the test side as he is to the odi side and they're replacing hacks with guys who can play a bit like nevill (hey even if he has a **** tour with the bat, at least he can catch)

sign me up for the doom and gloom

Nah.

BetFair has the BCs at $2.72 and the Aussies at $2.42. That's pretty close, and given that the BCs were paying $2.40 before the first match of the ODI series I'd say the market was still undervaluing us.

Aussie came here in the CWC and got destroyed by lateral movement, then they went to England and got destroyed by lateral movement, then they came back here and got destroyed by lateral movement. Well, there's still lateral movement, so I'm not going to predict big scores for Aussie and neither am I going to predict draws.

We've got two bowlers in the top 10, they've got one, and Henry appears to have given up on his dalliance with short rubbish and gone back to being really good.

I'd say Aussie were favourites by a cigarette paper.

 

[Gob]

Again, I don't think that's going to be such a big issue...

Yeah not much run making will happen on this for sure. Will be over by sunday