***Official*** New Zealand in South Africa

[NZTailender]

Hasn't Butler stopped being 'fast'? If so I'd replace him with Mason, keep Astle. Not sure about Bell, though. However he does have experience...

 

[James]

Butler has been injured and hasn't been up to playing domestic cricket, but has been playing club cricket as a batsman and off-spin bowler.

I believe he hopes to play cricket in the UK over their summer. I'm sure someone else can confirm that however.

 

[Retox]

I think How and Papps need one more series, If they fail then try someone new.

We need to try (as hard as this sounds) keep the same team for more then one series.

 

[armchairumpire]

and more importantly will Bracewell "learn" anything from this tour?

My thoughts:

1) We missed Vincent clearly, he simply has to come back, probably for Styris.
2) Without Bond, we lack a "fast" bowler, Mills/Franklin/Martin are all low 130's. We need someone who will hurry batsmen up. Butler and that Canterbury seamer spring to mind.
3) The opening positions, I'm thinking we may have to go back to the likes of Matthew Bell. Perhaps open the batting with Bell and Sinclair, too experienced players who have been there, done that.
4) Fulton continues to be the most over-rated cricketer in New Zealand.
5) Vettori, continues to improve with the bat, but when is he going to win us a Test with the ball? If it wasn't for his batting, I'd select Jeetan Patel over him.

What about Macca?

 

[Will Scarlet]

It ain't all bad, but some changes are necessary

1) We definitely missed Vincent
2) We definitely need Bond. Butler has to learn to bowl well: not just fast. I wouldn't be unhappy if he never played for NZ again.
3) The opening positions are definitely a problem, but give Papps & How a chance on some better wickets before replacing them. Sinclair deserves another chance; everyone except Bracewell is willing to admit that.
4) Fulton was once again forced to play as an opener, so it's pretty harse criticising his average performances. And he only played two of the tests.
5) Vettori's bowling is a bit concerning, but it's not as though any spinners were effective in the first and third tests.

6) We don't have room for both Astle and Styris in the test team, and Astle has proven his ability to knuckle down when needed, in testing conditions, against decent opposition. I can't say the same about Styris.

Over all, NZ needs to make two main changes:
1) Sack Bracewell and find someone that applies consistent, logical decision-making, who doesn't have favourites, and who is willing to adapt his gameplan when players get injured.
2) Stop stacking the team with all-rounders in the hope that players fail there will be cover. Only specialists will generally work at international level: part-time bowlers aren't good enough against international batsmen 95% of the time. We need to put faith in specialist batsmen and bowlers.

 

[Loony BoB]

and more importantly will Bracewell "learn" anything from this tour?

My thoughts:

1) We missed Vincent clearly, he simply has to come back, probably for Styris.

Amen.

2) Without Bond, we lack a "fast" bowler, Mills/Franklin/Martin are all low 130's. We need someone who will hurry batsmen up. Butler and that Canterbury seamer spring to mind.

Isn't Butler bowling spin at some crap level? I don't know what happened there.

3) The opening positions, I'm thinking we may have to go back to the likes of Matthew Bell. Perhaps open the batting with Bell and Sinclair, too experienced players who have been there, done that.

I'd like to see Sinclair given a longer shot for sure. As for who else, I've given up guessing. Bell sounds as good as anyone in the world at the moment.

4) Fulton continues to be the most over-rated cricketer in New Zealand.

Starting to think you might be right with that... although I'll hold judgement yet.

5) Vettori, continues to improve with the bat, but when is he going to win us a Test with the ball? If it wasn't for his batting, I'd select Jeetan Patel over him.

I'm really interested in this now. I'd love to see what Patel is like on a wicket that doesn't turn much at all - we all know that Vettori can use the flight and change of pace to get the odd wicket on those, but Patel seemed to rely more on the turn of the ball. I think Patel is a must on a spinning wicket - where we should play two spinners anyway - but I'm not sure on the green wickets of NZ and the like. Should be interesting to see how things develop though, certainly.

I don't think Styris should be dropped from the squad, but possibly dropped from the starting lineup. You don't drop someone for not playing as well as Hayden, you drop them because there's someone better. I'm not sure if there is at the moment, and I still think Styris - while he may be in bad form and not deserving of a first team place - is someone who we shouldn't throw out so quickly.

I never think of Astle and Styris as allrounders. I think of them as batsmen who just happen to be capable of bowling. Just because they bowl doesn't mean they aren't the best men for the position. Don't think a specialist batsman will do better than them just because they're specialist batsmen.

 

[Isolator]

What about Macca?

NOOOO.

