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

[Hurricane]

Anderson's starting to slide down the hill towards unfulfilled talent and limited overs specialist.

Don't disagree with this conclusion. Make it or break it time next test for Corey or Santner is likely to replace him.

 

[Dan]

As for this statement "not being that good a batsman at Test match level. That's not to say he won't sort his **** out and become a competent #6, but he's well and truly failed to deliver on his potential in his Test career to date."

Who says I disagree with that comment? I said he could use a year in county cricket batting in the top order. His failure to convert starts has really hampered his ability to make a meaningful contribution.

Never said you did disagree. I thought it worthwhile to make the point that I'm not writing Corey J off for good or that I think he's a complete spud because I'm arguing against your point here.

The final thing I disagree with is your statement that 4-180 is par for the course so just get on with the job and perform your role Corey. The heat is on at 4-180 as you could collapse easily. Even if yes it is an average score. The heat is off at 350-4. The inferno is on at 50-4.
To prove my point and negate yours an opener walks out to bat at 0-0. They do it every game. Does this mean there isn't a lot of pressure on them because 0-0 is an average score that openers face all the time? No - coming out to bat with the score less than 200 you are going to be facing a bowling attack with their tail up.

Obviously not, but coming out at 0/0 against a new ball under pressure is what openers are selected for. Corey is selected at #6 to contribute ~40 runs to the team total, with the average scenario probably sitting somewhere near him coming in at 4/200ish. You're giving him all this 'fighter' praise for a completely average innings in a completely average situation. If NZ collapses with Corey making 3, he's failed. If he shepherds NZ to 450 by making a big ton, he's done a damn good job. If he comes in at 4/180 and leaves at 5/260 having made 40, he's done his job but definitely hasn't done anything exceptional. You don't say no to a 40 in that situation, but it really isn't that special an achievement. It's what he's selected for.

 

[Dan]

Neesham's done more with the bat for NZ than Corey ever has. Like, actually contributed to wins and put runs on the board when needed (and yes, before the score was at 200).

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.

 

[Jord]

Out of the thirteen, Bracewell and Boult have to sit down; Boult has been out of form since his comeback and you can't afford to have both Southee and Boult in the side when they're not in peak form as they're too similar as bowlers who need the ball to be swinging in order to be dangerous. I think you have to play Henry as the most in form bowler in the Black Caps and for as much short wide **** as Wagner bowls, he can at least make something happen out of nothing which is a quality we're currently missing.

 

[Prince EWS]

It feels like a bit of a dick move to take Hurricane's assertion so literally but I feel that robust theories stand up to absurd criticism so I'm going to point it out anyway -- but I don't think coming out at 199/1 is really a pressure situation. It's not usually a situation where one is just downhill skiing but it's still one with your team on top (assuming first innings).

On the flip side, coming in at 400/6 or whatever the score was when Neesham came in on debut is still a pressure situation if it's the third innings and you're not ahead by much and there's still more than a day left in the game.

 

[Flem274*]

nz were about 100-200 ahead iirc on a complete road and as we know kohli was in cruise control when he got to bat. if neesham scored 0, india won.

 

[Hurricane]

Never said you did disagree. I thought it worthwhile to make the point that I'm not writing Corey J off for good or that I think he's a complete spud because I'm arguing against your point here.



Obviously not, but coming out at 0/0 against a new ball under pressure is what openers are selected for. Corey is selected at #6 to contribute ~40 runs to the team total, with the average scenario probably sitting somewhere near him coming in at 4/200ish. You're giving him all this 'fighter' praise for a completely average innings in a completely average situation. If NZ collapses with Corey making 3, he's failed. If he shepherds NZ to 450 by making a big ton, he's done a damn good job. If he comes in at 4/180 and leaves at 5/260 having made 40, he's done his job but definitely hasn't done anything exceptional. You don't say no to a 40 in that situation, but it really isn't that special an achievement. It's what he's selected for.

I don't really understand why we are not agreeing then. Only semantics is seperating us. You saying that 40 is what he is selected for so he deserves no special credit I guess is where I can take exception.

Here is a cricketing story for you - for those that like my stories

At rep trials when I was 12 they gathered us around and said you needed the 3 D's to make it in cricket
"Determination, Devotion, and Dedication"

To make runs at any level that isn't a down hill skiing situation you need the first of those D's - Determination. The reason why he comes through so often when the score is less than 200 is that he is determined (and is a fighter) that is my point. The fact that he doesn't ton up and go the extra mile is because he is inexperienced and doesn't "get" test match batting yet. It doesn't mean that he didn't use his scrapping skills to get his way to 38.

I think only semantics is seperating us Dan. You believe that he is only doing his job by scoring 38. I believe that it requires guts and determination to even score a 38 in a test match against the best teams in the world (unless you are downhill skiing.)

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I had the 3 I's. Then I suffered a horrible steroid addiction.

