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

[straw man]

 

[OverratedSanity]

Utterly dominant from Australia.

 

[Zinzan]

Lol just saw the scorecard, Southee getting runs when it doesn't matter once again. Has he ever managed runs when it actually matters? I can't recall?

 

[Zinzan]

Not to take anything away from Voges' innings, but if Illingworth hadn't incorrectly called that no ball how different a game could we be looking at? Voges put on 232, and was involved in combined partnerships of 392.

Nah, I honestly don't think it would have made much of a difference, possibly reduced the innings margin slightly. Aust would have found other ways to score runs (like they always do when they really need to against us), remember Siddle almost got 50.

Reflecting on poor/unlucky decisions kind of have merit when it's close (like Adelaide and the Lyon dismissal), but not when you've been thrashed by an innings.

 

[Zinzan]

demolished.

Congrats Aus.

Back to the drawing board for NZ.

Yup, the gap between these sides is a little more than many thought. Utterly outclassed in every department and even when we batted in the 2nd innings in good batting conditions, Aust were never far away from picking up wickets, whereas when they batted there were times when it looked like we were never going to breakthrough. That was the most notable difference to me.

 

[Burgey]

Yup, the gap between these sides is a little more than many thought. Utterly outclassed in every department and even when we batted in the 2nd innings in good batting conditions, Aust were never far away from picking up wickets, whereas when they batted there were times when it looked like we were never going to breakthrough. That was the most notable difference to me.

Haze just asks so many questions on decks with anything in them at all. He's maturing into a really classy test bowler these days. Lyon has become a bit of a menace these days too. Doesn't seem to bowl as flat as he was a while back.

I presume if Siddle is no good then Patto will come in for him in Christchurch. He's a proper wicket taker but can go for a few because he's so attacking. Might let some pressure off for the NZ batsmen.

 

[Athlai]

And by Santa I mean actual St. Nick who can give us a miracle.

Lol just saw the scorecard, Southee getting runs when it doesn't matter once again. Has he ever managed runs when it actually matters? I can't recall?

Well mostly innings that matter for tail order guys are matching saving/match winning ones in the 2nd innings,

In wins: A useful 40 at Leeds.
In draws: Arguably his 20 (5) in Dubai and his 22* against Pakistan in Wellington.

He has never gotten us close in a loss ever.

So 3 of his 30 3rd/4th innings have been useful.

Without looking into it too deeply I feel like thats probably not that bad for a #9?

 

[Binkley]

Well that was awful.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

We don't really do close losses either.

 

[Burgey]

The Adam a worthy MOTM.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well mostly innings that matter for tail order guys are matching saving/match winning ones in the 2nd innings,

I think first innings runs for the tail are pretty important, if they aren't coming in at 7-600. Like if he'd have made runs in the first innings here it would have mattered for sure. Or really in 90% of first innings scenarios.

 

[Athlai]

I think first innings runs for the tail are pretty important, if they aren't coming in at 7-600. Like if he'd have made runs in the first innings here it would have mattered for sure. Or really in 90% of first innings scenarios.

Difficult to tell with Southee, none of his big 1st innings knocks were made in tight wins or draws. A lot of downhill skiing on that end, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Zinzan]

Well mostly innings that matter for tail order guys are matching saving/match winning ones in the 2nd innings,

In wins: A useful 40 at Leeds.
In draws: Arguably his 20 (5) in Dubai and his 22* against Pakistan in Wellington.

He has never gotten us close in a loss ever.

So 3 of his 30 3rd/4th innings have been useful.

Without looking into it too deeply I feel like thats probably not that bad for a #9?

Yeah, I don't think we're supposed to have hugely high expectations of a no 9s batting, it's just frustrated how he scores such good cbf/doesn't matter runs. Right off the bat with his debut innings of 70odd in a losing cause. Southee could have been so much better a batsman if he had more spine & ticker, I suppose he's kind of our Stuart Broad in that respect.

On the other side of the coin you get guys like Ryan Harris and Peter Siddle (and Jason Gillespie or years gone by) who are probably less natural than Broad and Southee, but who put a massive price of their wicket and fight for their team.

 

[jcas0167]

Not to take anything away from Voges' innings, but if Illingworth hadn't incorrectly called that no ball how different a game could we be looking at? Voges put on 232, and was involved in combined partnerships of 392.

I personally think Khawaja and Smith did a hell of a job batting us out of the game after being 2 down for SFA but it mightn't have been such a total paddling. Makes it a bit more heartbreaking. Voges is really a man you don't want to get any chances at the moment, white hot form.

I think if Voges had been out and Marsh had come out in the morning at 147/4 with the NZ bowlers reasonably bouyant, there would be a reasonable prospect of keeping the lead to 100-120.

I think the end result would still be an Australian win, but probably by 6 wickets.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Difficult to tell with Southee, none of his big 1st innings knocks were made in tight wins or draws. A lot of downhill skiing on that end, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Surely any runs made in the first innings matter if a positive result isn't a foregone conclusion? You don't know what is going to happen after that and it could make a difference. Even if the team is getting hammered and he ultimately doesn't win the game for New Zealand, it's not really downhill skiing. Unless you're saying he only makes runs when everyone else also does, in which case sure.

To pick a random example of a number 9, I'm thinking about an innings like this one from Brett Lee in the first innings: Scorecard - 2005 The Ashes - 4th Test - 25/08/2005

Ultimately fruitless, team followed on and lost, but it impacted the game and wasn't downhill skiing.

 

[Athlai]

Surely any runs made in the first innings matter if a positive result isn't a foregone conclusion? You don't know what is going to happen after that and it could make a difference. Even if the team is getting hammered and he ultimately doesn't win the game for New Zealand, it's not really downhill skiing. Unless you're saying he only makes runs when everyone else also does, in which case sure.

To pick a random example of a number 9, I'm thinking about an innings like this one from Brett Lee in the first innings: Scorecard - 2005 The Ashes - 4th Test - 25/08/2005

Ultimately fruitless, team followed on and lost, but it impacted the game and wasn't downhill skiing.

Na Southee's big runs in the first innings have been in situations like Pakistan 270, NZ 600/8, or against Zimbabwe and we win by an innings and 300 runs.

He hasn't really contributed any first innings runs against the big teams when we weren't already massively on top (because it was the 2nd innings and we'd bowled them out for SFA),

 

[jcas0167]

Sodhi has taken his 4th wicket against Otago. Contender for the next test?

 

[Bahnz]

Anyone else starting to think that Mark Craig is just a better test batsman than Corey Anderson? I mean, I know it's an easier gig batting at 8 as opposed to 6, but besides some brainless dismissals on the last tour to Aussie he just looks a much better package.

If Santner isn't fit, then I just about reckon we should repeat the lineup from the Perth test (Craig at 7 with 4 seamers). Risky, but we all know that Craig is playing next week, and it strikes me as the best of a bad bunch of options.

 

[Prince EWS]

Anyone else starting to think that Mark Craig is just a better test batsman than Corey Anderson? I mean, I know it's an easier gig batting at 8 as opposed to 6, but besides some brainless dismissals on the last tour to Aussie he just looks a much better package.

Well one thing's for sure: he's a better Test batsman than Bracewell and should be reinstated above him if they ever play another Test together.

I was actually pretty surprised that Craig didn't score a whole heap of runs when he went back to the PS, but he didn't. The primary reason I remain totally unconvinced in Craig's ability to average higher than low to mid 20s in Test cricket moving forward is his inability to do much at PS level where we have a bigger sample to work with and in higher batting positions than in Test cricket. I just really think we'd have seen more runs from him if this was the case.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

well