 

[Sir Redman]

Isn't Butler bowling spin at some crap level? I don't know what happened there.

I'm pretty sure Butler slipped some discs in his back a year or so ago and as a result couldn't bowl fast. He has been playing as a batsman and off-spin bowler in club and district cricket and somehow got picked for ND A along the way.

I doubt he's given up pace bowling for good though.

 

[thedarkmullet]

Oh well, hats off to South Africa for winning the series. They probably deserve it after spending all summer getting whipped by the Aussies.

We'll do it all again next year I spose.

 

[Kippax]

2) Without Bond, we lack a "fast" bowler, Mills/Franklin/Martin are all low 130's. We need someone who will hurry batsmen up. Butler and that Canterbury seamer spring to mind.?

Sherlock needs to stay on the park for more than 5 minutes first really. Anzac and I used to get stick for even talking about him on CW sometimes, and it's turned out the naysayers were right.

If you wanted someone with genuine pace to be Bond's back-up right now, I would've thought James McMillan might be a realistic choice. A few years older than Sherlock, just as injury-prone but less of a long-term risk, plenty of anecdotal evidence that he's capable of 145kph+, and actually has some recent domestic scorecards to point to where he made inroads. Sadly they didn't pick McMillan for either of the 'A' sides to play in Aus next month for some reason.

3) The opening positions, I'm thinking we may have to go back to the likes of Matthew Bell. Perhaps open the batting with Bell and Sinclair, too experienced players who have been there, done that.

It probably seems like nitpicking in a crisis, but whenever I watch Bell I struggle to see what skills he has that say Franklin couldn't develop. I know cricket-following in NZ is largely a domain of 'by the book' conservatives who therefore hate the idea of Franklin opening, but I'm afraid I just don't see Bell's grit and limitations as worth denying yourself a Vincent, Sinclair or Taylor in the middle-order.

I've long been a supporter of How, but he's clearly let me down with this 'backlift out to fourth slip, cutting down and across towards mid-on' defensive technique. I guess it was asking too much for our technical staff to fix that after Fidel Edwards clearly exposed it by rearranging How's stumps about 6 weeks ago.

4) Fulton continues to be the most over-rated cricketer in New Zealand.

Fulton deserved an extended 10+ test run in the NZ side IMO. He achieved one of the best FC aves in NZ history (not exactly a seal of impending brilliance, but unless some slightly more influential people take up my diehard argument for a Pura Cup side, you have to reward the domestic stand-outs. Otherwise, why even fund it?). Fulton also scored runs for NZA on pitches from South Africa to Colombo.

The fact Fulton looks ungainly shouldn't have meant he was an automatic write-off. There are plenty of ugly-looking methods which are somehow made workable at the highest level, not just in cricket but in most sports. If the US golf team was picked on aesthetics rather than results, Jim Furyk (the world # 5) wouldn't exactly be waiting by the phone.

5) Vettori, continues to improve with the bat, but when is he going to win us a Test with the ball? If it wasn't for his batting, I'd select Jeetan Patel over him.

I used to find the "Vettori's world-class..." cliches just mildly annoying, but you're right. If I was Patel, I'd probably be starting to find it "Emperor's New Clothes"-like in terms of my own test aspirations.

The amount of times I hear commentators or Vettori himself trying to argue that it's just an unfortunate fact 95% of test pitches make it difficult for him to take wickets is ridiculous. I may as well start an argument that Alex Tait was also world-class (134 FC wickets @ 20) it's just most test pitches wouldn't have suited him either.

 

[Loony BoB]

Bracewell: "If we want to play our best players, the likes of the Sinclairs and Vincents and people like that, if they want to play, do they want to play there?"

...okay, Bracey. First up, you were the one who said Sinclair was more of a middle order batsman, not him. And Vincent said he preferred to bat in the middle order (and to be fair, he should)... but never said that he would not open. Please, please, please, give them their spots in the side.

 

[Arjun]

Looking at some issues discussed, though I haven't seen much of the series, here's wh at I have to say:

Missing Vincent: Things have changed. While he's not much of an opener, he can certainly make a place for himself in the middle-order, but that's getting a little too thick now, although he can make it ahead of Styris.

Missing Bond: And how. Frankly, they need to lookat other options, because Bond is not a long-term prospect now. The team has a major problem at hand. The best (and fittest) bowlers are slow, rely too much on movement off the pitch and would struggle to get wickets on flat decks. The fastest ones are way to injury-prone to stay in the national side, or even FC sides! It's up to the people that matter to decide, but the lack of pace is showing in this attack.