 

[Hurricane]

It feels like a bit of a dick move to take Hurricane's assertion so literally but I feel that robust theories stand up to absurd criticism so I'm going to point it out anyway -- but I don't think coming out at 199/1 is really a pressure situation. It's not usually a situation where one is just downhill skiing but it's still one with your team on top (assuming first innings).

On the flip side, coming in at 400/6 or whatever the score was when Neesham came in on debut is still a pressure situation if it's the third innings and you're not ahead by much and there's still more than a day left in the game.

Trust you to find a fault in my post

I meant less than 200 with 4 wickets down.

 

[Dan]

I had the 3 I's. Then I suffered a horrible steroid addiction.

You suck.

 

[straw man]

All three potential number 6 all-rounders are likely to be very useful at quickly turning 320/4 into a match-winning 500*, but equally are generally useless at 60/4. Of the three I can most see Santner becoming a test-class number 6 batsman. It's just the way he sets up and how late he plays the ball. Plus I love the balance his spin brings to the side, considering we don't have a test-quality spin bowler.

This doesn't mean I'm confining Anderson or Neesham to limited overs only yet - they're both young and have a lot of ability. Will need steady improvement with bat and likely ball too.

* Anderson and Santner haven't actually done this yet, but I believe they could.

 

[Prince EWS]

Trust you to find a fault in my post

I meant less than 200 with 4 wickets down.

Haha I always try to find fault in everyone's broad-sweeping theories, because if I can't then I have to adopt them myself. <200 with four wickets down makes more sense, but I still think it's a general rule rather than something you can really ink in given the weird circumstances that could arise both inside and outside that. Neesham's debut is actually a good example of this IMO.

 

[Jord]

It's not really an argument to be honest. Who do you select as a #6 all rounder from the stocks in NZ if it's not Anderson? Santner is injured and at this stage, probably better suited for #8. Neesham is coming back from injury and out of form with the bat, Ryder will never play for NZ again, Franklin can't be bothered bowling and I don't think even playing at this stage either. No one else really comes to mind outside Darryl Mitchell who is basically Grant Elliott without the batting class or Grant Elliott himself if NZ learns that experience isn't that bad after seeing Voges and Khawaja come back in and prove they're good enough.

 

[Zinzan]

It could be that one of Hesson's strengths being his loyalty could well turn out to be his weakness if he can't look past that loyalty when he needs to.

Ironically the one guy who has deserved his loyalty in the last 18 months or so, he turned his back on. I don't need to mention who that is do I?

 

[Jord]

It could be that one of Hesson's strengths being his loyalty could well turn out to be his weakness if he can't look past that loyalty when he needs to.

Ironically the one guy who has deserved his loyalty in the last 18 months or so, he turned his back on. I don't need to mention who that is do I?

It's really weird, he seems to pick players to be loyal towards. It took forever to see the end of Rutherford and Fulton, yet he'll ditch Wagner and Henry at the drop of a hat, hasn't really given Neesham the faith he's given Anderson and shows absolute faith in someone like Bracewell who even domestically hasn't done anything to suggest he's any great talent with the ball.

 

[Zinzan]

It's not really an argument to be honest. Who do you select as a #6 all rounder from the stocks in NZ if it's not Anderson? Santner is injured and at this stage, probably better suited for #8. Neesham is coming back from injury and out of form with the bat, Ryder will never play for NZ again, Franklin can't be bothered bowling and I don't think even playing at this stage either. No one else really comes to mind outside Darryl Mitchell who is basically Grant Elliott without the batting class or Grant Elliott himself if NZ learns that experience isn't that bad after seeing Voges and Khawaja come back in and prove they're good enough.

Experience may not always be that bad, but the speculation of a Grant Elliott test comeback is horrendously bad.

 

[Jord]

I know it's unlikely, but given our current issues around finding batsmen who can show aptitude and grit through an innings, Elliott wouldn't be a bad bet especially considering we're about to lose McCullum and his experience.

 

[Dan]

It's not really an argument to be honest. Who do you select as a #6 all rounder from the stocks in NZ if it's not Anderson? Santner is injured and at this stage, probably better suited for #8. Neesham is coming back from injury and out of form with the bat, Ryder will never play for NZ again, Franklin can't be bothered bowling and I don't think even playing at this stage either. No one else really comes to mind outside Darryl Mitchell who is basically Grant Elliott without the batting class or Grant Elliott himself if NZ learns that experience isn't that bad after seeing Voges and Khawaja come back in and prove they're good enough.

Franklin's not a Kiwi, ftr.

 

[Prince EWS]

The opposition would set a world record for the greatest number of fielders between the wicket keeper and gully.

 

[Zinzan]

It's really weird, he seems to pick players to be loyal towards. It took forever to see the end of Rutherford and Fulton, yet he'll ditch Wagner and Henry at the drop of a hat, hasn't really given Neesham the faith he's given Anderson and shows absolute faith in someone like Bracewell who even domestically hasn't done anything to suggest he's any great talent with the ball.

Well quite, I was referring to Wagner (who I used to hate incidentally), but in reality he's been a bigger factor in some of our recent tests wins than the Soult has.