***Official*** Australia vs New Zealand ODIs 2016/17

[Zinzan]

On the limited squad they have there, I'd suppose I'd go with the following for Canberra.

Gup
Tom
KW
Neesham
Munro
Watling
Astle
Santner
Southee
Henry
Boult

As someone else suggested, this means Neesham isn't overly relied on. The boy still has no radar with the ball.

I don't think I'm exaggerating when i say that was the sloppiest I can recall NZ in the field... 5 no-balls and free-hits.. you wouldn't even read about it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

How can you have a no. 4 ODI bat with a List A average of 27 and highest score of 69 though? And that's in NZ domestic cricket

surely he's not good enough, and there's much better batsmen if you don't need him to bowl that much

 

[Daemon]

Has Anderson done anything of note with the bat since the WC semi that could justify a selection?

If they stick with him long enough he'll come good imo.

 

[Moss]

Has Anderson done anything of note with the bat since the WC semi that could justify a selection?

If they stick with him long enough he'll come good imo.

Every time Anderson has played since the WC it seems like he's been coming from an injury layoff and has looked rusty with the bat to the say the least. Don't think he's been bowling much.

Neesham has no business batting as high as number 4 (though he actually batted well in Sydney before a dumb shot). I'm guessing his initial success at test level means the management thinks he's capable of more with the bat.

 

[honestbharani]

You are clearly not listening at all

Nah.. You are clearly not reading at all. I am saying people at this level do not do things if they do not see tangible benefits. I can understand the "feeling better" argument if it is something like Anderson who tried new stuff and then went back to his old action. Maybe even Pattinson (or was it Cummins)? But the ones who actually change their basics at the highest level, they mostly do it for actual technique reasons than just to feel better, and with Bailey it is obvious he gets into a better position to play balls on the off side than earlier. I am not even sure why it is such a big argument.

 

[Red]

While you argue about why he does it, you could just read about why he does it...

“There has been a bit of a funky change which came about over a number of years,” Bailey told Channel Nine on Sunday.

“It started off with me just wanting to get into a really strong position where I could hit as many sixes as I could. It snuck into my one-day cricket and it got to the point where I trusted it so much, I thought I’d have a crack at it in red ball cricket where the ball swings and seams a bit more.”

“It just works,” he said.

“I just seem to hit the ball much cleaner. I still nick the ball and kick the ball every now and then, but at the moment I’m scoring more runs before I make that mistake.”
“I don’t like looking at it if I’m being honest,” he said.

“I know it’s not pretty. I much prefer to stand there like David Warner and look so composed. It stops my front foot from locking off and pushing too far across my body, which sounds a bit counter intuitive.

“But it looks really bad when the bowler is at the top of his mark, but I think once the bowler is about to release the ball, I think it must be in a bit of a better position.”

Despite coaches trying to talk him out of continuing with it, Bailey has decided to ‘live and die by the sword’.

“I don’t think you could find a coach in the world who could come up with that,” he said.

“The onus is on me. It was borne out of frustration getting out the same way in four-day cricket repeatedly.

“It’s the form of cricket I love most and it’s the most challenging. It’s my career and I’ll live and die by the sword. I want to bat the way I want to bat. I didn’t get much support from any coaches when I first started doing it.”

 

[Blocky]

Did anyone else laugh/cringe at Hesson praising Lockie Ferguson in the first match? I don't know about you guys, but I'm not praising someone who is stupid enough to bowl four front foot no balls that give away free hits within a 9 over set, even if he managed to work up some speed.

On these roads, you just can't afford those types of mistakes, nor dropping catches like the one Henry dropped, or missing chances when the ball is moving against Steve Smith when he was trapped in-front. I laugh reading back because some Australians were talking about the luck the Kiwis had, are you serious?

 

[Blocky]

On the limited squad they have there, I'd suppose I'd go with the following for Canberra.

Gup
Tom
KW
Neesham
Munro
Watling
Astle
Santner
Southee
Henry
Boult

As someone else suggested, this means Neesham isn't overly relied on. The boy still has no radar with the ball.

I don't think I'm exaggerating when i say that was the sloppiest I can recall NZ in the field... 5 no-balls and free-hits.. you wouldn't even read about it.

Neesham the bowler is a horrible proposition, but Astle in ODI cricket is probably worse. We didn't give ourselves many options over here. We need overs from De Grandhomme so we can't afford to leave him out. I actually think the weak link is Watling in the position he's currently batting, he would probably be a better #4 than a floating #5/6

 

[Burgey]

While you argue about why he does it, you could just read about why he does it...

George. So much love for him. A bloke's bloke prepared to do things his own way and wear the consequences.

 

[burr]

While you argue about why he does it, you could just read about why he does it...

I like George, but not his stance - at least he admits it's ugly though.

This is a great article about stances, I miss the gentle rhythmic bat tap of an Australian test cricketer. Bat up is so ugly and negates the potential for true elegance being achieved.

The downside of up | The Cricket Monthly | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Burgey]

I like George, but not his stance - at least he admits it's ugly though.

