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

[Jord]

I've said before that I think it's a fitness issue for Latham; I think a lot of "mental fitness" is in fact physiological in that we do actually fatigue, both in our brains and our limbs. When you see Latham bat, it's not only that he gives the game away with a poor shot, it's also that his actual technique deteriorates. And unfortunately I don't see batting coach Craig McMillan working that out. Of course, the effect is magnified when he's been out in the field for a day and a half. I just think it's an easy fix that might improve his game. Honestly I really feel not enough emphasis is placed on physical fitness for batsmen at the elite level.

Really good point. I think a combination of the above with the fact that he's not yet equipped to play spin is why he gets out pretty soft at times. I still say it's a mental coaching issue as well, as plenty of unfit players have had the ability to play long innings ( Gatting, Boon, Lehmann all spring to mind )

 

[Moss]

I think we can. I can recall maybe three innings that Anderson has played and scored ugly runs, I can't remember any innings Neesham has gone out and scored ugly, Santner has already shown in a young ODI career that pressure doesn't really get to him, and he doesn't need to be timing the ball to find runs. He's also a tidy left arm spinner at a time where none of our other spin options are tidy. Real issue isn't at #6 though, it's how we make our bowling attack work if the ball isn't swinging early for Southee and Boult and how can we get our top order batsmen to stop throwing starts away in almost every single test. Latham has been ridiculously consistent in getting started against Aus but has yet to go and make them pay. That's a mental issue.

Both Southee and Boult have been nowhere near peak fitness since the world cup. The workloads really need to be better managed (why, for example are both of them in the squad for the World T20?). But yeah, in any case they've looked decidedly less threatening when the conditions don't suit, ever since Bond left (which is more correlation than causality I suppose).

 

[TheJediBrah]

Really good point. I think a combination of the above with the fact that he's not yet equipped to play spin is why he gets out pretty soft at times. I still say it's a mental coaching issue as well, as plenty of unfit players have had the ability to play long innings ( Gatting, Boon, Lehmann all spring to mind )

standard "physical fitness" is not the same as batting fitness. And with either you can't judge on the way someone looks.

I would know, I've got terrible "batting fitness" and my cardio is **** but I look like a fitness model because I eat well and lift a lot. But I get ****ed after batting for 10 overs most of the time.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Sweet humblebrag.

 

[NZTailender]

Yeah, I mean his debut ton coming at 6/400ish or whatever doesn't look like a 'pressure' situation, but in the context of the game it wasn't a downhill skiing ton like a typical knock from 6/400 is.

That being said, Neesham's still been pretty hit-and-miss when it comes to contributing with both bat and ball for NZ.

What's overlooked is his 33 in the first innings, in a total of 190 odd. Came in with the score <100 iirc. If we're talking about vital 30s (Anderson) in pressure situations, that one gets overlooked because it was the first dig. ALso you take out the time and runs added by Neesham in his 'downhill' innings and we might've ended up with 100-200 less runs (Baz having to bat with Southee, Boult) and more time for India to chase down 250-300.

 

[NZTailender]

But honestly: CJ - 3 more tests than Neesh, 100 less runs. Wickets wise Corey has 15 @ 38 to Jimmy's 12 @ 39. Anderson's bowled better in his time in the side but I think Neesham could be a better long term player, if his bowling action is rectified.

 

[Jord]

What's overlooked is his 33 in the first innings, in a total of 190 odd. Came in with the score <100 iirc. If we're talking about vital 30s (Anderson) in pressure situations, that one gets overlooked because it was the first dig. ALso you take out the time and runs added by Neesham in his 'downhill' innings and we might've ended up with 100-200 less runs (Baz having to bat with Southee, Boult) and more time for India to chase down 250-300.

I don't see how you can say Anderson's innings was a vital 30 or even a good innings, he got a start, it was a brief respite from being absolutely rolled by Australia but ultimately he didn't go on far enough with it and got out in a pretty disappointing way. If an Australian batsman in that situation got out to that shot, I've seen careers ended for less. I still don't get why we don't feasibly look at Mark Craig as a #6 option. His batting to date has shown far more capability and promise than Anderson or Neesham.

 

[NZTailender]

I don't see how you can say Anderson's innings was a vital 30 or even a good innings, he got a start, it was a brief respite from being absolutely rolled by Australia but ultimately he didn't go on far enough with it and got out in a pretty disappointing way. If an Australian batsman in that situation got out to that shot, I've seen careers ended for less. I still don't get why we don't feasibly look at Mark Craig as a #6 option. His batting to date has shown far more capability and promise than Anderson or Neesham.

I don't either. He needs to go on with it. Re: Craig his batting has a bit of a Daniel Vettori air about it. He'll score vital runs but if you promote him too far up the order those runs might dry up. He'd be a good #7 tho.

 

[jcas0167]

Post your team.

