***Official*** New Zealand tour of Zimbabwe and South Africa 2016

[Mike5181]

We're going to end up with Craig at number 7 for the Indian series aren't we?

 

[Zinzan]

IDK, Sodhi's the incumbent 2nd spinner isn't he?

 

[straw man]

We're going to end up with Craig at number 7 for the Indian series aren't we?

Craig to open the batting in India. Guptill to bat 8 and bowl 20 overs per day.

 

[StephenZA]

Yeah having all four seamers who can slog a few but generally can't be relied upon to contribute with bat kinda sucks. Throwing in a bowler who looks vaguely like a batsman, tries hard but averages 13 doesn't help with that. Craig is our only bowler who can actually bat.

Generally we'd hope to, and have been able to, rely on just the top 3 (or 2) seamers to do the job. That would be preferable. However with the side balanced as it is currently, the lack of middle-order options, our other two all-rounders coming back from injury, S&B struggling ... it makes sense to play our very best four seamers.

It makes no sense to me not to always play your best 4 seamers, regardless of batting ability? I understand that maybe NZ worry about batting depth.. but you are never going to win matches without taking 20 wickets (stating the obvious!). Is their obvious better bowling options available to NZ at the moment.

From the issues I`ve seen of NZ, limited as it is, huge issues with openers (which is not an uncommon world-wide atm). Middle order looks solid, just doing all the heavy lifting. I have not seen the purpose of Bracewell! Think that NZ need to pick a front line spinner. Even on non spinning track a good front line spinner keeps runs down. I think that Southey is being given a little bit of a hard time, he bowled quite well if not 100% consistently, Boult for me is the bigger issue (not cause he needs replacing) but he seems a yard of pace. Wagner has been impressive both with attitude and skill..

 

[Prince EWS]

IDK, Sodhi's the incumbent 2nd spinner isn't he?

Yeah it'll be 7 Santer 8 Sodhi to start the series, but if Santner gets hammered in the first couple of Tests and Sodhi does okay, Craig could end up at seven for the third Test.

 

[Mike5181]

IDK, Sodhi's the incumbent 2nd spinner isn't he?

Realistically, barring injuries, the chances of someone new being brought into the squad for the Indian series is pretty slim though isn't it? So should both Guptill and Nicholls fail again, you've really only got one guy (Jeet Raval) in the squad as a proper replacement.

Raval in for Guptill - check

And then for Nicholls' spot you either keep him, slide Guptill down the order so he can fail in a different position, or pick one out of Ronchi/Craig.

 

[Slippaah]

As NZC , unlike other ranked Test playing Full Members,does not have a current national 'A' Squad alternative player options mentioned here are understandably confined to the Test Squad in Africa or those with NZC central contracts. The selectors sent Raval to Africa but did not grant him an opportunity. There must be some young talent in domestic cricket. Assume NZC are working with emerging players but it is low profile. Eg : Pace bowlers with 140kph + capability.

 

[straw man]

It makes no sense to me not to always play your best 4 seamers, regardless of batting ability? I understand that maybe NZ worry about batting depth.. but you are never going to win matches without taking 20 wickets (stating the obvious!). Is their obvious better bowling options available to NZ at the moment.

Well yeah, pick best four bowlers always, though I was also making the point that for NZ those best four is unlikely to include a spinner. Was responding to Prince EWS saying Bracewell is probably picked partly for his batting, which may be true and is something I disagree with [a) it's a bad idea, b) he doesn't actually score runs], as I think Henry is a better bowler unless the wicket is very flat, and also Henry has the higher potential.

Main problem though of course is Southee and Boult not at best. They've papered over the lack of good other bowlers for a while, but that's now exposed.

As for other fast bowlers in NZ, there are a few that may push for spots in the next season or two, injury permitting, but for now these top 5 are comfortably ahead.

 

[Hurricane]

Well yeah, pick best four bowlers always, though I was also making the point that for NZ those best four is unlikely to include a spinner. Was responding to Prince EWS saying Bracewell is probably picked partly for his batting, which may be true and is something I disagree with [a) it's a bad idea, b) he doesn't actually score runs], as I think Henry is a better bowler unless the wicket is very flat, and also Henry has the higher potential.

Main problem though of course is Southee and Boult not at best. They've papered over the lack of good other bowlers for a while, but that's now exposed.

As for other fast bowlers in NZ, there are a few that may push for spots in the next season or two, injury permitting, but for now these top 5 are comfortably ahead.

Gosh. Normally I agree with everything you say but not these ideas.

Bracewell turned the corner with his batting towards the end of the Australian series. That six he smoked off Siddle was him arriving at the conclusion that he needs to accept that he has to slog to score runs from number 8 because he simply isn't skilled enough to score any runs trying to bat in an orthodox fashion. Orthodoxy earned him an average of 13. Even he fails with the bat in this inning, you watch him for the 6-7 runs he does make he will more look the part than the struggling Bracewell of 2 years ago.