This is a great article about stances, I miss the gentle rhythmic bat tap of an Australian test cricketer. Bat up is so ugly and negates the potential for true elegance being achieved.

The downside of up | The Cricket Monthly | ESPN Cricinfo

Don't think here's a kid in the pathways program who doesn't use "bat up". It's coached into them from the get go nowadays

 

[Blain]

NZ have shot themselves in the foot here, we have too many bits and pieces players on tour, and clearly are lacking another batsmen. Nicholl's is a lost cause, and to make changes to the batting line, he is the only one who can be brought in. To be honest, I'd play Neesham in front of Nicholl as a batsmen anyway. But no way he is a number 4, maybe a number 6. Watling to 4 and Munro to 5 would satisfy me for the next match, it's the best side we can make out of this squad. Watling at 5 would just waste to many balls in the middle of the innings, where we need to be upping the run rate (if all goes to plan, and we don't lose 3 wickets in the first 10 overs).

Southee in for Henry or Ferguson also. I suspect there was always going to be a rotation plan with this series with the short turn arounds. No way I'd even think about playing Astle, could be a disaster. Aussie would go after him no doubt, and he isn't a strong OD player anyway. He's just a OK domestic bit and pieces player in this format at best.

 

[Blocky]

It also comes down to captaincy and tactics.

Some brainless **** that Williamson did

1. Bringing Lockie Ferguson back for one over spells on his debut - no express pace bowler wants one over spells, that's just stupid
2. Confusing Henry for being someone that would offer something in the middle stages - Henry should bowl out his ten before the 40th over in every match
3. Stop/Start spells with Santner rather than letting him get into rhythm.
4. Persisting with short bowling on a pitch that was purpose made for spanking that into the crowd
5. Bowling Neesham deep into his set despite his scatter gun approach
6. Becoming hesitant to attack once Australia were in trouble.

It was horrible captaincy and made to look even worse when his bowlers didn't back him up at all,

I don't mind Neesham at 4, I think his future for NZ is as a batsman and I think I've seen enough out of him to indicate he could become similar to Scott Styris (bits and pieces all rounder who eventually established himself as a bat) however if you pick Watling, you have to bat him in the Top 4. Our bowling attack at the moment has no true death bowler meaning we'll always leak runs in the last 10 overs, so we need Southee in the side as he's one of the few who has done this on occasion. Our batting still relies too heavily on either Guptill or Williamson making runs yet we stack it with capability down to 9, sacrificing our bowlers.

Based on who they have over there, I'd go with something like this

1. Latham
2. Guptill
3. Williamson
4. Neesham
5. Munro
6. De Grandhomme (no other option as we need some overs)
7. Santner
8. Henry
9. Southee
10. Boult
11. Ferguson.

Bowling wise; the framework would be something along the lines of

Southee and Boult having three overs each at the death
Henry bowling out before the 40th
Santner bowling out before the 44th
Ferguson having two spells, maybe a six over and a four over, instead of multiple smaller spells, bowling out before the 44th
De Grandhomme to offer up overs as a counter point to Southee/Ferguson.

 

[Compton]

Bailey's new stance is ace. Makes it look like he's never played cricket before when he gets out.

 

[Zinzan]

It's hard to disagree that KW is a horribly negative & defensive captain, & on top of that he now bats with a pressure and hesitancy he didn't previously.

Just a shame there's really nobody else.

 

[Blocky]

I'm wondering why NZ doesn't actually devolve the importance of the captaincy in this situation and appoint a match tactician who sits on the sidelines and uses the constant drinks breaks, boundary riders and such to relay tactics to the middle.

 

[Burgey]

Apparently raining in both Geelong and Canberra today.

 

[TheBrand]

Based on who they have over there, I'd go with something like this

1. Latham
2. Guptill
3. Williamson
4. Neesham
5. Munro
6. De Grandhomme (no other option as we need some overs)
7. Santner
8. Henry
9. Southee
10. Boult
11. Ferguson.

Latham to keep then?

 

[SteveNZ]

It's hard to disagree that KW is a horribly negative & defensive captain, & on top of that he now bats with a pressure and hesitancy he didn't previously.

Just a shame there's really nobody else.

There really isn't. There's no one I could even make any sort of case for. Latham, over time?

I agree wholeheartedly with Blocky on Henry, same as I did with Millsy. You bowl him out as early as possible. He's a crap death bowler, without any real variation or ability to not be hittable. Use his strengths, for god's sakes. Two spells of 5, one of 6-7 one of 3, whatever. Just let him do what he's best at, which is throwing it up, swinging it and taking wickets. We enjoyed our best ODI form under Brendon taking wickets, and Henry is a wicket taker. Use him.

 

[Blocky]

Latham to keep then?

Yup, ultimately it comes down to either Watling or Neesham as I think both of them in this line up need to bat in the Top 4. It would be harsh dropping Latham from ODI (although I still maintain Guptill and Williamson would be our best opening combination) so Watling takes the bench.