Latham
Guptill
Williamson
Nicholls
McCullum
Santner
Watling
Sodhi
Milne
Wagner
Henry

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't see how you can say Anderson's innings was a vital 30 or even a good innings, he got a start, it was a brief respite from being absolutely rolled by Australia but ultimately he didn't go on far enough with it and got out in a pretty disappointing way. If an Australian batsman in that situation got out to that shot, I've seen careers ended for less. I still don't get why we don't feasibly look at Mark Craig as a #6 option. His batting to date has shown far more capability and promise than Anderson or Neesham.

this. I've said it a few times, but he's a better batsman than he is a bowler yet NZ are playing him backwards.

 

[NZTailender]

this. I've said it a few times, but he's a better batsman than he is a bowler yet NZ are playing him backwards.

He's not expected to make runs, so he makes runs.

Expected to take wickets, doesn't take wickets.

I think you're right.

 

[NZTailender]

Anyway, Australia are just next level. Smith & Lehmann are kinda genius. They have a plan for everyone and it builds. I think Baz has a general plan for the game, and his bowlers, but not the opposition batsmen. If South Africa continue their decline Australia should rightfully be number 1 soon.

 

[Moss]

I don't see how you can say Anderson's innings was a vital 30 or even a good innings, he got a start, it was a brief respite from being absolutely rolled by Australia but ultimately he didn't go on far enough with it and got out in a pretty disappointing way. If an Australian batsman in that situation got out to that shot, I've seen careers ended for less. I still don't get why we don't feasibly look at Mark Craig as a #6 option. His batting to date has shown far more capability and promise than Anderson or Neesham.

Wasn't a vital innings and he did throw it away, but he did show *some* progress as a test batsman by willing to graft it out which is more than we've seen from him in the past. Thought it was an encouraging sign considering he's played 2 out of NZ's last 10 tests.

 

[Jord]

Anyway, Australia are just next level. Smith & Lehmann are kinda genius. They have a plan for everyone and it builds. I think Baz has a general plan for the game, and his bowlers, but not the opposition batsmen. If South Africa continue their decline Australia should rightfully be number 1 soon.

AWTA; early days but I peg him as better than Clarke or Ponting as a skipper. At the same time I'm worried that with Baz retiring that we're going to lose a lot of what was working for us in the field.

 

[Jord]

I don't either. He needs to go on with it. Re: Craig his batting has a bit of a Daniel Vettori air about it. He'll score vital runs but if you promote him too far up the order those runs might dry up. He'd be a good #7 tho.

But that would mean NZ departing from their cultural norm of the wicket keeper batting seven at all costs even if the wicket keeper is a much better batsman than anyone you don't have batting at 3 or 4.

 

[Moss]

But that would mean NZ departing from their cultural norm of the wicket keeper batting seven at all costs even if the wicket keeper is a much better batsman than anyone you don't have batting at 3 or 4.

Don't see the issue there, 6 is not a big step up for Watling. IIRC this did happen in the Perth test, though it was Bracewell and not Craig who came in at 7.

 

[Jord]

I think we get too obsessed in patterns, selecting same-same cricketers in same-same positions. At least we seem to have broken the "Let's make our best middle order players open the batting" trend we used to have. Maybe in future we'll break the "Wicket keeper can't bat anywhere but seven and we must pick a spinner because spin" trend, alongside "Six must be a medium pace trundler who can hit sixes" one too.

 

[hendrix]

I think we get too obsessed in patterns, selecting same-same cricketers in same-same positions. At least we seem to have broken the "Let's make our best middle order players open the batting" trend we used to have. Maybe in future we'll break the "Wicket keeper can't bat anywhere but seven and we must pick a spinner because spin" trend, alongside "Six must be a medium pace trundler who can hit sixes" one too.

Dogmatic is the word you're looking for.

McCullum seems to be the one responsible ("got to pick a team for 5 days" etc), so it will be interesting to see if Hesson-Williamson is more open-minded. It really serves no purpose to do things like:
i) pick specialist openers if you have no one particularly good
ii) pick specialist spinners if you have no one particularly good
iii) pick specialist all rounders if you have no one particularly good

etc etc.
Obviously the team makeup must be balanced which is where different types of bowlers and allrounders come into play, but again only if it's likely to contribute to winning matches.

 

[Moss]

Anyhoo, for this test alone I hope NZ through continuity out of the window and show some desperation in looking for the win. Whether that means playing an extra bowler, going for an all-pace attack, opening with BMac, or Henry/Wagner replacing one of the incumbents I don't know. Just don't see the same XI on current form effecting the turnaround.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Anyway, Australia are just next level. Smith & Lehmann are kinda genius. They have a plan for everyone and it builds. I think Baz has a general plan for the game, and his bowlers, but not the opposition batsmen. If South Africa continue their decline Australia should rightfully be number 1 soon.

England will be the biggest challenger to Aus over the next few years, they look pretty good atm with a very young team