Fulton is over-rated: But why open an innings with him? He's not an opener by any means, he's at his best at four and let it stay that way. If he can't make it to three, four or five, keep him out, but to open the innings with him and then judge him is not fair. Would you then say that since he can't bowl fourteen overs of off-spin, he's no good? He's had a rather impressive start to his ODI career as a Number Four, so that's best for him.

Drop Vettori, bring in Patel: Maybe the regular New Zealand supporters can say why. Patel doesn't seem to be a contender for the starting lineup, even alongside Vettori, let alone ahead of him. Vettori scores useful runs, and the team needs them, given their batting worries, so unless Patel is very special with the ball, there's not much point picking him ahead.

Too many all-rounders: Three would be sufficient, if they play a full all-round role. But how many do they have now? Just Styris, who hardly bowls now and is struggling for runs, and Oram, who's having to do a little too much and McCullum, as the third. Vettori's had to score more than a few runs, and so has Franklin, but they've not played as all-rounders for very long. Given Styris' batting woes and lack of bowling, they can play an extra batsman. It's worth the change.

Opening the innings: I'm not too sure how well Matthew Bell is doing, but they can't make a revolving door setup out of this position, or the long-term effects will be catastropgic. There must be two openers (and a reserve) good enough to last more than three Test series, and they should get a regular run. If they go back to Matt Horne again, they've lost it.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Arjun, this isn't really directed at you - it's just that you were the last cab off the rank - a lot of people are making the following points.

the lack of pace is showing in this attack.

I really don't understand this obsession with pace. Yes, it's a nice bonus, and yes, it can be devastatingly effective. However, to claim that we need a fast bowler is just plain wrong. Richard Hadlee was still deadly after he reduced his runup. Simon Doull and Dion Nash were only medium fast, but took plenty of wickets at good averages. Heath Davis and Ian Butler were pacey liabilities. While speed is desirable, I'd much sooner take a bowler who puts the ball in the right spot and swings it at will.

Fulton is over-rated

This is quite a call to make after the guy has only played a handful of tests and ODI. Once again, not directed solely at you, Arjun. Lots of people are making this call.

 

[James]

I really don't understand this obsession with pace. Yes, it's a nice bonus, and yes, it can be devastatingly effective. However, to claim that we need a fast bowler is just plain wrong. Richard Hadlee was still deadly after he reduced his runup. Simon Doull and Dion Nash were only medium fast, but took plenty of wickets at good averages. Heath Davis and Ian Butler were pacey liabilities. While speed is desirable, I'd much sooner take a bowler who puts the ball in the right spot and swings it at will.

If you look at the successful Test nations around the world, they have at least one "pace bowler" who can get it up around 145kph. Australia have Lee, England have Harmison, Pakistan have Akhtar, etc, etc.

When a pitch/over head conditions don't give the ball swing our bowlers become cannon fodder, simply because they're straight up and down with little pace. You need some pace in your attack to try and hurry the batsman up into making a mistake IMO. At least for some variety in your attack.

Take the 1st Test against the West Indies for example, all our bowlers except Bond were getting picked off fairly easily. With Bond, you had pace and swing, while with Franklin/Mills, etc you have a little swing at 130kph which most international batsman of any quality seem to handle fairly easily. If it wasn't for Bond, we would have lost that Test, no question about it.

Simon Doull, excellent in NZ conditions, but rubbish to put it plainly overseas. You couldn't find a worse flat pitch bowler IMO. Dion Nash, had some fire in his belly and gave it all he had, much like Adam Parore. Is there anyone in our current lineup who really tries and fights as hard as either of those two?

Ian Butler did show what he has to offer, with his superb bowling performance at the Basin Reserve against Pakistan where he took 6/46.

This is quite a call to make after the guy has only played a handful of tests and ODI. Once again, not directed solely at you, Arjun. Lots of people are making this call.

My main issue here, is that they leave Vincent out who averages over 50 in the past 12 months for Fulton who is now averaging only 26.42. If they really want to play Fulton, stick him where he should be around 5-6 in the order, but I'd have Vincent over Fulton every time.

 

[Dick Rockett]

If you look at the successful Test nations around the world, they have at least one "pace bowler" who can get it up around 145kph. Australia have Lee, England have Harmison, Pakistan have Akhtar, etc, etc.

When a pitch/over head conditions don't give the ball swing our bowlers become cannon fodder, simply because they're straight up and down with little pace. You need some pace in your attack to try and hurry the batsman up into making a mistake IMO. At least for some variety in your attack.