On the issue of pick your 4 best seamers. Or 4 best bowlers or whatever the saying is. I realise that is the logic that all selectors use and that pervades CW thinking. I have never agreed with that logic.
If your 4th best and 5th best bowler are much of a muchness then you pick the better batsman even if he is ranked 5th.

Henry and Bracewell are equally good. I actually think in this test Bracewell has looked dynamite and bowled really well anyway. Best I have seen since Hobart.

I feel like this post needs a conclusion. Doug Bracewell is a test match quality bowler. It is ok to pick him ahead of Henry who is not any better than he is.

 

[StephenZA]

Gosh. Normally I agree with everything you say but not these ideas.

Bracewell turned the corner with his batting towards the end of the Australian series. That six he smoked off Siddle was him arriving at the conclusion that he needs to accept that he has to slog to score runs from number 8 because he simply isn't skilled enough to score any runs trying to bat in an orthodox fashion. Orthodoxy earned him an average of 13. Even he fails with the bat in this inning, you watch him for the 6-7 runs he does make he will more look the part than the struggling Bracewell of 2 years ago.

On the issue of pick your 4 best seamers. Or 4 best bowlers or whatever the saying is. I realise that is the logic that all selectors use and that pervades CW thinking. I have never agreed with that logic.
If your 4th best and 5th best bowler are much of a muchness then you pick the better batsman even if he is ranked 5th.

Henry and Bracewell are equally good. I actually think in this test Bracewell has looked dynamite and bowled really well anyway. Best I have seen since Hobart.

I feel like this post needs a conclusion. Doug Bracewell is a test match quality bowler. It is ok to pick him ahead of Henry who is not any better than he is.

I disagree with both these statements... I could not say definitively if he was better than Henry (but what I do remember of Henry I thought he was better)... but I would have played an extra spinner. I could understand the 4 pace man option at Wanderers, but that is the only ground in SA where you do not need to play a spinner. All the other tracks turn (not subcontinent) day 4/5. (Except Newlands nowadays which turns into a road....)

For me from this match perspective Willimason/NZ decided that the best chance they had to beat SA was to play 4 pacers bowl first when the pitch was particularly juicy and get SA out cheaply... this has back fired spectacularly and was always a roll of the dice. Centurion has behaved almost exactly as it normally does, batting first was always the most positive move.

 

[hendrix]

yeah Dougeh is not test standard. He might become it but he's not up to par, generally speaking.

 

[Hurricane]

I disagree with both these statements... I could not say definitively if he was better than Henry (but what I do remember of Henry I thought he was better)... but I would have played an extra spinner. I could understand the 4 pace man option at Wanderers, but that is the only ground in SA where you do not need to play a spinner. All the other tracks turn (not subcontinent) day 4/5. (Except Newlands nowadays which turns into a road....)

For me from this match perspective Willimason/NZ decided that the best chance they had to beat SA was to play 4 pacers bowl first when the pitch was particularly juicy and get SA out cheaply... this has back fired spectacularly and was always a roll of the dice. Centurion has behaved almost exactly as it normally does, batting first was always the most positive move.

Nice response.

Bracewell was swinging it for the first time in some years. The only reason that Soult and Bracewell didn't carve up in the first inning is that South Africa out thought us. Against most batting line ups we would have been amongst it big time. South Africa obviously have a coach who has a brain. Most teams don't. And I sincerely mean that. Whoever South Africa's coach is he was dissapointed with your performance against us from a batting point of view in the first test and he correctly deduced that our mastery of swing bowling was catching you at 6s and 7s. South Africa obviously got in front of a white board and actually used their brains and thought of a counter strategy to swing. Every batsman was not phased by the significant amount of movement that our bowlers got. I thought we bowled to a test match standard level. I just think that South Africa were two steps ahead of us and use the leave fantastically well against us. There were magnificent leaves out there on the first two days. We bowled well. Doug bowled well. South Africa were just h4x.

There was a comeback to their tactics and that was liberal use of the crease like my story of Richard Hadlee but our coaching staff isn't as skilled as yours so we never thought of doing that.
We also got unlucky with lots of beating of the bat. While in our batting inning so far Ross and Latham have become unglued not due to the skill of the bowlers.

I don't really even know if I am answering your post Stephen - I am more answering the parts you bolded in my post where you disagreed that we or Doug bowled well. We put it in the right areas and that is all you can ask of us.

 

[StephenZA]

Faf and Duminy getting into the runs has really thrown issues into the team. AB comes back and was always going to replace one of the two... but with Faf captaining, dropping him for Aus test series would be strange and with the 'quota' issue dropping Duminy could be problematic. So I wonder if as an outside chance they might drop Elgar? Not because he has done poorly but the way QDK brought a dynamic to the opening partnership was nice, particularly with the flat wickets of Aus. I know that QDK said he would not like to do it atm... but. My first instinct would be to drop Duminy, but I don`t see that happening.

Oh, and Stiaan needs to stay home and get some form back, they should not be taking him to Aus.

 

[Hurricane]

Man I'm usually pretty harsh on Bracewell but I think he's bowled ok this test.

yeah Dougeh is not test standard. He might become it but he's not up to par, generally speaking.

You appear to be a bit random over the past few months Hendrix. I never know what you will say next.