Take the 1st Test against the West Indies for example, all our bowlers except Bond were getting picked off fairly easily. With Bond, you had pace and swing, while with Franklin/Mills, etc you have a little swing at 130kph which most international batsman of any quality seem to handle fairly easily. If it wasn't for Bond, we would have lost that Test, no question about it.

Simon Doull, excellent in NZ conditions, but rubbish to put it plainly overseas. You couldn't find a worse flat pitch bowler IMO. Dion Nash, had some fire in his belly and gave it all he had, much like Adam Parore. Is there anyone in our current lineup who really tries and fights as hard as either of those two?

Ian Butler did show what he has to offer, with his superb bowling performance at the Basin Reserve against Pakistan where he took 6/46.

As far as Lee goes, he has poor test stats for someone who is rated so highly. Akhtar cannot be relied upon to come up with a matchwinning performance - he's too inconsistent. Those guys are worse than useless unless they put the ball in the right place, which is exactly my point.

The problem with guys like Martin and Franklin isn't that they're too slow, it's that they're incapable of bowling the right line and length. As I mentioned to you the other day, Franklin's primary problem is his tendency to give one or two four balls an over. As it is, neither of these guys are pedestrian, they're both faster than Glenn McGrath for example, and I saw Franklin bowling in the 140s at times in SA.

Basically I maintain that pace counts for little on it's own. A good bowler must have control, an excellent bowler must be able to swing the ball at will, whatever the conditions. With Shane Bond, the fact is he has both those attributes - even without his pace he'd still be brilliant.

My main issue here, is that they leave Vincent out who averages over 50 in the past 12 months for Fulton who is now averaging only 26.42. If they really want to play Fulton, stick him where he should be around 5-6 in the order, but I'd have Vincent over Fulton every time.

Once again, I'm not saying that Fulton deserves to be there over Vincent, or any other proven player. It just seems way too premature to be proclaming him "overrated". If you recall, Vincent didn't exactly set the world alight after his debut. It also seems strange to pick on Fulton after so few tests, yet point to Ian Butler's one decent performance with the ball as justification for his selection.

 

[Blaze]

Pace is overrated. We should be looking for bowlers who can bowl good areas first and foremost... and if someone comes along who can do that and has a bit of extra pace then that's a bonus. Shane Bond hasn't even bowled very fast since his comeback. He is consistantly in the low 140's. The reason he is so successful is because he has unbelievable control and is smart.

You have got to remember that Bond came from nowhere pretty much. He was an average domestic cricketer who almost gave the game away in his mid 20's. Now I don't know why the selectors are still bothering with Chris Martin, who will perform maybe once or twice in a Test series, but Mills and Franklin have potential.

Some of the stuff I have seen Franklin do with the ball gets me excited. How old is he? 26? He has a good average and we just have to persevere with him and let him mature into, hopefully, a very good bowler.

Mills seems to improve with every game he plays. He will never be a great bowler, but is definetly the man to back Franklin and Bond up in the next few years.

I guess Tuffey and Butler will be considered when they come back from injury as well...

It is kind of concerning that there aren't many younger bowlers coming through the provinces at the moment...

 

[Blaze]

What is this about Fulton being overrated? Personally I wouldn't bother rating his performances opening the batting, but from what I have seen of him at 3 I have been quite impressed. He has a future...

 

[James]

Where I'm coming from is with this sort of bowling attack we're going back to the sort out of attacks we had in the 90's with just a load of medium pacers who bowl good line and length but struggle to take any wickets, let alone 20 to win us a test.

WIth pace, coming aggression, with aggression comes wickets. Oram does the job of keeping it tight well enough IMO, so we can afford to have an out and out fast bowler who might conceed 4 runs an over. The same as what's happened with Lee & McGrath over the years. That Otago fast bowler is meant to be pretty quick isn't he? We picked Vettori out of absolutely no-where, we could do the same again.

I agree that Mills & Franklin have a future but an attack of Franklin, Mills, Martin, Oram, Vettori, Styris is not going to take 20 wickets. I also agree with Fulton, but not at the top of the order, and not ahead of Vincent.

 

[Blaze]

Franklin, Mills and Martin couldn't be described as medium pacers,

I have seen all 3 hit the 142km mark. Their speeds compare to most other attacks world-wide.

 

[James]

Which other attacks are you referring to? Couldn't be Pakistan, England, Australia, India (now with their new seamers), South Africa. Each of those countries has at least 2 out and out pace bowlers.

The speed of our attack compares to the likes of Sri Lanka, West Indies, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh IMO.

What average speed were they going at through their spells though? Around 132-134kph right and don't you get more speed naturally in South Africa with it being XX above sea level?