In the first post I have quoted from 3 pages ago Bracwell bowled ok according to you. 2 pages later in the thread suddenly Doug isn't much chop.

 

[StephenZA]

Nice response.

Bracewell was swinging it for the first time in some years. The only reason that Soult and Bracewell didn't carve up in the first inning is that South Africa out thought us. Against most batting line ups we would have been amongst it big time. South Africa obviously have a coach who has a brain. Most teams don't. And I sincerely mean that. Whoever South Africa's coach is he was dissapointed with your performance against us from a batting point of view in the first test and he correctly deduced that our mastery of swing bowling was catching you at 6s and 7s. South Africa obviously got in front of a white board and actually used their brains and thought of a counter strategy to swing. Every batsman was not phased by the significant amount of movement that our bowlers got. I thought we bowled to a test match standard level. I just think that South Africa were two steps ahead of us and use the leave fantastically well against us. There were magnificent leaves out there on the first two days. We bowled well. Doug bowled well. South Africa were just h4x.

There was a comeback to their tactics and that was liberal use of the crease like my story of Richard Hadlee but our coaching staff isn't as skilled as yours so we never thought of doing that.
We also got unlucky with lots of beating of the bat. While in our batting inning so far Ross and Latham have become unglued not due to the skill of the bowlers.

I don't really even know if I am answering your post Stephen - I am more answering the parts you bolded in my post where you disagreed that we or Doug bowled well. We put it in the right areas and that is all you can ask of us.

Most South Africans don`t agree with you on Domingo (SA coach) . I wonder how much input McKenzie (batting coach) had? But as far as leaving the swinging ball, I think NZ have been watching Aus to much... SA openers always leave the swinging ball alone. You cannot be an opener in SA without that skill. It was why the call for Stephen Cook to come into the line-up was so strong. I agree that the NZ bowlers bowled well... but not great. As has been said if you watch Philander, Steyn... NZ are having to play at just about everything with little or nothing onto the pads.. if they err it is on the side outside off stump. If the ball stops swinging you will find that Philander and Rabada will start targeting the stumps a bit more.. and yes probably move around the crease. Steyn, well he seems to be always able to swing the ball. But this is the advantage of playing at home, you understand the conditions better.

 

[Hurricane]

Most South Africans don`t agree with you on Domingo (SA coach) . I wonder how much input McKenzie (batting coach) had? But as far as leaving the swinging ball, I think NZ have been watching Aus to much... SA openers always leave the swinging ball alone. You cannot be an opener in SA without that skill. It was why the call for Stephen Cook to come into the line-up was so strong. I agree that the NZ bowlers bowled well... but not great. As has been said if you watch Philander, Steyn... NZ are having to play at just about everything with little or nothing onto the pads.. if they err it is on the side outside off stump. If the ball stops swinging you will find that Philander and Rabada will start targeting the stumps a bit more.. and yes probably move around the crease. Steyn, well he seems to be always able to swing the ball. But this is the advantage of playing at home, you understand the conditions better.

You know your cricket and you are welcome addition to the site. Nice posts. I have no comeback to any of that. Yeah happy enough with that, NZ bowlers bowled well but not great.
But yeah who does bowl great? You might expect that from Dale Steyn but he will probably go down as an ATG, I regard Southee and Boult as having the potential to average around 26-28 with the ball. They are very good by NZ historical standards but not of Steyn quality. So what I am saying is that I am will not be holding Soult to Dale Steyn standards.
Even hadlee went for a fair few runs. People asking for 6 balls out of 6 in the target area are asking for metronome like bowling not seen since the days of McGrath.

Nice information about South African openers with the leave always being part of their game. I like a good opener with a good leave. It has been very very impressive display of cricketing skills. Well batted South Africa.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I have not seen the purpose of Bracewell! Think that NZ need to pick a front line spinner. Even on non spinning track a good front line spinner keeps runs down .

The issue is that Craig and Sodhi never, ever do that. They always release pressure by bowling that one pie every over.

I reckon NZ are massively missing Vettori. Going by the comments here, the common criticisms have been the perceived lack of batting depth (causing Bracewell to be picked as an all-rounder) and as you said, the lack of a spinner who can keep runs down even if he isn't penetrative. Not entirely sure Santner can grow into that role yet.

 

[Prince EWS]

You appear to be a bit random over the past few months Hendrix. I never know what you will say next.

In the first post I have quoted from 3 pages ago Bracwell bowled ok according to you. 2 pages later in the thread suddenly Doug isn't much chop.

The rational conclusion to take from that is that hendrix isn't ready to knee-jerk an overall opinion change on Bracewell but will happily admit he's bowled okay in this specific match.

 

[Zinzan]

You appear to be a bit random over the past few months Hendrix. I never know what you will say next.

In the first post I have quoted from 3 pages ago Bracwell bowled ok according to you. 2 pages later in the thread suddenly Doug isn't much chop.

Not really, there's a clear difference between 'bowled ok this game' & 'generally speaking not up to test standard'.

 

[StephenZA]

Can not afford to start dropping catches...